This utterance of the General Synod, while made with the best intentions,
fell with exceedingly painful echo on the ears of the missionaries at Amoy.
Was the flock they had gathered with so much prayer and effort, and reared
with such sedulous care, to be thus summarily divided and perhaps in
consequence scattered? The missionaries felt persuaded that their brethren
in the United States could not fully appreciate the situation or there
would be no such action.
Mr. Talmage again took up his pen in behalf of his Chinese flock. If it
had been dipped in his own blood his utterances could not have been more
forceful-could not have palpitated with a heartier affection for his
Chinese brethren's sake.
On Dec. 23, 1857, he wrote to Dr. Isaac Ferris, who, since the separation
from the A.B.C.F.M. at the last Synod, had become the Corresponding
Secretary for the Board of Foreign Missions of tile Reformed Church.
"So far as we can judge from the report of the proceedings of General Synod
as given in the Christian Intelligencer, one of the most important
considerations, perhaps altogether the most important mentioned, why the
church gathered by us here should not be an integral part of the Church in
America, was entirely overlooked. That consideration relates to the unity
of Christ's Church. Will our Church require of us, will she desire that
those here who are altogether one,-one in doctrine, one in their views of
church order, and one in mutual love,-be violently separated into two
denominations? We cannot believe it. Suppose the case of two churches
originally distinct, by coming into contact and becoming better acquainted
with each other, they find that they hold to the same doctrinal standards,
and they explain them in the same manner; they have the same form of church
government and their officers are chosen and set apart in the same way;
they have the same order of worship and of administering the sacraments;
all their customs, civil, social, and religious, are precisely alike, and
they love each other dearly; should not such churches unite and form but
one denomination? Yet such a supposition does not and cannot represent the
circumstances of the churches gathered by us and by our Scotch brethren of
the English Presbyterian Church. Our churches originally were one, and
still are one, and the question is not whether those churches shall be
united, but shall they be separated? Possibly the question will be asked,
why were these churches allowed originally to become one? We answer, God
made them so, and that without any plan or forethought on our part, and now
we thank Him for His blessing that He has made them one, and that He has
blessed them because they are one.
"Our position is a somewhat painful one. We desire to give offense to no
one, and we do not wish to appear before the Church as disputants. We have
no controversy with any one. We have neither the time nor inclination for
controversy. We are 'doing a great work,' and cannot 'come down.' Yet our
duty to these churches here and to the Church at home and to our Master
demands of us imperatively that we state fully and frankly our views. We
have the utmost confidence in our church. We have proved this by
endeavoring to get our views fully known."
The subject did not come up again for discussion before the General Synod
until 1863.
Meanwhile the churches grew and multiplied. The Amoy church, which in 1856
had been organized by "the setting apart of elders and deacons," was
separated into two organizations in 1860, "preparatory to the calling of
pastors."
Two men were chosen by the churches in 1861. In 1862 an organization was
formed called the "Tai-hoey," or "Great Elders' Meeting," consisting of the
missionaries of both the English Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and the
delegated elders from all the organized congregations under their united
oversight. The two men chosen as pastors were examined, ordained, and
installed by this body.
During that year Mr. Talmage was called to stand by the "first gash life
had cut in the churchyard turf" for him. His beloved wife, Mrs. Abby
Woodruff Talmage, was called to her reward, leaving Mr. Talmage with four
motherless little ones. He was compelled to go to the United States to
secure proper care for his children. He came in time to attend the General
Synod of 1863. There he advocated most earnestly the course which the
brethren at Amoy had taken.
Dr. Isaac Ferris brought the subject before the Synod in these words:
"In 1857 the Synod met at Ithaca, and a most remarkable Synod it was.
According to the testimony of all who were present the Spirit of God
unusually manifested His gracious presence. A venerable minister on his
return remarked, 'It was like heaven upon earth.' That Synod, under this
extraordinary sense of the Divine presence and unction, judged that the
time had arrived for the Church to take the responsibility of supporting
its foreign missionary work upon itself, and, accordingly, in very proper
resolutions, asked of the American Board to have the compact which had been
in operation since 1832 revoked, and the Mission transferred to our Foreign
Board.
