{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_17002/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_17002","id":"gutenberg_17002","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17002","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Missions -- China","Presbyterian Church -- Missions"],"text":"Produced by David Newman, Graeme Mackreth and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY\n\nAND\n\nECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS\n\nOF THE\n\nCHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER,\n\nAT\n\nAMOY, CHINA.\n\nBY\n\nREV. J.V.N. TALMAGE,\n\nMISSIONARY OF THE PROT. REF. DUTCH CHURCH.\n\nNew York:\nWYNKOOP, HALLENBECK & THOMAS, PRINTERS, 113 FULTON ST.\n1863.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\n_To the Ministers, Elders, and Members of the Reformed Dutch\nChurch_:\n\nIt is proper that I give some reasons for the publication\nof this paper. The importance of the subject of the ecclesiastical\norganization of the churches gathered in heathen lands, I conceive to\nbe a sufficient reason. Those who may differ in regard to the views\nset forth in this paper, will not dispute the importance of the subject.\nInstead of the questions involved having been settled by any of the\nPresbyterian Denominations of this country (the Dutch Church\nincluded among them), by experiments in India or any other\nheathen land, very few of the churches gathered from the\nheathen, by these various Denominations, have yet arrived at\na stage of development sufficient for practical application of\nthe experiment. (See foot-note, page 160.) There are, however,\na few mission churches, where the subject is now becoming\none of vast practical importance. The Church at Amoy stands out\nprominent among these. With the continuance of the divine blessing\nthere will soon be many such. Hence the importance of the discussion,\nand its importance _now_.\n\nMany experiments have been made in reference to the\nbest way of conducting the work of missions. The Church\nhas improved by them, and has been compelled to _unlearn_\nmany things. We are continually returning towards the simple plan laid\ndown in God's Word. As the Church by experiment and by discussion has\nthus been led to retrace some of her steps in the preliminary work of\nmissions, should she not be ready to take advantage of experiment and\ndiscussion, in reference to the ecclesiastical organization of the mission\nchurches, and stand ready to retrace some of her steps in this second stage\nof the work of missions, if need be, in order to conform more fully to\nthe doctrines of our Presbyterial church polity? I would use the\nphrase _Scriptural church polity_, but I suppose it is the\nuniversal belief of our Church, that Presbyterial polity is scriptural.\nAt any rate, it is the duty of the Church to examine the subject\ncarefully. She has nothing to fear from such examination.\nShe should fear to neglect it.\n\nIn addition to the importance of the subject in itself\nconsidered, I have other reasons for discussing it at the\npresent time. There are mistaken impressions abroad in the\nChurch, concerning the views and course of your missionaries\nat Amoy, which must be injurious to the cause of missions\nin our Church. It would seem to be a plain duty to correct\nthese impressions. I will quote an extract from a letter, I\nrecently received, from an honored missionary of a sister\nChurch:\n\n\"I have heard much, and seen some notices in the papers\nof the battle you fought on the floor of Synod, and would\nlike to hear your side of the subject from your own mouth,\nas the question has also been a practical one with us. * *\n* * * We have our own Presbytery, and manage our own business,\nand insist on not having too much of what they call the new science\nof Missionary management; a science which, I believe, has been\ncultivated far too assiduously. It was this, more than anything else,\nwhich kept me from going out under the A.B.C.F.M., and to Amoy.\n* * * * * I hear, however, from some, that what you and the brethren\nthere had formed, was some sort of loose Congregational association.\nIf so, I must judge against you, for I believe in the _jure divino_\nof Presbytery (or Classis if you choose so to call it), and I think you and\nthey should have been allowed to form a Presbytery there,\nand manage all your own affairs, and that your Boards at\nhome should be content to consider themselves a committee\nto raise and send on the funds. But it is hard for the D.\nD's and big folk at home to come to that. They think they must manage\neverything, or all will go wrong; while how little it is that they can\nbe brought to know or realize of the real nature of the work abroad; and\nthen it is the old battle of patronage over again. Those who give the\nmoney must _govern_, and those who receive it must give up\ntheir liberty, and be no longer Christ's freemen.\"\n\nThis is only a specimen, one of many, of the mistaken\nimpressions abroad in the Church concerning the views and\ndoings of your Missionaries. May we not, _must_ we not, correct\nthem? The letter also illustrates the evils resulting from allowing\nmistaken impressions to remain in the Church uncorrected. There has long\nbeen an impression in our Church that the A.B.C.F.M. interfered with the\necclesiastical affairs of our missions. We have been informed that several\nof our young men, before our Church separated from that Board, were\ndeterred thereby from devoting themselves to the foreign Missionary work.\nThe writer of the above letter, probably having more of the Missionary\nspirit, was not willing, on that account, to give up the work, but was\nled to offer himself to the Board of a sister Church. The\nMission at Amoy, and our Church, have thus been deprived\nof the benefit of his labors by means of an erroneous impression.\nWhen we learned the fact of such an impression existing in this country,\nwe endeavored to correct it. In our letter of 1856, to General Synod, we\ncalled particular attention to the subject. Here is a part of one sentence:\n\"It seems to us a duty, and we take this opportunity to bear\ntestimony, that neither Dr. Anderson, nor the Prudential\nCommittee have ever, in any communication which we have received from them,\nin any way, either by dictation, or by the expression of opinions,\ninterfered in the least with our ecclesiastical relations.\" We failed to\nget that letter published, and I find the erroneous impression still\nprevalent, working its mischief in the churches.\n\nBut to return to the subject of the mistaken impressions\nconcerning the views of your Missionaries at Amoy. These impressions would\nhave been partly corrected in the Church, if the report of the proceedings\nof Synod, in \"The Christian Intelligencer,\" had been more correct on this\nsubject. That paper states, that, on Friday evening, \"Rev. Mr.\nTalmage then took the floor, and addressed the Synod for\nnearly two hours,\" but does not give a single word or idea\nuttered by him. It is careful to report the only _unkind words_\nagainst the Missionaries uttered during that whole discussion,\nwhich, with this single exception, was conducted in a spirit\nof the utmost Christian kindness; but does not give a word\nof the remarks made on the Friday evening previous, on that\nvery subject, in justification of their course.\n\nIt seems to be a duty, though painful, to speak particularly\non this subject. Look at the following language: \"I know that we are told\nthat the _hybrid organization_ [i.e. the Classis, _a court of the\nChurch of Christ_, at Amoy] which now exists is every way sufficient and\nsatisfactory; that it is the fruit of Christian love, and that to disturb\nit would be rending the body of Christ. Here one might ask, how it came\nto exist at all, seeing that this Synod spoke so plainly, and\nunambiguously, in 1857; and _I, for one, cordially concur in\nthe remark of the elder, Schieffelin, that the brethren there 'deserve\ncensure_.' We do not censure them, nor do we propose to do so; _but that\nthey deserve it is undeniable_. But the point is, how can our disapproval\nof _the mongrel Classis_ mar the peace of the Amoy brethren?\" This\nlanguage was used by the President of Synod, after asking whether the Synod\nwas ready for the question, \"the question being about to be\nput,\" when an attempt to answer it seemed altogether out\nof place. In all the circumstances it seemed almost like the\ncharge of a judge to a jury. I do not say that there is any\nimproper spirit manifested, or opprobrious expressions employed\nin this language, or that the President did wrong in waiting until the\ndiscussion was over before he uttered it, or that the missionaries are not\ndeserving of such severe censure--of all these things let the Church\njudge--but I do say that the spreading of such language and such charges\nbroadcast, before the Church and before the world, demands that\nthe missionaries be heard in self-defense, or, which is all they\nask, that they be allowed to state the facts and views which\nguided them in their action.\n\nDoubtless it was an oversight that such a one-sided report on\nthis subject appeared in The Christian Intelligencer. At least\nit was not at all designed that injustice be done to the Missionaries,\nbut, unless they be allowed to speak for themselves, is not injustice done\nthem? It seemed to me that a very mistaken impression concerning the views\nexpressed by me, near the close of the session of Synod, was also conveyed\nby the Report. This I attempted to correct by a note to the\neditor, but even the right of correcting my own sentiments\nand language was refused, my note garbled, and, as I thought,\nmy views again misrepresented. More than this, the _implied_\ncharge is published to the world that I am seeking to excite\n\"dissension among the churches,\" and \"opposition to the\nconstituted authority of Synod.\"[1] It would therefore be\ngreat dereliction of duty to return to my field of labor, allowing\nmy own views, and the views of my co-laborers, to be thus mistaken in the\nChurch, and such serious charges against our course unanswered. I am not\naware that any censorship of the press has been authorized by General\nSynod. Surely if others are allowed to be heard for us we should be allowed\nthe right to be heard for ourselves. We were unable by writing from Amoy to\nget our views before the Church. I must, therefore, while in this land,\nendeavor to make them known.\n\n[Footnote 1: If this language seem too strong or uncalled for, see Appendix\nB, at the end.]\n\nI have been advised by some to delay the publication of\nthis paper a few months, until we learn the effect of the decision\nof the last Synod on the Mission at Amoy, and see what course the Church\nthere may feel compelled to adopt. I do not see the force of such advice.\nWhatever may be the course of the Church there, the intrinsic merits of\nthe question will be unchanged thereby. Besides this, I cannot afford\nsuch delay. I have been looking forward to as speedy return\nas possible to that field of labor. Would it be right to\nleave the whole subject to the eve of my departure, and thus\nshut myself off from the possibility of defending or further\nexplaining my views, if such defense or explanation be called\nfor?\n\nI have been asked, Why not bring this subject before the\nChurch through the columns of the _Christian Intelligencer_?\nThis question, after what has been said above, need not now\nbe answered. Doubtless the editor is responsible for what\nappears in his columns. The only resource left the Mission\nseems to be the one I have chosen.\n\nI regret the necessity of discussing the subject, since the\naction of the last Synod, but we could not discuss it previously\nwithout running counter to the same advice which would now restrain us.\nI do not at all suppose, however, that by the course I am taking I shall\nbecome guilty of disobedience \"to the authority of Synod.\" Neither should\nit be the occasion of creating \"dissensions in the churches.\"\nThe discussion of any important subject in a proper spirit is\nneither opposed to the doctrines of the Sacred Scriptures, nor\nto the doctrines of the Dutch Church, and I am willing to\nleave it to those who may read the following pages to decide\nwhether there be in them any manifestation of an improper\nspirit. We, and those who differ from us, are all seeking the\nsame end, i.e. the glory of God through the advancement of\nhis cause. All that I ask for myself and co-laborers is an\n_impartial hearing_.\n\nPerhaps, in order to guard against any mistaken impression,\nI ought to add that the relations between the Missionaries\nand the Board of Foreign Missions of our Church, have always been of the\nmost pleasant character. Whatever have been their differences of opinion\non this most important subject, or on any other subject, they have not\ncaused, so far as I am aware, the least interruption of that warm Christian\nfriendship which has always existed, or been the occasion of\none unkind utterance in all their mutual correspondence.\nWhy not so? Cannot Christians reason with each other, even\non subjects of the highest moment, in such a spirit as not\nonly to avoid animosities, but even to increase personal friendship?\nIf this paper should prove the occasion of discussion in\nour Church, let me express the hope that such discussion will\nbe carried on in such a spirit.\n\nJ.V.N. TALMAGE.\n\nBound Brook, N.J., October, 1863.\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY\n\nAND\n\nECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS\n\nOF\n\nTHE CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER,\n\nAT\n\nAMOY, CHINA.\n\n\nThe first Protestant Missionaries at Amoy arrived there in the year\n1842. They were Dr. Abeel of the American Reformed Dutch Church, and\nBishop Boone of the American Episcopal Church. After these there arrived\nMissionaries of the London Missionary Society, of the American\nPresbyterian Church, of the English Presbyterian Church, and others of\nthe American Reformed Dutch Church.\n\nBishop Boone soon left Amoy, and no others of his Church have since then\nbeen stationed there. The American Presbyterian Mission was removed to\nother parts of China. At the present time there are three Missions at\nAmoy, viz.: the Missions of the American Reformed Dutch Church, of the\nLondon Missionary Society, and of the English Presbyterian Church.\n\nThe Missionaries of the London Missionary Society are Independents or\nCongregationalists, and have organized their churches after the\nCongregational order. Thus their churches form a distinct Denomination,\nand nothing further need be said of them in this paper.\n\nThe first Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church at Amoy was Dr.\nJas. Young. He arrived in May, 1850. At that time there were two\nMissionaries connected with our (R.D.C.) Mission, viz.: Rev. E. Doty, on\nthe ground, and Rev. J.V.N. Talmage, absent on a visit to the United\nStates. There were then under our care six native church members. Five\nof them had been baptized by our Missionaries at Amoy. The other had\nbeen baptized in Siam, by a Congregationalist or Presbyterian Minister\nof the A.B.C.F.M.\n\nDr. Young, being a physician, and not an ordained Minister, instead of\ncommencing an independent work, inasmuch as our doctrines and order of\nchurch government did not essentially differ from those of his own\nChurch, very naturally became more especially associated with us in our\nwork. A school under the care of our Mission, of which Mr. Doty did not\nfeel able to continue the charge, was passed over to his care. He also\nrendered medical assistance to the Missionaries, and to the Chinese,\nboth in Amoy, and by occasional tours in the country. In his labors he\nwas usually assisted by native Christians under our care.\n\nThe first ordained Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church, at\nAmoy, was Rev. William C. Burns. He joined Dr. Young in July, 1851.\nWhile he rendered considerable assistance to the brethren of the London\nMissionary Society, being ready to preach the gospel at every\nopportunity, providentially he became especially associated with us, and\nwith the native Christians under our care. A remarkable outpouring of\nthe Spirit of God had accompanied the labors of Rev. Mr. Burns, in his\nnative land. So the remarkable outpouring of that same Spirit in Amoy,\nand vicinity, occurred sometime after his arrival, and much of this good\nwork was manifestly connected with his labors. The permanent work in the\ncountry around Amoy commenced through his instrumentality, in connection\nwith native members of the church under our care. We desired him to\ntake the charge of that work, and gather a church at Peh-chui-ia, under\nthe care of the English Presbyterian Church. But, at his urgent request,\nwe took the pastoral oversight of the work in that region, administering\nthe sacraments to the native converts.\n\nRev. James Johnstone, of the same Mission, arrived in December, 1853. He\nundertook the care of the church being gathered at Peh-chui-ia,\nassuming, in behalf of the English Presbyterian Church, all the expenses\nthereof, we continuing the pastoral oversight until such time as his\nknowledge of the language should be sufficient to enable him to relieve\nus.\n\nIn consequence of the ill-health of Dr. Young, he and Mr. Burns left\nAmoy, in August, 1854. Mr. Johnstone, in consequence of ill-health, left\nin May, 1855, before he was able to relieve us fully from the pastoral\ncare of the church at Peh-chui-ia.\n\nRev. Carstairs Douglas, of the same Mission, arrived at Amoy in July,\n1855, and immediately entered on the work of Mr. Johnstone, we\ncontinuing the pastoral oversight of the church at Peh-chui-ia, until\nhis knowledge of the language enabled him to assume it.\n\nBefore the brethren of the English Presbyterian Church were able to\nassume pastoral responsibility, the work spread from Peh-chui-ia to\nChioh-be. It was thought best that we take the charge of that station.\n\nAfter the departure of Dr. Young, all the Missionaries of the English\nPresbyterian Church, for several years, were unmarried men. Therefore,\nthey resolved to devote themselves more especially to work in the\ncountry, leaving to our especial care the church in the city of Amoy,\nand the one out-station at Chioh-be. Amoy was still necessarily their\nplace of residence. All their work at Amoy was in connection with the\nchurch under our care. In the country we assisted them as we had\nopportunity, and as occasion demanded. They did the same for us. In\nfact, we and they have worked together as one Church, and almost as one\nMission, with the exception of keeping pecuniary matters distinct.