Chapter 5

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.

3. The only other supposed advantage I can now think of, is the advantage of carrying out the _policy_ of our Church. This, in itself considered, might be regarded worthy of but little attention. Cannot--ought not--the Church change her policy if wrong, or if a better can be adopted? Surely her laws are not like those of the Medes and Persians. But the argument has been used with so much earnestness and perseverance, both in the Reports of the Committees and in the discussions in Synod, that it demands some investigation. Instead of the course pursued by the Missionaries being, as it is contended, contrary to, it is the true policy of our Church--the policy in existence long before the decision of 1857. If the course now required of them be the present policy of our Church, it is a _mistaken_ policy, contrary to the very genius of our 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 similar result in China?

* * * * *

That it may be seen whether the Missionaries of Amoy have asked of our Church to "surrender the Constitution, the policy, the interests of our Church," "nay, even their own welfare, and that of the Mission they are so tenderly attached to"--whether what they ask for "is flatly in the face of our Constitution and order"--whether the "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"--whether, "if we do it, we transcend the most liberal construction which has ever been known to be given to the powers of the General Synod"--whether, by granting the request of the Missionaries, "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"--I will append the resolution which was offered by me in the General Synod as a substitute for those offered by the Committee. If it called for declamation like the above, well. These are the words: