HISTORY

AND

ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS

OF THE

CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER, AT

AMOY, CHINA. 

BY

REV. J. V. N. TALMAGE, MISSIONARY OF THE PROT. REF. DUTCH CHURCH. 

New York:WYNKOOP, HALLENBECK & THOMAS, PRINTERS, 113 FULTON ST. 1863. 

PREFACE. 

_To the Ministers, Elders, and Members of the Reformed DutchChurch_:

It is proper that I give some reasons for the publicationof this paper. The importance of the subject of the ecclesiasticalorganization of the churches gathered in heathen lands, I conceive tobe a sufficient reason. Those who may differ in regard to the viewsset forth in this paper, will not dispute the importance of the subject. Instead of the questions involved having been settled by any of thePresbyterian Denominations of this country (the Dutch Churchincluded among them), by experiments in India or any otherheathen land, very few of the churches gathered from theheathen, by these various Denominations, have yet arrived ata stage of development sufficient for practical application ofthe experiment. (See foot-note, page 160. ) There are, however, a few mission churches, where the subject is now becomingone of vast practical importance. The Church at Amoy stands outprominent among these. With the continuance of the divine blessingthere will soon be many such. Hence the importance of the discussion, and its importance _now_. 

Many experiments have been made in reference to thebest way of conducting the work of missions. The Churchhas improved by them, and has been compelled to _unlearn_many things. We are continually returning towards the simple plan laiddown in God's Word. As the Church by experiment and by discussion hasthus been led to retrace some of her steps in the preliminary work ofmissions, should she not be ready to take advantage of experiment anddiscussion, in reference to the ecclesiastical organization of the missionchurches, and stand ready to retrace some of her steps in this second stageof the work of missions, if need be, in order to conform more fully tothe doctrines of our Presbyterial church polity? I would use thephrase _Scriptural church polity_, but I suppose it is theuniversal belief of our Church, that Presbyterial polity is scriptural. At any rate, it is the duty of the Church to examine the subjectcarefully. She has nothing to fear from such examination. She should fear to neglect it. 

In addition to the importance of the subject in itselfconsidered, I have other reasons for discussing it at thepresent time. There are mistaken impressions abroad in theChurch, concerning the views and course of your missionariesat Amoy, which must be injurious to the cause of missionsin our Church. It would seem to be a plain duty to correctthese impressions. I will quote an extract from a letter, Irecently received, from an honored missionary of a sisterChurch:

"I have heard much, and seen some notices in the papersof the battle you fought on the floor of Synod, and wouldlike to hear your side of the subject from your own mouth, as the question has also been a practical one with us. * ** * * We have our own Presbytery, and manage our own business, and insist on not having too much of what they call the new scienceof Missionary management; a science which, I believe, has beencultivated far too assiduously. It was this, more than anything else, which kept me from going out under the A. B. C. F. M. , and to Amoy. * * * * * I hear, however, from some, that what you and the brethrenthere had formed, was some sort of loose Congregational association. If so, I must judge against you, for I believe in the _jure divino_of Presbytery (or Classis if you choose so to call it), and I think you andthey should have been allowed to form a Presbytery there, and manage all your own affairs, and that your Boards athome should be content to consider themselves a committeeto raise and send on the funds. But it is hard for the D. D's and big folk at home to come to that. They think they must manageeverything, or all will go wrong; while how little it is that they canbe brought to know or realize of the real nature of the work abroad; andthen it is the old battle of patronage over again. Those who give themoney must _govern_, and those who receive it must give uptheir liberty, and be no longer Christ's freemen. "

This is only a specimen, one of many, of the mistakenimpressions abroad in the Church concerning the views anddoings of your Missionaries. May we not, _must_ we not, correctthem? The letter also illustrates the evils resulting from allowingmistaken impressions to remain in the Church uncorrected. There has longbeen an impression in our Church that the A. B. C. F. M. Interfered with theecclesiastical affairs of our missions. We have been informed that severalof our young men, before our Church separated from that Board, weredeterred thereby from devoting themselves to the foreign Missionary work. The writer of the above letter, probably having more of the Missionaryspirit, was not willing, on that account, to give up the work, but wasled to offer himself to the Board of a sister Church. TheMission at Amoy, and our Church, have thus been deprivedof the benefit of his labors by means of an erroneous impression. When we learned the fact of such an impression existing in this country, we endeavored to correct it. In our letter of 1856, to General Synod, wecalled particular attention to the subject. Here is a part of one sentence:"It seems to us a duty, and we take this opportunity to beartestimony, that neither Dr. Anderson, nor the PrudentialCommittee have ever, in any communication which we have received from them, in any way, either by dictation, or by the expression of opinions, interfered in the least with our ecclesiastical relations. " We failed toget that letter published, and I find the erroneous impression stillprevalent, working its mischief in the churches. 

But to return to the subject of the mistaken impressionsconcerning the views of your Missionaries at Amoy. These impressions wouldhave been partly corrected in the Church, if the report of the proceedingsof Synod, in "The Christian Intelligencer, " had been more correct on thissubject. That paper states, that, on Friday evening, "Rev. Mr. Talmage then took the floor, and addressed the Synod fornearly two hours, " but does not give a single word or ideauttered by him. It is careful to report the only _unkind words_against the Missionaries uttered during that whole discussion, which, with this single exception, was conducted in a spiritof the utmost Christian kindness; but does not give a wordof the remarks made on the Friday evening previous, on thatvery subject, in justification of their course. 

It seems to be a duty, though painful, to speak particularlyon this subject. Look at the following language: "I know that we are toldthat the _hybrid organization_ [i. E. The Classis, _a court of theChurch of Christ_, at Amoy] which now exists is every way sufficient andsatisfactory; that it is the fruit of Christian love, and that to disturbit would be rending the body of Christ. Here one might ask, how it cameto exist at all, seeing that this Synod spoke so plainly, andunambiguously, in 1857; and _I, for one, cordially concur inthe remark of the elder, Schieffelin, that the brethren there 'deservecensure_. ' We do not censure them, nor do we propose to do so; _but thatthey deserve it is undeniable_. But the point is, how can our disapprovalof _the mongrel Classis_ mar the peace of the Amoy brethren?" Thislanguage was used by the President of Synod, after asking whether the Synodwas ready for the question, "the question being about to beput, " when an attempt to answer it seemed altogether outof place. In all the circumstances it seemed almost like thecharge of a judge to a jury. I do not say that there is anyimproper spirit manifested, or opprobrious expressions employedin this language, or that the President did wrong in waiting until thediscussion was over before he uttered it, or that the missionaries are notdeserving of such severe censure--of all these things let the Churchjudge--but I do say that the spreading of such language and such chargesbroadcast, before the Church and before the world, demands thatthe missionaries be heard in self-defense, or, which is all theyask, that they be allowed to state the facts and views whichguided them in their action. 

Doubtless it was an oversight that such a one-sided report onthis subject appeared in The Christian Intelligencer. At leastit was not at all designed that injustice be done to the Missionaries, but, unless they be allowed to speak for themselves, is not injustice donethem? It seemed to me that a very mistaken impression concerning the viewsexpressed by me, near the close of the session of Synod, was also conveyedby the Report. This I attempted to correct by a note to theeditor, but even the right of correcting my own sentimentsand language was refused, my note garbled, and, as I thought, my views again misrepresented. More than this, the _implied_charge is published to the world that I am seeking to excite"dissension among the churches, " and "opposition to theconstituted authority of Synod. "[1] It would therefore begreat dereliction of duty to return to my field of labor, allowingmy own views, and the views of my co-laborers, to be thus mistaken in theChurch, and such serious charges against our course unanswered. I am notaware that any censorship of the press has been authorized by GeneralSynod. Surely if others are allowed to be heard for us we should be allowedthe right to be heard for ourselves. We were unable by writing from Amoy toget our views before the Church. I must, therefore, while in this land, endeavor to make them known. 

[Footnote 1: If this language seem too strong or uncalled for, see AppendixB, at the end. ]

I have been advised by some to delay the publication ofthis paper a few months, until we learn the effect of the decisionof the last Synod on the Mission at Amoy, and see what course the Churchthere may feel compelled to adopt. I do not see the force of such advice. Whatever may be the course of the Church there, the intrinsic merits ofthe question will be unchanged thereby. Besides this, I cannot affordsuch delay. I have been looking forward to as speedy returnas possible to that field of labor. Would it be right toleave the whole subject to the eve of my departure, and thusshut myself off from the possibility of defending or furtherexplaining my views, if such defense or explanation be calledfor?

I have been asked, Why not bring this subject before theChurch through the columns of the _Christian Intelligencer_?This question, after what has been said above, need not nowbe answered. Doubtless the editor is responsible for whatappears in his columns. The only resource left the Missionseems to be the one I have chosen. 

I regret the necessity of discussing the subject, since theaction of the last Synod, but we could not discuss it previouslywithout running counter to the same advice which would now restrain us. I do not at all suppose, however, that by the course I am taking I shallbecome guilty of disobedience "to the authority of Synod. " Neither shouldit be the occasion of creating "dissensions in the churches. "The discussion of any important subject in a proper spirit isneither opposed to the doctrines of the Sacred Scriptures, norto the doctrines of the Dutch Church, and I am willing toleave it to those who may read the following pages to decidewhether there be in them any manifestation of an improperspirit. We, and those who differ from us, are all seeking thesame end, i. E. The glory of God through the advancement ofhis cause. All that I ask for myself and co-laborers is an_impartial hearing_. 

Perhaps, in order to guard against any mistaken impression, I ought to add that the relations between the Missionariesand the Board of Foreign Missions of our Church, have always been of themost pleasant character. Whatever have been their differences of opinionon this most important subject, or on any other subject, they have notcaused, so far as I am aware, the least interruption of that warm Christianfriendship which has always existed, or been the occasion ofone unkind utterance in all their mutual correspondence. Why not so? Cannot Christians reason with each other, evenon subjects of the highest moment, in such a spirit as notonly to avoid animosities, but even to increase personal friendship?If this paper should prove the occasion of discussion inour Church, let me express the hope that such discussion willbe carried on in such a spirit. 

J. V. N. TALMAGE. 

Bound Brook, N. J. , October, 1863. 

HISTORY

AND

ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS

OF

THE CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER, AT

AMOY, CHINA. 

The first Protestant Missionaries at Amoy arrived there in the year1842. They were Dr. Abeel of the American Reformed Dutch Church, andBishop Boone of the American Episcopal Church. After these there arrivedMissionaries of the London Missionary Society, of the AmericanPresbyterian Church, of the English Presbyterian Church, and others ofthe American Reformed Dutch Church. 

Bishop Boone soon left Amoy, and no others of his Church have since thenbeen stationed there. The American Presbyterian Mission was removed toother parts of China. At the present time there are three Missions atAmoy, viz. : the Missions of the American Reformed Dutch Church, of theLondon Missionary Society, and of the English Presbyterian Church. 

The Missionaries of the London Missionary Society are Independents orCongregationalists, and have organized their churches after theCongregational order. Thus their churches form a distinct Denomination, and nothing further need be said of them in this paper. 

The first Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church at Amoy was Dr. Jas. Young. He arrived in May, 1850. At that time there were twoMissionaries connected with our (R. D. C. ) Mission, viz. : Rev. E. Doty, onthe ground, and Rev. J. V. N. Talmage, absent on a visit to the UnitedStates. There were then under our care six native church members. Fiveof them had been baptized by our Missionaries at Amoy. The other hadbeen baptized in Siam, by a Congregationalist or Presbyterian Ministerof the A. B. C. F. M. 

Dr. Young, being a physician, and not an ordained Minister, instead ofcommencing an independent work, inasmuch as our doctrines and order ofchurch government did not essentially differ from those of his ownChurch, very naturally became more especially associated with us in ourwork. A school under the care of our Mission, of which Mr. Doty did notfeel able to continue the charge, was passed over to his care. He alsorendered medical assistance to the Missionaries, and to the Chinese, both in Amoy, and by occasional tours in the country. In his labors hewas usually assisted by native Christians under our care. 

The first ordained Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church, atAmoy, was Rev. William C. Burns. He joined Dr. Young in July, 1851. While he rendered considerable assistance to the brethren of the LondonMissionary Society, being ready to preach the gospel at everyopportunity, providentially he became especially associated with us, andwith the native Christians under our care. A remarkable outpouring ofthe Spirit of God had accompanied the labors of Rev. Mr. Burns, in hisnative land. So the remarkable outpouring of that same Spirit in Amoy, and vicinity, occurred sometime after his arrival, and much of this goodwork was manifestly connected with his labors. The permanent work in thecountry around Amoy commenced through his instrumentality, in connectionwith native members of the church under our care. We desired him totake the charge of that work, and gather a church at Peh-chui-ia, underthe care of the English Presbyterian Church. But, at his urgent request, we took the pastoral oversight of the work in that region, administeringthe sacraments to the native converts. 

Rev. James Johnstone, of the same Mission, arrived in December, 1853. Heundertook the care of the church being gathered at Peh-chui-ia, assuming, in behalf of the English Presbyterian Church, all the expensesthereof, we continuing the pastoral oversight until such time as hisknowledge of the language should be sufficient to enable him to relieveus. 

In consequence of the ill-health of Dr. Young, he and Mr. Burns leftAmoy, in August, 1854. Mr. Johnstone, in consequence of ill-health, leftin May, 1855, before he was able to relieve us fully from the pastoralcare of the church at Peh-chui-ia. 

Rev. Carstairs Douglas, of the same Mission, arrived at Amoy in July, 1855, and immediately entered on the work of Mr. Johnstone, wecontinuing the pastoral oversight of the church at Peh-chui-ia, untilhis knowledge of the language enabled him to assume it. 

Before the brethren of the English Presbyterian Church were able toassume pastoral responsibility, the work spread from Peh-chui-ia toChioh-be. It was thought best that we take the charge of that station. 

