Constitution of our Church had made no provision for such work beyond
the 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 among
the heathen. The Constitution was made for the government of a Church
already organized and matured, and in America; therefore, it is not
strange that such things were not provided for. Our duty seemed very
plain. We must fall back on the great principles of church government
taught in the Word of God. We believed these principles to be set forth
in the Constitution, and other standards of our Church.
When, through the instrumentality of the preached Word, men gave
satisfactory evidence that they had experienced "the renewing of the
Holy Ghost," without the advice of Consistories, by virtue of our office
of Ministers of the Word, we administered to them the sacrament of
baptism, thus admitting them into the church. Now the Lord's Supper must
be administered to these believers, baptism to their infant children,
and to new converts, and the discipline of God's house maintained. By
virtue of that same office, and by virtue of the authority given by the
Master to his Church, we felt that we had the right, aye, that it was
our bounden duty, to perform such acts. We could not yet for a long time
set apart a proper Consistory, but we must not therefore be "lords over
God's heritage." In receiving new members, and in all acts of
discipline, we must advise with the church already gathered.
The church grew, and in due time a Consistory was called for; must the
work stop, because the Constitution had made no provision? No. The
little church had the right to choose men, and having chosen suitable
men, it was our duty to ordain them. The authority we thus exercised was
not usurped, but was implied in the commission we received from our
Master through the Church. The same may be said of the authority of the
brethren at Amoy, when, in connection with the representative elders of
the various churches, they proceeded to the ordination of native
pastors, and the organization of new churches. It was not necessary for
the performance of every act to get a new commission from the Church.
When the Church sent us out, the one commission contained all the
authority necessary for the complete organization of the church. It is
an absurdity to deny, on _constitutional grounds_, the right of the
Missionaries to perform these last acts unless you deny their right to
perform all their other acts except the simple preaching of the Gospel.
Their acts were all _extra_, not _contra_ constitutional. If their
authority thus to act be justified in reference to the former acts, and
denied in reference to the latter, the justification and denial must be
on other grounds than the Constitution of our Church.
Will any one assert that the Classis thus formed at Amoy is not a
Classis _de facto_? or that the native pastors ordained and installed by
that body are not _scripturally_ set apart to their offices, and that
its other acts are null and void? If so, then, as yet, there are no
organized churches--no Consistories--at Amoy, and there have been no
scriptural baptisms, for all ecclesiastical acts performed there, have
been performed on the same principles, and by the same authority. No one
will have the hardihood to assert such a doctrine. It will be admitted
that there is a Classis _de facto_ at Amoy. Then it is competent to
perform all the functions of a Classis. But it will not be contended
that that Classis is a part of the Dutch Church in America. Yet it is
essentially like a Classis in America, just so far as the present state
of development of the Church at Amoy, and its Chinese character, render
likeness possible. It is _Chinese_, not _American_. The organization of
such a Church is what we always supposed required of us. We never
imagined that we were sent to organize the _American_ Dutch Church in
China. If your Missionaries are allowed to proceed, and are not required
to repel the English Presbyterian brethren from their united labors with
us, there will be but one Church at Amoy of the Presbyterian order. With
the continued blessing of God on such harmonious labor, it will be _the
Church_ of that region. It will be dear to both the Presbyterian Church
in England, and to our Church in this land, and peculiarly dear to our
Church in this country, because of its Dutch characteristics. Your
Missionaries will still be your agents, responsible to the Church at
home, as they have always been. The near relation to the Church in this
land, which they have always held, they desire to retain. The late
action of Synod contemplates the _formation of two denominations at Amoy
of the Presbyterian order, giving our peculiarities to one-half instead
of to the whole, thus producing rivalries, injuring the efficiency of
the native churches, and making the relation of the Missionaries to the
Church at home more distant, thus weakening your hold on them_, and all,
as we think, without any remunerating advantages. But before we proceed
to the discussion of this subject, a few other preliminaries demand some
attention.
The English Presbyterians, as they are accustomed to speak of all the
Classes of our Church in America, call this Classis at Amoy "_a
Presbytery_." Hence the question has been put to us with all sincerity
and gravity, "Is it a _Classis_, or is it a _Presbytery_?" Some seem to
be afraid that the Church we are forming will be half Dutch and half
Presbyterian, and that it will soon be swallowed up by the
Presbyterians! Are there any ministers, or elders, or intelligent
members of the Dutch Church, who have yet to learn that a Classis is a
Presbytery, and that the Dutch Church is a Presbyterian Church? Surely
not. Why, then, such questions and suggestions? Can they be designed to
prejudice the Church at home against the ecclesiastical body which has
grown up at Amoy? We will not impute such a motive, and, therefore, I
merely say that we are surprised at all such remarks. It is proper for
the English Presbyterian brethren to speak of the _Presbytery_ at Amoy.
They never speak of it as an _English_ Presbytery. They do not regard it
as a part of the Church in England, but as a purely Chinese Church. They
have liberality enough to assist in building up such a Church, even
though it has some things peculiar to us, for it has all the essentials
of their own order. Will it not seem to them that our Church is
deficient in liberality, when they learn the decision of the last Synod?
In connection with this subject, it is proper to speak more particularly
of the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. When it is
remembered that that Church is really a branch of the Free Church of
Scotland, it will not be supposed that their liberality is the result of
indifference to anything which they regard essential or important.
Seldom has our world witnessed such sacrifice for the sake of principle
as was exhibited by that Church, when she came out from the
Establishment. Their liberality is a beautiful illustration of the
Christian spirit. The course of their Missionaries at the first
organization of a church at Amoy, and the approval thereof, have been
already alluded to. In consequence of the recent formation of a Classis,
the subject naturally came up again this year. It was laid before their
Synod, which met a few weeks previous to ours. In the report of their
Foreign 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 [each
church 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 as
representative elders from the several congregations. Its name is
neither the Greek 'Presbytery' employed in this country, nor is it the
Latin 'Classis,' which has long been used in Holland; but it is 'Tai
Tiong-lo-hoey,' or Great Meeting of Elders, genuine Chinese, and a
hopeful earnest of the facility with which our representative and
consultative system of polity will find its way among a sensible and
self-governing people. Of course it is not intended that this Presbytery
should in any way come between the Missionaries themselves and the
Committee or Board by which the respective Missions are administered at
home; but for the management of local matters, for disposing of
questions which may arise in the several congregations, and in regard to
which a session may require counsel or control; and for the very
important purpose of exemplifying in the most legitimate way
ecclesiastical unity, it is essential that Missionaries and native
office-bearers should come together in some such capacity. The
proceedings are conducted in Chinese, which is the only language
understood by all the members of Court, and it is in Chinese that the
minutes are kept. Three meetings have already been held. At the last,
held in January, important business was transacted affecting the 1st and
2d Congregations of Amoy, both of which are under the immediate
superintendence of the American Mission. Each congregation is desirous
of the settlement of a stated pastor, and each has agreed to call a
minister, the one congregation promising a stipend of $14 a month, and
the other $13. The calls were sustained, and the Presbytery agreed to
meet on February 21st, to proceed with the 'trials' of the brethren thus
elected. 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 Foreign
Missions of the R.P.D.C. of N.A., has apprised the Committee, that it is
possible that a Presbytery of this composite character may not secure
the approval of their Synod. In separating from the A.B.C.F.M., and in
setting up a separate and ecclesiastically organized mission, that
Synod was anxious to introduce into its different Mission fields a
system of Church government which it believed to be scriptural, and
adapted to all lands. Consequently, in these Mission fields it sought to
form Classes or Presbyteries which should be connected with Provincial
and General Synods in the same way as are the Classes on the American
continent. And Dr. Peltz is apprehensive lest the General Synod in
America should regard as a deviation from this plan the amalgamation in
one Presbytery of their own agents with those of another Church.
