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

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

The above is only an extract from the close of the Report of the Committee, and contains the result at which they arrived. In reference to it we would make three remarks. (1). It (Res. 3) seems rather a cavalier answer to the fraternal wish of the Synod of the English Presbyterian Church, as expressed in their action. (2.) The action of Synod 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 had been found by experiment un.o.bjectionable, the argument is not without force. But how and where has this test been applied, and found so satisfactory? Our Church has three Missions among the heathen: one in India, one in China, and one in j.a.pan. Has it been tested in j.a.pan? 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 has been of an opposite character, and has been wonderfully successful. The test has only been applied in India, and has only _begun_ to be applied even there. There, as yet, there is but one native pastor. Their Cla.s.sis is more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a native Cla.s.sis, before the test can be p.r.o.nounced at all satisfactory. True, that Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called a Cla.s.sis in connection with the Synod in America. But has it been more successful than the Mission at Amoy? Compare the amount of labor and the money expended on the two Missions, and then look at the results, and thus decide about the tests. It is in no spirit of vainglory that we call for such a comparison. Studiously have we avoided it, and the responsibility must rest on those who compel us to it. (3.) No consideration is had for the feelings, wishes, or opinions of the native Churches. Some consideration is shown for the feelings of the English Presbyterian Missionaries. This is as it ought to be. Yet it is a matter of _comparatively_ little importance. _The inalienable rights of the native churches, their relation to each other, their absolute unity--things of the utmost consequence_--are not at all regarded, are entirely ignored!

It would have occupied too much s.p.a.ce to have quoted the whole of the Report of the Committee. The preceding part of it occupies nearly six pages of the Minutes of Synod. Yet we may not pa.s.s that part over in silence, for, while with much of its contents we have no dispute, it contains some grave mistakes of fact, and, as we think, some very grave errors of doctrine. It grieves me to say thus much, and also to feel compelled to add the following strictures. But, in order to discuss this subject, duty required the careful examination of the whole of the Report, and, finding in it such errors, the clear statement of them. It might be easy, perhaps, to account for the fact, that mistakes, in a report, unprinted, and of such length, should escape the notice of Synod, but an attempt to apologize for that body might give occasion to infer more disrespect than simply to point out the mistakes.

After some introductory remarks, chiefly concerning the difficulty of their task, the Committee "begin with the a.s.sertion 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 of their second principle, so far as we can understand it, is, that _the Dutch Church has a clearly defined government_. The Missionaries at Amoy, as well as the ministers in this country, admit both these principles fully. But they do not affect the question in dispute. Not so with the third principle of the Committee. Lest I might be supposed to misrepresent, I will quote their own language: "No government can, voluntarily, relinquish its powers, and abnegate its authority without thereby inviting disorder, disquietude, and, in the end, its destruction." Is this, indeed, as the Committee a.s.sert, one of the "admitted principles" of our Church? one of the "convictions in the mind of our Church, hardly separable in idea from its very existence?" one of the "old truths maintained through blood and flame?" If the doctrine be true, the Church in Holland had no right to relinquish its authority over the Church in America. If this doctrine be a "principle" of our Church, never, _never_ could your Missionaries consent to be instrumental in bringing the Church in China, which now has liberty in Christ Jesus, into such _perpetual_ bondage. Once bring the Chinese churches under the authority of the Church in America, and it matters not how great may be their growth, and how many centuries may pa.s.s away, the Church in America can never relinquish her authority over them! But this 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 _old error of the Papacy_, for rejecting which she poured out her blood so freely, and would do the same to-day. Yet in the Report of the Committee this error of Romanism, guilty of the blood of thousands upon thousands of the saints of the Most High, is made to lie at the basis of the action 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." With some of them we have no dispute. But when they come to describe the present 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 labor on the part of our own Missionaries, and on the part of those belonging to the English Presbyterian Church, that all are said to have a two-fold ecclesiastical relation--one with England--one with America, and still a third, and economical and domestic relation among themselves, which is covered and controlled by what is styled 'The Great Presbyterial or Cla.s.sical Council of Amoy.'"