After the departure of Dr. Young, all the Missionaries of the EnglishPresbyterian Church, for several years, were unmarried men. Therefore, they resolved to devote themselves more especially to work in thecountry, leaving to our especial care the church in the city of Amoy, and the one out-station at Chioh-be. Amoy was still necessarily theirplace of residence. All their work at Amoy was in connection with thechurch under our care. In the country we assisted them as we hadopportunity, and as occasion demanded. They did the same for us. Infact, we and they have worked together as one Church, and almost as oneMission, with the exception of keeping pecuniary matters distinct. 

More recently the English Presbyterian Mission was reinforced by onemember with a family, and it seemed a proper time for them to commencemore direct work at Amoy. A very populous suburb (E-mng-kang) wasselected as a suitable and promising station. They assumed the immediatecare, and all the expense of it, employing, as at all the otherstations, indiscriminately, members of their own or of our churches ashelpers. 

We are not afraid that our Church will ever blame us for working thusharmoniously, and unitedly, with our English Presbyterian brethren, andwe feel confident that none of her Missionaries would consent to work onany other principles. If there be any who, under similar circumstances, would refuse thus to work, this would be sufficient evidence that theyhad mistaken their calling. If any blame is to be attached to the coursethe Missionaries have pursued, it is not that they have worked thus inharmony and unison with the English Presbyterian brethren, but that theyhave failed to keep the churches under their care ecclesiasticallydistinct. Some do feel inclined to censure us for this. It must be, however, because of some great misapprehension on their part. The Synodhas distinctly uttered a contrary sentiment, i. E. That the course of theMissionaries is not censurable. We do not believe that our Church, whenshe understands the true state of the case, will ever censure us on thisaccount. It would not be according to the spirit of her Master. Heprayed that His people might be one, but he never prayed for theirseparation from each other. When separation is necessary, it is anecessary _evil_. But more of this hereafter. Our Church might well havecensured us, if we had adopted lower principles as her representativesin building up the Church of Christ in China. 

The first organization of a church at Amoy under our care, by theordination of a Consistory, took place in 1856. The Missionaries of ourBoard then on the ground were Doty and Talmage. Mr. Douglas was the onlyMissionary of the English Presbyterian Church. (Mr. Joralmon, of ourChurch, arrived between the time of the election and the ordination ofoffice-bearers. ) When the time came for the organization of the Church, we felt a solemn responsibility resting on us. We supposed it to be ourduty to organize the Church in China with reference simply to its ownwelfare, and efficiency in the work of evangelizing the heathen around. Believing (after due deliberation) that the order of our own Church inAmerica would best secure this end, of course we adopted it. We did notsuppose that we were sent out to build up the _American_ Dutch Church inChina, but a Church after the same order, a purely Chinese Church. Howmuch the growth and efficiency of our Church in this country has beenpromoted by retaining (rather inserting) the term "_Dutch_" in her name, I will not now attempt to discuss. I suppose the principal argument infavor thereof is found in the fact that our Church, in the firstinstance, was a colony from Holland. The Church in China is not a colonyfrom Holland, or America. We must not, therefore, entail on her thedouble evil of both the terms "_American_" and "_Dutch_" or the singleevil of either of these terms. Your Missionaries will never consent tobe instrumental in causing such an evil. 

We had already adopted the order and customs of our Church at home, sofar as they could be adopted in an unorganized Church. The EnglishPresbyterian brethren had adopted the same. They found that there wereno differences of any importance between us and them; the churches beinggathered under our care and under theirs--growing out of each other andbeing essentially one--neither we nor they could see any sufficientreason for organizing two distinct denominations. Especially had _we_ noreason for such a course, inasmuch as they were willing even to conformto our peculiarities. We most cordially invited Mr. Douglas to unitewith us in the organization of the Church, and he as cordially acceptedof the invitation. 

In reference to this subject Mr. Douglas wrote to their CorrespondingSecretary as follows: "I need hardly say that this transaction does notconsist in members of one church joining another, nor in two churchesuniting, but it is an attempt to build up on the soil of China, with thelively stones prepared by the great Master-builder, an ecclesiasticalbody holding the grand doctrines enunciated at Westminster and Dort, andthe principles of Presbyterian polity embraced at the Reformation by thepurest churches on the continent and in Britain; it will also be abeautiful point in the history of this infant Church that theunder-builders employed in shaping and arranging the stones, weremessengers of two different (though not differing, ) churches in the twogreat nations on either side of the Atlantic. "

The course of Mr. Douglas met with the decided approval of theirSecretary, and, as he had reason then to believe, and has since fullylearned, with the approval of their Church. 

We also sent a communication to our Church, addressing it to GeneralSynod. We directed it to the care of one of our prominent ministers, fora long time Secretary of the Board, with the request that it be laidbefore the Church, using language as follows: "You will, doubtless, receive this paper some months before the time for the next meeting ofthat Body [General Synod]. We would suggest therefore, that the paper bepublished, that the members of the next General Synod may have thematter before them, and be the better prepared to make such dispositionof it as the subject may demand. We feel that the subject is one of verygrave importance, " &c. 

Our communication was laid before the Board of Foreign Missions. Theydesignated it a _Memorial_, and decided that they had no right topublish it. Of course we had no means of publishing it ourselves. It waslaid before Synod among other papers of the Board. The action of Synodon the subject was as follows (Minutes of Synod, 1857, pp. 225-227):

"Among the papers submitted to the Synod is an elaborate document fromthe brethren at Amoy, giving the history of their work there, of itsgradual progress, of their intimate connection with Missionaries fromother bodies, of the formation of the Church now existing there, andexpressing their views as to the propriety and feasibility of forming aClassis at that station. In reply to so much of this paper as respectsthe establishment of individual churches, we must say that while weappreciate the peculiar circumstances of our brethren, and sympathizewith their perplexities, yet it has always been considered a matter ofcourse that ministers, receiving their commission through our Church, and sent forth under the auspices of our Board, would, when they formedconverts from the heathen into an ecclesiastical body, mould theorganization into a form approaching as nearly as possible that of theReformed Dutch Churches in our own land. Seeing that the convertedheathen, when associated together, must have some form of government, and seeing that our form is, in our view, entirely consistent with, ifnot required by, the Scriptures, we expect it will in all cases beadopted by our Missionaries, subject, of course, to such modificationsas the peculiar circumstances may for the time render necessary. Theconverts at Amoy, as at Arcot and elsewhere, are to be regarded as 'anintegral part' of our Church, and as such are entitled to all the rightsand privileges which we possess. 

"And so in regard to the formation of a Classis. The Church at home willundoubtedly expect the brethren to associate themselves into a regularecclesiastical organization, just as soon as enough materials areobtained to warrant such measure with the hope that it will bepermanent. We do not desire churches to be prematurely formed in orderto get materials for a Classis, nor any other exercise of violent haste. But we equally deprecate unnecessary delay, believing that a regularorganization will be alike useful to our brethren themselves, and tothose who, under them, are training for the first office-bearers in theChristian Church on heathen ground. As to the difficulties suggested inthe memorial, respecting the different Particular Synods to which thebrethren belong, and the delays of carrying out a system of appellatejurisdiction covering America and China, it is enough to say:--(1) Thatthe Presbyterian Church (O. S. ) finds no insuperable difficulties incarrying into operation her system which comprehends Presbyteries andSynods in India as well as here; and (2) That whatever hindrances may atany time arise, this body will, in humble reliance upon the divine aidand blessing, undertake to meet and remove them as far as possible. TheChurch at home assumes the entire responsibility of this matter, andonly asks the brethren abroad to carry out the policy, held steadily inview from the first moment when our Missions began. 

"The following resolutions are recommended:

"_Resolved_, 1. That the Synod view with great pleasure the formation ofchurches among the converts from heathenism, organized according to theestablished usages of our branch of Zion. 

"2. That the brethren at Amoy be directed to apply to the ParticularSynod of Albany to organize them into a Classis so soon as they shallhave formed churches enough to render the permanency of such anorganization reasonably certain. "

It should be noticed that, in the foregoing Report, which was adopted bySynod, the most important question--the vital question--of ourcommunication, i. E. The _unity_ of the churches under the care of theEnglish Presbyterian Missionaries and of us, is entirely ignored; andconsequently, without the fact being stated, we were directed to dividethose churches, and form a part of them into a distinct Denomination. 

If the English Presbyterian Church had disapproved of the course oftheir Missionaries in uniting with us in organizing the native churcheswith our peculiarities, we think even that would have been strange. Itwould have appeared to us as though they were sacrificing some of theessentials of Presbyterianism for the sake of non-essentials, for, inour organization, they found all that they hold essential in doctrine, order, and customs. Suppose the position of the two Missions had beenreversed, they had been first on the ground, and when we arrived wefound the Church being planted and beginning to grow up after theirorder. If we had found in the Church thus growing up _all_ that we holdessential and important, even though it had some little peculiaritieswhich were theirs and not ours, ought not our Church to have permittedus to work with them, as they have been permitted to work with us? Ifsuch be not the true Christian spirit, than we frankly confess that weknow not, and despair of ever learning from the Word of God, what theChristian spirit is on such a subject. But whether such disapproval onthe part of the English Presbyterian Church would have been strange ornot, it would not have been so strange as was the decision of ourChurch, that the churches organized by the English Presbyterian brethrenand by us--all one in fact, growing out of each other, and all adoptingour order, should not be organically one. Hence, when we learned fromour Board the decision of Synod, we felt (correctly or incorrectly) thatthere must be some misapprehension. Surely our Church cannot havecorrect views of our position, and our course of proceeding. Hence, wereturned answer to the Board as follows:--(Letter dated December 23, 1857. )

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

"It seems proper to us also, on the present occasion, to allude to asubject deeply affecting the interests of the little Church which Godhas graciously gathered by our instrumentality from among this people. This Church is now small, but we trust that, with a continuance of theDivine blessing, the 'little one' will soon 'become a thousand, ' and the'small one a strong nation. ' 'The Lord will hasten it in his time. ' Welove this Church, and cannot but watch over her interests with jealouscare. Besides this, the Great Shepherd has made us under-shepherds, andcommanded us to watch over the interests of this flock. We gave a briefhistory of our work, and an account of the present condition andpeculiar circumstances of the churches here under our care, and statedat considerable length our views in reference to the futureecclesiastical relations of these churches, in a paper prepared for theinformation of our Church at home, and addressed to General Synod. Thefacts thus communicated ought to be known by the Church. It seems to usvery unfortunate that that paper was not published according to oursuggestion. It stated facts of grave importance. If we could have had arepresentative in General Synod, the previous publication of our papermight have been unnecessary. But, without such a representative, it washardly possible that the subject, by a single reading of so long adocument, could be brought before the minds of all the members of Synodwith sufficient clearness. .. . Therefore it is not strange that some ofthe important points in the paper should have been entirely overlooked, and also that certain grave misconceptions should have got abroad in theChurch concerning the views expressed by us. 

"So far as we can judge from the report of the proceedings of Synod, asgiven in The Christian Intelligencer, one of the most importantconsiderations--perhaps altogether the most important mentioned--why theChurch, gathered by us here, should not be an _integral part_ of theChurch in America, was entirely overlooked. That consideration relatesto the _unity of Christ's Church_. Our Saviour prays: 'Holy Father, keepthrough thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may beone as we are one. ' 'That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believethat thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have giventhem, that they may be one, even as we are one. ' Will our Church require ofus, will she _desire_ that those here who are altogether _one_--one indoctrine, one in their views of Church order, and one in mutual love--beviolently separated into two Denominations? We cannot believe it. Suppose the case of two Churches originally distinct. By coming intoclose contact, and becoming better acquainted with each other, they findthat they hold to the same doctrinal standards, and they explain them inthe same manner; they have the same form of Church government, and theirofficers are chosen, and set apart in the same way; they have the sameorder of worship, and of administering the sacraments; all theircustoms, civil, social, and religious, are precisely alike, and theylove each other dearly; should not such churches unite and form but oneDenomination? Yet, such a supposition does not, and cannot, even afteryou allow all the likeness and unity between the two churches it ispossible to conceive of, represent the circumstances of the churchesgathered by us, and by our Scotch brethren of the English PresbyterianChurch. Our [theirs and ours] Churches originally were one, and stillare one; and the question is not whether those churches shall be united, but, shall they be separated? Possibly (not probably) the question willbe asked, why were these churches allowed originally to become one? Weanswer, _God made them so_, and that without any plan or forethought onour part, and now we thank him for his blessing that he has made themone, and that he has blessed them because they are one. 

"That misconceptions have got abroad in our Church concerning ourviews, we have abundant evidence from various private letters. They werewritten with the most kindly feelings towards us, but evidently underthe impression that we find difficulty in organizing our churchesaccording to the order of the Dutch Church. We have never found anydifficulty of this kind. It is true that when we were called to thesolemn duty of _commencing_ a church organization in an empirecontaining one-third of the inhabitants of the globe, we gave thesubject of church polity a more careful investigation than we had everbefore given it. The result of this investigation was a cordial (and, aswe think, intelligent) approval of the order and forms of our ownChurch. We have commenced our organization according to the order of theDutch Church, and we expect to proceed, as fast as the providence andgrace of God lead the way, after the same order; and we use the forms ofour own Church. Our Presbyterian brethren unite with us in these things. 

"But it is not strange that such misconceptions should be spread in theChurch. They are the necessary result of publishing certain remarks madein Synod concerning our paper, without publishing the paper itself. 

"In the Report of the Synod, Synod's Board, Board of Foreign Missions, it is said: 'It would have been well if the memorial had been placed, ina printed form, in the hands of the ministry. This they [theMissionaries] suggested, but the Board felt it was purely a Synodicalmatter--that they could not act in the case. ' With all due respect, andwith the kindest feelings, we desire to make three remarks on thissubject. _First. _ We do not understand the principle on which the Boardfelt called upon to decide whether our letter should be published ornot. It was not addressed to the Board, nor sent to the care of theBoard. The opinion of members of the Board as _individuals_ might havebeen asked, but we suppose that the Board in their official capacityhad nothing to do with the paper. _Secondly. _ Inasmuch as the paperemanated from us, if 'it would have been well' to have had it published, our suggestion was a sufficient warrant for its publication. Theresponsibility would have been ours. It had not yet become a Synodicalmatter. Afterwards it would have been a legitimate question for theSynod to decide whether they would entertain a paper coming before themin such a manner. This question might well have been left to GeneralSynod. _Thirdly. _ A short time previous to the writing of that paper, unless our memory is greatly at fault, a communication was received fromthe Arcot Mission (or Classis of Arcot), addressed to General Synod, which was thus published, according to the request of the Arcotbrethren, and without the authority of Synod. 

