mhw f ' HISTORY r ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER, china. REV. J. V. N. T ATM AGE, MISSIONARY OF THE PROT. REF. DUTCH CHURCH. fjUto ^crk: WYNKOOP, HALLENBECK & THOMAS, PRINTERS, 113 FULTON ST. 1863 . 11 I ; ' f j ■ /u * 1 / f ;i 17 I j I > > { i M ri i u 1 1 ' I HISTORY AND ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS OF TIIE CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTEHI AX ORDER, AT AMOY, CHINA. REY. J. Y. N. TALIAGE, MISSIONARY OF THE TROT. REF. DUTCH CHURCH. WYNKOOP, HALLENBECK & THOMAS, PRINTERS, 113 FULTON ST. 1863 . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/historyecclesiasOOtalm PREFACE. To the Ministers , Elders , and Members of the Reformed Dutch Church : It is proper that I give some reasons for the publication of this paper. The importance of the subject of the eccle- siastical organization of the churches gathered in heathen lands, I conceive to be a sufficient reason. Those who may differ in regard to the views set forth in this paper, will not dispute the importance of the subject. Instead of the ques- tions involved having been settled by any of the Presbyte- rian Denominations of this country (the Dutch Church included among them), by experiments in India or any other heathen land, very few of the churches gathered from the heathen, by these various Denominations, have yet arrived at a stage of development sufficient for practical application of the experiment. (See foot-note, page 160.) There are, how- ever, a few mission churches, where the subject is now be- coming one of vast practical importance. The Church at Amoy stands out prominent among these. With the continuance of the divine blessing there will soon be many such. Hence the importance of the discussion, and its im- portance now. Many experiments have been made in reference to the best way of conducting the work of missions. The Church has improved by them, and has been compelled to unlearn ♦ many things. We are continually returning towards the simple plan laid down in God’s Word. As the Church by experiment and by discussion has thus been led to retrace some of her steps in the preliminary work of missions, should she not be ready to take advantage of experiment and discussion, in reference to the ecclesiastical organization of the mission churches, and stand ready to retrace some of her IV. PREFACE. steps in this second stage of the work of missions, if need be, in order to conform more fully to the doctrines of our Presbyterial church polity ? I would use the phrase Scrip- tural church polity, but I suppose it is the universal belief of our Church, that Presbyterial polity is scriptural. At any rate, it is the duty of the Churcli to examine the subject carefully. She has nothing to fear from such examination. She should fear to neglect it. In addition to the importance of the subject in itself considered, I have other reasons for discussing it at the present time. There are mistaken impressions abroad in the Church, concerning the views and course of your missionaries at Amoy, which must be injurious to the cause of missions in our Church. It would seem to be a plain duty to correct these impressions. I will quote an extract from a letter, I recently received, from an honored missionary of a sister Church : “ I have heard much, and seen some notices in the papers “ of the battle you fought on the floor of Synod, and would “ like to hear your side of the subject from your own mouth, “ as the question has also been a practical one with us. # * “ * * * We have our own Presbytery, and manage our “ own business, and insist on not having too much of what “they call the new science of Missionary management; a “science which, I believe, has been cultivated far too assidu- “ ously. It was this, more than anything else, which kept “ me from going out under the A. B. C. F. M., and to Amoy. “ * * * * # I } iearj however, from some, that what you “ and the brethren there had formed, w T as some sort of loose “Congregational association. If so, I must judge against “ you, for I believe in the jure divino of Presbytery (or “ Qlassis if you choose so to call it), and I think you and “tthey should have been allowed to form a Presbytery there, “ and manage all your own affairs, and that your Boards at “ home should be content to consider themselves a committee “ to raise and send on the funds. But it is hard for the D. “ D’s and big folk at home to come to that. They think “ they must manage everything, or all will go wrong ; while “ how little it is that they can be brought to know or realize “ of the real nature of the work abroad ; and then it is the PREFACE. V. “ old battle of patronage over again. Those who give the “ money must govern , and those who receive it must give up “ their liberty, and be no longer Christ’s freemen.” This is only a specimen, one of many, of the mistaken impressions abroad in the Church concerning the