We do not know by whom these native Churches "are said" to have a two-fold or three-fold _ecclesiastical_ relation. It is not so said by the Missionaries. They contend that the native churches are neither English, nor American, but _Chinese_ churches. They are ecclesiastically related to each other, and ought to remain so. But the effort is now made to sever this ecclesiastical relation to each other, and bring half of them into ecclesiastical relationship with the Church in America, making them the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of _North America, in China_! 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 Cla.s.sical Council is itself an autonomy--having the right to ordain ministers, exercise discipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Cla.s.sis' or Presbytery can or may do, still the whole in England is claimed to be the Presbytery of Amoy, and to this Synod it is reported as the Cla.s.sis of Amoy."

How dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a _Presbytery_, and American Dutchmen call it a _Cla.s.sis_! If this language is also meant to imply that the Cla.s.sis at Amoy is usurping authority, 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 Presbyterial or Cla.s.sical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are, at the same time, members either of Cla.s.ses in America, or of Presbyteries in Great Britain."

The meaning of this second "particular" is, that the Missionaries have a two-fold ecclesiastical relation. Is there anything contrary to Scripture doctrine, or to Presbyterian principles, or to common sense, that ecclesiastical relations should correspond to fact?--that the Missionaries should have some sort of an ecclesiastical relation, both to the Church at home and to the Church in China? They have a peculiar relationship to both these Churches. Why forget or ignore the fact that they are _Evangelists_ and _not Pastors_? Why object to an ecclesiastical relationship exactly corresponding to, and required by, their office and position? The two parts of this relationship do not contradict each other. They are altogether correlative. The Missionaries are still agents of the Church which sent them out. Their ecclesiastical relation to it should be direct, that they may be controlled by it, independent of any intermediate body. The Church at home cannot afford to cut off her Missionaries from this immediate relationship so long as they remain her agents. This does not conflict with, but requires some sort of a corresponding relationship to the Churches planted and growing up through their instrumentality. Their relationship to those Churches must have reference especially to local matters, for the proper organization, and control, and development of the native churches, not at all to be controlled by them. When they cease to be agents of the Church at home, and become the proper _pastors_ of the native churches, then will be the proper time to put themselves under the control of the native churches, instead of the Church at home. We must not confound _evangelization_ with _colonization_. Does any one imagine that Paul and Barnabas, and Timothy and t.i.tus, or any of them (for they were not all apostles), had connection with the Church which sent them out, _only_ through the churches and ecclesiastical bodies organized by them? or that they were in any sense under the control of those bodies?

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

The words of this third "particular" are almost (not quite) accurate.

Yet they appear to us like special pleading. They would have been strictly 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 Const.i.tution of our Church. Therefore it is claimed that they form a Church of our order in China, but that the members 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. The effort is now made to divide these churches, and make three of them a part of the Dutch Church in America.

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

"Your Committee can easily understand how reluctantly our Missionaries may have been, or may still be, to disturb, or alter, or modify the relations of the Churches at Amoy. But they conceive it to be their duty to say that feeling should never be allowed to take the place of conscience, nor to discharge its functions; and so long as our Missionaries claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod, they should allow this body to a.s.sume the responsibility of its chosen and deliberate policy."