"Our position is a somewhat painful one. We desire to give offense to noone, and we do not wish to appear before the Church as disputants. Wehave no controversy with any. We have neither the time nor inclinationfor controversy. We are 'doing a great work' and cannot 'come down. 'Yet, our duty to these Churches here, and to the Church at home, and toour Master, demands of us imperatively, that we state fully and franklyour views. We have the utmost confidence in our Church. We have provedthis by endeavoring to get our views fully known. And we feel gratefulfor the spirit of kindness towards us manifested in the action of Synod, and also in the letters received from fathers and brethren in theministry, notwithstanding their misconception of our views. But, we havealso learned, how easily our views may be mistaken. In our paper, addressed to General Synod, when discussing the difficulties in the wayof the Synod's jurisdiction over churches so far removed in time, distance, and circumstances, we remarked:--'Will written correspondencesupply the place of representation? It would place our Classis undergreat disadvantages. There must usually be a delay of one or two yearson every subject on which there is need of a decision by either Synod. If anything is not understood, or is misunderstood, in ourcommunications, there will be no one to explain for us. Difficulties ofthis kind, from want of knowledge of the civil and social circumstancesof this people may frequently occur. Could we have representatives fromamong us, they could usually be easily explained; but without thisrepresentation, they can only be explained by a long correspondence, which may cause years of delay. ' The whole of this misunderstanding, which has arisen out of our first communication, and the length of timeand the amount of correspondence which may yet be necessary, before wecan see 'eye to eye, ' give a striking illustration of the force of theseremarks. "

So far as the preamble and resolutions of the Synod of 1857 embody thedoctrines, and what we supposed to be the policy of our Church, weheartily agreed with them. Of course we were pained to see that theyimplied, that, in organizing a Church at Amoy, we had not proceededaccording to the order of our Church, or had found great difficulty indoing so. This was altogether a mistake, and was already producing evilresults. We think there is another mistake in the preamble. It seemssmall, but because of this fact, and of its plausibility, it has donemore, perhaps, than anything else in leading our Church into the falseposition which she seems now to occupy. Therefore, we should examine itwith some care. It is the assumption, as a matter of course, that, "theconverts at Amoy" are "an _integral part_ of our Church, " in thiscountry. What made them so? Is it because they were converted throughthe instrumentality of the preaching of our Missionaries? This is a newdoctrine, that a convert as a matter of course belongs to the Church ofthe preacher through whose instrumentality he has been led unto Christ. Perhaps it was the doctrine of some of the Corinthians, when they said, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, " &c. , but it was not the doctrine ofthe Apostle who reproved them. Besides this, how shall we know which ofthem were converted through our instrumentality? The EnglishPresbyterian brethren and ourselves have preached indiscriminately. Isit because they were baptized by our Missionaries? But many of them werebaptized by the English Presbyterian brethren. They have baptized in ourchurches, and we in theirs. If they be an _integral part_ of the DutchChurch in America, they are also an integral part of the PresbyterianChurch in England. We, it is true, baptized a majority, say two-thirds. Are they, then, two-thirds of an integral part in America, and one-thirdof an integral part in England? No. The whole is a fallacy. Eachindividual Church there is an integral part of the whole of them. Alltogether, they form an _integer_. They might by the act of our Church, and _a correlative act on their own part_, become an integral part ofthe Church in America? In a similar way they might become an integralpart of the Church in England. They are now an _integer_ of themselves. To make one portion of them an integral part of the Church in thiscountry, and another portion an integral part of the Church in England, is to be guilty of causing _a violent rupture_. 

We felt that the consequences were so momentous, that, before we shouldallow ourselves to be instrumental in thus (as we supposed) rending the"Body of Christ" at Amoy, we should make another effort to get the factsbefore the Church. As yet, we could not, if we would, carry out theresolution of Synod, and organize a Classis in connection with theParticular Synod of Albany, for, it was not till several years after, only very recently, that we had materials "enough to render thepermanency of such an organization reasonably certain. " Therefore wewrote, as above, under date of December 23, 1857, and frequently wroteon the subject, as occasion offered. 

Although our views were not made public (the Board judging that they hadno right, or that it would not be for the good of the Church, and theinterests of the Mission, to publish them), still we continued toprosecute our labors, in connection with the English Presbyterianbrethren, receiving and giving mutual assistance. We were encouragedthus to continue our work: 1. Because of letters we received from home, some of them written by individuals who were able advocates of thedecision of the Synod of 1857. They told us that it could not beotherwise than that a separation must come between us and the brethrenof the English Presbyterian Church, but they would not have usinaugurate that separation. 2. (and more important) Because a marvelousblessing from on high was attending our labors. 3. (and most important)Because we knew this harmonious and mutual assistance to be entirely inaccordance with the spirit of the Gospel. 

In process of time a Church was organized at Chioh-be by the appointmentof elders and deacons, then at Peh-chui-ia, then at Mapeng, and then theChurch at Amoy was divided into two distinct organizations. Thus we hadfive organized churches, all of our order--the elders and deacons chosenand set apart according to our Forms, and all our Forms in use so far asthere was yet occasion for them. Two of these churches were under theespecial care of the English Presbyterians, and pecuniarily the workwas sustained by funds collected in England and Scotland. The otherthree were under our especial care. The pecuniary expenses, beyond whatthe native churches could themselves raise, were borne by our Church athome. 

One of the essential principles of our Church polity is, that individualChurches are not independent of each other. They are members one ofanother. They are to be subject to each other. They are individual partsof a whole. Each part should be subject to the whole. Hence thenecessity of higher judicatories. Thus we felt that these five churcheshad a right to an ecclesiastical organization, by which they might enjoythis essential principle of Presbyterianism. [I trust we shall hear nomore of the charge that the Missionaries at Amoy are Congregationalists. ]But we were afraid to give this organization to the native churches, lestwe should give offense at home. We knew that we were misunderstood, and asyet could see no way to make the Church acquainted with our position andour views. If the Master should plainly call us to go forward, of coursewe must obey, and leave the results with Him. 

These churches, having grown out of each other, were essentially one, and were as closely united together as it was possible for them to be, without a formal organization. The first formal meeting of all thesechurches was held at Chioh-be (a church under _our_ care), in 1861. Noecclesiastical power was assumed. The next similar meeting was held inApril, 1862, in the churches at Amoy. This was still more formal. It wascomposed of all the Missionaries of our own and of the EnglishPresbyterian Church, and of one representative Elder from each of thefive organized churches. This body may be called an incipient Classis. The only ecclesiastical power exercised, however, was connected withchurch discipline. Heretofore each individual Church, in connection withthe Missionaries, had exercised the power of discipline, even toexcommunication. Now certain cases of excommunication were referred byindividual Consistories to, and acted on by, this body. Is it necessaryto defend such acts? We felt that if each individual church couldexercise such power, and the principles of our Presbyterianism bescriptural, then could a body, composed of the representatives of thesechurches, together with the Missionaries, with safety exercise suchpower. It was approaching as nearly as possible to the practice of ourChurch at home. We expected soon to be called to the performance ofecclesiastical acts more momentous. Already had two of the churcheschosen two of the native members, who were now engaged in careful study, that in due time they might be set apart to the office of the Ministryof the Word, and ordained pastors of the churches respectively choosingthem. But for reasons given above we would not go forward faster than wewere plainly led by the hand of Providence. Therefore, while theMissionaries, in presence of this assembly, examined thesepastors-elect, in reference to their qualifications for the office ofPastor, the body, as such, took no part in the examination. 

This incipient Classis met next in the autumn of the same year atPeh-chui-ia, a church under the care of the English Presbyterianbrethren. At this meeting it became a real Classis, not fully developedas a Classis in a mature Church, but possessing the constituent elementsand performing the functions of a Classis. Not only were there cases ofdiscipline to act on, but a distinct application was made by one of thechurches, that a pastor be ordained, and placed over them. The bodydecided, not only that they had the right, but that the plain call ofthe Great Head of the Church made it their duty to go forward in thismatter. Preliminary steps were taken, other meetings of Classis wereappointed and held, candidates were examined, calls presented andapproved, until early in the present year the First and Second Churchesat Amoy had each a native pastor ordained and installed over them. Bythe authority of this Classis, in the early part of this year, a thirdchurch was organized at Amoy according to our order. It is in the suburbcalled E-mng-kang, and is under the especial care of the EnglishPresbyterian brethren, as mentioned in a previous part of this paper. Sonow there are six organized churches, all of the same order, and someothers almost ready to be organized. If the Missionaries at Amoy havebeen guilty of any great mistake, it has been in this matter of formingsuch a Classis, and proceeding to the ordination and installation ofnative pastors, and the organization of new churches. Therefore, thissubject demands a careful examination. 

When we commenced the work among the heathen, it was found that theConstitution of our Church had made no provision for such work beyondthe simple ordaining of men as Missionaries. We might preach the gospel, but no provision was made for receiving into church fellowship, administering the sacraments, electing and ordaining office-bearers, and all the incipient steps of the organization of the Church from amongthe heathen. The Constitution was made for the government of a Churchalready organized and matured, and in America; therefore, it is notstrange that such things were not provided for. Our duty seemed veryplain. We must fall back on the great principles of church governmenttaught in the Word of God. We believed these principles to be set forthin the Constitution, and other standards of our Church. 

When, through the instrumentality of the preached Word, men gavesatisfactory evidence that they had experienced "the renewing of theHoly Ghost, " without the advice of Consistories, by virtue of our officeof Ministers of the Word, we administered to them the sacrament ofbaptism, thus admitting them into the church. Now the Lord's Supper mustbe administered to these believers, baptism to their infant children, and to new converts, and the discipline of God's house maintained. Byvirtue of that same office, and by virtue of the authority given by theMaster to his Church, we felt that we had the right, aye, that it wasour bounden duty, to perform such acts. We could not yet for a long timeset apart a proper Consistory, but we must not therefore be "lords overGod's heritage. " In receiving new members, and in all acts ofdiscipline, we must advise with the church already gathered. 

The church grew, and in due time a Consistory was called for; must thework stop, because the Constitution had made no provision? No. Thelittle church had the right to choose men, and having chosen suitablemen, it was our duty to ordain them. The authority we thus exercised wasnot usurped, but was implied in the commission we received from ourMaster through the Church. The same may be said of the authority of thebrethren at Amoy, when, in connection with the representative elders ofthe various churches, they proceeded to the ordination of nativepastors, and the organization of new churches. It was not necessary forthe performance of every act to get a new commission from the Church. When the Church sent us out, the one commission contained all theauthority necessary for the complete organization of the church. It isan absurdity to deny, on _constitutional grounds_, the right of theMissionaries to perform these last acts unless you deny their right toperform all their other acts except the simple preaching of the Gospel. Their acts were all _extra_, not _contra_ constitutional. If theirauthority thus to act be justified in reference to the former acts, anddenied in reference to the latter, the justification and denial must beon other grounds than the Constitution of our Church. 

Will any one assert that the Classis thus formed at Amoy is not aClassis _de facto_? or that the native pastors ordained and installed bythat body are not _scripturally_ set apart to their offices, and thatits other acts are null and void? If so, then, as yet, there are noorganized churches--no Consistories--at Amoy, and there have been noscriptural baptisms, for all ecclesiastical acts performed there, havebeen performed on the same principles, and by the same authority. No onewill have the hardihood to assert such a doctrine. It will be admittedthat there is a Classis _de facto_ at Amoy. Then it is competent toperform all the functions of a Classis. But it will not be contendedthat that Classis is a part of the Dutch Church in America. Yet it isessentially like a Classis in America, just so far as the present stateof development of the Church at Amoy, and its Chinese character, renderlikeness possible. It is _Chinese_, not _American_. The organization ofsuch a Church is what we always supposed required of us. We neverimagined that we were sent to organize the _American_ Dutch Church inChina. If your Missionaries are allowed to proceed, and are not requiredto repel the English Presbyterian brethren from their united labors withus, there will be but one Church at Amoy of the Presbyterian order. Withthe continued blessing of God on such harmonious labor, it will be _theChurch_ of that region. It will be dear to both the Presbyterian Churchin England, and to our Church in this land, and peculiarly dear to ourChurch in this country, because of its Dutch characteristics. YourMissionaries will still be your agents, responsible to the Church athome, as they have always been. The near relation to the Church in thisland, which they have always held, they desire to retain. The lateaction of Synod contemplates the _formation of two denominations at Amoyof the Presbyterian order, giving our peculiarities to one-half insteadof to the whole, thus producing rivalries, injuring the efficiency ofthe native churches, and making the relation of the Missionaries to theChurch at home more distant, thus weakening your hold on them_, and all, as we think, without any remunerating advantages. But before we proceedto the discussion of this subject, a few other preliminaries demand someattention. 

The English Presbyterians, as they are accustomed to speak of all theClasses of our Church in America, call this Classis at Amoy "_aPresbytery_. " Hence the question has been put to us with all sincerityand gravity, "Is it a _Classis_, or is it a _Presbytery_?" Some seem tobe afraid that the Church we are forming will be half Dutch and halfPresbyterian, and that it will soon be swallowed up by thePresbyterians! Are there any ministers, or elders, or intelligentmembers of the Dutch Church, who have yet to learn that a Classis is aPresbytery, and that the Dutch Church is a Presbyterian Church? Surelynot. Why, then, such questions and suggestions? Can they be designed toprejudice the Church at home against the ecclesiastical body which hasgrown up at Amoy? We will not impute such a motive, and, therefore, Imerely say that we are surprised at all such remarks. It is proper forthe English Presbyterian brethren to speak of the _Presbytery_ at Amoy. They never speak of it as an _English_ Presbytery. They do not regard itas a part of the Church in England, but as a purely Chinese Church. Theyhave liberality enough to assist in building up such a Church, eventhough it has some things peculiar to us, for it has all the essentialsof their own order. Will it not seem to them that our Church isdeficient in liberality, when they learn the decision of the last Synod?

