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 Titus, 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
Constitution 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 Constitution 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 assume 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
"assuming 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 God 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 Classis 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 Classis 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 God 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 incumbent 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 God, _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 Classes in this
country, and, together with the native churches under their care, form
themselves into a Chinese Classis. Either they will have a controlling
influence over the native portion of this Classis or they will not. If
they have, then your only way to discipline them will be to discipline
their Classis. 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 Classes, or to enforce discipline over the ministry by
the _money rod_. The Classis, _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 Classis, for the native
members will outnumber, and, unless the action of Synod (as we greatly
fear) seriously retard 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 Classes. 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 Classes 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 God. 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 God, 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 Classis at Amoy, a part
of ourselves, connected with General Synod, just like all the other
Classes 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 assist the
Missionaries of our Church in building up the churches under our
especial care. Of their frequent offers to assist 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 God 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 God'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 God? 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 God'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 God, 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 assured
that the simple recital of the grace of God 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
God. 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 God 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 God 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 noble 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.