3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is _History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial Order at Amoy, China

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 institutions, and ought to be

corrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Constitution that

either it or the Constitution must be sacrificed. In order to save the

policy it was found necessary during the past year to amend the

Constitution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circumstances of a

Missionary Classis require it, "_all the ordinary requirements of the

Constitution_" may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it be

that a policy which requires _such constitutional 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 Japan, 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 Constitution. 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 Classes at Arcot

and Amoy are to be considered _integral_ parts of the Church in this

country, related to General Synod like the Classes 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 Classis now required of

them; what will be the relation of the Classis of Amoy to the Board of

Foreign Missions? Is the Classis, in evangelizing the heathen around, to

operate through the Board, or the Board through the Classis? The Classis

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 Classis 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 Classis of Arcot. But the Classis of Arcot as yet is

little more than an _American Missionary Classis_. What will be the

difficulties when it becomes an _Indian_ Classis? But we are told, "keep

the Mission and Classis distinct." Is the Mission, then, to attend to

all the evangelistic work, and the Classis 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 Classis? Or is the Classis 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 Classes 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 God 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 illustration 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 asserted 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 Classis 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 Classis, 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 Classis of the Church of Christ

without the consent of that Classis? "_What God 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 Classes 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 associate 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 associate 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 assert

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

Assembly, 1863.

_Synod of Northern India_--Was organized in 1841. Is composed of three

Presbyteries. Now has 19 ministers (only one of these is a _native

pastor_); 9 churches; 246 communicants. (How many of these are natives

not reported.)

_Presbytery of Canton_--Has 4 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 12

communicants. (How many of these are natives not reported.) _Presbytery

of Ningpo_--Has 8 ministers; no native pastor; 2 churches; 111 native

members.

_Presbytery of Siam_--Has 6 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 8

communicants. (How many of these are native members not reported.)

_Presbytery of West Africa_--Has 9 ministers; no native pastor; 6

churches; 191 communicants (probably all natives.)

Are these ecclesiastical bodies respectively Indian, Chinese, and

African in their character? or are they all _essentially American_? Yet

these are the bodies to which the Committee of General Synod of 1857

referred when they said, "As to the difficulties suggested" [by the

Missionaries at Amoy] "respecting the delays of carrying out a system of

appellate jurisdiction covering America and China, it is enough to say,

that the Presbyterian Church (O.S.) finds no insuperable difficulties in

carrying into operation her system, which comprehends Presbyteries and

Synods in India as well as here." Why should there be many _insuperable_

difficulties so long as these bodies remain _American Missionary

bodies_, instead of being _native ecclesiastical bodies_? Practically

they do not need representation in the Church at home more than our

Missions need representatives in the Board of Missions. In the aggregate

of all the above-mentioned ecclesiastical missionary bodies, there is

_but one native pastor_, and this, as might be expected, so far as we

are aware, furnished the only case in which difficulty has occurred.

Doubtless in the instance referred to, the native pastor was in error,

and, as he found some _insuperable difficulty_ in getting his case

before the General Assembly, a similar effort is not likely soon to be

made.]

So is the Classis of Arcot appealed to. Such appeals put us in a

somewhat painful position. As with the Presbyterian bodies just

mentioned, so with the Classis of Arcot. We have no rivalry with the

brethren there, and do not wish to say a word that looks like stricture

on their policy. We do not utter a word of this kind, except in

self-defense. We rejoice in all their successes. But the time will come,

if the blessing of God continues to follow their labors, when they will

be compelled to adopt our principles. The Missionaries at Arcot are not

properly _pastors_ of the native churches. They exercise the pastoral

office only temporarily, until native pastors are raised up. Their

relation to the Synods in this country is not like that of the other

Classes of our Church. They never have had and never will have a proper

representation in these higher courts. They have never had a native

elder present. They never have even a partial representation of

ministers, except under the afflictive dispensations of Providence. For

several years past they would have been without any representation at

all, but for the fact of one of their number being in this country whose

ill health forbids his return to that field of labor. It is by being

unfitted to be a member of the Classis that he becomes able to be a

representative of the Classis in the Synod! At the present time, because

of the still American character of their body, they may feel no serious

inconvenience. If our position had been like theirs, occupying the

ground at Amoy alone, possibly we should have done as they have. We

should have understood well enough that the connection of the native

Church with the Church at home could only be _nominal_. But if our

Church desired this, so long as it did not injure the native Church, we

probably should have made no objections.

But we are told that it is not desired that this connection with the

Church in America should be perpetual. It will last only until the

Church at Amoy has sufficient development to stand alone. Then, of

course, our Church will consent to the separation. (A very different

doctrine, by the way, from the "_assertion_" of the committee of Synod

that the Church can not "voluntarily relinquish its powers.") After

that, the churches at Amoy which have been under our care, and those

which have been under the care of the English Presbyterians, may again

unite in one Denomination, if they see fit. This sounds pretty well. But

look at it. First separate the churches long enough to engender

rivalries and allow prejudices to grow up, and then attempt to unite

them, and what will be the result? Unless they have a more liberal

spirit than is usual in the churches in this land, instead of making one

denomination out of two, we shall have three. But who shall be the

judge when the proper time has arrived to liberate the Church in China,

if the opinions of those on the ground, and of the native churches, are

all to be ignored?

3. It will injure the efficiency of the Church at Amoy. Besides the

objection--which the heathen will thus, as readily as the irreligious in

this country, be able to urge against Christianity--furnished by the

increase of Denominations, it will deprive the churches of the benefit

of the united wisdom and strength of the whole of them for

self-cultivation and for Christian enterprise, and will introduce a

spirit of jealous rivalry among them. We know it is said that there need

be no such result, and that the native churches may remain just as

united in spirit after the organization of two Denominations as before.

Such a sentiment takes for granted, either that ecclesiastical

organization has in fact no efficiency (such is not the doctrine of our

Church), or that the Chinese churches have arrived at a far higher state

of sanctification than the churches have attained to in this land. Do

not different Denominations exhibit jealous rivalry in this land? Why,

your Missionaries are already frequently charged with being too liberal

towards their English Presbyterian brethren in giving to them members

and churches which, it is said, properly belong to us. Is Chinese human

nature different from American?

In consequence of such division, the native Churches will not be so able

to support the Gospel among themselves. Look at the condition of our

western towns in this respect. Why strive to entail like evils on our

Missionary churches? Their strength will be weakened for evangelistic

effort. Their Missionary efforts is one of the most striking and

praiseworthy characteristics of the Amoy churches. How will they be

shorn of their strength by division and necessary rivalry! Besides

this, if the connection with the Church at home be anything more than

nominal, our churches should, in part at least, work through the Church

at home. No? Then why form the connection?

4. Instead of the Dutch Church being _the_ Presbyterian Church at Amoy,

it will only be a small Church, bearing about the same proportion to the

other Christian Churches there, that it does to the other Churches in

this land. Why is not the Dutch Church the principal Presbyterian body

in this land? Unless we are mistaken in regard to its excellency of

order, it has all the adaptedness, and it was here first. Do you wish a

3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is the