In connection with this subject, it is proper to speak more particularlyof the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. When it isremembered that that Church is really a branch of the Free Church ofScotland, it will not be supposed that their liberality is the result ofindifference to anything which they regard essential or important. Seldom has our world witnessed such sacrifice for the sake of principleas was exhibited by that Church, when she came out from theEstablishment. Their liberality is a beautiful illustration of theChristian spirit. The course of their Missionaries at the firstorganization of a church at Amoy, and the approval thereof, have beenalready alluded to. In consequence of the recent formation of a Classis, the subject naturally came up again this year. It was laid before theirSynod, which met a few weeks previous to ours. In the report of theirForeign Committee, which corresponds to our Board of Foreign Missions, the following language is used in reference to the Church at Amoy:

"As all the elements of Presbyterian organization thus existed [eachchurch having native elders], a further step was taken last April[1862], when a Presbytery was constituted at Amoy by mutual consent, consisting of all the American brethren and our own, as well asrepresentative elders from the several congregations. Its name isneither the Greek 'Presbytery' employed in this country, nor is it theLatin 'Classis, ' which has long been used in Holland; but it is 'TaiTiong-lo-hoey, ' or Great Meeting of Elders, genuine Chinese, and ahopeful earnest of the facility with which our representative andconsultative system of polity will find its way among a sensible andself-governing people. Of course it is not intended that this Presbyteryshould in any way come between the Missionaries themselves and theCommittee or Board by which the respective Missions are administered athome; but for the management of local matters, for disposing ofquestions which may arise in the several congregations, and in regard towhich a session may require counsel or control; and for the veryimportant purpose of exemplifying in the most legitimate wayecclesiastical unity, it is essential that Missionaries and nativeoffice-bearers should come together in some such capacity. Theproceedings are conducted in Chinese, which is the only languageunderstood by all the members of Court, and it is in Chinese that theminutes are kept. Three meetings have already been held. At the last, held in January, important business was transacted affecting the 1st and2d Congregations of Amoy, both of which are under the immediatesuperintendence of the American Mission. Each congregation is desirousof the settlement of a stated pastor, and each has agreed to call aminister, the one congregation promising a stipend of $14 a month, andthe other $13. The calls were sustained, and the Presbytery agreed tomeet on February 21st, to proceed with the 'trials' of the brethren thuselected. As these proved satisfactory, Sabbath, the 29th of last month, was appointed as the day for their ordination. 

"Dr. Peltz, the esteemed Corresponding Secretary of the Board of ForeignMissions of the R. P. D. C. Of N. A. , has apprised the Committee, that it ispossible that a Presbytery of this composite character may not securethe approval of their Synod. In separating from the A. B. C. F. M. , and insetting up a separate and ecclesiastically organized mission, thatSynod was anxious to introduce into its different Mission fields asystem of Church government which it believed to be scriptural, andadapted to all lands. Consequently, in these Mission fields it sought toform Classes or Presbyteries which should be connected with Provincialand General Synods in the same way as are the Classes on the Americancontinent. And Dr. Peltz is apprehensive lest the General Synod inAmerica should regard as a deviation from this plan the amalgamation inone Presbytery of their own agents with those of another Church. 

"We are hopeful, however, that on further consideration, our brethren inAmerica may allow their Missionaries in China to continue the presentarrangement, at least until such time as it is found that actualdifficulties arise in the way of carrying it out. 'Behold how good andhow pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity;' and thereare few brethren towards whom we feel closer affinity than the membersof that Church, which was represented of old by Gomarus and Witsius, byVoet and Marck, and Bernard de Moore, and whose Synod of Dort precededin time, and pioneered in doctrine, our own Westminster Assembly. Likethem, we love that Presbyterianism and that Calvinism which we hold incommon, and we wish to carry them wherever we go; but we fear that itwould not be doing justice to either, and that it might compromise thatname which is above every other, if, on the shores of China, we were tounfurl a separate standard. We would, therefore, not only respectfullyrecommend to the Synod to allow its Missionaries to unite, Presbyterially as well as practically, with the brethren of the R. D. C. ;but we would express the earnest hope that the Synod of the sisterChurch in America may find itself at liberty to extend to itsMissionaries a similar freedom. "

These sentiments were _unanimously_ adopted by the Synod of the EnglishPresbyterian Church. 

It seems perfectly reasonable that two Churches of Christ so nearlyalike, in attempting to plant the Church of Christ in the same place ina heathen land, should strive, if possible, to form their converts intoone organization. The existence of different Denominations in the sameplace in any Christian land, at the best, is only a necessary evil. Godmay bring some good out of this evil, but this is not a sufficientreason why we should create such divisions, for their own sake. Hence, the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church is so manifestly inaccordance with the Christian spirit, that it might have attracted noespecial notice from us. But the proceedings of our own Synod, bycontrast, as it seems to us, have forced it out in bold relief. _They_were willing to support their Missionaries in laboring with ours, andbuilding up a Chinese Church, not differing essentially from theirs, butwith some characteristics peculiar to ours. _We_, though the Church thusorganized has not only all the essentials but all the peculiarities ofour own Church, still refuse such Christian co-operation, preferring torend asunder the Church already formed, and organize a part of it adistinct Denomination, connected with the Church in America. I cannotyet believe that such is the sentiment of our Church. There must be somegreat misapprehension. But such is really the decision of the lastSynod. Here is the language of the Committee which was adopted by theGeneral Synod:

"Your Committee do not see any propriety in re-enacting the law of 1857already quoted, because it has never been repealed, and remainstherefore in full force and virtue. Nor, if the reasoning in this reportbe correct, would they have the law repealed, believing as they do, that the maintenance of the principle contained in it is essential tothe success of our Missionary operations in foreign parts, and to thewholesome liberality of the Church at home. 

"The Committee are not prepared, however, to recommend that any violentor coercive resolutions should be adopted for the purpose ofconstraining our brethren in Amoy to a course of procedure which wouldrudely sever the brotherly ties that unite them with the Missionaries ofthe English Presbyterian Church. But a Christian discretion will enablethem, on the receipt of the decision of the present Synod in thismatter, now under consideration, to take such initial steps as arenecessary to the speedy formation of a classis. Much must be left totheir discretion, prudence, and judgment. But of the wish andexpectation of this Synod to have their action conform, as soon as maybe, to the resolutions of 1857, your Committee think the brethren atAmoy should be distinctly informed. They therefore offer the following:

"1. _Resolved_, that the General Synod, having adopted and tested itsplan of conducting Foreign Missions, can see no reason for abolishingit, but, on the contrary, believe it to be adapted to the promotion ofthe best interests of the Foreign Missionary Churches, and of thedenomination supporting them. 

"2. That the Board of Foreign Missions be, and hereby is, instructed tosend to our Missionaries a copy or copies of this report, as containingthe well-considered deliverance of the Synod respecting their presentrelations and future duty. 

"3. That the Secretary of the Foreign Board be, and hereby is, directedto send to the Rev. Dr. Hamilton, of London, Convener of thePresbyterian Committee, a copy of this Report, with a copy of the actionof 1857, and that he inform him by letter of the wishes and expectationsof the Synod respecting the ecclesiastical relations which this bodydesires its churches in Amoy to sustain to it. "

The above is only an extract from the close of the Report of theCommittee, and contains the result at which they arrived. In referenceto it we would make three remarks. (1). It (Res. 3) seems rather acavalier answer to the fraternal wish of the Synod of the EnglishPresbyterian Church, as expressed in their action. (2. ) The action ofSynod is made to rest (Res. 1) on the fact that Synod had "tested" this"plan of conducting Foreign Missions. " If this be so, and the plan hadbeen found by experiment unobjectionable, the argument is not withoutforce. But how and where has this test been applied, and found sosatisfactory? Our Church has three Missions among the heathen: one inIndia, one in China, and one in Japan. Has it been tested in Japan? No. They have not yet a single _native_ Church. Has it been tested in China?If so, the Missionaries were not aware of it. The test applied there hasbeen of an opposite character, and has been wonderfully successful. Thetest has only been applied in India, and has only _begun_ to be appliedeven there. There, as yet, there is but one native pastor. Their Classisis more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a nativeClassis, before the test can be pronounced at all satisfactory. True, that Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called aClassis in connection with the Synod in America. But has it been moresuccessful than the Mission at Amoy? Compare the amount of labor and themoney expended on the two Missions, and then look at the results, andthus decide about the tests. It is in no spirit of vainglory that wecall for such a comparison. Studiously have we avoided it, and theresponsibility must rest on those who compel us to it. (3. ) Noconsideration is had for the feelings, wishes, or opinions of the nativeChurches. Some consideration is shown for the feelings of the EnglishPresbyterian Missionaries. This is as it ought to be. Yet it is a matterof _comparatively_ little importance. _The inalienable rights of thenative churches, their relation to each other, their absoluteunity--things of the utmost consequence_--are not at all regarded, areentirely ignored!

It would have occupied too much space to have quoted the whole of theReport of the Committee. The preceding part of it occupies nearly sixpages of the Minutes of Synod. Yet we may not pass that part over insilence, for, while with much of its contents we have no dispute, itcontains some grave mistakes of fact, and, as we think, some very graveerrors of doctrine. It grieves me to say thus much, and also to feelcompelled to add the following strictures. But, in order to discuss thissubject, duty required the careful examination of the whole of theReport, and, finding in it such errors, the clear statement of them. Itmight be easy, perhaps, to account for the fact, that mistakes, in areport, unprinted, and of such length, should escape the notice ofSynod, but an attempt to apologize for that body might give occasion toinfer more disrespect than simply to point out the mistakes. 

After some introductory remarks, chiefly concerning the difficulty oftheir task, the Committee "begin with the assertion of principles. "These they make three in number. The sum of the first principle is that_a Church, by divine arrangement, has government_. The essential idea oftheir second principle, so far as we can understand it, is, that _theDutch Church has a clearly defined government_. The Missionaries atAmoy, as well as the ministers in this country, admit both theseprinciples fully. But they do not affect the question in dispute. Not sowith the third principle of the Committee. Lest I might be supposed tomisrepresent, I will quote their own language: "No government can, voluntarily, relinquish its powers, and abnegate its authority withoutthereby inviting disorder, disquietude, and, in the end, itsdestruction. " Is this, indeed, as the Committee assert, one of the"admitted principles" of our Church? one of the "convictions in the mindof our Church, hardly separable in idea from its very existence?" one ofthe "old truths maintained through blood and flame?" If the doctrine betrue, the Church in Holland had no right to relinquish its authorityover the Church in America. If this doctrine be a "principle" of ourChurch, never, _never_ could your Missionaries consent to beinstrumental in bringing the Church in China, which now has liberty inChrist Jesus, into such _perpetual_ bondage. Once bring the Chinesechurches under the authority of the Church in America, and it mattersnot how great may be their growth, and how many centuries may pass away, the Church in America can never relinquish her authority over them! Butthis is not an "admitted principle" of our Church. The Dutch Church is_protestant_, not _papal_. Instead of the principle being one of the"_old truths_ maintained through blood and flame" by her, it is an _olderror of the Papacy_, for rejecting which she poured out her blood sofreely, and would do the same to-day. Yet in the Report of the Committeethis error of Romanism, guilty of the blood of thousands upon thousandsof the saints of the Most High, is made to lie at the basis of theaction of the last Synod!

The Committee next proceed to the statement of "certain historic facts. "As with the "admitted principles, " so with the "historic facts. " Withsome of them we have no dispute. But when they come to describe thepresent condition and relations of the churches at Amoy, their language, to say the least, is very unfortunate. "These six Churches, " say they, "have grown up together under such an interchange and community of laboron the part of our own Missionaries, and on the part of those belongingto the English Presbyterian Church, that all are said to have a two-foldecclesiastical relation--one with England--one with America, and still athird, and economical and domestic relation among themselves, which iscovered and controlled by what is styled 'The Great Presbyterial orClassical Council of Amoy. '"

We do not know by whom these native Churches "are said" to have atwo-fold or three-fold _ecclesiastical_ relation. It is not so said bythe Missionaries. They contend that the native churches are neitherEnglish, nor American, but _Chinese_ churches. They are ecclesiasticallyrelated to each other, and ought to remain so. But the effort is nowmade to sever this ecclesiastical relation to each other, and bring halfof them into ecclesiastical relationship with the Church in America, making them the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of _North America, inChina_! At present the native churches have an intimate, but not an_ecclesiastical_, relation to both the Church in England and America. 

From the above mistaken statement the Committee have drawn out three"_particulars_" which they seem to think especially worthy of note. 

"1st. That while this Chinese Presbyterial or Classical Council isitself an autonomy--having the right to ordain ministers, exercisediscipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Classis' orPresbytery can or may do, still the whole in England is claimed to bethe Presbytery of Amoy, and to this Synod it is reported as the Classisof Amoy. "

How dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a_Presbytery_, and American Dutchmen call it a _Classis_! If thislanguage is also meant to imply that the Classis at Amoy is usurpingauthority, it is answered in other parts of this paper. 