views and doings of your Missionaries. May we not, must we not, cor- rect "them? The letter also illustrates the evils resulting from allowing mistaken impressions to remain in the Church uncorrected. There has long been an impression in our Church that the A. B. C. F. M. interfered with the ecclesiasti- cal affairs of our missions. We have been informed that several of our young men, before our Church separated from that Board, were deterred thereby from devoting themselves to the foreign Missionary work. The writer of the above letter, probably having more of the Missionary spirit, was not willing, on that account, to give up the work, but was led to offer himself to the Board of a sister Church. The Mission at Amoy, and our Church, have thus been deprived of the benefit of his labors by means of an erroneous im- pression. When we learned the fact of such an impression existing in this country, we endeavored to correct it. In our letter of 1S56, to General Synod, we called particular atten- tion to the subject. Here is a part of one sentence : “ It “ seems to us a duty, and we take this opportunity to bear “testimony, that neither Dr. Anderson, nor the Prudential “ Committee have ever, in any communication which we “ have received from them, in any way, either by dictation, “ or by the expression of opinions, interfered in the least with “ our ecclesiastical relations.” We failed to get that letter published, and I find the erroneous impression still prevalent, working its mischief in the churches. But to return to the subject of the mistaken impressions concerning the views of your Missionaries at Amoy. These impressions would have been partly corrected in the Church, if the report of the proceedings of Synod, in “ The Christian Intelligencer,” had been more correct on this sub- ject. That paper states, that, on Friday evening, “ Rev. Mr. Talmage then took the floor, and addressed the Synod for nearly two hours,” but does not give a single word or idea uttered by him. It is careful to report the only unkind words VI. PREFACE. against the Missionaries uttered during that whole discussion, which, with this single exception, was conducted in a spirit of the utmost Christian kindness ; hut does not give a word of the remarks made on the Friday evening previous, on that very subject, in justification of their course. It seems to be a duty, though painful, to speak particu- larly on this subject. Look at the following language : “ I “ know that we are told that the hybrid organization [/. c. the “ Classis, a court of the Church of Christ , at Amoy] which now “ exists is every way sufficient and satisfactory ; that it is the “ fruit of Christian love, and that to disturb it would be rend- “ ing 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 18-57 ; and I, for one, cordially concur in “ the remark of the elder , Schicffclin, that the brethren there 1 de- “ serve 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 ?” This language was used by the President of Synod, after asking whether the Synod was ready for the question, “ the question being about to be put,” when an attempt to answer it seemed altogether out of place. In all the circumstances it seemed almost like the charge of a judge to a jury, I do not say that there is any improper spirit manifested, or opprobrious expressions em- ployed in this language, or that the President did wrong in waiting until the discussion was over before he uttered it, or that the missionaries are not deserving of such severe cen- sure— of all these things let the Church judge — but I do say that the spreading of such language and such charges broad- cast, before the Church and before the world, demands that the missionaries be heard in self-defense, or, which is all they ask, that they be allowed to state the facts and views which guided them in their action. Doubtless it was an oversight that such a one-sided report on this subject appeared in The Christian Intelligencer. At least it was not at all designed that injustice be done to the Mis- sionaries, but, unless they be allowed to speak for themselves, is not injustice done them ? It seemed to me that a very mistaken impression concerning the views expressed by me, PREFACE. Vll. near the close of the session of Synod, was also conveyed by the Report. This I attempted to correct by a note to the editor, but even the right of correcting my own sentiments and language was refused, my note garbled, and, as I thought, my views again misrepresented. More than this, the implied charge is published to the world that I am seeking to excite “ dissension among the churches,” and “ opposition to the constituted authority of Synod.”