"It was at that meeting that a memorial of our brethren at Amoy on the
subject of organization, very ably drawn, and presenting fully their views
and reasonings, was read and deliberated on. Their work had been
wonderfully blessed, and the whole Church was called to thanksgiving, and
the time seemed at hand to realize the expectations of years. The brethren
asked advice, and the Synod adopted the carefully-drawn report of a
committee of which the President was chairman, advising the organization of
a Classis at as early a day as was practicable. Our brethren at Amoy were
not satisfied with this advice, and considered the subject as not having
had a sufficient hearing.
"In the progress of their work they have deemed it proper to form a
different organization from what the Synod advised, and which was in
harmony with the constant aim of our Church on the subject. The Board of
Foreign Missions, when the matter came before them, could only kindly
protest and urge upon the brethren the action of the Synod of 1857. Not
having ecclesiastical power, they could only argue and advise. They would
have it remembered that all has been done in the kindest spirit. They have
differed in judgment from the Mission, but not a ripple of unkind feeling
has arisen.
"The question now before the Synod is, whether this body will recede from
the whole policy of the Church and its action in 1857 or reaffirm the same.
This Synod, in its action on this case, will decide for all its missions,
and in all time, on what principles their missionaries shall act, and hence
this becomes probably the most important question of this session. It is
in the highest degree desirable that the Synod should give the subject the
fullest the most patient and impartial examination, and that our brother,
who represents the Amoy Mission, be fully heard."
Mr. Talmage next addressed the Synod and offered the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the Synod hear with gratitude to God of the great progress
of the work of the Lord at Amoy, and in the region around, so that already
we hear of six organized churches with their Consistories, and others
growing up not yet organized, two native pastors who were to have been
ordained on the 29th of March last, and the whole under the care of a
Classis composed of the missionaries of our Church and of the English
Presbyterian Church, the native pastors, and representative elders of the
several churches. It calls for our hearty gratitude to the great Head of
the Church that the missionaries of different Churches and different
countries have been enabled, through Divine grace, to work together in such
harmony. It is also gratifying to us that these churches and this Classis
have been organized according to the polity of our Church, inasmuch as the
Synod of the English Presbyterian Church has approved of the course of
their missionaries in uniting for the organizing of a church after our
order; therefore, this Synod would direct its Board of Foreign Missions to
allow our missionaries to continue their present relations with the
missionaries of the English Presbyterian Church, so long as the present
harmony shall continue, and no departure shall be made from the doctrines
and essential policy of our Church, or until the Synod shall otherwise
direct."
There were speeches for and against, by distinguished men in the Church.
Dr. T. W. Chambers, President of the Synod, made the concluding address, as
follows:
"If there be any one here who has a deep and tender sympathy with our
brother Talmage and his senior missionary colleague (Mr. Doty), I claim to
be the man.
"Mr. Doty was my first room-mate at college thirty-one years ago, and ever
since we have been fast friends. As to the other, his parents-themselves
among the most eminent and devoted Christians ever known-were long members
of the church in New Jersey, of which I was formerly in charge. For
several years I was his pastor. I signed the testimonials of character
required by the American Board before they commissioned him. I pronounced
the farewell address when he left this country in 1850. I have watched
with intense interest his entire career since, and no one welcomed him more
warmly when he returned last year, bearing in his face and form the scars
which time and toil had wrought upon his constitution. It is needless to
say, then, that I love him dearly for his own sake, for his parents' sake,
for his numerous friends' sake, but, more than all, for that Master's sake
whom he has so successfully served. Nor is there anything within reason
which I would not have the Church do for him. He shall have our money, our
sympathy, our prayers, our confidence-the largest liberty in shaping the
operations of the Mission he belongs to.