The next "particular" of the Committee is:

"2d. The Missionaries, while they are members of this Grand Presbyterialor Classical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are, at the same time, members either of Classes in America, or ofPresbyteries in Great Britain. "

The meaning of this second "particular" is, that the Missionaries have atwo-fold ecclesiastical relation. Is there anything contrary toScripture doctrine, or to Presbyterian principles, or to common sense, that ecclesiastical relations should correspond to fact?--that theMissionaries should have some sort of an ecclesiastical relation, bothto the Church at home and to the Church in China? They have a peculiarrelationship to both these Churches. Why forget or ignore the fact thatthey are _Evangelists_ and _not Pastors_? Why object to anecclesiastical relationship exactly corresponding to, and required by, their office and position? The two parts of this relationship do notcontradict each other. They are altogether correlative. The Missionariesare still agents of the Church which sent them out. Their ecclesiasticalrelation to it should be direct, that they may be controlled by it, independent of any intermediate body. The Church at home cannot affordto cut off her Missionaries from this immediate relationship so long asthey remain her agents. This does not conflict with, but requires somesort of a corresponding relationship to the Churches planted and growingup through their instrumentality. Their relationship to those Churchesmust have reference especially to local matters, for the properorganization, and control, and development of the native churches, notat all to be controlled by them. When they cease to be agents of theChurch at home, and become the proper _pastors_ of the native churches, then will be the proper time to put themselves under the control of thenative churches, instead of the Church at home. We must not confound_evangelization_ with _colonization_. Does any one imagine that Paul andBarnabas, and Timothy and Titus, or any of them (for they were not allapostles), had connection with the Church which sent them out, _only_through the churches and ecclesiastical bodies organized by them? orthat they were in any sense under the control of those bodies?

The next and last "particular" of the Committee is "3d. That while theChurches, three at least, are organized under and according to theConstitution of our Church, it is, nevertheless, claimed that themembers of said Churches are not more members of the Reformed DutchChurch here, than they are members of the Presbyterian Church ofEngland. "

The words of this third "particular" are almost (not quite) accurate. Yet they appear to us like special pleading. They would have beenstrictly correct if they had run as follows: "These Churches are _all_(why say, '_three at least_'?) organized according to (not'_under_'--see pages 28-30) the Constitution of our Church. Therefore itis claimed that they form a Church of our order in China, but that themembers thereof are neither members of the Reformed Dutch Church here, nor members of the Presbyterian Church in England. " Such are the facts. It would have been better if the Committee had so stated them. Theeffort is now made to divide these churches, and make three of them apart of the Dutch Church in America. 

There is one more paragraph in the report of the Committee which demandsnotice. It is:

"Your Committee can easily understand how reluctantly our Missionariesmay have been, or may still be, to disturb, or alter, or modify therelations of the Churches at Amoy. But they conceive it to be their dutyto say that feeling should never be allowed to take the place ofconscience, nor to discharge its functions; and so long as ourMissionaries claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod, they should allow this body to assume the responsibility of its chosenand deliberate policy. "

It seems to us the Committee are not much more fortunate on the subjectof casuistry, than on Church "government" and "historic facts. " TheMissionaries do "claim to be subordinate to the authority of GeneralSynod, " but they also claim to be subordinate to the _Supremeauthority_. Now suppose--we shall not be charged with insubordinationfor the mere supposition--suppose the Synod, through somemisapprehension, should direct us to pursue a course, which, after themost mature reflection, we felt to be injurious to the cause of Christ, and consequently contrary to His will--will the fact of the Synod"assuming the responsibility" clear our skirts? Who is the Lord ofconscience? General Synod? It seems to us, while the Committee conceiveit to be their duty to deliver to the Missionaries at Amoy a lecture onthe importance of giving heed to conscience, in the very same sentencethey direct us to hold conscience in abeyance. But where did theCommittee learn that their Missionaries were influenced by _feelings_and not by _conscience_, and that too in reference to the laying of thefoundation of the Church of Christ in such an empire as that of China;that they felt called upon in this solemn manner to deliver such alecture? Would such a reflection have been cast on any other body ofministers in our Church? or is it supposed that men who give themselvesto the work of preaching the gospel in heathen lands are less under theinfluence of conscience than those who remain at home? _They conceivedit to be their duty!_ Was it?

So much for the Report of the Committee of Synod. The decision of Synodhas been given, as stated above. The important question now is, whatwill be the result of this decision on the Church at Amoy? Thisquestion, however, cannot yet be answered with certainty, for we cannotyet even guess what course the Missionaries there, when they learn thedecision of Synod, will feel it their duty to pursue. There may be more, but I can now only think of three ways open before them. (1. ) _To askthe Board to recall them. _ They firmly believe that their course ofproceeding, in organizing the Church at Amoy, is not only in accordancewith the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but also with the principlesof our Church. To be the instruments, then, of dividing the Church, which God has gathered by their hands, may be to sin against theirconsciences. They may therefore ask the Board to appoint other agents tocarry out the decision of Synod. This would not be insubordination, butperfect subordination both to the authority of Synod and also to thatauthority which all Protestant Christians acknowledge to be _supreme_. This, I suppose, would be the most natural course for the brethren totake, except for one consideration; that is, their love for the Churchesgathered by them, or under their care, and their responsibility inreference to the spiritual welfare of those disciples of the Lord. Itwould be the severest trial they have ever been called on to endure tobe recalled from their work. Therefore (2. ) _They may delay theiraction_, making one more effort to get their views published, hopingthat the Church will yet change her decision, and not require of them toengage in a proceeding which they think will be so injurious to thecause of Christ; but, on the contrary, will approve of the courseheretofore adopted by them as altogether scriptural, and the truedoctrine of our Church. Or (3. ) They may _possibly_, after maturereflection, think the _least evil_ will be _to carry out the decision ofSynod_, although that decision be altogether contrary to their ownjudgment. Then they will take three of the six churches, which now areall of our order, and organize these three a separate Denomination andan integral part of the Church in America. This is the course which athome will be generally expected of them. 

Now let us suppose that they will adopt this third course, and then letus look calmly at its results--at the supposed or real advantagesthereof, and the supposed or real evils thereof. 

We first look at the _Advantages_. 

1. The most important is, or is supposed to be, that there will thus behigher courts of jurisdiction to which appeals may be made, and by whichorthodoxy and good order may be the better secured to the Church atAmoy. Such advantages, if they can be thus secured, we would by no meansunderrate. There sometimes are cases of appeal for which we need thehighest court practicable--the collective wisdom of the Church so far asit can be obtained; and the preservation of orthodoxy and good order isof the first importance. Now let us see whether the plan proposed willsecure these advantages. Let us suppose that one of the brethren feelshimself aggrieved by the decision of the Classis of Amoy, and he appealsto the Particular Synod of Albany, and thence to the General Synod. Hewill not be denied the right to such appeal. But, in order that theappeal may be properly prosecuted and disposed of, the appellant and therepresentative of Classis should be present in these higher courts. Canthis be secured? Is the waste of time, of a year or more, nothing? andwhere shall the thousands of dollars of necessary expense come from? Nowsuppose this appellant to be a Chinese brother. He also has rights. Buthow, on this plan, can he possibly obtain them? Suppose (which of itselfis an absurdity) that the money be raised for him, and he is permittedto stand on the floor of Synod. He cannot speak, read, or write a wordof English. Not a member of Synod can speak, read, or write a word ofhis language, except it be the brother prosecuting him. I ask, is itpossible for him thus to obtain justice? But, waiving all thesedisadvantages, the only points on which there is the least probabilitythat an appeal of a Chinese brother would come up before the highercourts, are points on which these higher courts would not be qualifiedto decide. They would doubtless grow out of the peculiar customs andlaws of the Chinese--points on which the Missionary, after he has beenon the ground a dozen years, often feels unwilling to decide, and takesthe opinion of the native elders in preference to his own. Is it rightto impose a yoke like this on that little Church which God is gatheringby your instrumentality in that far-off land of China? But it is said, that these cases of appeal (because of impracticability) will veryrarely or never happen. Be it so; then this supposed advantage willseldom or never occur, and if it should occur, it would prove adisadvantage. The highest practical court of appeal for the nativechurches can be secured only on the plan for which the Missionariescontend. Why must we deprive the native Christians of the benefit of thecollective wisdom of all the churches of like doctrine and order amongthem?

As regards orthodoxy and good order, it is incumbent on the Church athome to use her utmost endeavors to secure these. Doubtless this was thegreat design of Synod, both in the action of 1857 and in the action of1863. But will the plan of Synod give us any greater security for thesethings? How can they be secured? We answer, under God, _only_ throughyour Missionaries. The greater your hold on your Missionaries, thebetter security for the churches under their care. The plan of Synodwould place your Missionaries _ecclesiastically_ almost beyond yourcontrol. They must be dismissed from the various Classes in thiscountry, and, together with the native churches under their care, formthemselves into a Chinese Classis. Either they will have a controllinginfluence over the native portion of this Classis or they will not. Ifthey have, then your only way to discipline them will be to disciplinetheir Classis. It would be a new doctrine in our Church, to make theBoard of Foreign Missions an _ecclesiastical_ medium between the Synodand one of its Classes, or to enforce discipline over the ministry bythe _money rod_. The Classis, _as such_, must be disciplined by thedirect act of Synod. Or, suppose the Missionaries do not have suchcontrolling influence over the native members of Classis, for the nativemembers will outnumber, and, unless the action of Synod (as we greatlyfear) seriously retard the work at Amoy, will very soon greatlyoutnumber the Missionaries. What then? Your Missionaries are under theecclesiastical control of the native converts. Their doctrines andmorals are to be decided on by a court composed mainly of recentconverts from heathenism. The only way to bring them before the highercourts in this country, is through this native court, as we have alreadyseen, almost an impossibility. Is it not plain that the Church at homewill not thus have a moiety of the control over her Missionaries she nowhas? Is this the way to keep the Church at Amoy sound and pure? Itseems to be supposed by some that the Missionaries desire to beseparated from the control of the Church at home. This is altogether amistake, and another result of withholding their views from the public. They have no such desire. The contrary is altogether the fact. They donot desire to be placed under the control of the native Chinesechurches. They did not derive their authority from those churches, theyare not sustained by them, and they are in no sense their agents, butthey derive their authority through, are sustained by, and arealtogether the agents of the Church in this country; therefore theChurch at home has and should retain control over them. They areamenable to the Church at home, through their several Classes. These arethe only courts qualified to take cognizance of their doctrines andmorals. They desire to remain in this relation. We think they have aright to demand this, until such time as they become agents of theChurch in China, instead of the Church in America. 

Suppose by some means suspicion should arise at home concerning theorthodoxy or morality of one or more of your Missionaries. On the planproposed, what can the Church do with them? May the Board of Missions, on mere report or suspicion, recall them without giving them a propertrial? Can the Board try them? No. It is not an ecclesiastical court. Will the Church be satisfied with the decision of a court, a majority ofwhose members have recently been converted from heathenism through theinstrumentality of these very Missionaries? But continue the plan of theMissionaries and all will be simple. If any of the Missionaries giveoccasion for suspicion, let them be tried by their proper Classes inthis country. This is all that the Church at home can do_ecclesiastically_ towards keeping the Church pure in China. Whetherthe proposed _nominal_ union be consummated or not, the only hold youwill have on the Chinese churches will be through your Missionaries. Ifthey will not receive the instructions, and listen to the advice of yourMissionaries and of the Synod through them, you would not expect them toobey the injunctions of Synod. Your only other resort will be towithhold from them help. Can you not do the same now?

But in all this discussion, I fear, we lose sight too much of ourdependence on the Head of the Church to keep His Church pure. Sure I amthat the Church in China cannot be kept pure by legislation on this, theopposite side of the globe. But we expect Christ to reign over, and theHoly Spirit to be given to the churches, and the proper ecclesiasticalbodies formed of them in China as well as in this land. Why not? Suchare the promises of God. The way to secure these things is by prayer, and the preaching of the pure gospel, not by legislation. Let the Churchbe careful in her selection of Missionaries. Send only such as she hasconfidence in--men of God, sound in the faith, apt to teach--and thentrust them, or recall them. Don't attempt to control them contrary totheir judgment. Strange if this, which is so much insisted on as thepolicy of our Church, be right, that she cannot get a single man, of allshe sends out to China, to think so. Can it be that the Missionary workis so subversive of right reason, or of correct judgment, or ofconscientiousness, that all become perverted by engaging in it?

2. Another supposed advantage is the effect it will have in enlistingthe sympathies of the Church in behalf of the Mission at Amoy. It issaid, tell the Church that we have a flourishing Classis at Amoy, a partof ourselves, connected with General Synod, just like all the otherClasses of our Church, the effect will be wonderful in enlistingsympathy, money, and men in behalf of that Mission; otherwise theopposite evil must be apprehended. If these things be so, they areindeed of grave importance. The Mission in China cannot live without thesympathy of the Church at home. But are these things so? It seems to usthat the supposition takes for granted that our Church in its Missionarywork is influenced by a desire for self-glory, or self-gratification;or, at least, that she is not a Church of liberal views--that she is notat all to be compared, in this respect, with the English PresbyterianChurch, or the Free Church of Scotland. Allusion has already been madeto the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. I may now alsoremark that a large amount of the funds for carrying on the work at Amoyis raised in Scotland from members of the Free Church. They never hadany idea that the churches gathered in China were to be a part of theirown Church. They do not even ask that they be a part of their sisterChurch in England. They only ask that they shall be sound in the faithand hold to the essentials of Presbyterianism, even though they havesome characteristics peculiar to the Dutch and other Reformed Churches. These Presbyterian brethren in England and Scotland are not only readyto support their own Missionaries in their work of building up thechurches under their especial care, but they stand ready to assist theMissionaries of our Church in building up the churches under ourespecial care. Of their frequent offers to assist us, when they fearedwe should be in want of funds, our Board can bear testimony. We are notyet willing to believe that our people are a people of narrow views in amatter like this. It is contrary to our history in time past. It iscontrary to the facts of the present day. It is contrary to all myobservation among our churches. Our people do not first ask whether itbe building _ourselves_ up, before they sympathize with a benevolentobject. We believe the contrary is the exact truth. It requires aliberal policy to call forth liberal views and action. As regards theenlisting of men, look at the facts. Every man who has gone out fromamong you, to engage in this Missionary work, begs of you not to adopt anarrow policy. So in regard to obtaining of funds. Usually, the men whoare most liberal in giving are most liberal in feeling. This must be soin the very nature of things. The way to alienate the sympathies of theChurch from the Mission at Amoy is to divide the Church there by asectarian policy; and the way to enlist her sympathies is to continuethe former plan, and let the work go forward with the Divine blessing asin days past. The people will be more encouraged, and praise God moreheartily, when you tell them of six organized churches like our own, andmany others growing up all around, than they will if you tell them ofonly three churches, and only a few out-stations, under our care. Theywill not object to hear that the English Presbyterian brethren arelaboring with us, and organizing churches so nearly like our own. However powerful the motive addressed to the desire to build up our ownChurch, there are motives infinitely more powerful. Such are the motivesto be depended on in endeavoring to elevate the standard of liberalityamong our people. 