It seems to us the Committee are not much more fortunate on the subject of casuistry, than on Church "government" and "historic facts." The Missionaries do "claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod," but they also claim to be subordinate to the _Supreme authority_. Now suppose--we shall not be charged with insubordination for the mere supposition--suppose the Synod, through some misapprehension, should direct us to pursue a course, which, after the most mature reflection, we felt to be injurious to the cause of Christ, and consequently contrary to His will--will the fact of the Synod "a.s.suming the responsibility" clear our skirts? Who is the Lord of conscience? General Synod? It seems to us, while the Committee conceive it to be their duty to deliver to the Missionaries at Amoy a lecture on the importance of giving heed to conscience, in the very same sentence they direct us to hold conscience in abeyance. But where did the Committee learn that their Missionaries were influenced by _feelings_ and not by _conscience_, and that too in reference to the laying of the foundation 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 a lecture? Would such a reflection have been cast on any other body of ministers in our Church? or is it supposed that men who give themselves to the work of preaching the gospel in heathen lands are less under the influence of conscience than those who remain at home? _They conceived it to be their duty!_ Was it?

So much for the Report of the Committee of Synod. The decision of Synod has been given, as stated above. The important question now is, what will be the result of this decision on the Church at Amoy? This question, however, cannot yet be answered with certainty, for we cannot yet even guess what course the Missionaries there, when they learn the decision 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 ask the Board to recall them._ They firmly believe that their course of proceeding, in organizing the Church at Amoy, is not only in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but also with the principles of our Church. To be the instruments, then, of dividing the Church, which G.o.d has gathered by their hands, may be to sin against their consciences. They may therefore ask the Board to appoint other agents to carry out the decision of Synod. This would not be insubordination, but perfect subordination both to the authority of Synod and also to that authority which all Protestant Christians acknowledge to be _supreme_.

This, I suppose, would be the most natural course for the brethren to take, except for one consideration; that is, their love for the Churches gathered by them, or under their care, and their responsibility in reference to the spiritual welfare of those disciples of the Lord. It would be the severest trial they have ever been called on to endure to be recalled from their work. Therefore (2.) _They may delay their action_, making one more effort to get their views published, hoping that the Church will yet change her decision, and not require of them to engage in a proceeding which they think will be so injurious to the cause of Christ; but, on the contrary, will approve of the course heretofore adopted by them as altogether scriptural, and the true doctrine of our Church. Or (3.) They may _possibly_, after mature reflection, think the _least evil_ will be _to carry out the decision of Synod_, although that decision be altogether contrary to their own judgment. Then they will take three of the six churches, which now are all of our order, and organize these three a separate Denomination and an integral part of the Church in America. This is the course which at home will be generally expected of them.

Now let us suppose that they will adopt this third course, and then let us look calmly at its results--at the supposed or real advantages thereof, 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 be higher courts of jurisdiction to which appeals may be made, and by which orthodoxy and good order may be the better secured to the Church at Amoy. Such advantages, if they can be thus secured, we would by no means underrate. There sometimes are cases of appeal for which we need the highest court practicable--the collective wisdom of the Church so far as it can be obtained; and the preservation of orthodoxy and good order is of the first importance. Now let us see whether the plan proposed will secure these advantages. Let us suppose that one of the brethren feels himself aggrieved by the decision of the Cla.s.sis of Amoy, and he appeals to the Particular Synod of Albany, and thence to the General Synod. He will not be denied the right to such appeal. But, in order that the appeal may be properly prosecuted and disposed of, the appellant and the representative of Cla.s.sis should be present in these higher courts. Can this be secured? Is the waste of time, of a year or more, nothing? and where shall the thousands of dollars of necessary expense come from? Now suppose this appellant to be a Chinese brother. He also has rights. But how, on this plan, can he possibly obtain them? Suppose (which of itself is an absurdity) that the money be raised for him, and he is permitted to stand on the floor of Synod. He cannot speak, read, or write a word of English. Not a member of Synod can speak, read, or write a word of his language, except it be the brother prosecuting him. I ask, is it possible for him thus to obtain justice? But, waiving all these disadvantages, the only points on which there is the least probability that an appeal of a Chinese brother would come up before the higher courts, are points on which these higher courts would not be qualified to decide. They would doubtless grow out of the peculiar customs and laws of the Chinese--points on which the Missionary, after he has been on the ground a dozen years, often feels unwilling to decide, and takes the opinion of the native elders in preference to his own. Is it right to impose a yoke like this on that little Church which G.o.d is gathering by your instrumentality in that far-off land of China? But it is said, that these cases of appeal (because of impracticability) will very rarely or never happen. Be it so; then this supposed advantage will seldom or never occur, and if it should occur, it would prove a disadvantage. The highest practical court of appeal for the native churches can be secured only on the plan for which the Missionaries contend. Why must we deprive the native Christians of the benefit of the collective wisdom of all the churches of like doctrine and order among them?