"But when we come to the matter now at issue, I pause. Much as I love our
brother, I love Christ more. Nor can I surrender, out of deference to our
missionaries, the constitution, the policy, the interests of our
Church,--all of which are involved in this matter. Nay, even their own
welfare, and that of the mission they are so tenderly attached to, demand
that we should deny their request. What is this request? That we should
allow our brethren at Amoy, together with the English Presbyterian
missionaries there, to form with the native pastors and the delegates from
the native churches, an independent Classis or Presbytery, over whose
proceedings this body should have no control whatever, by way of appeal, or
review, or in any other form. Now, the first objection to this is, that it
is flatly in the face of our constitution and order. A 'self-regulating
Classis' is a thing which has never been heard of in the Dutch Church since
that Church had a beginning. It is against every law, principle, canon,
example, and precedent in our books. Perhaps the most marked feature of
our polity is the subordination of all parts of our body, large or small,
to the review and control of the whole as expressed in the decisions of its
highest ecclesiastical assembly. I submit that this Synod has no right to
form or to authorize any such self regulating ecclesiastical body, or to
consent that any ministers of our Church should hold seats in such a body.
If we do it, we transcend the most liberal construction which has ever been
known to be given to the powers of General Synod. How, then, can we do
this thing? Whatever our sympathies, how can we violate our own order, our
fundamental principles, the polity to which we are bound by our profession,
by our subscription, by every tie which can bind religious and honorable
men?
"Moreover, the thing we are asked to do contravenes our missionary policy
from the beginning. As far back as 1832, when we made a compact with the
American Board, one essential feature of the plan was that we should have
'an ecclesiastical organization' of our own. Without this feature that
plan would never have been adopted; and the apprehension that there might
be some interference with this cherished principle was at least one of the
reasons why the plan, after working successfully for a quarter of a
century, was at length abrogated. And so when, in 1857, we instituted a
missionary board of our own, this view was distinctly announced.
"It was my privilege to draw up the report on the subject which has been so
often referred to. That report did not express merely my view, or that of
the committee, but the view of the entire Synod. Nor from that day to this
has there been heard anywhere within our bounds even a whisper of objection
from minister, elder, or layman in regard to the positions then taken. It
is our settled, irreversible policy. Deep down in the heart of the Church
lies the conviction that our missionaries, who carry to the heathen the
doctrine of Christ as we have received it, must also carry the order of
Christ as we have received it. Certain unessential peculiarities may, from
the force of circumstances, be left in abeyance for a time, or even
permanently, but the dominant features must be retained. It is not enough
to have genuine Consistories, we must have genuine Classes. And, under
whatever modifications, the substantive elements of our polity must be
reproduced in the mission churches established by the blessing of God upon
the men and means furnished by our Zion.
"Further, Mr. President, it is to be remembered that we are acting for all
time. It is not this one case that is before us. We are settling a
precedent which is to last for generations. Relax your constitutions and
laws for this irregularity and you open a gap through which a coach and
four may be driven. Every other mission, under the least pretext, will
come and claim the same or a similar modification in their case, and you
cannot consistently deny them. The result will be an ecclesiastical chaos
throughout our entire missionary field. Let us begin as we mean to hold
out. Let us settle this question now and settle it aright. We direct our
missionaries what Gospel to preach, what sacraments to administer, what
internal organization to give to single churches. Let us, in the same
manner and for the same reasons, say what sort of bonds shall unite these
churches to each other and govern their mutual relations and common
interests.
"I know we are told that the hybrid organization which now exists is every
way sufficient and satisfactory; that it is the fruit of Christian love,
and that to disturb it would be rending the body of Christ. Here one might
ask how it came to exist at all, seeing that this Synod spoke so plainly
and unambiguously in 1857. And I for one cordially concur in the remark of
the Elder Schieffelin, that the brethren there 'deserve censure.' We do
not censure them, nor do we propose to do so, but that they deserve it is
undeniable. But the point is, how can our disapproval of the mongrel
Classis mar the peace of the Amoy brethren? There is already a division
among their churches. Some are supported by our funds, others by the funds
of the English Presbyterians. Would it alter matters much to say, and to
make it a fact, that some of those churches belong to a Classis and others
to a Presbytery? Some have an American connection and others an English.
But this would break Christian unity! Would it, indeed? You observed, Mr.