Let brethren in the Ministry try the experiment, and tell their peopleof the wonders of God's grace:--that he has led his servants from ourown Church in this land, and from the Presbyterian Church in GreatBritain, in their work of evangelizing the heathen, and laying thefoundation of the Church of Christ, to lay aside all nationalanimosities, and rise above all denominational prejudices andjealousies--that he has given to the Presbyterian Church in England, and the sister Church in Scotland, a spirit of catholicity andliberality as exhibited in the previous part of this paper--and that, asa consequence, he is causing his Church to grow up in the region of Amoyin beautiful proportions, all the congregations under their care andours also manifesting the same spirit of catholicity and liberality, submitting to each other according to the Divine command, workingtogether with the utmost harmony, and, as a consequence, with wonderfuleffectiveness. Can you account for such things except by the energy ofthe Spirit of God? Surely it is not the spirit of the world, neither isit the spirit of the devil. Try the experiment, then, and see whetherthe wonders of God's grace will alienate the hearts of his people. YourMissionaries have no doubt--we can hardly understand how any who examinethe subject can doubt--we are sure that no one can personally behold thework and yet doubt, that the wonderful blessing of God, which hasaccompanied the work at Amoy, has been both the cause and the result ofthis harmonious labor on the part of your Missionaries, and those fromthe sister Churches in England and Scotland. Therefore, we feel assuredthat the simple recital of the grace of God thus manifested, mustinfluence the hearts of his people most powerfully, and therefore it isthat we beseech the Church not to interfere with, and hinder the work ofGod. May we not refer, without being charged with disrespect, to theSynod of Jerusalem as a proper example for our General Synod? Petersays, "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" And then thedecree, which the Synod sent to the Churches, runs thus: "It seemed goodto the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden thanthese _necessary_ things. " The ecclesiastical "power which the Lordhath given" to his Church is "to _edification_, and not to_destruction_. "

If the Missionaries be allowed to proceed in building up a Church, likeour own, simply with reference to the evangelization of China, doubtlessbrethren in the ministry, and other influential men, could take occasiontherefrom to prejudice the Churches against our work. They could dothis, if they were so disposed, without any such occasion. But will theydo it? We cannot believe that they will. They love the cause of Christtoo well, and desire to see the world converted to God too ardently, topermit them to throw any obstacles in the way of our work, even thoughthat work be not carried forward in the manner which they consideraltogether the best. If we are right, these brethren will soon see thatwe are right, and however powerful the motive to be addressed to thedesire of extending our own Church, they will find infinitely morepowerful motives to be addressed to a more noble desire of the Christianheart. If our people have not yet learned, they should be taught toengage in the work of evangelizing the world, not for the sake of ourChurch in America, but for the sake of Christ and His Church, and whenthe Church thus built up is like our own, they should be fullysatisfied. We believe they will be satisfied with this. 

3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is theadvantage of carrying out the _policy_ of our Church. This, in itselfconsidered, might be regarded worthy of but little attention. Cannot--ought not--the Church change her policy if wrong, or if a bettercan be adopted? Surely her laws are not like those of the Medes andPersians. But the argument has been used with so much earnestness andperseverance, both in the Reports of the Committees and in thediscussions in Synod, that it demands some investigation. Instead ofthe course pursued by the Missionaries being, as it is contended, contrary to, it is the true policy of our Church--the policy inexistence long before the decision of 1857. If the course now requiredof them be the present policy of our Church, it is a _mistaken_ policy, contrary to the very genius of our institutions, and ought to becorrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Constitution thateither it or the Constitution must be sacrificed. In order to save thepolicy it was found necessary during the past year to amend theConstitution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circumstances of aMissionary Classis require it, "_all the ordinary requirements of theConstitution_" may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it bethat a policy which requires _such constitutional changes_ can be theold and proper policy of our Church? But if the policy be continued weare not yet done with changes. The very _name_ of our Church must bechanged. It now is "The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church _in NorthAmerica_. " We must expunge the words "_in North America_, " or must addIndia, China, and Japan, and every other country where the Church mayundertake Missionary work. We know it has been said of this policy, "itis our _settled, irreversible_ policy. " Is every thing then to beregarded as _unsettled_ and _changeable_ but this policy of the Church?We answer, No. The Church may change her name, if she please, as she haschanged her Constitution. Or she may change her policy. But there arecertain fundamental principles of Church government which she may notchange. Hence, even yet, the principles for which the Missionariescontend must remain the true policy of our Church, for they lie at thevery foundation of Presbyterial order. A full discussion of this subjectwill come up most naturally when we discuss the _evils_ of the coursenow required of us. I will now allude to only one fact. The Board ofForeign Missions was formed on this principle. If the Classes at Arcotand Amoy are to be considered _integral_ parts of the Church in thiscountry, related to General Synod like the Classes in this country, thenthe Missionaries at those stations properly should come under the Boardof Domestic Missions. Suppose, according to the new plan, theMissionaries form themselves into the kind of Classis now required ofthem; what will be the relation of the Classis of Amoy to the Board ofForeign Missions? Is the Classis, in evangelizing the heathen around, tooperate through the Board, or the Board through the Classis? The Classisat Amoy decide on a certain course of ecclesiastical procedure, orevangelistic labor, and the Board decides on another course; how is sucha matter to be settled? Will it be said, there is no danger of suchdifficulty? The Classis and Board will both be composed of men withinfirmities. Ask the Board whether there have not already been incipientdifficulties, in the supposed clashing of the powers of the Board andthe powers of the Classis of Arcot. But the Classis of Arcot as yet islittle more than an _American Missionary Classis_. What will be thedifficulties when it becomes an _Indian_ Classis? But we are told, "keepthe Mission and Classis distinct. " Is the Mission, then, to attend toall the evangelistic work, and the Classis to do nothing? Or are thereto be two distinct evangelistic policies carried on at Amoy, the one bythe Mission, and the other by the Classis? Or is the Classis first tocome over to the Synod, and so get to the Board in order to carry on thework around? Instead of this new plan being the settled policy of ourChurch, we believe it to be a solecism. When a Church is establishedamong the heathen after our order, then is the true policy of our Churchcarried out. Let the present relations of the Missionaries to the Boardand to their several Classes remain, and there will be no occasion forthe clashing of the powers of the Board with those of anyecclesiastical body. 

So much for the _advantages_. They are really disadvantages, leading to_serious evils_, which of themselves should be sufficient to deter theChurch from inaugurating the policy proposed, or, if it be alreadyinaugurated, to lead her to retrace her steps, and adopt a better and aconsistent policy. 

Now let us consider the real or supposed _Evils_ (in addition to theabove) of carrying out the decision of Synod. 

1. It will not be for the credit of our Church. She now has a name, withother Churches, for putting forth efforts to evangelize the world. Shallshe mar this good name and acquire one for sectarianism, by puttingforth efforts to extend _herself_, not her doctrines and order;--theyare not sectarian, and her Missionaries esteem them as highly as dotheir brethren at home--but _herself_, even at the cost of dividingchurches which the grace of God has made one?

The decision of the last Synod may not be the result of sectarianismamong the people of our Church. We do not think it is. But it will bedifficult to convince our Presbyterian brethren and others, that it isnot so. By way of illustration I will suppose a case. A. Is engaged in avery excellent work. B. Comes to him, and the following dialogue ensues:

B. "Friend A. , I am glad to see you engaged in so excellent a work. Ialso have concluded to engage in it. I should be glad to work with you. You know the proverbs, 'Union is strength, ' and 'Two are better thanone. '"

A. "Yes, yes, friend B, I know these proverbs and believe them asthoroughly as you do. But I have a few peculiarities about my way ofworking. They are not many, and they are not essential, but I thinkthey are useful, and wish to work according to them. Therefore, I preferworking alone. "

B. "Yes, friend A. , we all have our peculiarities, and, if they be notcarried too far, they may all be made useful. I have been makinginquiries about yours, and I am glad to find they are not nearly somany, or so different from mine, as you seem to suppose, and as I oncesupposed. The fact is, I rather like some of them, and, though I may notesteem them all so highly as you do, still I am willing to conform tothem; for I am fully persuaded that, in work of this kind, two workingtogether can do vastly more than two working separately, and the workwill be much better done. Besides this, the social intercourse will bedelightful. "

A. "I appreciate, friend B. , your politeness, and am well aware that allyou say about the greater efficiency and excellence of united work, andthe delights of social intercourse is perfectly true. But--but--well, Iprefer to work alone. "

2. It will be destroying a _real_ unity for the sake of creating one, which, at the best, can be only _nominal_, and hence will really be aviolation of Presbyterial order. It seems strange to us that it shouldbe constantly asserted that we are striving to create a formal unionbetween two bodies which are essentially distinct. There is nothing ofthe kind. There are six organized churches at Amoy. They are all Dutch(i. E. Reformed), and they are all Presbyterian, for the Dutch Churchesare all Presbyterian. But they are Chinese, not American, nor English, nor Scotch. If these churches are not _one_, then it is impossible fortwo or more individual churches to be one. If schism in a Church be asin, then the separation of this Church will be a sin, for it will bean actual schism. You can make nothing more nor less of it. If you saythat schism is only an evil, then the separation of this Church will, atleast, be an evil. 

Perhaps it will be thought that _schism_ is too hard a term whereby todesignate the separation of the Church at Amoy. Never mind the word, then, but let us look at the facts. The proper Classis of Amoy, composedof all the churches of like order, and of the Missionaries, hasproceeded, according to the order of our Church, to ordain and installnative pastors, and to perform a few other necessary ecclesiasticalacts. These pastors are now called on to separate from, and break upthat body, through which they received their office! The opinions andwishes of these native pastors, as well of the native Classis, and thenative churches, are all ignored! Are such things right? Are these thedoctrines or policy of the Dutch Church? We are told that we need saynothing to the native churches on the subject. Is this right? Is theDutch Church a hierarchy? Does the General Synod claim authority toorder the division in such a manner of a Classis of the Church of Christwithout the consent of that Classis? "_What God hath joined together letnot man put asunder. _"

In consequence of fallen humanity, there are evils which we callnecessary evils. Such is the case of different Denominations ofChristians in the same region of territory. They differ in sentiment onimportant (or supposed to be important) subjects, and because of thisdifference in sentiment, they can work together in greater harmony, andwith greater efficiency, by being formed into distinct organizations. Such, however, is not the case of the six churches at Amoy, and othersgrowing up under their care and the care of your own and the EnglishPresbyterian Missionaries. Even when Churches agree in doctrine andorder, it is sometimes better, and sometimes necessary, in consequenceof geographical separation or national distinctions, to form distinctorganizations. It is better, or necessary, that the Churches in Holland, and America, and South Africa, be ecclesiastically distinct. We do notcall this an evil, for all the advantages of ecclesiastical courts andcontrol are better thus secured. But suppose a case. There are, say, thirty Dutch churches in the city of New York. Now, suppose there wereno others of the same order throughout this whole land: instead ofallowing these churches to remain one organic whole--forming Classes andSynods, as the growth and convenience may allow and direct--it isproposed to take one-half of these churches, form them into a distinctorganization, thus depriving them of ecclesiastical relations to theother half, and attach them to an ecclesiastical body in China--a nationof different customs and different language. How should we designatesuch an act? The first part would be schism, and the last part would befolly. The only difference between such a procedure and that required ofus is, that the churches at Amoy have been gathered partly by ourinstrumentality, and are dependent partly on us for instruction. If ourPresbyterial order be scriptural, all these churches at Amoy, growingout of each other, are bound to associate together, ecclesiastically. Itis their duty to submit to each other. They would also be bound tosubmit to the Church of the same order in England and America, and everyother country throughout the world, if it were possible and convenient. But such relation is not convenient, or possible. Therefore, we mustchoose that which is possible and most convenient. It is possible, andit is convenient, that they associate together. It is not possible thatthey all be subject to the Church in England, and, at the same time, tothe Church in America. It is not convenient that they all be subject toeither of these Churches. We do not think it is convenient that one-halfof them be subject to either of these Churches. Besides the sin, orevil, of schism, they never can be properly represented in the higherecclesiastical bodies of either of these Churches. They never can havean Elder present (I speak now of their connection with the Church inAmerica, for this is the subject before us). They never can have a fullrepresentation of ministers. Only very seldom can they have even oneminister present. He usually will only be one who is ill, andconsequently not a proper representative. The native element, _i. E. , thechief element_ of the Church can never be represented at all. Therepresentation, at the best, will only be a representation of yourMissionaries, not at all of the Chinese Church. Therefore, we assertthat such a union would not be _real_, not even _apparent_, only_nominal_. In striving after it, we are pursuing a chimera, destroying asubstance for the sake of a shadow. 

But it is offered as an objection to our views, that the PresbyterianChurch (O. S. ) has Presbyteries and Synods in India and China. Yes, theyhave three Presbyteries and a Synod in India, and have had for twentyyears. But even yet there is not so much of a native element in theirwhole Synod as there is already in the little Church in the region ofAmoy. As an ecclesiastical body, it is not _Indian_ in itscharacteristics--it is _American_. So with all their Presbyteries inSiam and China, with the exception, perhaps, of the Presbytery atNingpo. They are _American_ Presbyteries, not native in theircharacter. [2]

[Footnote 2: The following statistics are from the Minutes of GeneralAssembly, 1863. 

_Synod of Northern India_--Was organized in 1841. Is composed of threePresbyteries. Now has 19 ministers (only one of these is a _nativepastor_); 9 churches; 246 communicants. (How many of these are nativesnot reported. )

_Presbytery of Canton_--Has 4 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 12communicants. (How many of these are natives not reported. ) _Presbyteryof Ningpo_--Has 8 ministers; no native pastor; 2 churches; 111 nativemembers. 

_Presbytery of Siam_--Has 6 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 8communicants. (How many of these are native members not reported. )

_Presbytery of West Africa_--Has 9 ministers; no native pastor; 6churches; 191 communicants (probably all natives. )

Are these ecclesiastical bodies respectively Indian, Chinese, andAfrican in their character? or are they all _essentially American_? Yetthese are the bodies to which the Committee of General Synod of 1857referred when they said, "As to the difficulties suggested" [by theMissionaries at Amoy] "respecting the delays of carrying out a system ofappellate jurisdiction covering America and China, it is enough to say, that the Presbyterian Church (O. S. ) finds no insuperable difficulties incarrying into operation her system, which comprehends Presbyteries andSynods in India as well as here. " Why should there be many _insuperable_difficulties so long as these bodies remain _American Missionarybodies_, instead of being _native ecclesiastical bodies_? Practicallythey do not need representation in the Church at home more than ourMissions need representatives in the Board of Missions. In the aggregateof all the above-mentioned ecclesiastical missionary bodies, there is_but one native pastor_, and this, as might be expected, so far as weare aware, furnished the only case in which difficulty has occurred. Doubtless in the instance referred to, the native pastor was in error, and, as he found some _insuperable difficulty_ in getting his casebefore the General Assembly, a similar effort is not likely soon to bemade. ]

So is the Classis of Arcot appealed to. Such appeals put us in asomewhat painful position. As with the Presbyterian bodies justmentioned, so with the Classis of Arcot. We have no rivalry with thebrethren there, and do not wish to say a word that looks like strictureon their policy. We do not utter a word of this kind, except inself-defense. We rejoice in all their successes. But the time will come, if the blessing of God continues to follow their labors, when they willbe compelled to adopt our principles. The Missionaries at Arcot are notproperly _pastors_ of the native churches. They exercise the pastoraloffice only temporarily, until native pastors are raised up. Theirrelation to the Synods in this country is not like that of the otherClasses of our Church. They never have had and never will have a properrepresentation in these higher courts. They have never had a nativeelder present. They never have even a partial representation ofministers, except under the afflictive dispensations of Providence. Forseveral years past they would have been without any representation atall, but for the fact of one of their number being in this country whoseill health forbids his return to that field of labor. It is by beingunfitted to be a member of the Classis that he becomes able to be arepresentative of the Classis in the Synod! At the present time, becauseof the still American character of their body, they may feel no seriousinconvenience. If our position had been like theirs, occupying theground at Amoy alone, possibly we should have done as they have. Weshould have understood well enough that the connection of the nativeChurch with the Church at home could only be _nominal_. But if ourChurch desired this, so long as it did not injure the native Church, weprobably should have made no objections. 

But we are told that it is not desired that this connection with theChurch in America should be perpetual. It will last only until theChurch at Amoy has sufficient development to stand alone. Then, ofcourse, our Church will consent to the separation. (A very differentdoctrine, by the way, from the "_assertion_" of the committee of Synodthat the Church can not "voluntarily relinquish its powers. ") Afterthat, the churches at Amoy which have been under our care, and thosewhich have been under the care of the English Presbyterians, may againunite in one Denomination, if they see fit. This sounds pretty well. Butlook at it. First separate the churches long enough to engenderrivalries and allow prejudices to grow up, and then attempt to unitethem, and what will be the result? Unless they have a more liberalspirit than is usual in the churches in this land, instead of making onedenomination out of two, we shall have three. But who shall be thejudge when the proper time has arrived to liberate the Church in China, if the opinions of those on the ground, and of the native churches, areall to be ignored?

3. It will injure the efficiency of the Church at Amoy. Besides theobjection--which the heathen will thus, as readily as the irreligious inthis country, be able to urge against Christianity--furnished by theincrease of Denominations, it will deprive the churches of the benefitof the united wisdom and strength of the whole of them forself-cultivation and for Christian enterprise, and will introduce aspirit of jealous rivalry among them. We know it is said that there needbe no such result, and that the native churches may remain just asunited in spirit after the organization of two Denominations as before. Such a sentiment takes for granted, either that ecclesiasticalorganization has in fact no efficiency (such is not the doctrine of ourChurch), or that the Chinese churches have arrived at a far higher stateof sanctification than the churches have attained to in this land. Donot different Denominations exhibit jealous rivalry in this land? Why, your Missionaries are already frequently charged with being too liberaltowards their English Presbyterian brethren in giving to them membersand churches which, it is said, properly belong to us. Is Chinese humannature different from American?

In consequence of such division, the native Churches will not be so ableto support the Gospel among themselves. Look at the condition of ourwestern towns in this respect. Why strive to entail like evils on ourMissionary churches? Their strength will be weakened for evangelisticeffort. Their Missionary efforts is one of the most striking andpraiseworthy characteristics of the Amoy churches. How will they beshorn of their strength by division and necessary rivalry! Besidesthis, if the connection with the Church at home be anything more thannominal, our churches should, in part at least, work through the Churchat home. No? Then why form the connection?

4. Instead of the Dutch Church being _the_ Presbyterian Church at Amoy, it will only be a small Church, bearing about the same proportion to theother Christian Churches there, that it does to the other Churches inthis land. Why is not the Dutch Church the principal Presbyterian bodyin this land? Unless we are mistaken in regard to its excellency oforder, it has all the adaptedness, and it was here first. Do you wish asimilar result in China?

 * * * * *

That it may be seen whether the Missionaries of Amoy have asked of ourChurch to "surrender the Constitution, the policy, the interests of ourChurch, " "nay, even their own welfare, and that of the Mission they areso tenderly attached to"--whether what they ask for "is flatly in theface of our Constitution and order"--whether the "Synod has no right toform, or to authorize any such self-regulating, ecclesiastical body, orto consent that any Ministers of our Church should hold seats in such abody"--whether, "if we do it, we transcend the most liberal constructionwhich has ever been known to be given to the powers of the GeneralSynod"--whether, by granting the request of the Missionaries, "weviolate our own order, our fundamental principles, the polity to whichwe are bound by our profession, by our subscription, by every tie whichcan bind religious and honorable, men"--I will append the resolutionwhich was offered by me in the General Synod as a substitute for thoseoffered by the Committee. If it called for declamation like the above, well. These are the words:

_Resolved_, That the Synod learn, with gratitude to God, of the greatprogress of the work of the Lord at Amoy, and in the region around, sothat already we hear of six organized churches with their Consistories, and others growing up, not yet organized; two native Pastors, who wereto have been ordained on the 29th of March last, and the whole under thecare of a Classis composed of the Missionaries of our Church and theEnglish Presbyterian Church, and representative Elders of the severalchurches. It calls for our hearty gratitude to the Great Head of theChurch, that the Missionaries of different Churches, and differentcountries, have been enabled, through Divine grace, to work together insuch harmony. It is also gratifying to us that these Churches and thisClassis have been organized according to the polity of our Church. Inasmuch as the Synod of the English Presbyterian Church has approved ofthe course of their Missionaries in uniting with ours in theorganization of the Church at Amoy, after our order, therefore, thisSynod would direct its Board of Foreign Missions to allow theirMissionaries to continue their present relations with the Missionariesof the English Presbyterian Church, and the churches under their severalcare, so long as the present harmony shall continue, and no departureshall be made from the doctrines and essential polity of our Church, oruntil this Synod shall otherwise direct. 

Some, after reading the foregoing discussion, will be ready to say tous: "Your views are in the main correct. It would have been better ifSynod had decided otherwise, but the decision has been made, and we mustput up with it. " We answer, Not so. We must obey Synod, but may not theChurch change or improve her decisions? Here is one of the good thingswe hope to see come out of this mistake of the Church. Jesus rules, andhe is ordering all things for the welfare of his Church and theadvancement of his cause. Sometimes, the better to accomplish this end, he permits the Church to make mistakes. When we failed in former days toget our views made public, it gave us no anxiety, for we believed thedoctrine that Jesus reigns. So we now feel, nothwithstanding thismistake. The Master will overrule it for good. We do not certainly knowhow, but we can imagine one way. By means of this mistake the matter maybe brought before our Church, and before other Churches, more clearlythan it would otherwise have been for many years to come, and inconsequence of this we expect, in due time, that our Church, instead ofcoming up merely to the standard of liberality for which we have beencontending, will rise far above anything we have asked for or evenimagined, and other Churches will also raise their standard higher. Hereafter we expect to contend for still higher principles. This is thedoctrine: Let all the branches of the great Presbyterian family in thesame region in any heathen country, which are sound in the faith, organize themselves, _if convenient_, into one organic whole, allowingliberty to the different parts in things non-essential. Let those whoadopt Dutch customs, as at Amoy, continue, if they see fit, theirpeculiarities, and those who adopt other Presbyterian customs, as atNingpo and other places, continue their peculiarities, and yet all uniteas one Church. This subject does not simply relate to the interests ofthe Church at Amoy. It relates to the interests of all the Missionarywork of all the Churches of the Presbyterian order in all parts of theworld. Oh that our Church might take the lead in this catholicity ofspirit--instead of falling back in the opposite direction--that no onemay take her crown! But if she do not, then we trust that some other ofthe sacramental hosts will take the lead and receive too the honor, forit is for the glory of the great Captain of our salvation, and for theinterests of His kingdom. We need the united strength of all thesebranches of Zion for the great work, which the Master has set before us, in calling on us to evangelize the world. In expecting to obtain thisunion, will it be said, that we are looking for a chimera? It ought tobe so, ought it not? Then it is no chimera. It may take time for thechurches to come up to this standard, but within a few years past wehave seen tendencies to union among different branches of thePresbyterian family in Australia, in Canada, in our own country, and inEngland and Scotland. In many places these tendencies are stronger nowthan they have ever before been since the days of the Reformation. True, human nature is still compassed with infirmities even in the Church ofChrist. But the day of the world's regeneration is approaching, and asit approaches nearer to us, doubtless the different branches of thePresbyterian family will approach still nearer to each other. God hastenthe time, and keep us also from doing anything to retard, but everythingto help it forward, and to his name be the praise forever. Amen. 

Appendix A. 

Further to illustrate the unity of the Churches under the care of thetwo Missions, I will transcribe from the _Reports_ of the Amoy Mission, for the years 1861 and 1862. 

_From the Report for 1861_. Dated Feb. 24. 1862. 

Our work is so interwoven with that of the Missionaries of the EnglishPresbyterian Church, that we cannot give a full report of the state ofour Churches and out-stations without including in it a partial reportof some of their stations. We have, therefore, thought it best, both onthis account, and because the Churches gathered by us and by them arereally one, to give statistics of both Missions with brief remarks. These, besides simplifying the matter, will enable the Church at home tobecome better acquainted with the real progress of the cause of Christin this region. 

_Missionaries and Assistant Missionaries of the Reformed Dutch Church atAmoy, at the close if the year_ 1861. [Here follow their names, andremarks concerning them. ]

_Missionaries and Assistant Missionaries of the English PresbyterianChurch at the close of the year_ 1861. [Here follow their names, andremarks concerning them. ]

_Tabular View of the Churches and Mission Stations under the care of theReformed Dutch Church, and English Presbyterian Church, in Amoy andvicinity_. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Native | | |No. Of |Rec'dChurches and |helpers | | |Church |duringMission |sustained | | |Members, |theStations. |by Mission. |Elders. |Deacons. |Jan. 1, 1861. |year. -----------------------------------------------------------------------First Church at Amoy | 3 | 4 | 4 | 102 | 24Second " " | 2 | 4 | 4 | 78 | 13Church at Chioh-be | 2 | 4 | 4 | 47 | 5 " Peh-chui-ia | 3 | 2 | . . | 25 | 3 " Ma-peng | 2 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 6Station at An-hai | 3 | . . | . . | 7 | 23 " Khang-khau| 1 |The Church members at this Station | |are reckoned to the Church at Ma-peng. " Kang-thau | 1 |The Church members at this Station | |are reckoned to the First Church at | |Amoy. " E-mng-kang| 1 |The Church members at this Station | |are reckoned to the First Church at | |Amoy. " Chiang-chiu| 2 |-----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | |No. Of |Churches and | | |Church |UnderMission | | |Members, |suspensionStations. |Dead. |Excommunicated. |Dec. 31, 1861. |Dec. , 1861. -----------------------------------------------------------------------First Church at Amoy | 2 | 2 | 122 | 4Second " " | 1 | 1 | 89 | 1Church at Chioh-be | 1 | . . | 51 | 3 " Peh-chui-ia | 1 | . . | 27 | 1 " Ma-peng | 1 | 1 | 37 | 3Station at An-hai | 1 | . . | 29 | . .. " Khang-khau|The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the Church at Ma-peng. " Kang-thau |The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the First Church at Amoy. " E-mng-kang|The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the First Church at Amoy. " Chiang-chiu|-----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Infants |Colporteurs|Churches and |baptized |sustained |Mission |during |by Native |BenevolentStations. |the year. |Church. |Contributions-----------------------------------------------------------------------First Church at Amoy | 13 | 1 } |Second " " | 11 | 1 } | $471. 33Church at Chioh-be | 5 | 1 | 200. 29 " Peh-chui-ia | 3 | . .. | . .. .. . " Ma-peng | 3 | . .. | . .. .. . Station at An-hai | 4 | . .. | . .. .. . " Khang-khau|The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the Church at Ma-peng. " Kang-thau |The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the First Church at Amoy. " E-mng-kang|The Church members at this Station are reckoned |to the First Church at Amoy. " Chiang-chiu|-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Then come remarks about _native helpers_, not included in the above;_Schools_ sustained by each of the Missions, and by the native Churches;_Theological Class_; Students sustained by each Mission. ]

_Remarks on the above Tabular View_. 

The two Churches at Amoy, and the one at Chioh-be are under the care ofthe Missionaries of the Reformed Dutch Church. * * * * * *

The Churches at Peh-chui-ia and Ma-peng, are under the care of theMissionaries of the English Presbyterian Church. * * * * * *

The Congregation at An-hai is under the care of the EnglishPresbyterian Missionaries. It has not yet been organized into a Church. It is so far removed from Amoy that it cannot conveniently be placedunder the supervision of either of the Consistories. * * * * * *

Khang-khau is a station under the care of the English PresbyterianMission. * * * * * *

Kang-thau is under the care of the Reformed Dutch Mission. 