As regards orthodoxy and good order, it is inc.u.mbent on the Church at home to use her utmost endeavors to secure these. Doubtless this was the great design of Synod, both in the action of 1857 and in the action of 1863. But will the plan of Synod give us any greater security for these things? How can they be secured? We answer, under G.o.d, _only_ through your Missionaries. The greater your hold on your Missionaries, the better security for the churches under their care. The plan of Synod would place your Missionaries _ecclesiastically_ almost beyond your control. They must be dismissed from the various Cla.s.ses in this country, and, together with the native churches under their care, form themselves into a Chinese Cla.s.sis. Either they will have a controlling influence over the native portion of this Cla.s.sis or they will not. If they have, then your only way to discipline them will be to discipline their Cla.s.sis. It would be a new doctrine in our Church, to make the Board of Foreign Missions an _ecclesiastical_ medium between the Synod and one of its Cla.s.ses, or to enforce discipline over the ministry by the _money rod_. The Cla.s.sis, _as such_, must be disciplined by the direct act of Synod. Or, suppose the Missionaries do not have such controlling influence over the native members of Cla.s.sis, for the native members will outnumber, and, unless the action of Synod (as we greatly fear) seriously r.e.t.a.r.d the work at Amoy, will very soon greatly outnumber the Missionaries. What then? Your Missionaries are under the ecclesiastical control of the native converts. Their doctrines and morals are to be decided on by a court composed mainly of recent converts from heathenism. The only way to bring them before the higher courts in this country, is through this native court, as we have already seen, almost an impossibility. Is it not plain that the Church at home will not thus have a moiety of the control over her Missionaries she now has? Is this the way to keep the Church at Amoy sound and pure? It seems to be supposed by some that the Missionaries desire to be separated from the control of the Church at home. This is altogether a mistake, and another result of withholding their views from the public.

They have no such desire. The contrary is altogether the fact. They do not desire to be placed under the control of the native Chinese churches. They did not derive their authority from those churches, they are not sustained by them, and they are in no sense their agents, but they derive their authority through, are sustained by, and are altogether the agents of the Church in this country; therefore the Church at home has and should retain control over them. They are amenable to the Church at home, through their several Cla.s.ses. These are the only courts qualified to take cognizance of their doctrines and morals. They desire to remain in this relation. We think they have a right to demand this, until such time as they become agents of the Church in China, instead of the Church in America.

Suppose by some means suspicion should arise at home concerning the orthodoxy or morality of one or more of your Missionaries. On the plan proposed, what can the Church do with them? May the Board of Missions, on mere report or suspicion, recall them without giving them a proper trial? 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 of whose members have recently been converted from heathenism through the instrumentality of these very Missionaries? But continue the plan of the Missionaries and all will be simple. If any of the Missionaries give occasion for suspicion, let them be tried by their proper Cla.s.ses in this country. This is all that the Church at home can do _ecclesiastically_ towards keeping the Church pure in China. Whether the proposed _nominal_ union be consummated or not, the only hold you will have on the Chinese churches will be through your Missionaries. If they will not receive the instructions, and listen to the advice of your Missionaries and of the Synod through them, you would not expect them to obey the injunctions of Synod. Your only other resort will be to withhold from them help. Can you not do the same now?

But in all this discussion, I fear, we lose sight too much of our dependence on the Head of the Church to keep His Church pure. Sure I am that the Church in China cannot be kept pure by legislation on this, the opposite side of the globe. But we expect Christ to reign over, and the Holy Spirit to be given to the churches, and the proper ecclesiastical bodies formed of them in China as well as in this land. Why not? Such are the promises of G.o.d. The way to secure these things is by prayer, and the preaching of the pure gospel, not by legislation. Let the Church be careful in her selection of Missionaries. Send only such as she has confidence in--men of G.o.d, sound in the faith, apt to teach--and then trust them, or recall them. Don't attempt to control them contrary to their judgment. Strange if this, which is so much insisted on as the policy of our Church, be right, that she cannot get a single man, of all she sends out to China, to think so. Can it be that the Missionary work is so subversive of right reason, or of correct judgment, or of conscientiousness, that all become perverted by engaging in it?

2. Another supposed advantage is the effect it will have in enlisting the sympathies of the Church in behalf of the Mission at Amoy. It is said, tell the Church that we have a flourishing Cla.s.sis at Amoy, a part of ourselves, connected with General Synod, just like all the other Cla.s.ses of our Church, the effect will be wonderful in enlisting sympathy, money, and men in behalf of that Mission; otherwise the opposite evil must be apprehended. If these things be so, they are indeed of grave importance. The Mission in China cannot live without the sympathy of the Church at home. But are these things so? It seems to us that the supposition takes for granted that our Church in its Missionary work 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 not at all to be compared, in this respect, with the English Presbyterian Church, or the Free Church of Scotland. Allusion has already been made to the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. I may now also remark that a large amount of the funds for carrying on the work at Amoy is raised in Scotland from members of the Free Church. They never had any idea that the churches gathered in China were to be a part of their own Church. They do not even ask that they be a part of their sister Church in England. They only ask that they shall be sound in the faith and hold to the essentials of Presbyterianism, even though they have some characteristics peculiar to the Dutch and other Reformed Churches.

These Presbyterian brethren in England and Scotland are not only ready to support their own Missionaries in their work of building up the churches under their especial care, but they stand ready to a.s.sist the Missionaries of our Church in building up the churches under our especial care. Of their frequent offers to a.s.sist us, when they feared we should be in want of funds, our Board can bear testimony. We are not yet willing to believe that our people are a people of narrow views in a matter like this. It is contrary to our history in time past. It is contrary to the facts of the present day. It is contrary to all my observation among our churches. Our people do not first ask whether it be building _ourselves_ up, before they sympathize with a benevolent object. We believe the contrary is the exact truth. It requires a liberal policy to call forth liberal views and action. As regards the enlisting of men, look at the facts. Every man who has gone out from among you, to engage in this Missionary work, begs of you not to adopt a narrow policy. So in regard to obtaining of funds. Usually, the men who are most liberal in giving are most liberal in feeling. This must be so in the very nature of things. The way to alienate the sympathies of the Church from the Mission at Amoy is to divide the Church there by a sectarian policy; and the way to enlist her sympathies is to continue the former plan, and let the work go forward with the Divine blessing as in days past. The people will be more encouraged, and praise G.o.d more heartily, when you tell them of six organized churches like our own, and many others growing up all around, than they will if you tell them of only three churches, and only a few out-stations, under our care. They will not object to hear that the English Presbyterian brethren are laboring with us, and organizing churches so nearly like our own.

However powerful the motive addressed to the desire to build up our own Church, there are motives infinitely more powerful. Such are the motives to be depended on in endeavoring to elevate the standard of liberality among our people.