* It would therefore be great dereliction of duty to return to my field of labor, allow- ing my own views, and the views of my co-laborers, to be thus mistaken in the Church, and such serious charges against our course unanswered. I am not aware that any censorship of the press has been authorized by General Synod. Surely if others are allowed to be heard for us we should be allowed the right to be heard for ourselves. We were unable by writing from Amoy to get our views before the Church. I must, therefore, while in this land, endeavor to make them known. I have been advised by some to delay the publication of this paper a few months, until we learn the effect of the deci- sion of the last Synod on the Mission at Amoy, and see what course the Church there may feel compelled to adopt. I do not see the force of such advice. Whatever may be the course of the Church there, the intrinsic merits of the question will be unchanged thereby. Besides this, I cannot afford such delay. I have been looking forward to as speedy re- turn as possible to that field of labor. Would it be right to leave the whole subject to the eve of my departure, and thus shut myself off from the possibility of defending or further explaining my views, if such defense or explanation be called for '? I have been asked, Why not bring this subject before the Church through the columns of the Christian Intelligencer ? This question, after what has been said above, need not now be answered. Doubtless the editor is responsible for what appears in his columns. The only resource left the Mission seems to be the one I have chosen. I regret the necessity of discussing the subject, since the ° If this language seem too strong or uncalled for, see Appendix B, at the end. Till. PREFACE. action of the last Synod, but we could not discuss it pre- viously without running counter to the same advice which would now restrain us. I do not at all suppose, however, that by the course I am taking I shall become guilty of dis- obedience “ to the authority of Synod.” Neither should it be the occasion of creating “ dissensions in the churches.” The discussion of any important subject in a proper spirit is neither opposed to the doctrines of the Sacred Scriptures, nor to the doctrines of the Dutch Church, and I am whiling to leave it to those who may read the following pages to decide whether there be in them any manifestation of an improper spirit. We, and those who differ from us, are all seeking the same end, i. e. the glory of God through the advancement of his cause. All that I ask for myself and co-laborers is an impartial hearing. Perhaps, in order to guard against any mistaken impres- sion, I ought to add that the relations between the Missiona- ries and the Board of Foreign Missions of our Church, have always been of the most pleasant character. Whatever have been their differences of opinion on this most important sub- ject, or on any other subject, they have not caused, so far as I am aware, the least interruption of that warm Christian friendship which has alw T ays existed, or been the occasion of one unkind utterance in all their mutual correspondence. Why not so ? Cannot Christians reason with each other, even on subjects of the highest moment, in such a spirit as not only to avoid animosities, but even to increase personal friend- ship ? If this paper should prove the occasion of discussion in our Church, let me express the hope that such discussion will be carried on in such a spirit. J. Y. N. TALMAGE. Bound Brook, N. J., October, 1SG-3. HISTORY ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS 0 F THE CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERIAL ORDER, AT AMOY, CHINA. The first Protestant Missionaries at Amoy arrived there in the year 1S42. They were Dr. Abeel of the American Reformed Dutch Church, and Bishop Boone of the American Episcopal Church. After these there arrived Missionaries of the London Missionary Society, of the American Presbyte- rian Church, of the English Presbyterian Church, and others of the American Reformed Dutch Church. Bishop Boone soon left Amoy, and no others of his Church have since then been stationed there. The American Presbyte- rian Mission was removed to other parts of China. At the pre- sent time there are three Missions at Amoy, viz. : the Missions of the American Reformed Dutch Church, of the London Mis- sionary Society, and of the English Presbyterian Church. The Missionaries of the London Missionary Society are Independents or Co ngregationali sts, and have organized their churches after the Congregational order. Thus their churches form a distinct Denomination, and nothing further need be said of them in this paper. Tire first Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church at 10 Amoy was Dr. Jas. Young. He arrived in May, 18-50. At that time there were two Missionaries connected with our (R. D. C.) Mission, viz. : Rev. E. Doty, on the ground, and Rev. J. V. N. Talmage, absent on a visit to the United States. There were then under our care six native church members. Five of them had been baptized by our Missionaries at Amoy. The other had been baptized in Siam, by a Congregationalist or Presbyterian Minister of the A. B. C. F. M. Dr. Young, being a physician, and not an ordained Minis- ter, instead of commencing an independent work, inasmuch as our doctrines and order of church government did not essentially differ from those of his own Church, very naturally became more especially associated with us in our work. A school under the care of our Mission, of which Mr. Doty did not feel able to continue the charge, was passed over to his care. He also rendered medical assistance to the Mission- aries, and to the Chinese, both in Amoy, and by occasional tours in the country. In his labors he was usually assisted by native Christians under our care. The first ordained Missionary of the English Presbyterian Church, at Amoy, was Rev. William C. Burns. He joined Dr. Young in July, 1851. While he rendered considerable assistance to the brethren of the London Missionary Society, being ready to preach the gospel at every opportunity, providentially he became especially associated with us, and with the native Christians under our care. A remarkable outpouring of the Spirit of God had accompanied the labors of Rev. Mr. Burns, in his native land. So the remarkable outpouring of that same Spirit in Amoy, and vicinity, occur- red sometime after his arrival, and much of this good work was manifestly connected with his labors. The permanent work in the country around Amoy commenced through his instrumentality, in connection with native members of 11 the church under our care. We desired him to take the charge of that work, and gather a church at Peh-chui-ia, under the care of the English Presbyterian Church. But, at his urgent request, we took the pastoral oversight of the work in that region, administering the sacraments to the native converts. Rev. James Johnstone, of the same Mission, arrived in December, 18-53. He undertook the care of the church being gathered at Peh-chui-ia, assuming, in behalf of the English Presbyterian Church, all the expenses thereof, we continuing the pastoral oversight until such time as his knowledge of the language should be sufficient to enable him to relieve us. In consequence of the ill-health of Dr. Young, he and Mr. Burns left Amoy, in August, 1S-54. Mr. Johnstone, in con- sequence of ill-heath, left in May, 1855, before he was able to relieve us fully from the pastoral care of the church at Peh-chui-ia. Rev. Carstairs Douglas, of the same Mission, arrived at Amoy in July, 1855, and immediately entered on the work of Mr. Johnstone, we continuing the pastoral oversight of the church at Peh-chui-ia, until his knowledge of the lan- guage enabled him to assume it. Before the brethren of the English Presbyterian Church were able to assume pastoral responsibility, the work spread from Peh-chui-ia to Chioli-be. It was thought best that we take the charge of that station. After the departure of Dr. Young, all the Missionaries of the English Presbyterian Church, for several years, were unmarried men. Therefore, they resolved to devote them- selves more especially to work in the country, leaving to our especial care the church in the city of Amoy, and the one out-station at Chioli-be. Amoy was still necessarily their 12 place of residence. All their work at Amoy was in con- nection with the church under our care. In the country we assisted them as we had opportunity, and as occasion de- manded. They did the same for us. In fact, we and they have worked together as one Church, and almost as one Mission, with the exception of keeping pecuniary matters distinct. More recently the English Presbyterian Mission was re infoi'ced by one member with a family, and it seemed a proper time for them to commence more direct work at Amoy. A very populous suburb (E-mng-kang) was selected as a suitable and promising station. They assumed the immediate care, and all the expense of it, employing, as at all the other stations, indiscriminately, members of their own or of our churches as helpers. We are not afraid that our Church will ever blame us for working thus harmoniously, and unitedly, with our English Presbyterian brethren, and we feel confident that none of her Missionaries w T ould consent to work on any other princi- ples. If there be any who, under similar circumstances, would refuse thus to work, this would be sufficient evidence that they had mistaken their calling. If any blame is to be attached to the course the Missionaries have pursued, it is not that they have worked thus in harmony and unison with the English Presybterian brethren, but that they have failed to keep the churches under their care ecclesiastically distinct. Some do feel inclined to censure us for this. It must be, however, because of some great misapprehension on their part. The Synod has distinctly uttered a contraiy sentiment, i. e. that the course of the Missionaries is not censurable. We no not believe that our Church, when she understands the true state of the case, will ever censure us on this account. It would not be according to the spirit of 13 her Master. lie prayed that His people might be one, but lie never prayed for their separation from each other. When separation is necessary, it is a necessary evil. But more of this hereafter. Our Church might well have censured us, if we had adopted lower principles as her representatives in building up the Church of Christ in China. The first organization of a church at Amoy under our care, by the ordination of a Consistory, took place in 1856. The Missionaries of our Board then on the ground were Doty and Talmage. Mr. Douglas was the only Missionary of the Eng- lish Presbyterian Church. (Mr. Joralmon, of our Church, arrived between the time of the election and the ordination of office-bearers.) When the time came for the organization of the Church, we felt a solemn responsibility resting on us. We supposed it to be our duty to organize the Church in China with reference simply to its. own welfare, and efficiency in the work of evangelizing the heathen around. Believing (after due deliberation) that the order of our own Church in America would best secure this end, of course we adopted it. We did not suppose that we were sent out to build up the American Dutch Church in China, but a Church after the same order, a purely Chinese Church. IIow much the growth and efficiency of our Church in this country has been pro- moted by retaining (rather inserting) the term “ Dutch ” in her name, I will not now attempt to discuss. I suppose the principal argument in favor thereof is found in the fact that our Church, in the first instance, was a colony from Holland. The Church in China is not a colony from Holland, or Ame- rica. We must not, therefore, entail on her the double evil of both the terms “ American ” and “ Dutch," or the single evil of either of these terms. Your Missionaries will never consent to be instrumental in causing such an evil. 14 We had already adopted the order and customs of our Church at home, so far as they could be adopted in an unor- ganized Church. The English Presbyterian brethren had adopted the same. They found that there were no differ- ences of any importance between us and them ; the churches being gathered under our care and under theirs — growing out of each other and being essentially one- — neither we nor they could see any sufficient reason for organizing two dis- tinct denominations. Especially had we no reason for such a course, inasmuch as they were willing even to conform to our peculiarities. We most cordially invited Mr. Douglas to unite with us in the organization of the Church, and he as cordially accepted of the invitation. In reference to this subject Mr. Douglas wrote to their Corresponding Secretary as follows : “ I need hardly say “ that this transaction does not consist in members of one “ church joining another, nor in two churches uniting, but it “ is an attempt to build up on the soil of China, with the “lively stones prepared by the great Master-builder, an eccle- “ siastical body holding the grand doctrines enunciated at “ Westminster and Dort, and the principles of Presbyterian “ polity embraced at the Reformation by the purest churches “ on the continent and in Britain ; it will also he a beautiful “ point in the history of this infant Church that the under, “builders employed in shaping and arranging the stones, “ were messengers of two different (though not differing,) “ churches in the two creat nations on either side of the “ Atlantic.” The course of Mr. Douglas met with the decided ap- proval of their Secretary, and, as he had reason then to be - ]ieve, and has since fully learned, with the approval of their Church. We also sent a communication to our Church, address- 15 ing it to General Synod. We directed it to the care of one of our prominent ministers, for a long time Secretary of the Board, with the request that it be laid before the Church, using language as follows : “ You will, doubtless, receive “ this paper some months before the time for the next meet- ing of that Body [General Synod], We would suggest “ therefore, that the paper be published, that the members “ of the next General Synod may have the matter before “ them, and be the better prepared to make such disposition “ of it as the subject may demand. We feel that the subject “ is one of very grave importance,” &c. Our communication was laid before the Board of Foreign Missions. They designated it a Memorial., and decided that they had no right to publish it. Of course we had no means of publishing it ourselves. It was laid before Synod among other papers of the Board. The action of Synod on the subject was as follows (Minutes of Synod, 1S57, pp. 225- 227) : “ Among the papers submitted to the Synod is an “ elaborate document from the brethren at Amoy, giving “ the history of their work there, of its gradual progress, of “ their intimate connection with Missionaries from other “ bodies, of the formation of the Church now existing there, “ and expressing their views as to the propriety and feasi- “ bility of forming a Classis at that station. In reply to so “ much of this paper as respects the establishment of indi- “ vidual churches, we must say that while we appreciate “ the peculiar circumstances of our brethren, and sympa- “ thize with their perplexities, yet it has always been con- “ sidered a matter of course that ministers, receiving their “ commission through our Church, and sent forth under the “ auspices of our Board, would, when they formed converts “ from the heathen into an ecclesiastical body, mould the 16 ‘ organization into a form approaching as nearly as pos- ‘ sible that of the Reformed Dutch Churches in our own ‘ land. Seeing that the converted heathen, when associated ‘ together, must have some form of government, and see- ‘ ing that our form is, in our view, entirely consistent with, ‘ if not required by, the Scriptures, we expect it will in all ‘ cases be adopted by our Missionaries, subject, of course. ‘ to such modifications as the peculiar circumstances may ‘ for the time render necessary. The converts at Amoy, ‘ as at Arcot and elsewhere, are to be regarded as ‘ an ! ‘ integral part ’ of our Church, and as such are entitled to ‘ all the rights and privileges which we possess. ■‘And so in regard to the formation of a Classis. The ‘ Church at home will undoubtedly expect the brethren to as- ‘ sociate themselves into a regular ecclesiastical organization, ‘just as soon as enough materials are obtained to warrant ‘ such measure with the hope that it will be permanent. ‘We do not desire churches to be prematurely formed in ‘ order to get materials for a Classis, nor any other exercise ‘ of violent haste. But we equally deprecate unnecessary ‘ delay, believing that a regular organization will be alike ‘ useful to our brethren themselves, and to those who, under ‘ them, are training for the first office-bearers in the Chris- ‘ tian Church on heathen ground. As to the difficulties sug- gested in the memorial, respecting the different Particular ‘ Synods to which the brethren belong, and the delays of car- ‘ rying out a system of appellate jurisdiction covering ‘America and China, it is enough to say: — (1) That the ‘ Presbyterian Church (0. S.) finds no insuperable difficulties ‘ in carrying into operation her system which comprehends ‘ Presbyteries and Synods in India as well as here ; and (2) ‘ That whatever hindrances may at any time arise, this body ‘ will, in humble reliance upon the divine aid and blessing, 17 “ undertake to meet and remove them as far as possible. “ The Church at home assumes the entire responsibility of “ this matter, and only asks the brethren abroad to carry out “ the policy held steadily in view from the first moment “ when our Missions began. “ The following resolutions are recommended : “ Resolved , 1 . That the Synod view with great pleasure “ the formation of churches among the converts from heath- enism, organized according to the established usages of our “ branch of Zion. “ 2. That the brethren at Amoy be directed to apply to “ the Particular Synod of Albany to organize them into a “ Classis so soon as they shall have formed churches enough “ to render the permanency of such an organization reasona- “ bly certain.” It should be noticed that, in the foregoing Report, which was adopted by Synod, the most important question — the vital question — of our communication, i. e. the unity of the churches under the care of the English Presbyterian Mission- sionaries and of us, is entirely ignored ; and consequently, without the fact being stated, we were directed to divide those churches, and form a part of them into a distinct Denomina- tion. If the English Presbyterian Church had disapproved of the course of their Missionaries in uniting with us in organiz- ing the native churches with our peculiarities, we think even that would have been strange. It would have appeared to us as though they were sacrificing some of the essentials of Presbyterianism for the sake of non-essentials, for, in our organization, they found all that they hold essential in doc- trine, order, and customs. Suppose the position of the two Missions had been reversed, they had been first on the ground, 18 and when we arrived we found the Church being planted and beginning to grow up after their order. If we had found in the Church thus growing up all that we hold essential and important, even though it had some little peculiarities which were theirs and not ours, ought not our Church to have per- mitted us to work with them, as they have been permitted to work with us ? If such be not the true Christian spirit, than we frankly confess that we know not, and despair of ever learning from the Word of God, what the Christian spirit is on such a subject. But