\n\nMore recently the English Presbyterian Mission was reinforced by one\nmember with a family, and it seemed a proper time for them to commence\nmore direct work at Amoy. A very populous suburb (E-mng-kang) was\nselected as a suitable and promising station. They assumed the immediate\ncare, and all the expense of it, employing, as at all the other\nstations, indiscriminately, members of their own or of our churches as\nhelpers.\n\nWe are not afraid that our Church will ever blame us for working thus\nharmoniously, and unitedly, with our English Presbyterian brethren, and\nwe feel confident that none of her Missionaries would consent to work on\nany other principles. If there be any who, under similar circumstances,\nwould refuse thus to work, this would be sufficient evidence that they\nhad mistaken their calling. If any blame is to be attached to the course\nthe Missionaries have pursued, it is not that they have worked thus in\nharmony and unison with the English Presbyterian brethren, but that they\nhave failed to keep the churches under their care ecclesiastically\ndistinct. Some do feel inclined to censure us for this. It must be,\nhowever, because of some great misapprehension on their part. The Synod\nhas distinctly uttered a contrary sentiment, i.e. that the course of the\nMissionaries is not censurable. We do not believe that our Church, when\nshe understands the true state of the case, will ever censure us on this\naccount. It would not be according to the spirit of her Master. He\nprayed that His people might be one, but he never prayed for their\nseparation from each other. When separation is necessary, it is a\nnecessary _evil_. But more of this hereafter. Our Church might well have\ncensured us, if we had adopted lower principles as her representatives\nin building up the Church of Christ in China.\n\nThe first organization of a church at Amoy under our care, by the\nordination of a Consistory, took place in 1856. The Missionaries of our\nBoard then on the ground were Doty and Talmage. Mr. Douglas was the only\nMissionary of the English Presbyterian Church. (Mr. Joralmon, of our\nChurch, arrived between the time of the election and the ordination of\noffice-bearers.) When the time came for the organization of the Church,\nwe felt a solemn responsibility resting on us. We supposed it to be our\nduty to organize the Church in China with reference simply to its own\nwelfare, and efficiency in the work of evangelizing the heathen around.\nBelieving (after due deliberation) that the order of our own Church in\nAmerica would best secure this end, of course we adopted it. We did not\nsuppose that we were sent out to build up the _American_ Dutch Church in\nChina, but a Church after the same order, a purely Chinese Church. How\nmuch the growth and efficiency of our Church in this country has been\npromoted by retaining (rather inserting) the term \"_Dutch_\" in her name,\nI will not now attempt to discuss. I suppose the principal argument in\nfavor thereof is found in the fact that our Church, in the first\ninstance, was a colony from Holland. The Church in China is not a colony\nfrom Holland, or America. We must not, therefore, entail on her the\ndouble evil of both the terms \"_American_\" and \"_Dutch_\" or the single\nevil of either of these terms. Your Missionaries will never consent to\nbe instrumental in causing such an evil.\n\nWe had already adopted the order and customs of our Church at home, so\nfar as they could be adopted in an unorganized Church. The English\nPresbyterian brethren had adopted the same. They found that there were\nno differences of any importance between us and them; the churches being\ngathered under our care and under theirs--growing out of each other and\nbeing essentially one--neither we nor they could see any sufficient\nreason for organizing two distinct denominations. Especially had _we_ no\nreason for such a course, inasmuch as they were willing even to conform\nto our peculiarities. We most cordially invited Mr. Douglas to unite\nwith us in the organization of the Church, and he as cordially accepted\nof the invitation.\n\nIn reference to this subject Mr. Douglas wrote to their Corresponding\nSecretary as follows: \"I need hardly say that this transaction does not\nconsist in members of one church joining another, nor in two churches\nuniting, but it is an attempt to build up on the soil of China, with the\nlively stones prepared by the great Master-builder, an ecclesiastical\nbody holding the grand doctrines enunciated at Westminster and Dort, and\nthe principles of Presbyterian polity embraced at the Reformation by the\npurest churches on the continent and in Britain; it will also be a\nbeautiful point in the history of this infant Church that the\nunder-builders employed in shaping and arranging the stones, were\nmessengers of two different (though not differing,) churches in the two\ngreat nations on either side of the Atlantic.\"\n\nThe course of Mr. Douglas met with the decided approval of their\nSecretary, and, as he had reason then to believe, and has since fully\nlearned, with the approval of their Church.\n\nWe also sent a communication to our Church, addressing it to General\nSynod. We directed it to the care of one of our prominent ministers, for\na long time Secretary of the Board, with the request that it be laid\nbefore the Church, using language as follows: \"You will, doubtless,\nreceive this paper some months before the time for the next meeting of\nthat Body [General Synod]. We would suggest therefore, that the paper be\npublished, that the members of the next General Synod may have the\nmatter before them, and be the better prepared to make such disposition\nof it as the subject may demand. We feel that the subject is one of very\ngrave importance,\" &c.\n\nOur communication was laid before the Board of Foreign Missions. They\ndesignated it a _Memorial_, and decided that they had no right to\npublish it. Of course we had no means of publishing it ourselves. It was\nlaid before Synod among other papers of the Board. The action of Synod\non the subject was as follows (Minutes of Synod, 1857, pp. 225-227):\n\n\"Among the papers submitted to the Synod is an elaborate document from\nthe brethren at Amoy, giving the history of their work there, of its\ngradual progress, of their intimate connection with Missionaries from\nother bodies, of the formation of the Church now existing there, and\nexpressing their views as to the propriety and feasibility of forming a\nClassis at that station. In reply to so much of this paper as respects\nthe establishment of individual churches, we must say that while we\nappreciate the peculiar circumstances of our brethren, and sympathize\nwith their perplexities, yet it has always been considered a matter of\ncourse that ministers, receiving their commission through our Church,\nand sent forth under the auspices of our Board, would, when they formed\nconverts from the heathen into an ecclesiastical body, mould the\norganization into a form approaching as nearly as possible that of the\nReformed Dutch Churches in our own land. Seeing that the converted\nheathen, when associated together, must have some form of government,\nand seeing that our form is, in our view, entirely consistent with, if\nnot required by, the Scriptures, we expect it will in all cases be\nadopted by our Missionaries, subject, of course, to such modifications\nas the peculiar circumstances may for the time render necessary. The\nconverts at Amoy, as at Arcot and elsewhere, are to be regarded as 'an\nintegral part' of our Church, and as such are entitled to all the rights\nand privileges which we possess.\n\n\"And so in regard to the formation of a Classis. The Church at home will\nundoubtedly expect the brethren to associate themselves into a regular\necclesiastical organization, just as soon as enough materials are\nobtained to warrant such measure with the hope that it will be\npermanent. We do not desire churches to be prematurely formed in order\nto get materials for a Classis, nor any other exercise of violent haste.\nBut we equally deprecate unnecessary delay, believing that a regular\norganization will be alike useful to our brethren themselves, and to\nthose who, under them, are training for the first office-bearers in the\nChristian Church on heathen ground. As to the difficulties suggested in\nthe memorial, respecting the different Particular Synods to which the\nbrethren belong, and the delays of carrying out a system of appellate\njurisdiction covering America and China, it is enough to say:--(1) That\nthe Presbyterian Church (O.S.) finds no insuperable difficulties in\ncarrying into operation her system which comprehends Presbyteries and\nSynods in India as well as here; and (2) That whatever hindrances may at\nany time arise, this body will, in humble reliance upon the divine aid\nand blessing, undertake to meet and remove them as far as possible. The\nChurch at home assumes the entire responsibility of this matter, and\nonly asks the brethren abroad to carry out the policy, held steadily in\nview from the first moment when our Missions began.\n\n\"The following resolutions are recommended:\n\n\"_Resolved_, 1. That the Synod view with great pleasure the formation of\nchurches among the converts from heathenism, organized according to the\nestablished usages of our branch of Zion.\n\n\"2. That the brethren at Amoy be directed to apply to the Particular\nSynod of Albany to organize them into a Classis so soon as they shall\nhave formed churches enough to render the permanency of such an\norganization reasonably certain.\"\n\nIt should be noticed that, in the foregoing Report, which was adopted by\nSynod, the most important question--the vital question--of our\ncommunication, i.e. the _unity_ of the churches under the care of the\nEnglish Presbyterian Missionaries and of us, is entirely ignored; and\nconsequently, without the fact being stated, we were directed to divide\nthose churches, and form a part of them into a distinct Denomination.\n\nIf the English Presbyterian Church had disapproved of the course of\ntheir Missionaries in uniting with us in organizing the native churches\nwith our peculiarities, we think even that would have been strange. It\nwould have appeared to us as though they were sacrificing some of the\nessentials of Presbyterianism for the sake of non-essentials, for, in\nour organization, they found all that they hold essential in doctrine,\norder, and customs. Suppose the position of the two Missions had been\nreversed, they had been first on the ground, and when we arrived we\nfound the Church being planted and beginning to grow up after their\norder. If we had found in the Church thus growing up _all_ that we hold\nessential and important, even though it had some little peculiarities\nwhich were theirs and not ours, ought not our Church to have permitted\nus to work with them, as they have been permitted to work with us? If\nsuch be not the true Christian spirit, than we frankly confess that we\nknow not, and despair of ever learning from the Word of God, what the\nChristian spirit is on such a subject. But whether such disapproval on\nthe part of the English Presbyterian Church would have been strange or\nnot, it would not have been so strange as was the decision of our\nChurch, that the churches organized by the English Presbyterian brethren\nand by us--all one in fact, growing out of each other, and all adopting\nour order, should not be organically one. Hence, when we learned from\nour Board the decision of Synod, we felt (correctly or incorrectly) that\nthere must be some misapprehension. Surely our Church cannot have\ncorrect views of our position, and our course of proceeding. Hence, we\nreturned answer to the Board as follows:--(Letter dated December 23,\n1857.)\n\nAfter speaking of our hearty approval of the course of our Church in\nseparating from the A.B.C.F.M., though as individuals we took our leave\nof that Board with feelings of sadness, we remarked:\n\n\"It seems proper to us also, on the present occasion, to allude to a\nsubject deeply affecting the interests of the little Church which God\nhas graciously gathered by our instrumentality from among this people.\nThis Church is now small, but we trust that, with a continuance of the\nDivine blessing, the 'little one' will soon 'become a thousand,' and the\n'small one a strong nation.' 'The Lord will hasten it in his time.' We\nlove this Church, and cannot but watch over her interests with jealous\ncare. Besides this, the Great Shepherd has made us under-shepherds, and\ncommanded us to watch over the interests of this flock. We gave a brief\nhistory of our work, and an account of the present condition and\npeculiar circumstances of the churches here under our care, and stated\nat considerable length our views in reference to the future\necclesiastical relations of these churches, in a paper prepared for the\ninformation of our Church at home, and addressed to General Synod. The\nfacts thus communicated ought to be known by the Church. It seems to us\nvery unfortunate that that paper was not published according to our\nsuggestion. It stated facts of grave importance. If we could have had a\nrepresentative in General Synod, the previous publication of our paper\nmight have been unnecessary. But, without such a representative, it was\nhardly possible that the subject, by a single reading of so long a\ndocument, could be brought before the minds of all the members of Synod\nwith sufficient clearness.... Therefore it is not strange that some of\nthe important points in the paper should have been entirely overlooked,\nand also that certain grave misconceptions should have got abroad in the\nChurch concerning the views expressed by us.\n\n\"So far as we can judge from the report of the proceedings of Synod, as\ngiven in The Christian Intelligencer, one of the most important\nconsiderations--perhaps altogether the most important mentioned--why the\nChurch, gathered by us here, should not be an _integral part_ of the\nChurch in America, was entirely overlooked. That consideration relates\nto the _unity of Christ's Church_. Our Saviour prays: 'Holy Father, keep\nthrough thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be\none as we are one.' 'That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me,\nand I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe\nthat thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given\nthem, that they may be one, even as we are one.' Will our Church require of\nus, will she _desire_ that those here who are altogether _one_--one in\ndoctrine, one in their views of Church order, and one in mutual love--be\nviolently separated into two Denominations? We cannot believe it.\nSuppose the case of two Churches originally distinct. By coming into\nclose contact, and becoming better acquainted with each other, they find\nthat they hold to the same doctrinal standards, and they explain them in\nthe same manner; they have the same form of Church government, and their\nofficers are chosen, and set apart in the same way; they have the same\norder of worship, and of administering the sacraments; all their\ncustoms, civil, social, and religious, are precisely alike, and they\nlove each other dearly; should not such churches unite and form but one\nDenomination? Yet, such a supposition does not, and cannot, even after\nyou allow all the likeness and unity between the two churches it is\npossible to conceive of, represent the circumstances of the churches\ngathered by us, and by our Scotch brethren of the English Presbyterian\nChurch. Our [theirs and ours] Churches originally were one, and still\nare one; and the question is not whether those churches shall be united,\nbut, shall they be separated? Possibly (not probably) the question will\nbe asked, why were these churches allowed originally to become one? We\nanswer, _God made them so_, and that without any plan or forethought on\nour part, and now we thank him for his blessing that he has made them\none, and that he has blessed them because they are one.\n\n\"That misconceptions have got abroad in our Church concerning our\nviews, we have abundant evidence from various private letters. They were\nwritten with the most kindly feelings towards us, but evidently under\nthe impression that we find difficulty in organizing our churches\naccording to the order of the Dutch Church. We have never found any\ndifficulty of this kind. It is true that when we were called to the\nsolemn duty of _commencing_ a church organization in an empire\ncontaining one-third of the inhabitants of the globe, we gave the\nsubject of church polity a more careful investigation than we had ever\nbefore given it. The result of this investigation was a cordial (and, as\nwe think, intelligent) approval of the order and forms of our own\nChurch. We have commenced our organization according to the order of the\nDutch Church, and we expect to proceed, as fast as the providence and\ngrace of God lead the way, after the same order; and we use the forms of\nour own Church. Our Presbyterian brethren unite with us in these things.\n\n\"But it is not strange that such misconceptions should be spread in the\nChurch. They are the necessary result of publishing certain remarks made\nin Synod concerning our paper, without publishing the paper itself.\n\n\"In the Report of the Synod, Synod's Board, Board of Foreign Missions,\nit is said: 'It would have been well if the memorial had been placed, in\na printed form, in the hands of the ministry. This they [the\nMissionaries] suggested, but the Board felt it was purely a Synodical\nmatter--that they could not act in the case.' With all due respect, and\nwith the kindest feelings, we desire to make three remarks on this\nsubject. _First._ We do not understand the principle on which the Board\nfelt called upon to decide whether our letter should be published or\nnot. It was not addressed to the Board, nor sent to the care of the\nBoard. The opinion of members of the Board as _individuals_ might have\nbeen asked, but we suppose that the Board in their official capacity\nhad nothing to do with the paper. _Secondly._ Inasmuch as the paper\nemanated from us, if 'it would have been well' to have had it published,\nour suggestion was a sufficient warrant for its publication. The\nresponsibility would have been ours. It had not yet become a Synodical\nmatter. Afterwards it would have been a legitimate question for the\nSynod to decide whether they would entertain a paper coming before them\nin such a manner. This question might well have been left to General\nSynod. _Thirdly._ A short time previous to the writing of that paper,\nunless our memory is greatly at fault, a communication was received from\nthe Arcot Mission (or Classis of Arcot), addressed to General Synod,\nwhich was thus published, according to the request of the Arcot\nbrethren, and without the authority of Synod.\n\n\"Our position is a somewhat painful one. We desire to give offense to no\none, and we do not wish to appear before the Church as disputants. We\nhave no controversy with any. We have neither the time nor inclination\nfor controversy. We are 'doing a great work' and cannot 'come down.'\nYet, our duty to these Churches here, and to the Church at home, and to\nour Master, demands of us imperatively, that we state fully and frankly\nour views. We have the utmost confidence in our Church. We have proved\nthis by endeavoring to get our views fully known. And we feel grateful\nfor the spirit of kindness towards us manifested in the action of Synod,\nand also in the letters received from fathers and brethren in the\nministry, notwithstanding their misconception of our views. But, we have\nalso learned, how easily our views may be mistaken. In our paper,\naddressed to General Synod, when discussing the difficulties in the way\nof the Synod's jurisdiction over churches so far removed in time,\ndistance, and circumstances, we remarked:--'Will written correspondence\nsupply the place of representation? It would place our Classis under\ngreat disadvantages. There must usually be a delay of one or two years\non every subject on which there is need of a decision by either Synod.\nIf anything is not understood, or is misunderstood, in our\ncommunications, there will be no one to explain for us. Difficulties of\nthis kind, from want of knowledge of the civil and social circumstances\nof this people may frequently occur. Could we have representatives from\namong us, they could usually be easily explained; but without this\nrepresentation, they can only be explained by a long correspondence,\nwhich may cause years of delay.' The whole of this misunderstanding,\nwhich has arisen out of our first communication, and the length of time\nand the amount of correspondence which may yet be necessary, before we\ncan see 'eye to eye,' give a striking illustration of the force of these\nremarks.\"\n\nSo far as the preamble and resolutions of the Synod of 1857 embody the\ndoctrines, and what we supposed to be the policy of our Church, we\nheartily agreed with them. Of course we were pained to see that they\nimplied, that, in organizing a Church at Amoy, we had not proceeded\naccording to the order of our Church, or had found great difficulty in\ndoing so. This was altogether a mistake, and was already producing evil\nresults. We think there is another mistake in the preamble. It seems\nsmall, but because of this fact, and of its plausibility, it has done\nmore, perhaps, than anything else in leading our Church into the false\nposition which she seems now to occupy. Therefore, we should examine it\nwith some care. It is the assumption, as a matter of course, that, \"the\nconverts at Amoy\" are \"an _integral part_ of our Church,\" in this\ncountry. What made them so? Is it because they were converted through\nthe instrumentality of the preaching of our Missionaries? This is a new\ndoctrine, that a convert as a matter of course belongs to the Church of\nthe preacher through whose instrumentality he has been led unto Christ.\nPerhaps it was the doctrine of some of the Corinthians, when they said,\n\"I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,\" &c., but it was not the doctrine of\nthe Apostle who reproved them. Besides this, how shall we know which of\nthem were converted through our instrumentality? The English\nPresbyterian brethren and ourselves have preached indiscriminately. Is\nit because they were baptized by our Missionaries? But many of them were\nbaptized by the English Presbyterian brethren. They have baptized in our\nchurches, and we in theirs. If they be an _integral part_ of the Dutch\nChurch in America, they are also an integral part of the Presbyterian\nChurch in England. We, it is true, baptized a majority, say two-thirds.\nAre they, then, two-thirds of an integral part in America, and one-third\nof an integral part in England? No. The whole is a fallacy. Each\nindividual Church there is an integral part of the whole of them. All\ntogether, they form an _integer_. They might by the act of our Church,\nand _a correlative act on their own part_, become an integral part of\nthe Church in America? In a similar way they might become an integral\npart of the Church in England. They are now an _integer_ of themselves.\nTo make one portion of them an integral part of the Church in this\ncountry, and another portion an integral part of the Church in England,\nis to be guilty of causing _a violent rupture_.\n\nWe felt that the consequences were so momentous, that, before we should\nallow ourselves to be instrumental in thus (as we supposed) rending the\n\"Body of Christ\" at Amoy, we should make another effort to get the facts\nbefore the Church. As yet, we could not, if we would, carry out the\nresolution of Synod, and organize a Classis in connection with the\nParticular Synod of Albany, for, it was not till several years after,\nonly very recently, that we had materials \"enough to render the\npermanency of such an organization reasonably certain.\" Therefore we\nwrote, as above, under date of December 23, 1857, and frequently wrote\non the subject, as occasion offered.\n\nAlthough our views were not made public (the Board judging that they had\nno right, or that it would not be for the good of the Church, and the\ninterests of the Mission, to publish them), still we continued to\nprosecute our labors, in connection with the English Presbyterian\nbrethren, receiving and giving mutual assistance. We were encouraged\nthus to continue our work: 1. Because of letters we received from home,\nsome of them written by individuals who were able advocates of the\ndecision of the Synod of 1857. They told us that it could not be\notherwise than that a separation must come between us and the brethren\nof the English Presbyterian Church, but they would not have us\ninaugurate that separation. 2. (and more important) Because a marvelous\nblessing from on high was attending our labors. 3. (and most important)\nBecause we knew this harmonious and mutual assistance to be entirely in\naccordance with the spirit of the Gospel.\n\nIn process of time a Church was organized at Chioh-be by the appointment\nof elders and deacons, then at Peh-chui-ia, then at Mapeng, and then the\nChurch at Amoy was divided into two distinct organizations. Thus we had\nfive organized churches, all of our order--the elders and deacons chosen\nand set apart according to our Forms, and all our Forms in use so far as\nthere was yet occasion for them. Two of these churches were under the\nespecial care of the English Presbyterians, and pecuniarily the work\nwas sustained by funds collected in England and Scotland. The other\nthree were under our especial care. The pecuniary expenses, beyond what\nthe native churches could themselves raise, were borne by our Church at\nhome.\n\nOne of the essential principles of our Church polity is, that individual\nChurches are not independent of each other. They are members one of\nanother. They are to be subject to each other. They are individual parts\nof a whole. Each part should be subject to the whole. Hence the\nnecessity of higher judicatories. Thus we felt that these five churches\nhad a right to an ecclesiastical organization, by which they might enjoy\nthis essential principle of Presbyterianism. [I trust we shall hear no\nmore of the charge that the Missionaries at Amoy are Congregationalists.]\nBut we were afraid to give this organization to the native churches, lest\nwe should give offense at home. We knew that we were misunderstood, and as\nyet could see no way to make the Church acquainted with our position and\nour views. If the Master should plainly call us to go forward, of course\nwe must obey, and leave the results with Him.\n\nThese churches, having grown out of each other, were essentially one,\nand were as closely united together as it was possible for them to be,\nwithout a formal organization. The first formal meeting of all these\nchurches was held at Chioh-be (a church under _our_ care), in 1861. No\necclesiastical power was assumed. The next similar meeting was held in\nApril, 1862, in the churches at Amoy. This was still more formal. It was\ncomposed of all the Missionaries of our own and of the English\nPresbyterian Church, and of one representative Elder from each of the\nfive organized churches. This body may be called an incipient Classis.\nThe only ecclesiastical power exercised, however, was connected with\nchurch discipline. Heretofore each individual Church, in connection with\nthe Missionaries, had exercised the power of discipline, even to\nexcommunication. Now certain cases of excommunication were referred by\nindividual Consistories to, and acted on by, this body. Is it necessary\nto defend such acts? We felt that if each individual church could\nexercise such power, and the principles of our Presbyterianism be\nscriptural, then could a body, composed of the representatives of these\nchurches, together with the Missionaries, with safety exercise such\npower. It was approaching as nearly as possible to the practice of our\nChurch at home. We expected soon to be called to the performance of\necclesiastical acts more momentous. Already had two of the churches\nchosen two of the native members, who were now engaged in careful study,\nthat in due time they might be set apart to the office of the Ministry\nof the Word, and ordained pastors of the churches respectively choosing\nthem. But for reasons given above we would not go forward faster than we\nwere plainly led by the hand of Providence. Therefore, while the\nMissionaries, in presence of this assembly, examined these\npastors-elect, in reference to their qualifications for the office of\nPastor, the body, as such, took no part in the examination.\n\nThis incipient Classis met next in the autumn of the same year at\nPeh-chui-ia, a church under the care of the English Presbyterian\nbrethren. At this meeting it became a real Classis, not fully developed\nas a Classis in a mature Church, but possessing the constituent elements\nand performing the functions of a Classis. Not only were there cases of\ndiscipline to act on, but a distinct application was made by one of the\nchurches, that a pastor be ordained, and placed over them. The body\ndecided, not only that they had the right, but that the plain call of\nthe Great Head of the Church made it their duty to go forward in this\nmatter. Preliminary steps were taken, other meetings of Classis were\nappointed and held, candidates were examined, calls presented and\napproved, until early in the present year the First and Second Churches\nat Amoy had each a native pastor ordained and installed over them. By\nthe authority of this Classis, in the early part of this year, a third\nchurch was organized at Amoy according to our order. It is in the suburb\ncalled E-mng-kang, and is under the especial care of the English\nPresbyterian brethren, as mentioned in a previous part of this paper. So\nnow there are six organized churches, all of the same order, and some\nothers almost ready to be organized. If the Missionaries at Amoy have\nbeen guilty of any great mistake, it has been in this matter of forming\nsuch a Classis, and proceeding to the ordination and installation of\nnative pastors, and the organization of new churches. Therefore, this\nsubject demands a careful examination.\n\nWhen we commenced the work among the heathen, it was found that the\nConstitution of our Church had made no provision for such work beyond\nthe simple ordaining of men as Missionaries. We might preach the gospel,\nbut no provision was made for receiving into church fellowship,\nadministering the sacraments, electing and ordaining office-bearers,\nand all the incipient steps of the organization of the Church from among\nthe heathen. The Constitution was made for the government of a Church\nalready organized and matured, and in America; therefore, it is not\nstrange that such things were not provided for. Our duty seemed very\nplain. We must fall back on the great principles of church government\ntaught in the Word of God. We believed these principles to be set forth\nin the Constitution, and other standards of our Church.\n\nWhen, through the instrumentality of the preached Word, men gave\nsatisfactory evidence that they had experienced \"the renewing of the\nHoly Ghost,\" without the advice of Consistories, by virtue of our office\nof Ministers of the Word, we administered to them the sacrament of\nbaptism, thus admitting them into the church. Now the Lord's Supper must\nbe administered to these believers, baptism to their infant children,\nand to new converts, and the discipline of God's house maintained. By\nvirtue of that same office, and by virtue of the authority given by the\nMaster to his Church, we felt that we had the right, aye, that it was\nour bounden duty, to perform such acts. We could not yet for a long time\nset apart a proper Consistory, but we must not therefore be \"lords over\nGod's heritage.\" In receiving new members, and in all acts of\ndiscipline, we must advise with the church already gathered.\n\nThe church grew, and in due time a Consistory was called for; must the\nwork stop, because the Constitution had made no provision? No. The\nlittle church had the right to choose men, and having chosen suitable\nmen, it was our duty to ordain them. The authority we thus exercised was\nnot usurped, but was implied in the commission we received from our\nMaster through the Church. The same may be said of the authority of the\nbrethren at Amoy, when, in connection with the representative elders of\nthe various churches, they proceeded to the ordination of native\npastors, and the organization of new churches. It was not necessary for\nthe performance of every act to get a new commission from the Church.\nWhen the Church sent us out, the one commission contained all the\nauthority necessary for the complete organization of the church. It is\nan absurdity to deny, on _constitutional grounds_, the right of the\nMissionaries to perform these last acts unless you deny their right to\nperform all their other acts except the simple preaching of the Gospel.\nTheir acts were all _extra_, not _contra_ constitutional. If their\nauthority thus to act be justified in reference to the former acts, and\ndenied in reference to the latter, the justification and denial must be\non other grounds than the Constitution of our Church.\n\nWill any one assert that the Classis thus formed at Amoy is not a\nClassis _de facto_? or that the native pastors ordained and installed by\nthat body are not _scripturally_ set apart to their offices, and that\nits other acts are null and void? If so, then, as yet, there are no\norganized churches--no Consistories--at Amoy, and there have been no\nscriptural baptisms, for all ecclesiastical acts performed there, have\nbeen performed on the same principles, and by the same authority. No one\nwill have the hardihood to assert such a doctrine. It will be admitted\nthat there is a Classis _de facto_ at Amoy. Then it is competent to\nperform all the functions of a Classis. But it will not be contended\nthat that Classis is a part of the Dutch Church in America. Yet it is\nessentially like a Classis in America, just so far as the present state\nof development of the Church at Amoy, and its Chinese character, render\nlikeness possible. It is _Chinese_, not _American_. The organization of\nsuch a Church is what we always supposed required of us. We never\nimagined that we were sent to organize the _American_ Dutch Church in\nChina. If your Missionaries are allowed to proceed, and are not required\nto repel the English Presbyterian brethren from their united labors with\nus, there will be but one Church at Amoy of the Presbyterian order. With\nthe continued blessing of God on such harmonious labor, it will be _the\nChurch_ of that region. It will be dear to both the Presbyterian Church\nin England, and to our Church in this land, and peculiarly dear to our\nChurch in this country, because of its Dutch characteristics. Your\nMissionaries will still be your agents, responsible to the Church at\nhome, as they have always been. The near relation to the Church in this\nland, which they have always held, they desire to retain. The late\naction of Synod contemplates the _formation of two denominations at Amoy\nof the Presbyterian order, giving our peculiarities to one-half instead\nof to the whole, thus producing rivalries, injuring the efficiency of\nthe native churches, and making the relation of the Missionaries to the\nChurch at home more distant, thus weakening your hold on them_, and all,\nas we think, without any remunerating advantages. But before we proceed\nto the discussion of this subject, a few other preliminaries demand some\nattention.\n\nThe English Presbyterians, as they are accustomed to speak of all the\nClasses of our Church in America, call this Classis at Amoy \"_a\nPresbytery_.\" Hence the question has been put to us with all sincerity\nand gravity, \"Is it a _Classis_, or is it a _Presbytery_?\" Some seem to\nbe afraid that the Church we are forming will be half Dutch and half\nPresbyterian, and that it will soon be swallowed up by the\nPresbyterians! Are there any ministers, or elders, or intelligent\nmembers of the Dutch Church, who have yet to learn that a Classis is a\nPresbytery, and that the Dutch Church is a Presbyterian Church? Surely\nnot. Why, then, such questions and suggestions? Can they be designed to\nprejudice the Church at home against the ecclesiastical body which has\ngrown up at Amoy? We will not impute such a motive, and, therefore, I\nmerely say that we are surprised at all such remarks. It is proper for\nthe English Presbyterian brethren to speak of the _Presbytery_ at Amoy.\nThey never speak of it as an _English_ Presbytery. They do not regard it\nas a part of the Church in England, but as a purely Chinese Church. They\nhave liberality enough to assist in building up such a Church, even\nthough it has some things peculiar to us, for it has all the essentials\nof their own order. Will it not seem to them that our Church is\ndeficient in liberality, when they learn the decision of the last Synod?