E-mng-kang is a suburb of Amoy. The Congregation worshiping therebelongs, mostly, to the First Church at Amoy. The Station is under thecare of the English Presbyterian Mission. * * * * * *

Chiang-chiu is a large city, some twelve miles or more beyond Chioh-be, and about thirty-five miles from Amoy. In times past, several effortshave been made to establish a Station at Chiang-chiu, but always withoutsuccess, until during the past year. At the close of the year there hadnot yet been any baptisms at that Station. Since the beginning of thisyear, there have been several. The Church members are reckoned to theChurch at Chioh-be, and are under the oversight of the Chioh-beConsistory. Both Missions work as one at Chiang-chiu. Each Mission is tofurnish half the expense. To simplify the work, it was thought best thatone Mission be responsible for the control of the Station, and directthe work. At present this is the Mission of the Reformed Dutch Church. If the work be prospered, it is proposed to form two Stations, one underthe care of each Mission. 

[The remaining part of the Report, having no bearing on the subjectbefore us, need not be quoted. ]

_From the Report for 1862. _

[It will be sufficient merely to transcribe the _Tabular View_, and addone or two explanatory remarks. ]

_Churches and Mission Stations under the care of the Reformed Dutch andEnglish Presbyterian Missions at Amoy, December 31, 1862. _

----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | |No. Of |Died | | | |Members, |during|Excommunicated | | |Dec. 31, |the |during |Elders. |Deacons. |1861. |year. |the year. -----------------------------------------------------------------------First Church at Amoy | 4 | 4 | 122 | 6 | 2Second " " | 4 | 4 | 89 | . .. | . .. Church at Chioh-be | 4 | 4 | 51 | 1 | . .. " " Peh-chui-ia| 2 | 2 | 27 | . .. | . .. " " Ma-peng | 1 | 3 | 37 | 2 | . .. Station at An-hai | . . | . . | 29 | 2 | . .. " " Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy. " " Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Ma-peng. " " E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy. " " Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Chioh-be. " " Go-chhng | " " Te-soa | " " Khi-be |-----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------- |No. Of |Under |Infant |Helpers |Members, |suspension |baptisms |supported by |Dec. 31, |Dec. 31, |during |Native |1862. |1862. |the year. |Church. -----------------------------------------------------------------------First Church at Amoy | 139 | 4 | 17 | 1Second " " | 100 | 3 | 2 | 1Church at Chioh-be | 70 | 2 | 9 | 1 " " Peh-chui-ia| 30 | . .. | . .. | . .. " " Ma-peng | 38 | . .. | . .. | . .. Station at An-hai | 30 | . .. | . .. | . .. " " Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy. " " Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Ma-peng. " " E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy. " " Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Chioh-be. " " Go-chhng | " " Te-soa | " " Khi-be |-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Of the three new Stations, Go-chhng and Te-soa, are under the care ofthe Reformed Dutch Mission, Khi-be under the care of the EnglishPresbyterian Mission. The other Churches and Stations as in previousReport. ]

The Board of Foreign Missions, being simply the organ of Synod, feltbound in their Report to eliminate, as far as possible, all thePresbyterian elements from the above Reports of the Mission. By sodoing, we think that they, _undesignedly_ of course, keep our Church inignorance, not only of the absolute unity of the Churches in the regionof Amoy, but also of the real progress of the cause of Christ and of theChurch of our order there. Among the members set down to our churchesare those who belong to stations under the care of the EnglishPresbyterian Mission, as is shown by the Tabular Views. The Church athome, not aware of this fact, gives to their Mission credit which doesnot belong to them; and then, when, in the progress of the work, newchurches are organized at these stations, and these members are set offto them, because they belong there, the Dutch Mission is charged withdeficiency of denominational feeling, in giving to the EnglishPresbyterians that which, "by all rules of Christian courtesy andharmonious Missionary action, " belongs to the Dutch Church. Is it wellthat we should be disputing among ourselves concerning who shall havethat credit which all belongs to Christ? I know it has been asked, withdisapprobation, by very high authority (not, indeed, by the Board)concerning the unity of the Churches at Amoy--"_how it came to exist atall_. " In answer to such questions, let us consider one case, that ofthe Station, now Church, at E-mng-kang. It is near enough to the FirstChurch, at Amoy, to be under its supervision. Doubtless, we might havesaid to our Presbyterian brethren, In gathering a church, we are willingto labor with you in preaching the Gospel, for no one will censure usfor that, and we admit that, by all principles of our Church order, itwould be altogether proper that the converts gathered in at E-mng-kangshould be received and watched over by the First Church, at Amoy; but, by allowing this, there will be danger of unity between the Christiansat E-mng-kang and Amoy ("that they all may be one"), which will be aviolation of the important and radical distinction existing betweenthem, because "some are supported by our funds, some by the funds of theEnglish Presbyterians;" and then, when it becomes necessary to dividethese Churches, for where there is such a radical distinction, "adivision will necessarily come at some period, and the longer it isdelayed, the more trying and sorrowful it will be, " it will be foundthat the Church at Amoy can never "relinquish its powers and abnegateits authority" over the Church at E-mng-kang--therefore, rather thanincur such risks of unity, we had better violate our principles ofChurch order at the commencement, and not allow the native Elders anyresponsibility in receiving and watching over the Church members. Wemight have acted on such principles, but shall we be _censured_ for notdoing it?

Let it be distinctly understood, that I do not publish the aboveReports with such remarks with any design of throwing blame on the Boardof Foreign Missions. The members of it, and the Missionaries, have hadno feelings towards each other but such as are altogether pleasant. Perhaps the Board, in view of all the circumstances, has simplyperformed its duty. I add this Appendix only to illustrate the unity ofthe churches at Amoy, and show that the Missionaries have actedaccording to the doctrines of God's Word and the fundamental principlesof our Church order. 

Appendix B. 

In the _Christian Intelligencer_ of June 18, 1863, in the Report of theProceedings of General Synod of Thursday, June 11, the last day of thesession, appeared the following paragraphs:

 "AMOY MISSION. 

 "Rev. Dr. Porter arose and said that he was about to utter what to himself was the gladdest and happiest word he had been permitted to speak during the Synodical sessions, delightful as they all had been. He was informed by his beloved brother Talmage, that by permission of Synod, he would like to express briefly his content, in the main, with the action which the Synod had taken respecting the Amoy Mission. It is of the Lord. He has melted all hearts together as one, for his own work and honor. We see eye to eye, and Zion may lift up her voice in thanksgiving. 

 "Rev. J. V. N. Talmage said he wished to express his gratitude to the fathers and brethren for all their kindness to himself and the Missionaries at Amoy. If the Synod has not arrived at the very best decision, he hoped it is the best under the circumstances. He felt no desire to disobey the Synod, nor will the Missionaries at Amoy. If we cannot organize a Classis at once, we will do the best we can. He had been defeated, and he had no qualms of conscience in submitting to the decision that had been reached. "

I was willing to allow the previous, and, as I considered, very partial, report of the proceedings of Synod to pass unnoticed, but felt that Ihad no right to allow errors, such as are contained in the above twoparagraphs, to remain uncorrected. Therefore I addressed to the editorthe following note:

 "_To the Christian Intelligencer. _

 "Mr. Editor:

 "In looking over the report of General Synod, as given in the last number of the _Intelligencer_, I find a very grave mistake in reference to the position taken by me near the close of the session. A similar mistake appears in the report made to the _New York Observer_. [3]

 [Footnote 3: I addressed to the editors of the _Observer_ a card, correcting the mistake which had appeared in their paper, and they published it. ]

 "When, in the order of business on Thursday morning, there seemed a suitable opportunity for me to address the Synod, I was sitting near Dr. Porter, and remarked to him that I wished to make such address. He said that he desired to speak first. He arose and addressed the Synod, in substance, as is reported. I was altogether surprised, for I had given him no authority to speak for me; neither had I expressed to him or any other man the sentiments he attributed to me. I felt that his speech was altogether unfortunate, for it seemed almost to demand of me a restatement of my views. But I felt, also, that it would be improper, then, to occupy the time of Synod with any further discussion, and contented myself with merely taking exception to Dr. Porter's statement, saying that I could not use the language he had just used. 

 "I also stated that although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet _perhaps_ it was the best under all the circumstances. As these circumstances seem to be entirely misunderstood by some, I may now explain them. I had remarked in the previous debate, and still firmly believe, that the decision of Synod, if it be fully carried out, would only be disastrous in its results, as far as the churches at Amoy were concerned. But there was another disaster to be apprehended. If the Synod had allowed the work of God to proceed at Amoy, as it had always been carried forward, and with such marvelous blessings from on high, for so many years past, it was feared that some of the members of Synod would use their influence in the Church against that Mission, to such an extent as possibly to cut off the resources of the mission. Such were the circumstances to which I alluded, and I was well understood, at least by some of the members of Synod. It seemed necessary to choose between two evils. My own opinion was, and is, that the Synod had chosen the greater evil, still I was willing to yield 'the benefit of the doubt, ' and therefore remarked that _perhaps_ (I used the word 'perhaps') the decision was the best under the circumstances. 

 "I did express for myself, and as I believed, in accordance with the views of the Missionaries at Amoy, that we did not wish, and never had wished to disobey the injunctions of Synod. Besides this, we were under obligations to do what was best for the churches under our care. If we were not allowed to do that which is absolutely best, we should do the best we could. 

 "I also expressed my gratitude that the Synod had manifested so much patience and Christian courtesy towards myself and the Mission, for with one or two exceptions, not an unkind word had been uttered. 

 "The closing sentence of my remarks being somewhat playful, might have been omitted from the report, but if thought worthy of publication, it should have been given correctly. I know that I can give it now with accuracy, almost _verbatim_. 'I have fought hard, and have been beaten; I could wish I had been able to fight better, but I did my best, and consequently have no qualms of conscience on the subject. ' Does that mean that we had no qualms of conscience about 'submitting to the decision that had been reached?' No. It means that I was not responsible for the evils of that decision. 

 "It will, I think, serve the cause of truth, Mr. Editor, if you will be so kind as to publish this card in your next issue. If I was so unfortunate in the use of language as not to express sentiments similar to the above, I desire now to express them. 

 "Allow me also to ask whether you will open the columns of your paper for a full statement of the views of the Amoy Mission on the subject of the ecclesiastical relations of the churches under their care? I find that there is still altogether a mistaken impression among our churches on this subject. Our people who sustain the Mission have a right to know the condition of that Mission. From the report in the last Intelligencer, they will get no light on that subject, but will get the impression that some great mistake has been committed by the Missionaries at Amoy. _Allowing_ this to be the case, the Missionaries have a right to be heard before the churches. Let the churches understand the matter, and decide concerning the mistake. The Missionaries have been desirous for years to get their views made public, but have not yet succeeded. 

"Very truly, yours, &c, "J. V. N. TALMAGE. "June 19, 1863. 

Instead of finding my note inserted in the next number of the_Intelligencer_ I found the following:

 "REV. MR. TALMAGE'S LETTER. 

 "We have received from the Rev. J. V. N. Talmage, a communication respecting our report of his remarks at the close of the session of the General Synod, accompanied with a request that he be permitted to appeal through these columns to the Churches in support of his position. The communication is long, and perhaps we can give the substance of it briefly. 

 "1st. He wishes to correct the statement of Rev. Dr. Porter. And this he shall do in his own words, viz. :

 "'I felt that his speech was altogether unfortunate, for it seemed almost to demand of me the restatement of my views. But I felt, also, that it would be improper then to occupy the time of Synod with any further discussion, and contented myself with merely taking exception to Dr. Porter's statements, saying that I could not use the language he had just used. I also stated that, although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet perhaps it was the best, under all the circumstances. '

 "So far Mr. Talmage, in disclaiming agreement with the statement made by Dr. Porter. 

 "We can, on this point, only express regret that there should have been either seeming or real difference. But as Brother Talmage confesses that our report correctly represents him as having said, that

 "'Although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet perhaps it was the best, under all the circumstances, '

 "We therefore suppose that the report of verbal differences--if the spirit of the remarks be anything--between him and the gentleman to whom he refers, cannot be accounted as very serious. 

 "2d. As it respects the opening of these columns to a fresh discussion of the matter relating to the Amoy Churches before Synod, we have simply to say that we dare not give consent, for the following reasons: The Synod is the legislative body for the Church. The documents and statements respecting the Amoy Churches were full and thorough in the information imparted. Four sessions and more of the Synod were occupied with a careful preparatory hearing and final adjudication of the matter, and it is not the duty of the _Christian Intelligencer_ to allow itself to be used as the agent of dissension among the Churches, and of opposition to the constituted authority of the Synod. "

Whether my views were _misrepresented_, and whether I was charged withseeking a different object from that for which I had asked--I had notasked that the columns of the paper be opened for a fresh "_discussion_of the matter" which had been "_before Synod_, " but "for a _fullstatement_ of the views of the Amoy Mission, " because of "_mistakenimpressions_" in "_our Churches_"--the Church will be able to decide asaccurately as myself. But I wish to say this much. Your Missionaries donot consider that by becoming Missionaries they lose their rights as_men_, and _Ministers of the Dutch Church_. They have the right toexpect that, when away from home, their reputation will be protected. When mistaken statements concerning their views get abroad in theChurch, there should be, and we believe there is, a responsible partywhose duty it is to correct such statements. At any rate, a paper whichprofesses to be the organ of the Dutch Church, has no right to refuse tothe Missionaries themselves the privilege of correcting mistakenstatements of _their own views_ and _their own language_, that appear inits columns. The Editor doubtless is responsible for what appears in hispaper. He may refuse to publish improper articles, but he may not garbleand misrepresent them without incurring reproof. The expense ofpublishing in pamphlet form corrections of mistakes which appear in thecolumns of a newspaper, is too heavy a tax to impose on any of theMinistry of the Church, especially on your Missionaries; and, even then, the corrections can be read by only a small portion of those who readthe misstatements.