President, the affectionate confidence, blended with reverence, with which
I addressed from the chair the venerable Dr. Skinner. The reason was that
we both belong to an association of ministers in New York which meets
weekly for mutual fellowship, enjoyment, and edification in all things
bearing on ministerial character and duties. Ecclesiastically we have no
connection whatever. I never saw his Presbytery in session, and I doubt if
he ever saw our Classis; yet our brotherly, Christian, and even ministerial
communion is as tender, and sacred, and profitable as if we had been
copresbyters for twenty years. Now, who dare say that this shall not exist
at Amoy? Our brethren there can maintain precisely the same love, and
confidence, and co-operation as they do now, in all respects save the one
of regular, formal, ecclesiastical organization.
"But I will not detain the Synod longer. I would not have left the chair
to speak, but for the overwhelming importance of the subject. It is
painful to deny the eager and earnest wishes of our missionary brethren,
but I believe we are doing them a real kindness by this course. Union
churches here have always in the end worked disunion, confusion, and every
evil work. There is no reason to believe that the result would be at all
different abroad. A division would necessarily come at some period, and
the longer it was delayed, the more trying and sorrowful it would be. I am
opposed, therefore, to the substitute offered by Brother Chapman, and also
to that of Brother Talmage, and trust that the original resolutions, with
the report, will be adopted. That report contains not a single harsh or
unpleasant word. It treats the whole case with the greatest delicacy as
well as thoroughness, but it reaffirms the action of 1857 in a way not to
be mistaken. And that is the ground on which the Church will take its
stand. Whatever time, indulgence, or forbearance can be allowed to our
brethren, will cheerfully be granted. Only let them set their faces in the
direction of a distinct organization, classical as well as consistorial,
and we shall be satisfied. Only let them recognize the principle and the
details shall be left to themselves, under the leadings of God's gracious
providence."
The report of the Committee on Foreign Missions, E. S. Porter, D.D.,
chairman, was adopted. Part of it reads as follows:
"The missionaries there have endeared their names to the whole Christian
world, and especially to that household of faith of which they are loved
and honored members."
.... "No words at our command can tell what fond and flaming sympathies
have overleaped broad oceans, and bound them and us together.
"'Words, like nature, half reveal,
And half conceal the soul within.'
.... "Your committee are unable to see how it will be possible to carry the
sympathies and the liberalities of the Church with an increasing tide of
love and sacrifice in support of our missionary work, if it once be
admitted as a precedent, or established as a rule, that our missionaries
may be allowed to form abroad whatever combinations they may choose, and
aid in creating ecclesiastical authorities, which supersede the authorities
which commissioned them and now sustain them."
"The committee are not prepared to recommend that any violent and coercive
resolutions should be adopted for the purpose of constraining our brethren
in Amoy to a course of procedure which would rudely sunder 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:
"'I. 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 foreign missionary churches, and of the denomination
supporting them.
"'II. That the Board of Foreign Missions be, and hereby is, instructed to
send to our missionaries at Amoy a copy or copies of this report, as
containing the well-considered deliverance of the Synod respecting their
present relations and future duty.
"'III. 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.'"
In the report of the Foreign Committee of the English Presbyterian Church
for 1863, the following language is used in reference to the Union Chinese
Church of Amoy:
"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
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unify,' 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 Reformed Dutch Church; 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.
The cause which Mr. Talmage was advocating was too near his heart, and his
convictions were too strong to permit silence. He prepared a pamphlet,
setting forth more clearly the position of the Mission at Amoy, as well as
answering objections made to it. [The exact standing of missionaries in
the Union Chinese Church of Amoy was also explained by Dr. Talmage in a
later pamphlet, for the contents of which see Appendix.] A few quotations
read:
"In reference to it, i.e., the report of the Committee on Foreign Missions,
we would make three remarks: (1) It (Resolution III.) 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. I.) 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. (3) No consideration is had for the
feelings, wishes or opinions of the native churches. 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."
In reply to the advantages claimed to flow from the plan advocated by
General Synod, Mr. Talmage says:
"1. The most important advantage 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 appeals to the
Particular Synod of Albany, and thence to 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 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 point 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
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."