\n\nIn connection with this subject, it is proper to speak more particularly\nof the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. When it is\nremembered that that Church is really a branch of the Free Church of\nScotland, it will not be supposed that their liberality is the result of\nindifference to anything which they regard essential or important.\nSeldom has our world witnessed such sacrifice for the sake of principle\nas was exhibited by that Church, when she came out from the\nEstablishment. Their liberality is a beautiful illustration of the\nChristian spirit. The course of their Missionaries at the first\norganization of a church at Amoy, and the approval thereof, have been\nalready alluded to. In consequence of the recent formation of a Classis,\nthe subject naturally came up again this year. It was laid before their\nSynod, which met a few weeks previous to ours. In the report of their\nForeign Committee, which corresponds to our Board of Foreign Missions,\nthe following language is used in reference to the Church at Amoy:\n\n\"As all the elements of Presbyterian organization thus existed [each\nchurch having native elders], a further step was taken last April\n[1862], when a Presbytery was constituted at Amoy by mutual consent,\nconsisting of all the American brethren and our own, as well as\nrepresentative elders from the several congregations. Its name is\nneither the Greek 'Presbytery' employed in this country, nor is it the\nLatin 'Classis,' which has long been used in Holland; but it is 'Tai\nTiong-lo-hoey,' or Great Meeting of Elders, genuine Chinese, and a\nhopeful earnest of the facility with which our representative and\nconsultative system of polity will find its way among a sensible and\nself-governing people. Of course it is not intended that this Presbytery\nshould in any way come between the Missionaries themselves and the\nCommittee or Board by which the respective Missions are administered at\nhome; but for the management of local matters, for disposing of\nquestions which may arise in the several congregations, and in regard to\nwhich a session may require counsel or control; and for the very\nimportant purpose of exemplifying in the most legitimate way\necclesiastical unity, it is essential that Missionaries and native\noffice-bearers should come together in some such capacity. The\nproceedings are conducted in Chinese, which is the only language\nunderstood by all the members of Court, and it is in Chinese that the\nminutes are kept. Three meetings have already been held. At the last,\nheld in January, important business was transacted affecting the 1st and\n2d Congregations of Amoy, both of which are under the immediate\nsuperintendence of the American Mission. Each congregation is desirous\nof the settlement of a stated pastor, and each has agreed to call a\nminister, the one congregation promising a stipend of $14 a month, and\nthe other $13. The calls were sustained, and the Presbytery agreed to\nmeet on February 21st, to proceed with the 'trials' of the brethren thus\nelected. As these proved satisfactory, Sabbath, the 29th of last month,\nwas appointed as the day for their ordination.\n\n\"Dr. Peltz, the esteemed Corresponding Secretary of the Board of Foreign\nMissions of the R.P.D.C. of N.A., has apprised the Committee, that it is\npossible that a Presbytery of this composite character may not secure\nthe approval of their Synod. In separating from the A.B.C.F.M., and in\nsetting up a separate and ecclesiastically organized mission, that\nSynod was anxious to introduce into its different Mission fields a\nsystem of Church government which it believed to be scriptural, and\nadapted to all lands. Consequently, in these Mission fields it sought to\nform Classes or Presbyteries which should be connected with Provincial\nand General Synods in the same way as are the Classes on the American\ncontinent. And Dr. Peltz is apprehensive lest the General Synod in\nAmerica should regard as a deviation from this plan the amalgamation in\none Presbytery of their own agents with those of another Church.\n\n\"We are hopeful, however, that on further consideration, our brethren in\nAmerica may allow their Missionaries in China to continue the present\narrangement, at least until such time as it is found that actual\ndifficulties arise in the way of carrying it out. 'Behold how good and\nhow pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity;' and there\nare few brethren towards whom we feel closer affinity than the members\nof that Church, which was represented of old by Gomarus and Witsius, by\nVoet and Marck, and Bernard de Moore, and whose Synod of Dort preceded\nin time, and pioneered in doctrine, our own Westminster Assembly. Like\nthem, we love that Presbyterianism and that Calvinism which we hold in\ncommon, and we wish to carry them wherever we go; but we fear that it\nwould not be doing justice to either, and that it might compromise that\nname which is above every other, if, on the shores of China, we were to\nunfurl a separate standard. We would, therefore, not only respectfully\nrecommend to the Synod to allow its Missionaries to unite,\nPresbyterially as well as practically, with the brethren of the R.D.C.;\nbut we would express the earnest hope that the Synod of the sister\nChurch in America may find itself at liberty to extend to its\nMissionaries a similar freedom.\"\n\nThese sentiments were _unanimously_ adopted by the Synod of the English\nPresbyterian Church.\n\nIt seems perfectly reasonable that two Churches of Christ so nearly\nalike, in attempting to plant the Church of Christ in the same place in\na heathen land, should strive, if possible, to form their converts into\none organization. The existence of different Denominations in the same\nplace in any Christian land, at the best, is only a necessary evil. God\nmay bring some good out of this evil, but this is not a sufficient\nreason why we should create such divisions, for their own sake. Hence,\nthe liberality of the English Presbyterian Church is so manifestly in\naccordance with the Christian spirit, that it might have attracted no\nespecial notice from us. But the proceedings of our own Synod, by\ncontrast, as it seems to us, have forced it out in bold relief. _They_\nwere willing to support their Missionaries in laboring with ours, and\nbuilding up a Chinese Church, not differing essentially from theirs, but\nwith some characteristics peculiar to ours. _We_, though the Church thus\norganized has not only all the essentials but all the peculiarities of\nour own Church, still refuse such Christian co-operation, preferring to\nrend asunder the Church already formed, and organize a part of it a\ndistinct Denomination, connected with the Church in America. I cannot\nyet believe that such is the sentiment of our Church. There must be some\ngreat misapprehension. But such is really the decision of the last\nSynod. Here is the language of the Committee which was adopted by the\nGeneral Synod:\n\n\"Your Committee do not see any propriety in re-enacting the law of 1857\nalready quoted, because it has never been repealed, and remains\ntherefore in full force and virtue. Nor, if the reasoning in this report\nbe correct, would they have the law repealed, believing as they do,\nthat the maintenance of the principle contained in it is essential to\nthe success of our Missionary operations in foreign parts, and to the\nwholesome liberality of the Church at home.\n\n\"The Committee are not prepared, however, to recommend that any violent\nor coercive resolutions should be adopted for the purpose of\nconstraining our brethren in Amoy to a course of procedure which would\nrudely sever the brotherly ties that unite them with the Missionaries of\nthe English Presbyterian Church. But a Christian discretion will enable\nthem, on the receipt of the decision of the present Synod in this\nmatter, now under consideration, to take such initial steps as are\nnecessary to the speedy formation of a classis. Much must be left to\ntheir discretion, prudence, and judgment. But of the wish and\nexpectation of this Synod to have their action conform, as soon as may\nbe, to the resolutions of 1857, your Committee think the brethren at\nAmoy should be distinctly informed. They therefore offer the following:\n\n\"1. _Resolved_, that the General Synod, having adopted and tested its\nplan of conducting Foreign Missions, can see no reason for abolishing\nit, but, on the contrary, believe it to be adapted to the promotion of\nthe best interests of the Foreign Missionary Churches, and of the\ndenomination supporting them.\n\n\"2. That the Board of Foreign Missions be, and hereby is, instructed to\nsend to our Missionaries a copy or copies of this report, as containing\nthe well-considered deliverance of the Synod respecting their present\nrelations and future duty.\n\n\"3. That the Secretary of the Foreign Board be, and hereby is, directed\nto send to the Rev. Dr. Hamilton, of London, Convener of the\nPresbyterian Committee, a copy of this Report, with a copy of the action\nof 1857, and that he inform him by letter of the wishes and expectations\nof the Synod respecting the ecclesiastical relations which this body\ndesires its churches in Amoy to sustain to it.\"\n\nThe above is only an extract from the close of the Report of the\nCommittee, and contains the result at which they arrived. In reference\nto it we would make three remarks. (1). It (Res. 3) seems rather a\ncavalier answer to the fraternal wish of the Synod of the English\nPresbyterian Church, as expressed in their action. (2.) The action of\nSynod is made to rest (Res. 1) on the fact that Synod had \"tested\" this\n\"plan of conducting Foreign Missions.\" If this be so, and the plan had\nbeen found by experiment unobjectionable, the argument is not without\nforce. But how and where has this test been applied, and found so\nsatisfactory? Our Church has three Missions among the heathen: one in\nIndia, one in China, and one in Japan. Has it been tested in Japan? No.\nThey have not yet a single _native_ Church. Has it been tested in China?\nIf so, the Missionaries were not aware of it. The test applied there has\nbeen of an opposite character, and has been wonderfully successful. The\ntest has only been applied in India, and has only _begun_ to be applied\neven there. There, as yet, there is but one native pastor. Their Classis\nis more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a native\nClassis, before the test can be pronounced at all satisfactory. True,\nthat Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called a\nClassis in connection with the Synod in America. But has it been more\nsuccessful than the Mission at Amoy? Compare the amount of labor and the\nmoney expended on the two Missions, and then look at the results, and\nthus decide about the tests. It is in no spirit of vainglory that we\ncall for such a comparison. Studiously have we avoided it, and the\nresponsibility must rest on those who compel us to it. (3.) No\nconsideration is had for the feelings, wishes, or opinions of the native\nChurches. Some consideration is shown for the feelings of the English\nPresbyterian Missionaries. This is as it ought to be. Yet it is a matter\nof _comparatively_ little importance. _The inalienable rights of the\nnative churches, their relation to each other, their absolute\nunity--things of the utmost consequence_--are not at all regarded, are\nentirely ignored!\n\nIt would have occupied too much space to have quoted the whole of the\nReport of the Committee. The preceding part of it occupies nearly six\npages of the Minutes of Synod. Yet we may not pass that part over in\nsilence, for, while with much of its contents we have no dispute, it\ncontains some grave mistakes of fact, and, as we think, some very grave\nerrors of doctrine. It grieves me to say thus much, and also to feel\ncompelled to add the following strictures. But, in order to discuss this\nsubject, duty required the careful examination of the whole of the\nReport, and, finding in it such errors, the clear statement of them. It\nmight be easy, perhaps, to account for the fact, that mistakes, in a\nreport, unprinted, and of such length, should escape the notice of\nSynod, but an attempt to apologize for that body might give occasion to\ninfer more disrespect than simply to point out the mistakes.\n\nAfter some introductory remarks, chiefly concerning the difficulty of\ntheir task, the Committee \"begin with the assertion of principles.\"\nThese they make three in number. The sum of the first principle is that\n_a Church, by divine arrangement, has government_. The essential idea of\ntheir second principle, so far as we can understand it, is, that _the\nDutch Church has a clearly defined government_. The Missionaries at\nAmoy, as well as the ministers in this country, admit both these\nprinciples fully. But they do not affect the question in dispute. Not so\nwith the third principle of the Committee. Lest I might be supposed to\nmisrepresent, I will quote their own language: \"No government can,\nvoluntarily, relinquish its powers, and abnegate its authority without\nthereby inviting disorder, disquietude, and, in the end, its\ndestruction.\" Is this, indeed, as the Committee assert, one of the\n\"admitted principles\" of our Church? one of the \"convictions in the mind\nof our Church, hardly separable in idea from its very existence?\" one of\nthe \"old truths maintained through blood and flame?\" If the doctrine be\ntrue, the Church in Holland had no right to relinquish its authority\nover the Church in America. If this doctrine be a \"principle\" of our\nChurch, never, _never_ could your Missionaries consent to be\ninstrumental in bringing the Church in China, which now has liberty in\nChrist Jesus, into such _perpetual_ bondage. Once bring the Chinese\nchurches under the authority of the Church in America, and it matters\nnot how great may be their growth, and how many centuries may pass away,\nthe Church in America can never relinquish her authority over them! But\nthis is not an \"admitted principle\" of our Church. The Dutch Church is\n_protestant_, not _papal_. Instead of the principle being one of the\n\"_old truths_ maintained through blood and flame\" by her, it is an _old\nerror of the Papacy_, for rejecting which she poured out her blood so\nfreely, and would do the same to-day. Yet in the Report of the Committee\nthis error of Romanism, guilty of the blood of thousands upon thousands\nof the saints of the Most High, is made to lie at the basis of the\naction of the last Synod!\n\nThe Committee next proceed to the statement of \"certain historic facts.\"\nAs with the \"admitted principles,\" so with the \"historic facts.\" With\nsome of them we have no dispute. But when they come to describe the\npresent condition and relations of the churches at Amoy, their language,\nto say the least, is very unfortunate. \"These six Churches,\" say they,\n\"have grown up together under such an interchange and community of labor\non the part of our own Missionaries, and on the part of those belonging\nto the English Presbyterian Church, that all are said to have a two-fold\necclesiastical relation--one with England--one with America, and still a\nthird, and economical and domestic relation among themselves, which is\ncovered and controlled by what is styled 'The Great Presbyterial or\nClassical Council of Amoy.'\"\n\nWe do not know by whom these native Churches \"are said\" to have a\ntwo-fold or three-fold _ecclesiastical_ relation. It is not so said by\nthe Missionaries. They contend that the native churches are neither\nEnglish, nor American, but _Chinese_ churches. They are ecclesiastically\nrelated to each other, and ought to remain so. But the effort is now\nmade to sever this ecclesiastical relation to each other, and bring half\nof them into ecclesiastical relationship with the Church in America,\nmaking them the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of _North America, in\nChina_! At present the native churches have an intimate, but not an\n_ecclesiastical_, relation to both the Church in England and America.\n\nFrom the above mistaken statement the Committee have drawn out three\n\"_particulars_\" which they seem to think especially worthy of note.\n\n\"1st. That while this Chinese Presbyterial or Classical Council is\nitself an autonomy--having the right to ordain ministers, exercise\ndiscipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Classis' or\nPresbytery can or may do, still the whole in England is claimed to be\nthe Presbytery of Amoy, and to this Synod it is reported as the Classis\nof Amoy.\"\n\nHow dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a\n_Presbytery_, and American Dutchmen call it a _Classis_! If this\nlanguage is also meant to imply that the Classis at Amoy is usurping\nauthority, it is answered in other parts of this paper.\n\nThe next \"particular\" of the Committee is:\n\n\"2d. The Missionaries, while they are members of this Grand Presbyterial\nor Classical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are,\nat the same time, members either of Classes in America, or of\nPresbyteries in Great Britain.\"\n\nThe meaning of this second \"particular\" is, that the Missionaries have a\ntwo-fold ecclesiastical relation. Is there anything contrary to\nScripture doctrine, or to Presbyterian principles, or to common sense,\nthat ecclesiastical relations should correspond to fact?--that the\nMissionaries should have some sort of an ecclesiastical relation, both\nto the Church at home and to the Church in China? They have a peculiar\nrelationship to both these Churches. Why forget or ignore the fact that\nthey are _Evangelists_ and _not Pastors_? Why object to an\necclesiastical relationship exactly corresponding to, and required by,\ntheir office and position? The two parts of this relationship do not\ncontradict each other. They are altogether correlative. The Missionaries\nare still agents of the Church which sent them out. Their ecclesiastical\nrelation to it should be direct, that they may be controlled by it,\nindependent of any intermediate body. The Church at home cannot afford\nto cut off her Missionaries from this immediate relationship so long as\nthey remain her agents. This does not conflict with, but requires some\nsort of a corresponding relationship to the Churches planted and growing\nup through their instrumentality. Their relationship to those Churches\nmust have reference especially to local matters, for the proper\norganization, and control, and development of the native churches, not\nat all to be controlled by them. When they cease to be agents of the\nChurch at home, and become the proper _pastors_ of the native churches,\nthen will be the proper time to put themselves under the control of the\nnative churches, instead of the Church at home. We must not confound\n_evangelization_ with _colonization_. Does any one imagine that Paul and\nBarnabas, and Timothy and Titus, or any of them (for they were not all\napostles), had connection with the Church which sent them out, _only_\nthrough the churches and ecclesiastical bodies organized by them? or\nthat they were in any sense under the control of those bodies?