Let brethren in the Ministry try the experiment, and tell their people of the wonders of G.o.d's grace:--that he has led his servants from our own Church in this land, and from the Presbyterian Church in Great Britain, in their work of evangelizing the heathen, and laying the foundation of the Church of Christ, to lay aside all national animosities, and rise above all denominational prejudices and jealousies--that he has given to the Presbyterian Church in England, and the sister Church in Scotland, a spirit of catholicity and liberality as exhibited in the previous part of this paper--and that, as a consequence, he is causing his Church to grow up in the region of Amoy in beautiful proportions, all the congregations under their care and ours also manifesting the same spirit of catholicity and liberality, submitting to each other according to the Divine command, working together with the utmost harmony, and, as a consequence, with wonderful effectiveness. Can you account for such things except by the energy of the Spirit of G.o.d? Surely it is not the spirit of the world, neither is it the spirit of the devil. Try the experiment, then, and see whether the wonders of G.o.d's grace will alienate the hearts of his people. Your Missionaries have no doubt--we can hardly understand how any who examine the subject can doubt--we are sure that no one can personally behold the work and yet doubt, that the wonderful blessing of G.o.d, which has accompanied the work at Amoy, has been both the cause and the result of this harmonious labor on the part of your Missionaries, and those from the sister Churches in England and Scotland. Therefore, we feel a.s.sured that the simple recital of the grace of G.o.d thus manifested, must influence the hearts of his people most powerfully, and therefore it is that we beseech the Church not to interfere with, and hinder the work of G.o.d. May we not refer, without being charged with disrespect, to the Synod of Jerusalem as a proper example for our General Synod? Peter says, "Why tempt ye G.o.d to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" And then the decree, which the Synod sent to the Churches, runs thus: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these _necessary_ things." The ecclesiastical "power which the Lord hath given" to his Church is "to _edification_, and not to _destruction_."

If the Missionaries be allowed to proceed in building up a Church, like our own, simply with reference to the evangelization of China, doubtless brethren in the ministry, and other influential men, could take occasion therefrom to prejudice the Churches against our work. They could do this, if they were so disposed, without any such occasion. But will they do it? We cannot believe that they will. They love the cause of Christ too well, and desire to see the world converted to G.o.d too ardently, to permit them to throw any obstacles in the way of our work, even though that work be not carried forward in the manner which they consider altogether the best. If we are right, these brethren will soon see that we are right, and however powerful the motive to be addressed to the desire of extending our own Church, they will find infinitely more powerful motives to be addressed to a more n.o.ble desire of the Christian heart. If our people have not yet learned, they should be taught to engage in the work of evangelizing the world, not for the sake of our Church in America, but for the sake of Christ and His Church, and when the Church thus built up is like our own, they should be fully satisfied. We believe they will be satisfied with this.

3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is the advantage of carrying out the _policy_ of our Church. This, in itself considered, might be regarded worthy of but little attention.

Cannot--ought not--the Church change her policy if wrong, or if a better can be adopted? Surely her laws are not like those of the Medes and Persians. But the argument has been used with so much earnestness and perseverance, both in the Reports of the Committees and in the discussions in Synod, that it demands some investigation. Instead of the course pursued by the Missionaries being, as it is contended, contrary to, it is the true policy of our Church--the policy in existence long before the decision of 1857. If the course now required of them be the present policy of our Church, it is a _mistaken_ policy, contrary to the very genius of our inst.i.tutions, and ought to be corrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Const.i.tution that either it or the Const.i.tution must be sacrificed. In order to save the policy it was found necessary during the past year to amend the Const.i.tution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circ.u.mstances of a Missionary Cla.s.sis require it, "_all the ordinary requirements of the Const.i.tution_" may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it be that a policy which requires _such const.i.tutional changes_ can be the old and proper policy of our Church? But if the policy be continued we are not yet done with changes. The very _name_ of our Church must be changed. It now is "The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church _in North America_." We must expunge the words "_in North America_," or must add India, China, and j.a.pan, and every other country where the Church may undertake Missionary work. We know it has been said of this policy, "it is our _settled, irreversible_ policy." Is every thing then to be regarded as _unsettled_ and _changeable_ but this policy of the Church?

We answer, No. The Church may change her name, if she please, as she has changed her Const.i.tution. Or she may change her policy. But there are certain fundamental principles of Church government which she may not change. Hence, even yet, the principles for which the Missionaries contend must remain the true policy of our Church, for they lie at the very foundation of Presbyterial order. A full discussion of this subject will come up most naturally when we discuss the _evils_ of the course now required of us. I will now allude to only one fact. The Board of Foreign Missions was formed on this principle. If the Cla.s.ses at Arcot and Amoy are to be considered _integral_ parts of the Church in this country, related to General Synod like the Cla.s.ses in this country, then the Missionaries at those stations properly should come under the Board of Domestic Missions. Suppose, according to the new plan, the Missionaries form themselves into the kind of Cla.s.sis now required of them; what will be the relation of the Cla.s.sis of Amoy to the Board of Foreign Missions? Is the Cla.s.sis, in evangelizing the heathen around, to operate through the Board, or the Board through the Cla.s.sis? The Cla.s.sis at Amoy decide on a certain course of ecclesiastical procedure, or evangelistic labor, and the Board decides on another course; how is such a matter to be settled? Will it be said, there is no danger of such difficulty? The Cla.s.sis and Board will both be composed of men with infirmities. Ask the Board whether there have not already been incipient difficulties, in the supposed clashing of the powers of the Board and the powers of the Cla.s.sis of Arcot. But the Cla.s.sis of Arcot as yet is little more than an _American Missionary Cla.s.sis_. What will be the difficulties when it becomes an _Indian_ Cla.s.sis? But we are told, "keep the Mission and Cla.s.sis distinct." Is the Mission, then, to attend to all the evangelistic work, and the Cla.s.sis to do nothing? Or are there to be two distinct evangelistic policies carried on at Amoy, the one by the Mission, and the other by the Cla.s.sis? Or is the Cla.s.sis first to come over to the Synod, and so get to the Board in order to carry on the work around? Instead of this new plan being the settled policy of our Church, we believe it to be a solecism. When a Church is established among the heathen after our order, then is the true policy of our Church carried out. Let the present relations of the Missionaries to the Board and to their several Cla.s.ses remain, and there will be no occasion for the clashing of the powers of the Board with those of any ecclesiastical body.

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

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

1. It will not be for the credit of our Church. She now has a name, with other Churches, for putting forth efforts to evangelize the world. Shall she mar this good name and acquire one for sectarianism, by putting forth efforts to extend _herself_, not her doctrines and order;--they are not sectarian, and her Missionaries esteem them as highly as do their brethren at home--but _herself_, even at the cost of dividing churches which the grace of G.o.d has made one?

The decision of the last Synod may not be the result of sectarianism among the people of our Church. We do not think it is. But it will be difficult to convince our Presbyterian brethren and others, that it is not so. By way of ill.u.s.tration I will suppose a case. A. is engaged in a very 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. I also 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 than one.'"

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

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

A. "I appreciate, friend B., your politeness, and am well aware that all you say about the greater efficiency and excellence of united work, and the delights of social intercourse is perfectly true. But--but--well, I prefer 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 a violation of Presbyterial order. It seems strange to us that it should be constantly a.s.serted that we are striving to create a formal union between two bodies which are essentially distinct. There is nothing of the kind. There are six organized churches at Amoy. They are all Dutch (i.e. Reformed), and they are all Presbyterian, for the Dutch Churches are all Presbyterian. But they are Chinese, not American, nor English, nor Scotch. If these churches are not _one_, then it is impossible for two or more individual churches to be one. If schism in a Church be a sin, then the separation of this Church will be a sin, for it will be an actual schism. You can make nothing more nor less of it. If you say that schism is only an evil, then the separation of this Church will, at least, be an evil.

Perhaps it will be thought that _schism_ is too hard a term whereby to designate the separation of the Church at Amoy. Never mind the word, then, but let us look at the facts. The proper Cla.s.sis of Amoy, composed of all the churches of like order, and of the Missionaries, has proceeded, according to the order of our Church, to ordain and install native pastors, and to perform a few other necessary ecclesiastical acts. These pastors are now called on to separate from, and break up that body, through which they received their office! The opinions and wishes of these native pastors, as well of the native Cla.s.sis, and the native churches, are all ignored! Are such things right? Are these the doctrines or policy of the Dutch Church? We are told that we need say nothing to the native churches on the subject. Is this right? Is the Dutch Church a hierarchy? Does the General Synod claim authority to order the division in such a manner of a Cla.s.sis of the Church of Christ without the consent of that Cla.s.sis? "_What G.o.d hath joined together let not man put asunder._"

In consequence of fallen humanity, there are evils which we call necessary evils. Such is the case of different Denominations of Christians in the same region of territory. They differ in sentiment on important (or supposed to be important) subjects, and because of this difference in sentiment, they can work together in greater harmony, and with greater efficiency, by being formed into distinct organizations.

Such, however, is not the case of the six churches at Amoy, and others growing up under their care and the care of your own and the English Presbyterian Missionaries. Even when Churches agree in doctrine and order, it is sometimes better, and sometimes necessary, in consequence of geographical separation or national distinctions, to form distinct organizations. It is better, or necessary, that the Churches in Holland, and America, and South Africa, be ecclesiastically distinct. We do not call this an evil, for all the advantages of ecclesiastical courts and control are better thus secured. But suppose a case. There are, say, thirty Dutch churches in the city of New York. Now, suppose there were no others of the same order throughout this whole land: instead of allowing these churches to remain one organic whole--forming Cla.s.ses and Synods, as the growth and convenience may allow and direct--it is proposed to take one-half of these churches, form them into a distinct organization, thus depriving them of ecclesiastical relations to the other half, and attach them to an ecclesiastical body in China--a nation of different customs and different language. How should we designate such an act? The first part would be schism, and the last part would be folly. The only difference between such a procedure and that required of us is, that the churches at Amoy have been gathered partly by our instrumentality, and are dependent partly on us for instruction. If our Presbyterial order be scriptural, all these churches at Amoy, growing out of each other, are bound to a.s.sociate together, ecclesiastically. It is their duty to submit to each other. They would also be bound to submit to the Church of the same order in England and America, and every other country throughout the world, if it were possible and convenient.

But such relation is not convenient, or possible. Therefore, we must choose that which is possible and most convenient. It is possible, and it is convenient, that they a.s.sociate together. It is not possible that they all be subject to the Church in England, and, at the same time, to the Church in America. It is not convenient that they all be subject to either of these Churches. We do not think it is convenient that one-half of them be subject to either of these Churches. Besides the sin, or evil, of schism, they never can be properly represented in the higher ecclesiastical bodies of either of these Churches. They never can have an Elder present (I speak now of their connection with the Church in America, for this is the subject before us). They never can have a full representation of ministers. Only very seldom can they have even one minister present. He usually will only be one who is ill, and consequently not a proper representative. The native element, _i.e., the chief element_ of the Church can never be represented at all. The representation, at the best, will only be a representation of your Missionaries, not at all of the Chinese Church. Therefore, we a.s.sert that such a union would not be _real_, not even _apparent_, only _nominal_. In striving after it, we are pursuing a chimera, destroying a substance for the sake of a shadow.

But it is offered as an objection to our views, that the Presbyterian Church (O.S.) has Presbyteries and Synods in India and China. Yes, they have three Presbyteries and a Synod in India, and have had for twenty years. But even yet there is not so much of a native element in their whole Synod as there is already in the little Church in the region of Amoy. As an ecclesiastical body, it is not _Indian_ in its characteristics--it is _American_. So with all their Presbyteries in Siam and China, with the exception, perhaps, of the Presbytery at Ningpo. They are _American_ Presbyteries, not native in their character.[2]

[Footnote 2: The following statistics are from the Minutes of General a.s.sembly, 1863.