July 9, 1846 Letter from Rev. John Holt Rice to Rev. John Cameron Lowrie, Discussing the Presbyterian Church’s Missionary Board Controversy
- Single letter, three 8 x 10 inch pages
- New Orleans, Louisiana , 1846
New Orleans, Louisiana, 1846. Single letter, three 8 x 10 inch pages. Torn at folds, some tears repaired with archival tape; hole at location of seal; otherwise very good to excellent.. John Holt Rice (1818–1878) was the son of a Presbyterian minister and nephew of Archibald Alexander, founding professor of the Princeton Theological Seminary, from which Rice graduated in 1845. When he wrote this letter, he was working as a city missionary to the poor in New Orleans. Rice would spend his career ministering around the southern United States before his death from yellow fever. His correspondent is John Cameron Lowrie (1808–1900), a Scottish immigrant, fellow Princeton graduate, and a missionary in Colonial India. When his health became too precarious to remain abroad, Lowrie returned to serve with the Board of Foreign Missions.
The subject of missions boards was part of the Old School-New School controversy and schism in the Presbyterian Church, particularly over whether missionary work should be primary (the Old School view) or secondary (the New School view) to the Church’s work.[1] Those holding the latter view were satisfied with the work of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), which was not a specifically Presbyterian body. Those of the former view, believing that the Church’s missionary board ought to be itself Presbyterian, formed the Western Foreign Missionary Society. When the Church’s second schism occurred in 1837, the Western society was
renamed the Board of Foreign Missions (BFM) and headquartered in New York City.
In this letter, Rev. Rice finds himself in the delicate position of being an Old School supporter of the BFM ministering to Congregationalists and New School-raised supporters of the ABCFM. He writes to Rev. Lowrie requesting that copies of the BFM’s monthly Missionary Chronicle be sent to him in a timely manner, as this was “a matter of some importance to us who love our own board of foreign missions”:
“You are probably aware that our churches in this city are composed of very heterogeneous materials many of the members are from New England and were brought up in the congregational church and many were connected with New School churches at the north. This causes no difficulty or division All unite very cordially in support of the Old School church, but the sympathies of many are with the American Board of Missions. They know nothing about ours and have some little prejudice against us for our separation. It would be very impudent to argue that question with them now or attempt to convince them that our own board ought to be patronised by those connected with one of our churches rather than the American. But I feel certain that if they knew more of our operations they would take an interest in them.”
Rice also notes that he is an editor for the New Orleans Protestant newspaper, and suggests that Lowrie send “something now and then” to excite “missionary zeal”. Of interest to scholars of Presbyterian history, especially the 19th-century Old School-New School schism.
[1] Rev. Dr. Michael Parker, “175 Years of Presbyterian World Mission”, Presbyterian Historical Society, archived November 1, 2023, at https://web.archive.org/web/20231101183954/http://www.history.pcusa.org/history-online/topics-note/history-world-mission.
The subject of missions boards was part of the Old School-New School controversy and schism in the Presbyterian Church, particularly over whether missionary work should be primary (the Old School view) or secondary (the New School view) to the Church’s work.[1] Those holding the latter view were satisfied with the work of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), which was not a specifically Presbyterian body. Those of the former view, believing that the Church’s missionary board ought to be itself Presbyterian, formed the Western Foreign Missionary Society. When the Church’s second schism occurred in 1837, the Western society was
renamed the Board of Foreign Missions (BFM) and headquartered in New York City.
In this letter, Rev. Rice finds himself in the delicate position of being an Old School supporter of the BFM ministering to Congregationalists and New School-raised supporters of the ABCFM. He writes to Rev. Lowrie requesting that copies of the BFM’s monthly Missionary Chronicle be sent to him in a timely manner, as this was “a matter of some importance to us who love our own board of foreign missions”:
“You are probably aware that our churches in this city are composed of very heterogeneous materials many of the members are from New England and were brought up in the congregational church and many were connected with New School churches at the north. This causes no difficulty or division All unite very cordially in support of the Old School church, but the sympathies of many are with the American Board of Missions. They know nothing about ours and have some little prejudice against us for our separation. It would be very impudent to argue that question with them now or attempt to convince them that our own board ought to be patronised by those connected with one of our churches rather than the American. But I feel certain that if they knew more of our operations they would take an interest in them.”
Rice also notes that he is an editor for the New Orleans Protestant newspaper, and suggests that Lowrie send “something now and then” to excite “missionary zeal”. Of interest to scholars of Presbyterian history, especially the 19th-century Old School-New School schism.
[1] Rev. Dr. Michael Parker, “175 Years of Presbyterian World Mission”, Presbyterian Historical Society, archived November 1, 2023, at https://web.archive.org/web/20231101183954/http://www.history.pcusa.org/history-online/topics-note/history-world-mission.