\n\nThe next and last \"particular\" of the Committee is \"3d. That while the\nChurches, three at least, are organized under and according to the\nConstitution of our Church, it is, nevertheless, claimed that the\nmembers of said Churches are not more members of the Reformed Dutch\nChurch here, than they are members of the Presbyterian Church of\nEngland.\"\n\nThe words of this third \"particular\" are almost (not quite) accurate.\nYet they appear to us like special pleading. They would have been\nstrictly correct if they had run as follows: \"These Churches are _all_\n(why say, '_three at least_'?) organized according to (not\n'_under_'--see pages 28-30) the Constitution of our Church. Therefore it\nis claimed that they form a Church of our order in China, but that the\nmembers thereof are neither members of the Reformed Dutch Church here,\nnor members of the Presbyterian Church in England.\" Such are the facts.\nIt would have been better if the Committee had so stated them. The\neffort is now made to divide these churches, and make three of them a\npart of the Dutch Church in America.\n\nThere is one more paragraph in the report of the Committee which demands\nnotice. It is:\n\n\"Your Committee can easily understand how reluctantly our Missionaries\nmay have been, or may still be, to disturb, or alter, or modify the\nrelations of the Churches at Amoy. But they conceive it to be their duty\nto say that feeling should never be allowed to take the place of\nconscience, nor to discharge its functions; and so long as our\nMissionaries claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod,\nthey should allow this body to assume the responsibility of its chosen\nand deliberate policy.\"\n\nIt seems to us the Committee are not much more fortunate on the subject\nof casuistry, than on Church \"government\" and \"historic facts.\" The\nMissionaries do \"claim to be subordinate to the authority of General\nSynod,\" but they also claim to be subordinate to the _Supreme\nauthority_. Now suppose--we shall not be charged with insubordination\nfor the mere supposition--suppose the Synod, through some\nmisapprehension, should direct us to pursue a course, which, after the\nmost mature reflection, we felt to be injurious to the cause of Christ,\nand consequently contrary to His will--will the fact of the Synod\n\"assuming the responsibility\" clear our skirts? Who is the Lord of\nconscience? General Synod? It seems to us, while the Committee conceive\nit to be their duty to deliver to the Missionaries at Amoy a lecture on\nthe importance of giving heed to conscience, in the very same sentence\nthey direct us to hold conscience in abeyance. But where did the\nCommittee learn that their Missionaries were influenced by _feelings_\nand not by _conscience_, and that too in reference to the laying of the\nfoundation of the Church of Christ in such an empire as that of China;\nthat they felt called upon in this solemn manner to deliver such a\nlecture? Would such a reflection have been cast on any other body of\nministers in our Church? or is it supposed that men who give themselves\nto the work of preaching the gospel in heathen lands are less under the\ninfluence of conscience than those who remain at home? _They conceived\nit to be their duty!_ Was it?\n\nSo much for the Report of the Committee of Synod. The decision of Synod\nhas been given, as stated above. The important question now is, what\nwill be the result of this decision on the Church at Amoy? This\nquestion, however, cannot yet be answered with certainty, for we cannot\nyet even guess what course the Missionaries there, when they learn the\ndecision of Synod, will feel it their duty to pursue. There may be more,\nbut I can now only think of three ways open before them. (1.) _To ask\nthe Board to recall them._ They firmly believe that their course of\nproceeding, in organizing the Church at Amoy, is not only in accordance\nwith the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but also with the principles\nof our Church. To be the instruments, then, of dividing the Church,\nwhich God has gathered by their hands, may be to sin against their\nconsciences. They may therefore ask the Board to appoint other agents to\ncarry out the decision of Synod. This would not be insubordination, but\nperfect subordination both to the authority of Synod and also to that\nauthority which all Protestant Christians acknowledge to be _supreme_.\nThis, I suppose, would be the most natural course for the brethren to\ntake, except for one consideration; that is, their love for the Churches\ngathered by them, or under their care, and their responsibility in\nreference to the spiritual welfare of those disciples of the Lord. It\nwould be the severest trial they have ever been called on to endure to\nbe recalled from their work. Therefore (2.) _They may delay their\naction_, making one more effort to get their views published, hoping\nthat the Church will yet change her decision, and not require of them to\nengage in a proceeding which they think will be so injurious to the\ncause of Christ; but, on the contrary, will approve of the course\nheretofore adopted by them as altogether scriptural, and the true\ndoctrine of our Church. Or (3.) They may _possibly_, after mature\nreflection, think the _least evil_ will be _to carry out the decision of\nSynod_, although that decision be altogether contrary to their own\njudgment. Then they will take three of the six churches, which now are\nall of our order, and organize these three a separate Denomination and\nan integral part of the Church in America. This is the course which at\nhome will be generally expected of them.\n\nNow let us suppose that they will adopt this third course, and then let\nus look calmly at its results--at the supposed or real advantages\nthereof, and the supposed or real evils thereof.\n\nWe first look at the _Advantages_.\n\n1. The most important is, or is supposed to be, that there will thus be\nhigher courts of jurisdiction to which appeals may be made, and by which\northodoxy and good order may be the better secured to the Church at\nAmoy. Such advantages, if they can be thus secured, we would by no means\nunderrate. There sometimes are cases of appeal for which we need the\nhighest court practicable--the collective wisdom of the Church so far as\nit can be obtained; and the preservation of orthodoxy and good order is\nof the first importance. Now let us see whether the plan proposed will\nsecure these advantages. Let us suppose that one of the brethren feels\nhimself aggrieved by the decision of the Classis of Amoy, and he appeals\nto the Particular Synod of Albany, and thence to the General Synod. He\nwill not be denied the right to such appeal. But, in order that the\nappeal may be properly prosecuted and disposed of, the appellant and the\nrepresentative of Classis should be present in these higher courts. Can\nthis be secured? Is the waste of time, of a year or more, nothing? and\nwhere shall the thousands of dollars of necessary expense come from? Now\nsuppose this appellant to be a Chinese brother. He also has rights. But\nhow, on this plan, can he possibly obtain them? Suppose (which of itself\nis an absurdity) that the money be raised for him, and he is permitted\nto stand on the floor of Synod. He cannot speak, read, or write a word\nof English. Not a member of Synod can speak, read, or write a word of\nhis language, except it be the brother prosecuting him. I ask, is it\npossible for him thus to obtain justice? But, waiving all these\ndisadvantages, the only points on which there is the least probability\nthat an appeal of a Chinese brother would come up before the higher\ncourts, are points on which these higher courts would not be qualified\nto decide. They would doubtless grow out of the peculiar customs and\nlaws of the Chinese--points on which the Missionary, after he has been\non the ground a dozen years, often feels unwilling to decide, and takes\nthe opinion of the native elders in preference to his own. Is it right\nto impose a yoke like this on that little Church which God is gathering\nby your instrumentality in that far-off land of China? But it is said,\nthat these cases of appeal (because of impracticability) will very\nrarely or never happen. Be it so; then this supposed advantage will\nseldom or never occur, and if it should occur, it would prove a\ndisadvantage. The highest practical court of appeal for the native\nchurches can be secured only on the plan for which the Missionaries\ncontend. Why must we deprive the native Christians of the benefit of the\ncollective wisdom of all the churches of like doctrine and order among\nthem?\n\nAs regards orthodoxy and good order, it is incumbent on the Church at\nhome to use her utmost endeavors to secure these. Doubtless this was the\ngreat design of Synod, both in the action of 1857 and in the action of\n1863. But will the plan of Synod give us any greater security for these\nthings? How can they be secured? We answer, under God, _only_ through\nyour Missionaries. The greater your hold on your Missionaries, the\nbetter security for the churches under their care. The plan of Synod\nwould place your Missionaries _ecclesiastically_ almost beyond your\ncontrol. They must be dismissed from the various Classes in this\ncountry, and, together with the native churches under their care, form\nthemselves into a Chinese Classis. Either they will have a controlling\ninfluence over the native portion of this Classis or they will not. If\nthey have, then your only way to discipline them will be to discipline\ntheir Classis. It would be a new doctrine in our Church, to make the\nBoard of Foreign Missions an _ecclesiastical_ medium between the Synod\nand one of its Classes, or to enforce discipline over the ministry by\nthe _money rod_. The Classis, _as such_, must be disciplined by the\ndirect act of Synod. Or, suppose the Missionaries do not have such\ncontrolling influence over the native members of Classis, for the native\nmembers will outnumber, and, unless the action of Synod (as we greatly\nfear) seriously retard the work at Amoy, will very soon greatly\noutnumber the Missionaries. What then? Your Missionaries are under the\necclesiastical control of the native converts. Their doctrines and\nmorals are to be decided on by a court composed mainly of recent\nconverts from heathenism. The only way to bring them before the higher\ncourts in this country, is through this native court, as we have already\nseen, almost an impossibility. Is it not plain that the Church at home\nwill not thus have a moiety of the control over her Missionaries she now\nhas? Is this the way to keep the Church at Amoy sound and pure? It\nseems to be supposed by some that the Missionaries desire to be\nseparated from the control of the Church at home. This is altogether a\nmistake, and another result of withholding their views from the public.\nThey have no such desire. The contrary is altogether the fact. They do\nnot desire to be placed under the control of the native Chinese\nchurches. They did not derive their authority from those churches, they\nare not sustained by them, and they are in no sense their agents, but\nthey derive their authority through, are sustained by, and are\naltogether the agents of the Church in this country; therefore the\nChurch at home has and should retain control over them. They are\namenable to the Church at home, through their several Classes. These are\nthe only courts qualified to take cognizance of their doctrines and\nmorals. They desire to remain in this relation. We think they have a\nright to demand this, until such time as they become agents of the\nChurch in China, instead of the Church in America.\n\nSuppose by some means suspicion should arise at home concerning the\northodoxy or morality of one or more of your Missionaries. On the plan\nproposed, what can the Church do with them? May the Board of Missions,\non mere report or suspicion, recall them without giving them a proper\ntrial? Can the Board try them? No. It is not an ecclesiastical court.\nWill the Church be satisfied with the decision of a court, a majority of\nwhose members have recently been converted from heathenism through the\ninstrumentality of these very Missionaries? But continue the plan of the\nMissionaries and all will be simple. If any of the Missionaries give\noccasion for suspicion, let them be tried by their proper Classes in\nthis country. This is all that the Church at home can do\n_ecclesiastically_ towards keeping the Church pure in China. Whether\nthe proposed _nominal_ union be consummated or not, the only hold you\nwill have on the Chinese churches will be through your Missionaries. If\nthey will not receive the instructions, and listen to the advice of your\nMissionaries and of the Synod through them, you would not expect them to\nobey the injunctions of Synod. Your only other resort will be to\nwithhold from them help. Can you not do the same now?\n\nBut in all this discussion, I fear, we lose sight too much of our\ndependence on the Head of the Church to keep His Church pure. Sure I am\nthat the Church in China cannot be kept pure by legislation on this, the\nopposite side of the globe. But we expect Christ to reign over, and the\nHoly Spirit to be given to the churches, and the proper ecclesiastical\nbodies formed of them in China as well as in this land. Why not? Such\nare the promises of God. The way to secure these things is by prayer,\nand the preaching of the pure gospel, not by legislation. Let the Church\nbe careful in her selection of Missionaries. Send only such as she has\nconfidence in--men of God, sound in the faith, apt to teach--and then\ntrust them, or recall them. Don't attempt to control them contrary to\ntheir judgment. Strange if this, which is so much insisted on as the\npolicy of our Church, be right, that she cannot get a single man, of all\nshe sends out to China, to think so. Can it be that the Missionary work\nis so subversive of right reason, or of correct judgment, or of\nconscientiousness, that all become perverted by engaging in it?\n\n2. Another supposed advantage is the effect it will have in enlisting\nthe sympathies of the Church in behalf of the Mission at Amoy. It is\nsaid, tell the Church that we have a flourishing Classis at Amoy, a part\nof ourselves, connected with General Synod, just like all the other\nClasses of our Church, the effect will be wonderful in enlisting\nsympathy, money, and men in behalf of that Mission; otherwise the\nopposite evil must be apprehended. If these things be so, they are\nindeed of grave importance. The Mission in China cannot live without the\nsympathy of the Church at home. But are these things so? It seems to us\nthat the supposition takes for granted that our Church in its Missionary\nwork is influenced by a desire for self-glory, or self-gratification;\nor, at least, that she is not a Church of liberal views--that she is not\nat all to be compared, in this respect, with the English Presbyterian\nChurch, or the Free Church of Scotland. Allusion has already been made\nto the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. I may now also\nremark that a large amount of the funds for carrying on the work at Amoy\nis raised in Scotland from members of the Free Church. They never had\nany idea that the churches gathered in China were to be a part of their\nown Church. They do not even ask that they be a part of their sister\nChurch in England. They only ask that they shall be sound in the faith\nand hold to the essentials of Presbyterianism, even though they have\nsome characteristics peculiar to the Dutch and other Reformed Churches.\nThese Presbyterian brethren in England and Scotland are not only ready\nto support their own Missionaries in their work of building up the\nchurches under their especial care, but they stand ready to assist the\nMissionaries of our Church in building up the churches under our\nespecial care. Of their frequent offers to assist us, when they feared\nwe should be in want of funds, our Board can bear testimony. We are not\nyet willing to believe that our people are a people of narrow views in a\nmatter like this. It is contrary to our history in time past. It is\ncontrary to the facts of the present day. It is contrary to all my\nobservation among our churches. Our people do not first ask whether it\nbe building _ourselves_ up, before they sympathize with a benevolent\nobject. We believe the contrary is the exact truth. It requires a\nliberal policy to call forth liberal views and action. As regards the\nenlisting of men, look at the facts. Every man who has gone out from\namong you, to engage in this Missionary work, begs of you not to adopt a\nnarrow policy. So in regard to obtaining of funds. Usually, the men who\nare most liberal in giving are most liberal in feeling. This must be so\nin the very nature of things. The way to alienate the sympathies of the\nChurch from the Mission at Amoy is to divide the Church there by a\nsectarian policy; and the way to enlist her sympathies is to continue\nthe former plan, and let the work go forward with the Divine blessing as\nin days past. The people will be more encouraged, and praise God more\nheartily, when you tell them of six organized churches like our own, and\nmany others growing up all around, than they will if you tell them of\nonly three churches, and only a few out-stations, under our care. They\nwill not object to hear that the English Presbyterian brethren are\nlaboring with us, and organizing churches so nearly like our own.\nHowever powerful the motive addressed to the desire to build up our own\nChurch, there are motives infinitely more powerful. Such are the motives\nto be depended on in endeavoring to elevate the standard of liberality\namong our people.\n\nLet brethren in the Ministry try the experiment, and tell their people\nof the wonders of God's grace:--that he has led his servants from our\nown Church in this land, and from the Presbyterian Church in Great\nBritain, in their work of evangelizing the heathen, and laying the\nfoundation of the Church of Christ, to lay aside all national\nanimosities, and rise above all denominational prejudices and\njealousies--that he has given to the Presbyterian Church in England,\nand the sister Church in Scotland, a spirit of catholicity and\nliberality as exhibited in the previous part of this paper--and that, as\na consequence, he is causing his Church to grow up in the region of Amoy\nin beautiful proportions, all the congregations under their care and\nours also manifesting the same spirit of catholicity and liberality,\nsubmitting to each other according to the Divine command, working\ntogether with the utmost harmony, and, as a consequence, with wonderful\neffectiveness. Can you account for such things except by the energy of\nthe Spirit of God? Surely it is not the spirit of the world, neither is\nit the spirit of the devil. Try the experiment, then, and see whether\nthe wonders of God's grace will alienate the hearts of his people. Your\nMissionaries have no doubt--we can hardly understand how any who examine\nthe subject can doubt--we are sure that no one can personally behold the\nwork and yet doubt, that the wonderful blessing of God, which has\naccompanied the work at Amoy, has been both the cause and the result of\nthis harmonious labor on the part of your Missionaries, and those from\nthe sister Churches in England and Scotland. Therefore, we feel assured\nthat the simple recital of the grace of God thus manifested, must\ninfluence the hearts of his people most powerfully, and therefore it is\nthat we beseech the Church not to interfere with, and hinder the work of\nGod. May we not refer, without being charged with disrespect, to the\nSynod of Jerusalem as a proper example for our General Synod? Peter\nsays, \"Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,\nwhich neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?\" And then the\ndecree, which the Synod sent to the Churches, runs thus: \"It seemed good\nto the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than\nthese _necessary_ things.\" The ecclesiastical \"power which the Lord\nhath given\" to his Church is \"to _edification_, and not to\n_destruction_.\"\n\nIf the Missionaries be allowed to proceed in building up a Church, like\nour own, simply with reference to the evangelization of China, doubtless\nbrethren in the ministry, and other influential men, could take occasion\ntherefrom to prejudice the Churches against our work. They could do\nthis, if they were so disposed, without any such occasion. But will they\ndo it? We cannot believe that they will. They love the cause of Christ\ntoo well, and desire to see the world converted to God too ardently, to\npermit them to throw any obstacles in the way of our work, even though\nthat work be not carried forward in the manner which they consider\naltogether the best. If we are right, these brethren will soon see that\nwe are right, and however powerful the motive to be addressed to the\ndesire of extending our own Church, they will find infinitely more\npowerful motives to be addressed to a more noble desire of the Christian\nheart. If our people have not yet learned, they should be taught to\nengage in the work of evangelizing the world, not for the sake of our\nChurch in America, but for the sake of Christ and His Church, and when\nthe Church thus built up is like our own, they should be fully\nsatisfied. We believe they will be satisfied with this.\n\n3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is the\nadvantage of carrying out the _policy_ of our Church. This, in itself\nconsidered, might be regarded worthy of but little attention.\nCannot--ought not--the Church change her policy if wrong, or if a better\ncan be adopted? Surely her laws are not like those of the Medes and\nPersians. But the argument has been used with so much earnestness and\nperseverance, both in the Reports of the Committees and in the\ndiscussions in Synod, that it demands some investigation. Instead of\nthe course pursued by the Missionaries being, as it is contended,\ncontrary to, it is the true policy of our Church--the policy in\nexistence long before the decision of 1857. If the course now required\nof them be the present policy of our Church, it is a _mistaken_ policy,\ncontrary to the very genius of our institutions, and ought to be\ncorrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Constitution that\neither it or the Constitution must be sacrificed. In order to save the\npolicy it was found necessary during the past year to amend the\nConstitution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circumstances of a\nMissionary Classis require it, \"_all the ordinary requirements of the\nConstitution_\" may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it be\nthat a policy which requires _such constitutional changes_ can be the\nold and proper policy of our Church? But if the policy be continued we\nare not yet done with changes. The very _name_ of our Church must be\nchanged. It now is \"The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church _in North\nAmerica_.\" We must expunge the words \"_in North America_,\" or must add\nIndia, China, and Japan, and every other country where the Church may\nundertake Missionary work. We know it has been said of this policy, \"it\nis our _settled, irreversible_ policy.\" Is every thing then to be\nregarded as _unsettled_ and _changeable_ but this policy of the Church?\nWe answer, No. The Church may change her name, if she please, as she has\nchanged her Constitution. Or she may change her policy. But there are\ncertain fundamental principles of Church government which she may not\nchange. Hence, even yet, the principles for which the Missionaries\ncontend must remain the true policy of our Church, for they lie at the\nvery foundation of Presbyterial order. A full discussion of this subject\nwill come up most naturally when we discuss the _evils_ of the course\nnow required of us. I will now allude to only one fact. The Board of\nForeign Missions was formed on this principle. If the Classes at Arcot\nand Amoy are to be considered _integral_ parts of the Church in this\ncountry, related to General Synod like the Classes in this country, then\nthe Missionaries at those stations properly should come under the Board\nof Domestic Missions. Suppose, according to the new plan, the\nMissionaries form themselves into the kind of Classis now required of\nthem; what will be the relation of the Classis of Amoy to the Board of\nForeign Missions? Is the Classis, in evangelizing the heathen around, to\noperate through the Board, or the Board through the Classis? The Classis\nat Amoy decide on a certain course of ecclesiastical procedure, or\nevangelistic labor, and the Board decides on another course; how is such\na matter to be settled? Will it be said, there is no danger of such\ndifficulty? The Classis and Board will both be composed of men with\ninfirmities. Ask the Board whether there have not already been incipient\ndifficulties, in the supposed clashing of the powers of the Board and\nthe powers of the Classis of Arcot. But the Classis of Arcot as yet is\nlittle more than an _American Missionary Classis_. What will be the\ndifficulties when it becomes an _Indian_ Classis? But we are told, \"keep\nthe Mission and Classis distinct.\" Is the Mission, then, to attend to\nall the evangelistic work, and the Classis to do nothing? Or are there\nto be two distinct evangelistic policies carried on at Amoy, the one by\nthe Mission, and the other by the Classis? Or is the Classis first to\ncome over to the Synod, and so get to the Board in order to carry on the\nwork around? Instead of this new plan being the settled policy of our\nChurch, we believe it to be a solecism. When a Church is established\namong the heathen after our order, then is the true policy of our Church\ncarried out. Let the present relations of the Missionaries to the Board\nand to their several Classes remain, and there will be no occasion for\nthe clashing of the powers of the Board with those of any\necclesiastical body.\n\nSo much for the _advantages_. They are really disadvantages, leading to\n_serious evils_, which of themselves should be sufficient to deter the\nChurch from inaugurating the policy proposed, or, if it be already\ninaugurated, to lead her to retrace her steps, and adopt a better and a\nconsistent policy.\n\nNow let us consider the real or supposed _Evils_ (in addition to the\nabove) of carrying out the decision of Synod.\n\n1. It will not be for the credit of our Church. She now has a name, with\nother Churches, for putting forth efforts to evangelize the world. Shall\nshe mar this good name and acquire one for sectarianism, by putting\nforth efforts to extend _herself_, not her doctrines and order;--they\nare not sectarian, and her Missionaries esteem them as highly as do\ntheir brethren at home--but _herself_, even at the cost of dividing\nchurches which the grace of God has made one?\n\nThe decision of the last Synod may not be the result of sectarianism\namong the people of our Church. We do not think it is. But it will be\ndifficult to convince our Presbyterian brethren and others, that it is\nnot so. By way of illustration I will suppose a case. A. is engaged in a\nvery excellent work. B. comes to him, and the following dialogue ensues:\n\nB. \"Friend A., I am glad to see you engaged in so excellent a work. I\nalso have concluded to engage in it. I should be glad to work with you.\nYou know the proverbs, 'Union is strength,' and 'Two are better than\none.'\"\n\nA. \"Yes, yes, friend B, I know these proverbs and believe them as\nthoroughly as you do. But I have a few peculiarities about my way of\nworking. They are not many, and they are not essential, but I think\nthey are useful, and wish to work according to them. Therefore, I prefer\nworking alone.\"\n\nB. \"Yes, friend A., we all have our peculiarities, and, if they be not\ncarried too far, they may all be made useful. I have been making\ninquiries about yours, and I am glad to find they are not nearly so\nmany, or so different from mine, as you seem to suppose, and as I once\nsupposed. The fact is, I rather like some of them, and, though I may not\nesteem them all so highly as you do, still I am willing to conform to\nthem; for I am fully persuaded that, in work of this kind, two working\ntogether can do vastly more than two working separately, and the work\nwill be much better done. Besides this, the social intercourse will be\ndelightful.\"\n\nA. \"I appreciate, friend B., your politeness, and am well aware that all\nyou say about the greater efficiency and excellence of united work, and\nthe delights of social intercourse is perfectly true. But--but--well, I\nprefer to work alone.\"\n\n2. It will be destroying a _real_ unity for the sake of creating one,\nwhich, at the best, can be only _nominal_, and hence will really be a\nviolation of Presbyterial order. It seems strange to us that it should\nbe constantly asserted that we are striving to create a formal union\nbetween two bodies which are essentially distinct. There is nothing of\nthe kind. There are six organized churches at Amoy. They are all Dutch\n(i.e. Reformed), and they are all Presbyterian, for the Dutch Churches\nare all Presbyterian. But they are Chinese, not American, nor English,\nnor Scotch. If these churches are not _one_, then it is impossible for\ntwo or more individual churches to be one. If schism in a Church be a\nsin, then the separation of this Church will be a sin, for it will be\nan actual schism. You can make nothing more nor less of it. If you say\nthat schism is only an evil, then the separation of this Church will, at\nleast, be an evil.\n\nPerhaps it will be thought that _schism_ is too hard a term whereby to\ndesignate the separation of the Church at Amoy. Never mind the word,\nthen, but let us look at the facts. The proper Classis of Amoy, composed\nof all the churches of like order, and of the Missionaries, has\nproceeded, according to the order of our Church, to ordain and install\nnative pastors, and to perform a few other necessary ecclesiastical\nacts. These pastors are now called on to separate from, and break up\nthat body, through which they received their office! The opinions and\nwishes of these native pastors, as well of the native Classis, and the\nnative churches, are all ignored! Are such things right? Are these the\ndoctrines or policy of the Dutch Church? We are told that we need say\nnothing to the native churches on the subject. Is this right? Is the\nDutch Church a hierarchy? Does the General Synod claim authority to\norder the division in such a manner of a Classis of the Church of Christ\nwithout the consent of that Classis? \"_What God hath joined together let\nnot man put asunder._\"\n\nIn consequence of fallen humanity, there are evils which we call\nnecessary evils. Such is the case of different Denominations of\nChristians in the same region of territory. They differ in sentiment on\nimportant (or supposed to be important) subjects, and because of this\ndifference in sentiment, they can work together in greater harmony, and\nwith greater efficiency, by being formed into distinct organizations.\nSuch, however, is not the case of the six churches at Amoy, and others\ngrowing up under their care and the care of your own and the English\nPresbyterian Missionaries. Even when Churches agree in doctrine and\norder, it is sometimes better, and sometimes necessary, in consequence\nof geographical separation or national distinctions, to form distinct\norganizations. It is better, or necessary, that the Churches in Holland,\nand America, and South Africa, be ecclesiastically distinct. We do not\ncall this an evil, for all the advantages of ecclesiastical courts and\ncontrol are better thus secured. But suppose a case. There are, say,\nthirty Dutch churches in the city of New York. Now, suppose there were\nno others of the same order throughout this whole land: instead of\nallowing these churches to remain one organic whole--forming Classes and\nSynods, as the growth and convenience may allow and direct--it is\nproposed to take one-half of these churches, form them into a distinct\norganization, thus depriving them of ecclesiastical relations to the\nother half, and attach them to an ecclesiastical body in China--a nation\nof different customs and different language. How should we designate\nsuch an act? The first part would be schism, and the last part would be\nfolly. The only difference between such a procedure and that required of\nus is, that the churches at Amoy have been gathered partly by our\ninstrumentality, and are dependent partly on us for instruction. If our\nPresbyterial order be scriptural, all these churches at Amoy, growing\nout of each other, are bound to associate together, ecclesiastically. It\nis their duty to submit to each other. They would also be bound to\nsubmit to the Church of the same order in England and America, and every\nother country throughout the world, if it were possible and convenient.\nBut such relation is not convenient, or possible. Therefore, we must\nchoose that which is possible and most convenient. It is possible, and\nit is convenient, that they associate together. It is not possible that\nthey all be subject to the Church in England, and, at the same time, to\nthe Church in America. It is not convenient that they all be subject to\neither of these Churches. We do not think it is convenient that one-half\nof them be subject to either of these Churches. Besides the sin, or\nevil, of schism, they never can be properly represented in the higher\necclesiastical bodies of either of these Churches. They never can have\nan Elder present (I speak now of their connection with the Church in\nAmerica, for this is the subject before us). They never can have a full\nrepresentation of ministers. Only very seldom can they have even one\nminister present. He usually will only be one who is ill, and\nconsequently not a proper representative. The native element, _i.e., the\nchief element_ of the Church can never be represented at all. The\nrepresentation, at the best, will only be a representation of your\nMissionaries, not at all of the Chinese Church. Therefore, we assert\nthat such a union would not be _real_, not even _apparent_, only\n_nominal_. In striving after it, we are pursuing a chimera, destroying a\nsubstance for the sake of a shadow.\n\nBut it is offered as an objection to our views, that the Presbyterian\nChurch (O.S.) has Presbyteries and Synods in India and China. Yes, they\nhave three Presbyteries and a Synod in India, and have had for twenty\nyears. But even yet there is not so much of a native element in their\nwhole Synod as there is already in the little Church in the region of\nAmoy. As an ecclesiastical body, it is not _Indian_ in its\ncharacteristics--it is _American_. So with all their Presbyteries in\nSiam and China, with the exception, perhaps, of the Presbytery at\nNingpo. They are _American_ Presbyteries, not native in their\ncharacter.[2]\n\n[Footnote 2: The following statistics are from the Minutes of General\nAssembly, 1863.\n\n_Synod of Northern India_--Was organized in 1841. Is composed of three\nPresbyteries. Now has 19 ministers (only one of these is a _native\npastor_); 9 churches; 246 communicants. (How many of these are natives\nnot reported.)\n\n_Presbytery of Canton_--Has 4 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 12\ncommunicants. (How many of these are natives not reported.) _Presbytery\nof Ningpo_--Has 8 ministers; no native pastor; 2 churches; 111 native\nmembers.\n\n_Presbytery of Siam_--Has 6 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 8\ncommunicants. (How many of these are native members not reported.)\n\n_Presbytery of West Africa_--Has 9 ministers; no native pastor; 6\nchurches; 191 communicants (probably all natives.)\n\nAre these ecclesiastical bodies respectively Indian, Chinese, and\nAfrican in their character? or are they all _essentially American_? Yet\nthese are the bodies to which the Committee of General Synod of 1857\nreferred when they said, \"As to the difficulties suggested\" [by the\nMissionaries at Amoy] \"respecting the delays of carrying out a system of\nappellate jurisdiction covering America and China, it is enough to say,\nthat the Presbyterian Church (O.S.) finds no insuperable difficulties in\ncarrying into operation her system, which comprehends Presbyteries and\nSynods in India as well as here.