In regard to keeping the Church pure in doctrine:
"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 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. 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 actions. 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.
.... "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 upon in endeavoring to elevate the standard of
liberality among our people. 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.
"Now let us consider the real or supposed evils 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 very 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 suppose, and as I once supposed. The fact is,
I rather like some of them, and though I may not esteem them all as 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 injure the efficiency of the Church at Amoy. Besides the
objection furnished by the increase of denominations, which the heathen
will thus, as readily as the irreligious in this country, be able to urge
against Christianity, 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,
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? 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? ....
"But may not the Church change or improve her decisions? Here is one of
the good things we hope to see come out of this mistake of the Church.
Jesus rules, and He is ordering all things for the welfare of His Church
and the advancement of His cause. Sometimes, the better to accomplish this
end, He permits the Church to make mistakes. When we failed in former days
to get our views made public, it gave us no anxiety, for we believed the
doctrine that Jesus reigns. So we now feel, notwithstanding this mistake.
The Master will overrule it for good. We do not certainly know how, but we
can imagine one way. By means of this mistake the matter may be brought
before our Church, and before other Churches, more clearly than it would
otherwise have been for many years to come, and in consequence of this we
expect, in due time, that our Church, instead of coming up merely to the
standard of liberality for which we have been contending, will rise far
above anything we have asked for or even imagined, and other Churches will
also raise their standard higher. Hereafter we expect to contend for still
higher principles. This is the doctrine. Let all the branches of the
great Presbyterian family in the same region in any heathen country, which
are sound in the faith, organize themselves, if convenient, into one
organic whole, allowing liberty to the different parts in things
non-essential. Let those who adopt Dutch customs, as at Amoy, continue, if
they see fit, their peculiarities, and those who adopt other Presbyterian
customs, as at Ningpo and other places, continue their peculiarities, and
yet all unite as one Church. This subject does not relate simply to the
interests of the Church at Amoy. It relates to the interests of all the
missionary work of all the churches of the Presbyterian order in all parts
of the world. Oh, that our Church might take the lead in this catholicity
of spirit, instead of falling back in the opposite direction-that no one
may take her crown! But if she do not, then we trust some other of the
sacramental hosts will take the lead and receive, too, the honor, for it is
for the glory of the great Captain of our salvation and for the interests
of His kingdom. We need the united strength of all these branches of Zion
for the great work which the Master has set before us in calling on us to
evangelize the world. In expecting to obtain this union, will it be said
that we are looking for a chimera? It ought to be so, ought it not? Then
it is no chimera. It may take time for the Churches to come up to this
standard, but within a few years we have seen tendencies to union among
different branches of the Presbyterian family in Australia. In Canada, in
our own country, and in England and Scotland. In many places these
tendencies are stronger now than they have ever before been since the days
of the Reformation.
"True, human nature is still compassed with infirmities even in the Church
of Christ. But the day of the world's regeneration is approaching, and as
it approaches nearer to us, doubtless the different branches of the
Presbyterian family will approach still nearer to each other. God hasten
the time, and keep us also from doing anything to retard, but everything to
help it forward, and to His name be the praise forever. Amen."
So strong was the feeling of the entire Amoy Mission, that in September,
1863, the following communication was sent to the Board of Foreign
Missions:
"Dear Brethren: We received from you on the 22d ultimo the action taken by
the General Synod at its recent session at Newburgh with regard to the
proposed organization of a Classis at Amoy. Did we view this step in the
light in which Synod appears to have regarded it, we should need in this
communication to do no more than signify our intention to carry out
promptly the requirements of Synod; but we regret to say that such is not
the case, and that Synod, in requiring this of us, has asked us to do that
which we cannot perform. We feel that Synod must have mistaken our
position on this question. It is not that we regard the proposed action as
merely inexpedient and unwise; if this were all, we would gladly carry out
the commands of Synod, transferring to it the responsibility which it
offers to assume. But the light in which we regard it admits of no
transfer of responsibility. It is not a matter of judgment only, but also
of conscience.