"We are hopeful, however, that on further consideration, our brethren in
America may allow their Missionaries in China to continue the present
arrangement, at least until such time as it is found that actual
difficulties arise in the way of carrying it out. 'Behold how good and
how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity;' and there
are few brethren towards whom we feel closer affinity than the members
of that Church, which was represented of old by Gomarus and Witsius, by
Voet and Marck, and Bernard de Moore, and whose Synod of Dort preceded
in time, and pioneered in doctrine, our own Westminster Assembly. Like
them, we love that Presbyterianism and that Calvinism which we hold in
common, and we wish to carry them wherever we go; but we fear that it
would not be doing justice to either, and that it might compromise that
name which is above every other, if, on the shores of China, we were to
unfurl a separate standard. We would, therefore, not only respectfully
recommend 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 sister
Church in America may find itself at liberty to extend to its
Missionaries a similar freedom."
These sentiments were _unanimously_ adopted by the Synod of the English
Presbyterian Church.
It seems perfectly reasonable that two Churches of Christ so nearly
alike, in attempting to plant the Church of Christ in the same place in
a heathen land, should strive, if possible, to form their converts into
one organization. The existence of different Denominations in the same
place in any Christian land, at the best, is only a necessary evil. God
may bring some good out of this evil, but this is not a sufficient
reason why we should create such divisions, for their own sake. Hence,
the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church is so manifestly in
accordance with the Christian spirit, that it might have attracted no
especial notice from us. But the proceedings of our own Synod, by
contrast, as it seems to us, have forced it out in bold relief. _They_
were willing to support their Missionaries in laboring with ours, and
building up a Chinese Church, not differing essentially from theirs, but
with some characteristics peculiar to ours. _We_, though the Church thus
organized has not only all the essentials but all the peculiarities of
our own Church, still refuse such Christian co-operation, preferring to
rend asunder the Church already formed, and organize a part of it a
distinct Denomination, connected with the Church in America. I cannot
yet believe that such is the sentiment of our Church. There must be some
great misapprehension. But such is really the decision of the last
Synod. Here is the language of the Committee which was adopted by the
General Synod:
"Your Committee do not see any propriety in re-enacting the law of 1857
already quoted, because it has never been repealed, and remains
therefore in full force and virtue. Nor, if the reasoning in this report
be correct, would they have the law repealed, believing as they do,
that the maintenance of the principle contained in it is essential to
the success of our Missionary operations in foreign parts, and to the
wholesome liberality of the Church at home.
"The Committee are not prepared, however, to recommend that any violent
or coercive resolutions should be adopted for the purpose of
constraining our brethren in Amoy to a course of procedure which would
rudely sever the brotherly ties that unite them with the Missionaries of
the English Presbyterian Church. But a Christian discretion will enable
them, on the receipt of the decision of the present Synod in this
matter, now under consideration, to take such initial steps as are
necessary to the speedy formation of a classis. Much must be left to
their discretion, prudence, and judgment. But of the wish and
expectation of this Synod to have their action conform, as soon as may
be, to the resolutions of 1857, your Committee think the brethren at
Amoy should be distinctly informed. They therefore offer the following:
"1. _Resolved_, that the General Synod, having adopted and tested its
plan of conducting Foreign Missions, can see no reason for abolishing
it, but, on the contrary, believe it to be adapted to the promotion of
the best interests of the Foreign Missionary Churches, and of the
denomination supporting them.
"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 unobjectionable, 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 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 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 Classis
is more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a native
Classis, before the test can be pronounced at all satisfactory. True,
that Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called a
Classis 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 space 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 pass 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 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 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 assert, 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 pass 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
Classical 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 Classical Council is
itself an autonomy--having the right to ordain ministers, exercise
discipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Classis' 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 Classis
of Amoy."
How dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a
_Presbytery_, and American Dutchmen call it a _Classis_! If this
language is also meant to imply that the Classis 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 Classical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are,
at the same time, members either of Classes in America, or of
Presbyteries in Great Britain."