\" Why should there be many _insuperable_\ndifficulties so long as these bodies remain _American Missionary\nbodies_, instead of being _native ecclesiastical bodies_? Practically\nthey do not need representation in the Church at home more than our\nMissions need representatives in the Board of Missions. In the aggregate\nof all the above-mentioned ecclesiastical missionary bodies, there is\n_but one native pastor_, and this, as might be expected, so far as we\nare aware, furnished the only case in which difficulty has occurred.\nDoubtless in the instance referred to, the native pastor was in error,\nand, as he found some _insuperable difficulty_ in getting his case\nbefore the General Assembly, a similar effort is not likely soon to be\nmade.]\n\nSo is the Classis of Arcot appealed to. Such appeals put us in a\nsomewhat painful position. As with the Presbyterian bodies just\nmentioned, so with the Classis of Arcot. We have no rivalry with the\nbrethren there, and do not wish to say a word that looks like stricture\non their policy. We do not utter a word of this kind, except in\nself-defense. We rejoice in all their successes. But the time will come,\nif the blessing of God continues to follow their labors, when they will\nbe compelled to adopt our principles. The Missionaries at Arcot are not\nproperly _pastors_ of the native churches. They exercise the pastoral\noffice only temporarily, until native pastors are raised up. Their\nrelation to the Synods in this country is not like that of the other\nClasses of our Church. They never have had and never will have a proper\nrepresentation in these higher courts. They have never had a native\nelder present. They never have even a partial representation of\nministers, except under the afflictive dispensations of Providence. For\nseveral years past they would have been without any representation at\nall, but for the fact of one of their number being in this country whose\nill health forbids his return to that field of labor. It is by being\nunfitted to be a member of the Classis that he becomes able to be a\nrepresentative of the Classis in the Synod! At the present time, because\nof the still American character of their body, they may feel no serious\ninconvenience. If our position had been like theirs, occupying the\nground at Amoy alone, possibly we should have done as they have. We\nshould have understood well enough that the connection of the native\nChurch with the Church at home could only be _nominal_. But if our\nChurch desired this, so long as it did not injure the native Church, we\nprobably should have made no objections.\n\nBut we are told that it is not desired that this connection with the\nChurch in America should be perpetual. It will last only until the\nChurch at Amoy has sufficient development to stand alone. Then, of\ncourse, our Church will consent to the separation. (A very different\ndoctrine, by the way, from the \"_assertion_\" of the committee of Synod\nthat the Church can not \"voluntarily relinquish its powers.\") After\nthat, the churches at Amoy which have been under our care, and those\nwhich have been under the care of the English Presbyterians, may again\nunite in one Denomination, if they see fit. This sounds pretty well. But\nlook at it. First separate the churches long enough to engender\nrivalries and allow prejudices to grow up, and then attempt to unite\nthem, and what will be the result? Unless they have a more liberal\nspirit than is usual in the churches in this land, instead of making one\ndenomination out of two, we shall have three. But who shall be the\njudge when the proper time has arrived to liberate the Church in China,\nif the opinions of those on the ground, and of the native churches, are\nall to be ignored?\n\n3. It will injure the efficiency of the Church at Amoy. Besides the\nobjection--which the heathen will thus, as readily as the irreligious in\nthis country, be able to urge against Christianity--furnished by the\nincrease of Denominations, it will deprive the churches of the benefit\nof the united wisdom and strength of the whole of them for\nself-cultivation and for Christian enterprise, and will introduce a\nspirit of jealous rivalry among them. We know it is said that there need\nbe no such result, and that the native churches may remain just as\nunited in spirit after the organization of two Denominations as before.\nSuch a sentiment takes for granted, either that ecclesiastical\norganization has in fact no efficiency (such is not the doctrine of our\nChurch), or that the Chinese churches have arrived at a far higher state\nof sanctification than the churches have attained to in this land. Do\nnot different Denominations exhibit jealous rivalry in this land? Why,\nyour Missionaries are already frequently charged with being too liberal\ntowards their English Presbyterian brethren in giving to them members\nand churches which, it is said, properly belong to us. Is Chinese human\nnature different from American?\n\nIn consequence of such division, the native Churches will not be so able\nto support the Gospel among themselves. Look at the condition of our\nwestern towns in this respect. Why strive to entail like evils on our\nMissionary churches? Their strength will be weakened for evangelistic\neffort. Their Missionary efforts is one of the most striking and\npraiseworthy characteristics of the Amoy churches. How will they be\nshorn of their strength by division and necessary rivalry! Besides\nthis, if the connection with the Church at home be anything more than\nnominal, our churches should, in part at least, work through the Church\nat home. No? Then why form the connection?\n\n4. Instead of the Dutch Church being _the_ Presbyterian Church at Amoy,\nit will only be a small Church, bearing about the same proportion to the\nother Christian Churches there, that it does to the other Churches in\nthis land. Why is not the Dutch Church the principal Presbyterian body\nin this land? Unless we are mistaken in regard to its excellency of\norder, it has all the adaptedness, and it was here first. Do you wish a\nsimilar result in China?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThat it may be seen whether the Missionaries of Amoy have asked of our\nChurch to \"surrender the Constitution, the policy, the interests of our\nChurch,\" \"nay, even their own welfare, and that of the Mission they are\nso tenderly attached to\"--whether what they ask for \"is flatly in the\nface of our Constitution and order\"--whether the \"Synod has no right to\nform, or to authorize any such self-regulating, ecclesiastical body, or\nto consent that any Ministers of our Church should hold seats in such a\nbody\"--whether, \"if we do it, we transcend the most liberal construction\nwhich has ever been known to be given to the powers of the General\nSynod\"--whether, by granting the request of the Missionaries, \"we\nviolate our own order, our fundamental principles, the polity to which\nwe are bound by our profession, by our subscription, by every tie which\ncan bind religious and honorable, men\"--I will append the resolution\nwhich was offered by me in the General Synod as a substitute for those\noffered by the Committee. If it called for declamation like the above,\nwell. These are the words:\n\n_Resolved_, That the Synod learn, with gratitude to God, of the great\nprogress of the work of the Lord at Amoy, and in the region around, so\nthat already we hear of six organized churches with their Consistories,\nand others growing up, not yet organized; two native Pastors, who were\nto have been ordained on the 29th of March last, and the whole under the\ncare of a Classis composed of the Missionaries of our Church and the\nEnglish Presbyterian Church, and representative Elders of the several\nchurches. It calls for our hearty gratitude to the Great Head of the\nChurch, that the Missionaries of different Churches, and different\ncountries, have been enabled, through Divine grace, to work together in\nsuch harmony. It is also gratifying to us that these Churches and this\nClassis have been organized according to the polity of our Church.\nInasmuch as the Synod of the English Presbyterian Church has approved of\nthe course of their Missionaries in uniting with ours in the\norganization of the Church at Amoy, after our order, therefore, this\nSynod would direct its Board of Foreign Missions to allow their\nMissionaries to continue their present relations with the Missionaries\nof the English Presbyterian Church, and the churches under their several\ncare, so long as the present harmony shall continue, and no departure\nshall be made from the doctrines and essential polity of our Church, or\nuntil this Synod shall otherwise direct.\n\nSome, after reading the foregoing discussion, will be ready to say to\nus: \"Your views are in the main correct. It would have been better if\nSynod had decided otherwise, but the decision has been made, and we must\nput up with it.\" We answer, Not so. We must obey Synod, but may not the\nChurch change or improve her decisions? Here is one of the good things\nwe hope to see come out of this mistake of the Church. Jesus rules, and\nhe is ordering all things for the welfare of his Church and the\nadvancement of his cause. Sometimes, the better to accomplish this end,\nhe permits the Church to make mistakes. When we failed in former days to\nget our views made public, it gave us no anxiety, for we believed the\ndoctrine that Jesus reigns. So we now feel, nothwithstanding this\nmistake. The Master will overrule it for good. We do not certainly know\nhow, but we can imagine one way. By means of this mistake the matter may\nbe brought before our Church, and before other Churches, more clearly\nthan it would otherwise have been for many years to come, and in\nconsequence of this we expect, in due time, that our Church, instead of\ncoming up merely to the standard of liberality for which we have been\ncontending, will rise far above anything we have asked for or even\nimagined, and other Churches will also raise their standard higher.\nHereafter we expect to contend for still higher principles. This is the\ndoctrine: Let all the branches of the great Presbyterian family in the\nsame region in any heathen country, which are sound in the faith,\norganize themselves, _if convenient_, into one organic whole, allowing\nliberty to the different parts in things non-essential. Let those who\nadopt Dutch customs, as at Amoy, continue, if they see fit, their\npeculiarities, and those who adopt other Presbyterian customs, as at\nNingpo and other places, continue their peculiarities, and yet all unite\nas one Church. This subject does not simply relate to the interests of\nthe Church at Amoy. It relates to the interests of all the Missionary\nwork of all the Churches of the Presbyterian order in all parts of the\nworld. Oh that our Church might take the lead in this catholicity of\nspirit--instead of falling back in the opposite direction--that no one\nmay take her crown! But if she do not, then we trust that some other of\nthe sacramental hosts will take the lead and receive too the honor, for\nit is for the glory of the great Captain of our salvation, and for the\ninterests of His kingdom. We need the united strength of all these\nbranches of Zion for the great work, which the Master has set before us,\nin calling on us to evangelize the world. In expecting to obtain this\nunion, will it be said, that we are looking for a chimera? It ought to\nbe so, ought it not? Then it is no chimera. It may take time for the\nchurches to come up to this standard, but within a few years past we\nhave seen tendencies to union among different branches of the\nPresbyterian family in Australia, in Canada, in our own country, and in\nEngland and Scotland. In many places these tendencies are stronger now\nthan they have ever before been since the days of the Reformation. True,\nhuman nature is still compassed with infirmities even in the Church of\nChrist. But the day of the world's regeneration is approaching, and as\nit approaches nearer to us, doubtless the different branches of the\nPresbyterian family will approach still nearer to each other. God hasten\nthe time, and keep us also from doing anything to retard, but everything\nto help it forward, and to his name be the praise forever. Amen.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A.\n\n\nFurther to illustrate the unity of the Churches under the care of the\ntwo Missions, I will transcribe from the _Reports_ of the Amoy Mission,\nfor the years 1861 and 1862.\n\n\n_From the Report for 1861_. Dated Feb. 24. 1862.\n\nOur work is so interwoven with that of the Missionaries of the English\nPresbyterian Church, that we cannot give a full report of the state of\nour Churches and out-stations without including in it a partial report\nof some of their stations. We have, therefore, thought it best, both on\nthis account, and because the Churches gathered by us and by them are\nreally one, to give statistics of both Missions with brief remarks.\nThese, besides simplifying the matter, will enable the Church at home to\nbecome better acquainted with the real progress of the cause of Christ\nin this region.\n\n_Missionaries and Assistant Missionaries of the Reformed Dutch Church at\nAmoy, at the close if the year_ 1861. [Here follow their names, and\nremarks concerning them.]\n\n_Missionaries and Assistant Missionaries of the English Presbyterian\nChurch at the close of the year_ 1861. [Here follow their names, and\nremarks concerning them.]\n\n_Tabular View of the Churches and Mission Stations under the care of the\nReformed Dutch Church, and English Presbyterian Church, in Amoy and\nvicinity_.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     |Native     |       |        |No. of       |Rec'd\nChurches and         |helpers    |       |        |Church       |during\nMission              |sustained  |       |        |Members,     |the\nStations.            |by Mission.|Elders.|Deacons.|Jan. 1, 1861.|year.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFirst Church at Amoy |     3     |   4   |   4    |    102      | 24\nSecond  \"        \"   |     2     |   4   |   4    |     78      | 13\nChurch at Chioh-be   |     2     |   4   |   4    |     47      |  5\n  \"      Peh-chui-ia |     3     |   2   |  ..    |     25      |  3\n  \"      Ma-peng     |     2     |   2   |   3    |     33      |  6\nStation at An-hai    |     3     |  ..   |  ..    |      7      | 23\n  \"        Khang-khau|     1     |The Church members at this Station\n                     |           |are reckoned to the Church at Ma-peng.\n  \"        Kang-thau |     1     |The Church members at this Station\n                     |           |are reckoned to the First Church at\n                     |           |Amoy.\n  \"        E-mng-kang|     1     |The Church members at this Station\n                     |           |are reckoned to the First Church at\n                     |           |Amoy.\n  \"       Chiang-chiu|     2     |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     |     |               |No. of        |\nChurches and         |     |               |Church        |Under\nMission              |     |               |Members,      |suspension\nStations.            |Dead.|Excommunicated.|Dec. 31, 1861.|Dec., 1861.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFirst Church at Amoy |  2  |      2        |      122     |     4\nSecond  \"        \"   |  1  |      1        |       89     |     1\nChurch at Chioh-be   |  1  |     ..        |       51     |     3\n  \"      Peh-chui-ia |  1  |     ..        |       27     |     1\n  \"      Ma-peng     |  1  |      1        |       37     |     3\nStation at An-hai    |  1  |     ..        |       29     |    ...\n  \"        Khang-khau|The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the Church at Ma-peng.\n  \"        Kang-thau |The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the First Church at Amoy.\n  \"        E-mng-kang|The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the First Church at Amoy.\n  \"       Chiang-chiu|\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     |Infants  |Colporteurs|\nChurches and         |baptized |sustained  |\nMission              |during   |by Native  |Benevolent\nStations.            |the year.|Church.    |Contributions\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFirst Church at Amoy |   13    |    1  }   |\nSecond  \"        \"   |   11    |    1  }   |  $471.33\nChurch at Chioh-be   |    5    |    1      |   200.29\n  \"      Peh-chui-ia |    3    |   ...     |   ......\n  \"      Ma-peng     |    3    |   ...     |   ......\nStation at An-hai    |    4    |   ...     |   ......\n  \"        Khang-khau|The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the Church at Ma-peng.\n  \"        Kang-thau |The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the First Church at Amoy.\n  \"        E-mng-kang|The Church members at this Station are reckoned\n                     |to the First Church at Amoy.\n  \"       Chiang-chiu|\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[Then come remarks about _native helpers_, not included in the above;\n_Schools_ sustained by each of the Missions, and by the native Churches;\n_Theological Class_; Students sustained by each Mission.]\n\n_Remarks on the above Tabular View_.\n\nThe two Churches at Amoy, and the one at Chioh-be are under the care of\nthe Missionaries of the Reformed Dutch Church. *  *  *  *  *  *\n\nThe Churches at Peh-chui-ia and Ma-peng, are under the care of the\nMissionaries of the English Presbyterian Church. *  *  *  *  *  *\n\nThe Congregation at An-hai is under the care of the English\nPresbyterian Missionaries. It has not yet been organized into a Church.\nIt is so far removed from Amoy that it cannot conveniently be placed\nunder the supervision of either of the Consistories. * * * * * *\n\nKhang-khau is a station under the care of the English Presbyterian\nMission. * * * * * *\n\nKang-thau is under the care of the Reformed Dutch Mission.\n\nE-mng-kang is a suburb of Amoy. The Congregation worshiping there\nbelongs, mostly, to the First Church at Amoy. The Station is under the\ncare of the English Presbyterian Mission. * * * * * *\n\nChiang-chiu is a large city, some twelve miles or more beyond Chioh-be,\nand about thirty-five miles from Amoy. In times past, several efforts\nhave been made to establish a Station at Chiang-chiu, but always without\nsuccess, until during the past year. At the close of the year there had\nnot yet been any baptisms at that Station. Since the beginning of this\nyear, there have been several. The Church members are reckoned to the\nChurch at Chioh-be, and are under the oversight of the Chioh-be\nConsistory. Both Missions work as one at Chiang-chiu. Each Mission is to\nfurnish half the expense. To simplify the work, it was thought best that\none Mission be responsible for the control of the Station, and direct\nthe work. At present this is the Mission of the Reformed Dutch Church.