"We conscientiously feel that in confirming such an organization we should
be doing a positive injury and wrong to the churches of Christ established
at Amoy, and that our duty to the Master and His people here forbids this.
Therefore, our answer to the action of General Synod must be and is that we
cannot be made the instruments of carrying out the wishes of Synod in this
report; and further, if Synod is determined that such an organization must
be effected, we can see no other way than to recall us and send hither men
who see clearly their way to do that which to us seems wrong.
"We regret the reasons which have led us to this conclusion. We have
thought it best that each member of the Mission should forward to you his
individual views on this subject, rather than embody them in the present
communication.
"We accordingly refer you to these separate statements which will be sent
to you as soon as prepared.
"Commending you, dear brethren, to our common Lord, whose servants we all
are, and praying that He will guide us into all truth, we are as ever,
"Your brethren in Christ
E. DOTY,
A. OSTROM,
D. RAPALJE,
LEONARD W. KIP,
AUG. BLAUVELT.
"AMOY, Sept. 16, 1863."
The last action taken by the General Synod was in June, 1864, and reads as
follows:
"Resolved, That while the General Synod does not deem it necessary or
proper to change the missionary policy defined and adopted in 1857, yet, in
consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the Mission of Amoy, the
brethren there are allowed to defer the formation of a Classis of Amoy
until, in their judgment, such a measure is required by the wants and
desires of the Churches gathered by them from among the heathen."
At the Centenary Conference on the Protestant Missions of the World, held
in Exeter Hall, London, 1888, Rev. W. J. K. Taylor, D.D., for many years a
most efficient member of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed
Church in America, read a paper on "Union and Cooperation in Foreign
Missions," in which he said:
"Actual union has been happily maintained at Amoy, China, for more than a
quarter of a century between the missionaries of the Reformed (Dutch)
Church in America and those of the Presbyterian Church of England. Having
labored together in the faith of the Gospel, gathering converts into the
fold of Christ, and founding native churches, these brethren could not and
would not spoil the unity of those infant churches by making two
denominations out of one company of believers nor would they sow in that
virgin soil the seeds of sectarian divisions which have long sundered the
Protestant Churches in Europe and America. The result was the organization
of the Tai-Hoey, or Great Council of Elders, which is neither an English
Presbytery nor a Reformed Church Classis, but is like them both. It is not
an appendage of either of these foreign Churches, but is a genuine
independent Chinese Christian Church holding the standards and governed by
the polity of the twin-sister Churches that sent them the Gospel by their
own messengers. The missionaries retain their relations with their own
home Churches and act under commissions of their own Church Board of
Missions. They are not settled pastors, but are more like the Apostolic
Evangelists of New Testament times,--preachers, teachers, founders of
Churches, educators of the native ministry, and superintendents of the
general work of evangelization.
"This Tai-Hoey is a child of God, which was 'born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' It is believed to
be the first ecclesiastical organization for actual union and co-operation
in mission lands by the representatives of churches holding the Reformed
faith and Presbyterial polity. Its history has already been long enough to
give the greatest value to its experience."
For seven years, by tongue and pen, Mr. Talmage advocated the establishment
of an independent Chinese Union Church of the Presbyterian order. Even
then the Reformed Church was not fully persuaded and did not give her
hearty assent. The resolution of 1864 was only tentative. It was a plea
for toleration. This was not strange. It was one of the earliest efforts,
if not the earliest, for church union and separate autonomy on heathen
soil. It was a new departure. But the battle was really won. The
question was never broached again. The strongest opponents then are the
warmest friends of union and autonomy now. Thirty years of happiest
experience, of hearty endorsement by native pastors and foreign
missionaries are sufficient testimony to the wisdom of the steps then
taken.
In November, 1864, Mr. Talmage married Miss Mary E. Van Deventer, and
forthwith proceeded to China, where he arrived early in 1865.
In 1867, Rutgers College, New Jersey, recognized Mr. Talmage's successful
and scholarly labors in China for a period of full twenty years, by giving
him the degree of Doctor of Divinity.