\nIf the work be prospered, it is proposed to form two Stations, one under\nthe care of each Mission.\n\n[The remaining part of the Report, having no bearing on the subject\nbefore us, need not be quoted.]\n\n\n_From the Report for 1862._\n\n[It will be sufficient merely to transcribe the _Tabular View_, and add\none or two explanatory remarks.]\n\n_Churches and Mission Stations under the care of the Reformed Dutch and\nEnglish Presbyterian Missions at Amoy, December 31, 1862._\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     |       |        |No. of   |Died  |\n                     |       |        |Members, |during|Excommunicated\n                     |       |        |Dec. 31, |the   |during\n                     |Elders.|Deacons.|1861.    |year. |the year.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFirst Church at Amoy |   4   |   4    |   122   |  6   |     2\nSecond  \"        \"   |   4   |   4    |    89   | ...  |    ...\nChurch at Chioh-be   |   4   |   4    |    51   |  1   |    ...\n  \"    \"  Peh-chui-ia|   2   |   2    |    27   | ...  |    ...\n  \"    \"  Ma-peng    |   1   |   3    |    37   |  2   |    ...\nStation at An-hai    |  ..   |  ..    |    29   |  2   |    ...\n  \"     \"  Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |First Church, Amoy.\n  \"     \"  Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |Church at Ma-peng.\n  \"     \"  E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |First Church, Amoy.\n  \"     \" Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |Church at Chioh-be.\n  \"     \" Go-chhng   |\n  \"     \" Te-soa     |\n  \"     \" Khi-be     |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     |No. of    |Under       |Infant     |Helpers\n                     |Members,  |suspension  |baptisms   |supported by\n                     |Dec. 31,  |Dec. 31,    |during     |Native\n                     |1862.     |1862.       |the year.  |Church.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFirst Church at Amoy |   139    |     4      |    17     |     1\nSecond  \"        \"   |   100    |     3      |     2     |     1\nChurch at Chioh-be   |    70    |     2      |     9     |     1\n  \"    \"  Peh-chui-ia|    30    |    ...     |    ...    |    ...\n  \"    \"  Ma-peng    |    38    |    ...     |    ...    |    ...\nStation at An-hai    |    30    |    ...     |    ...    |    ...\n  \"     \"  Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |First Church, Amoy.\n  \"     \"  Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |Church at Ma-peng.\n  \"     \"  E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |First Church, Amoy.\n  \"     \" Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the\n                     |Church at Chioh-be.\n  \"     \" Go-chhng   |\n  \"     \" Te-soa     |\n  \"     \" Khi-be     |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n[Of the three new Stations, Go-chhng and Te-soa, are under the care of\nthe Reformed Dutch Mission, Khi-be under the care of the English\nPresbyterian Mission. The other Churches and Stations as in previous\nReport.]\n\nThe Board of Foreign Missions, being simply the organ of Synod, felt\nbound in their Report to eliminate, as far as possible, all the\nPresbyterian elements from the above Reports of the Mission. By so\ndoing, we think that they, _undesignedly_ of course, keep our Church in\nignorance, not only of the absolute unity of the Churches in the region\nof Amoy, but also of the real progress of the cause of Christ and of the\nChurch of our order there. Among the members set down to our churches\nare those who belong to stations under the care of the English\nPresbyterian Mission, as is shown by the Tabular Views. The Church at\nhome, not aware of this fact, gives to their Mission credit which does\nnot belong to them; and then, when, in the progress of the work, new\nchurches are organized at these stations, and these members are set off\nto them, because they belong there, the Dutch Mission is charged with\ndeficiency of denominational feeling, in giving to the English\nPresbyterians that which, \"by all rules of Christian courtesy and\nharmonious Missionary action,\" belongs to the Dutch Church. Is it well\nthat we should be disputing among ourselves concerning who shall have\nthat credit which all belongs to Christ? I know it has been asked, with\ndisapprobation, by very high authority (not, indeed, by the Board)\nconcerning the unity of the Churches at Amoy--\"_how it came to exist at\nall_.\" In answer to such questions, let us consider one case, that of\nthe Station, now Church, at E-mng-kang. It is near enough to the First\nChurch, at Amoy, to be under its supervision. Doubtless, we might have\nsaid to our Presbyterian brethren, In gathering a church, we are willing\nto labor with you in preaching the Gospel, for no one will censure us\nfor that, and we admit that, by all principles of our Church order, it\nwould be altogether proper that the converts gathered in at E-mng-kang\nshould be received and watched over by the First Church, at Amoy; but,\nby allowing this, there will be danger of unity between the Christians\nat E-mng-kang and Amoy (\"that they all may be one\"), which will be a\nviolation of the important and radical distinction existing between\nthem, because \"some are supported by our funds, some by the funds of the\nEnglish Presbyterians;\" and then, when it becomes necessary to divide\nthese Churches, for where there is such a radical distinction, \"a\ndivision will necessarily come at some period, and the longer it is\ndelayed, the more trying and sorrowful it will be,\" it will be found\nthat the Church at Amoy can never \"relinquish its powers and abnegate\nits authority\" over the Church at E-mng-kang--therefore, rather than\nincur such risks of unity, we had better violate our principles of\nChurch order at the commencement, and not allow the native Elders any\nresponsibility in receiving and watching over the Church members. We\nmight have acted on such principles, but shall we be _censured_ for not\ndoing it?\n\nLet it be distinctly understood, that I do not publish the above\nReports with such remarks with any design of throwing blame on the Board\nof Foreign Missions. The members of it, and the Missionaries, have had\nno feelings towards each other but such as are altogether pleasant.\nPerhaps the Board, in view of all the circumstances, has simply\nperformed its duty. I add this Appendix only to illustrate the unity of\nthe churches at Amoy, and show that the Missionaries have acted\naccording to the doctrines of God's Word and the fundamental principles\nof our Church order.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B.\n\n\nIn the _Christian Intelligencer_ of June 18, 1863, in the Report of the\nProceedings of General Synod of Thursday, June 11, the last day of the\nsession, appeared the following paragraphs:\n\n     \"AMOY MISSION.\n\n     \"Rev. Dr. Porter arose and said that he was about to utter what to\n     himself was the gladdest and happiest word he had been permitted to\n     speak during the Synodical sessions, delightful as they all had\n     been. He was informed by his beloved brother Talmage, that by\n     permission of Synod, he would like to express briefly his content,\n     in the main, with the action which the Synod had taken respecting\n     the Amoy Mission. It is of the Lord. He has melted all hearts\n     together as one, for his own work and honor. We see eye to eye, and\n     Zion may lift up her voice in thanksgiving.\n\n     \"Rev. J.V.N. Talmage said he wished to express his gratitude to the\n     fathers and brethren for all their kindness to himself and the\n     Missionaries at Amoy. If the Synod has not arrived at the very best\n     decision, he hoped it is the best under the circumstances. He felt\n     no desire to disobey the Synod, nor will the Missionaries at Amoy.\n     If we cannot organize a Classis at once, we will do the best we\n     can. He had been defeated, and he had no qualms of conscience in\n     submitting to the decision that had been reached.\"\n\nI was willing to allow the previous, and, as I considered, very partial,\nreport of the proceedings of Synod to pass unnoticed, but felt that I\nhad no right to allow errors, such as are contained in the above two\nparagraphs, to remain uncorrected. Therefore I addressed to the editor\nthe following note:\n\n     \"_To the Christian Intelligencer._\n\n     \"Mr. Editor:\n\n     \"In looking over the report of General Synod, as given in the last\n     number of the _Intelligencer_, I find a very grave mistake in\n     reference to the position taken by me near the close of the\n     session. A similar mistake appears in the report made to the _New\n     York Observer_.[3]\n\n     [Footnote 3: I addressed to the editors of the _Observer_ a card,\n     correcting the mistake which had appeared in their paper, and they\n     published it.]\n\n     \"When, in the order of business on Thursday morning, there seemed a\n     suitable opportunity for me to address the Synod, I was sitting\n     near Dr. Porter, and remarked to him that I wished to make such\n     address. He said that he desired to speak first. He arose and\n     addressed the Synod, in substance, as is reported. I was altogether\n     surprised, for I had given him no authority to speak for me;\n     neither had I expressed to him or any other man the sentiments he\n     attributed to me. I felt that his speech was altogether\n     unfortunate, for it seemed almost to demand of me a restatement of\n     my views. But I felt, also, that it would be improper, then, to\n     occupy the time of Synod with any further discussion, and contented\n     myself with merely taking exception to Dr. Porter's statement,\n     saying that I could not use the language he had just used.\n\n     \"I also stated that although the Synod had not arrived at the best\n     decision, yet _perhaps_ it was the best under all the\n     circumstances. As these circumstances seem to be entirely\n     misunderstood by some, I may now explain them. I had remarked in\n     the previous debate, and still firmly believe, that the decision of\n     Synod, if it be fully carried out, would only be disastrous in its\n     results, as far as the churches at Amoy were concerned. But there\n     was another disaster to be apprehended. If the Synod had allowed\n     the work of God to proceed at\n     Amoy, as it had always been carried forward, and with such\n     marvelous blessings from on high, for so many years past, it was\n     feared that some of the members of Synod would use their influence\n     in the Church against that Mission, to such an extent as possibly\n     to cut off the resources of the mission. Such were the\n     circumstances to which I alluded, and I was well understood, at\n     least by some of the members of Synod. It seemed necessary to\n     choose between two evils. My own opinion was, and is, that the\n     Synod had chosen the greater evil, still I was willing to yield\n     'the benefit of the doubt,' and therefore remarked that _perhaps_\n     (I used the word 'perhaps') the decision was the best under the\n     circumstances.\n\n     \"I did express for myself, and as I believed, in accordance with\n     the views of the Missionaries at Amoy, that we did not wish, and\n     never had wished to disobey the injunctions of Synod. Besides this,\n     we were under obligations to do what was best for the churches\n     under our care. If we were not allowed to do that which is\n     absolutely best, we should do the best we could.\n\n     \"I also expressed my gratitude that the Synod had manifested so\n     much patience and Christian courtesy towards myself and the\n     Mission, for with one or two exceptions, not an unkind word had\n     been uttered.\n\n     \"The closing sentence of my remarks being somewhat playful, might\n     have been omitted from the report, but if thought worthy of\n     publication, it should have been given correctly. I know that I can\n     give it now with accuracy, almost _verbatim_. 'I have fought hard,\n     and have been beaten; I could wish I had been able to fight better,\n     but I did my best, and consequently have no qualms of conscience on\n     the subject.' Does that mean that we had no qualms of conscience\n     about 'submitting to the decision that had been reached?' No. It\n     means that I was not responsible for the evils of that decision.\n\n     \"It will, I think, serve the cause of truth, Mr. Editor, if you\n     will be so kind as to publish this card in your next issue. If I\n     was so unfortunate in the use of language as not to express\n     sentiments similar to the above, I desire now to express them.\n\n     \"Allow me also to ask whether you will open the columns of your\n     paper for a full statement of the views of the Amoy Mission on the\n     subject of the ecclesiastical relations of the churches under their\n     care? I find that there is still altogether a mistaken impression\n     among our churches on this subject. Our people who sustain the\n     Mission have a right to know the condition of that Mission. From\n     the report in the last Intelligencer, they will get no light on\n     that subject, but will get the impression that some great mistake\n     has been committed by the Missionaries at Amoy. _Allowing_ this to\n     be the case, the Missionaries have a right to be heard before the\n     churches. Let the churches understand the matter, and decide\n     concerning the mistake. The Missionaries have been desirous for\n     years to get their views made public, but have not yet succeeded.\n\n\"Very truly, yours, &c,\n\"J.V.N. TALMAGE.\"\nJune 19, 1863.\n\nInstead of finding my note inserted in the next number of the\n_Intelligencer_ I found the following:\n\n     \"REV. MR. TALMAGE'S LETTER.\n\n     \"We have received from the Rev. J.V.N. Talmage, a communication\n     respecting our report of his remarks at the close of the session of\n     the General Synod, accompanied with a request that he be permitted\n     to appeal through these columns to the Churches in support of his\n     position. The communication is long, and perhaps we can give the\n     substance of it briefly.\n\n     \"1st. He wishes to correct the statement of Rev. Dr. Porter. And\n     this he shall do in his own words, viz.:\n\n     \"'I felt that his speech was altogether unfortunate, for it seemed\n     almost to demand of me the restatement of my views. But I felt,\n     also, that it would be improper then to occupy the time of Synod\n     with any further discussion, and contented myself with merely\n     taking exception to Dr. Porter's statements, saying that I could\n     not use the language he had just used. I also stated that, although\n     the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet perhaps it was\n     the best, under all the circumstances.'\n\n     \"So far Mr. Talmage, in disclaiming agreement with the statement\n     made by Dr. Porter.\n\n     \"We can, on this point, only express regret that there should have\n     been either seeming or real difference. But as Brother Talmage\n     confesses that our report correctly represents him as having said,\n     that\n\n     \"'Although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet\n     perhaps it was the best, under all the circumstances,'\n\n     \"We therefore suppose that the report of verbal differences--if the\n     spirit of the remarks be anything--between him and the gentleman to\n     whom he refers, cannot be accounted as very serious.\n\n     \"2d. As it respects the opening of these columns to a fresh\n     discussion of the matter relating to the Amoy Churches before\n     Synod, we have simply to say that we dare not give consent, for the\n     following reasons: The Synod is the legislative body for the\n     Church. The documents and statements respecting the Amoy Churches\n     were full and thorough in the information imparted. Four sessions\n     and more of the Synod were occupied with a careful preparatory\n     hearing and final adjudication of the matter, and it is not the\n     duty of the _Christian Intelligencer_ to allow itself to be used as\n     the agent of dissension among the Churches, and of opposition to\n     the constituted authority of the Synod.\"\n\nWhether my views were _misrepresented_, and whether I was charged with\nseeking a different object from that for which I had asked--I had not\nasked that the columns of the paper be opened for a fresh \"_discussion_\nof the matter\" which had been \"_before Synod_,\" but \"for a _full\nstatement_ of the views of the Amoy Mission,\" because of \"_mistaken\nimpressions_\" in \"_our Churches_\"--the Church will be able to decide as\naccurately as myself. But I wish to say this much. Your Missionaries do\nnot consider that by becoming Missionaries they lose their rights as\n_men_, and _Ministers of the Dutch Church_. They have the right to\nexpect that, when away from home, their reputation will be protected.\nWhen mistaken statements concerning their views get abroad in the\nChurch, there should be, and we believe there is, a responsible party\nwhose duty it is to correct such statements. At any rate, a paper which\nprofesses to be the organ of the Dutch Church, has no right to refuse to\nthe Missionaries themselves the privilege of correcting mistaken\nstatements of _their own views_ and _their own language_, that appear in\nits columns. The Editor doubtless is responsible for what appears in his\npaper. He may refuse to publish improper articles, but he may not garble\nand misrepresent them without incurring reproof. The expense of\npublishing in pamphlet form corrections of mistakes which appear in the\ncolumns of a newspaper, is too heavy a tax to impose on any of the\nMinistry of the Church, especially on your Missionaries; and, even then,\nthe corrections can be read by only a small portion of those who read\nthe misstatements.","title":"History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial Order at Amoy, China","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":24912}