whether such disapproval on the part of the English Presbyterian Church would have been strange or not, it would not have been so strange as was the decision of our Church, that the churches organized by the English Presbyterian brethren and by us — all one in fact, growing out of each other, and all adopting our order, should not be organically one. Hence, when we learned from our Board the decision of Synod, we felt (correctly or incorrectly) that there must be some misapprehension. Surely our Church cannot have correct views of our position, and our course of proceeding. Hence, we returned answer to the Board as follows : — (Letter dated December 23, 1S-57.) After speaking of our hearty approval of the course of our Church in separating from the A. B. C. F. M., though as indi- viduals we took our leave of that Board with feelings of sad- ness, we remarked : “ It seems proper to us also, on the present occasion, to “ allude to a subject deeply affecting the interests of the “ little Church which God has graciously gathered by our “ instrumentality from among this people. This Church is “ now small, but we trust that, with a continuance of the “ Divine blessing, the ‘ little one ’ will soon ‘ become a thou- “ ‘ sand,’ and the ‘ small one a strong nation.’ ‘ The Lord “ will hasten it in his time.’ We love this Church, and 19 “ cannot but watch over her interests with jealous care. “ Besides this, the Great Shepherd has made us under-shep- “ herds, and commanded us to watch over the interests ol “ this flock. We gave a brief history of our work, and an “ account of the present condition and peculiar circum- “ stances of the churches here under our care, and stated at “ considerable length our views in reference to the future O “ ecclesiastical relations of these churches, in a paper pre- “ pared for the information of our Church at home, and “ addressed to General Synod. The facts thus communicated “ ought to be known by the Church, It seems to us very “ unfortunate that that paper was not published according to “ our suggestion. It stated facts of grave importance. If we “ could have had a representative in General Synod, the pre- “ vious publication of our paper might have been unneces- “ sary. But, without such a representative, it was hardly “possible that the subject, by a single reading of so long a “ document, could be brought before the minds of all the “ members of S) r nod with sufficient clearness “ Therefore it is not strange that some of the important “ points in the paper should have been entirely overlooked, “ and also that certain grave misconceptions should have got “ abroad in the Church concerning the views expressed “ by us. “ So far as we can judge from the report of the proceed- “ ings of 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. Our Saviour prays : “ ‘ Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom “ ‘ thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are one.’ 20 “ * That they all may he one, as thou, Father, art in me, and “ ‘ I in thee, that they also may he one in us : that the world “ ‘ may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which “ ‘ thougavest me, I have given them, that they may he one, “ ‘ even as we are one.’ 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-— he violently separated into two Denomina- “ tions? We cannot believe it. Suppose the case of two “ Churches origin aby distinct. By coming into close 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 hut one Denomination ? Yet, such a suppo- “ sition does not, and cannot, even after you allow all the “ likeness and unity between the two churches it is possible “ to conceive of, represent the circumstances of the churches “ gathered by us, and by our Scotch brethren of the English “ Presbyterian Church. Our [theirs and ours] 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 (not probably) 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 out 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. “ That misconceptions have got abroad in our Church con- 21 “ cernin" our views, we have abundant evidence from various “ private letters. They were written with the most kindly “ feelings towards us, but evidently under the impression that “ we find difficulty in organizing our churches according to “ the order of the Dutch Church. We have never found any “ difficulty of this kind. It is true that when we were called “ to the solemn duty of commencing a church organization in “ an empire containing one-third of the inhabitants of the “ globe, we gave the subject of church polity a more careful “ investigation than we had ever before given it. The result “ of this investigation was a cordial (and, as we think, intelli- “gent) approval of the order and forms of our own Church. “We have commenced our organization according to the “ order of the Dutch Church, and we expect to proceed, as “ fast as the providence and grace of God lead the way, after “the same order; and we use the forms of our own Church. “Our Presbyterian brethren unite with us in these things. “ But it is not strange that such misconceptions should be “ spread in the Church. They are the necessary result of “ publishing certain remarks made in Synod concerning our “ paper, without publishing the paper itself. “ In the Report of the Synod, Synod’s Board, Board of F oreign “ Missions, it is said : ‘ It would have been w r ell if the memorial “ ‘ had been placed, in a printed form, in the hands of the min- “ ‘ istry. This they [the Missionaries] suggested, but the ‘“Board felt it was purely a Synodical matter — that they “ ‘ could not act in the case.’ With all due respect, and with “ the kindest feelings, we desire to make three remarks on “ this subject. First. We do not understand the principle “ on which the Board felt called upon to decide whether our “ letter should be published or not. It was not addressed to “ the Board, nor sent to the care of the Board. The opinion “ of members of the Board as individuals might have been 22 “ asked, but we suppose that the Board in their official capa- “ city had nothing to do with the paper. Secondly. Inasmuch “ as the paper emanated from us, if ‘ it would have been “‘well ’ to have had it published, our suggestion was a suffi- “ cient warrant for its publication. The responsibility would “ have been ours. It had not yet become a Synodical matter. “ Afterwards it would have been a legitimate question for the “ Synod to decide whether they would entertain a paper com- “ ing before them in such a manner. This question might “ well have been left to General Synod. Thirdly. A short “ time previous to the writing of that paper, unless our “ memory is greatly at fault, a communication was received “ from the Avcot Mission (or Classis of Arcot), addressed to “ General Synod, which was thus published, according to the “ request of the Arcot brethren, and without the authority “ of Synod. “ 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 contro- “ versy with any. 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, de- “ mands 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. And we feel grateful for the spirit of kindness “ towards us manifested in the action of Synod, and also in “ the letters received from fathers and brethren in the min- istry, notwithstanding their misconception of our views. “But, we have also learned, how easily our views may be “mistaken. In our paper, addressed to General Synod, “when discussing the difficulties in the way of the Synod’s 23 “jurisdiction over churches so far removed in time, distance, “and circumstances, we remarked: — ‘ Will written corre- “ ‘spondence supply the place of representation ? It would “ ‘place our Classis under great disadvantages. There must “ ‘usually be a delay of one or two years on every subject “‘on which there is need of a decision by either Synod. If “ ‘anything is not understood, or is misunderstood, in our “ ‘ communications, there will be no one to explain for us. “‘Difficulties of this kind, from want of knowledge of the “ ‘ civil and social circumstances of this people may frequent- “ ‘ ly occur. Could we have representatives from among us, “ ‘ they could usually be easily explained ; but without this “ ‘representation, they can only be explained by a long cor- “ ‘ respondence, which may cause years of delay.’ The “ whole of this misunderstanding, which has arisen out of our “ first communication, and the length of time and the amount “ of correspondence which may yet be necessary, before we “ can see ‘ eye to eye,’ give a striking illustration of the “ force of these remarks.” So far as the preamble and resolutions of the Synod of 1857 embody the doctrines, and what we supposed to be the policy of our Church, we heartily agreed with them. Of course we were pained to see that they implied, that, in or- ganizing a Church at Amoy, we had not proceeded according to the order of our Church, or had found great difficulty in doing so. This was altogether a mistake, and was already producing evil results. We think there is another mistake in the preamble. It seems small, but because of this fact, and of its plausibility, it has done more, perhaps, than any- thing else in leading our Church into the false position which she seems now to occupy. Therefore, we should ex- amine it with some care. It is the assumption, as a matter of course, that, “the converts at Amoy” are “an integral 24 ‘ part of our Church,” in this country. What made them so ? Is it because they were converted through the instrumentali- ty of the preaching of our Missionaries? This is a new doc- trine, that a convert as a matter of course belongs to the Church of the preacher through whose instrumentality he has been led unto Christ. Perhaps it was the doctrine of some of the Corinthians, when they said, “ I am of Paul, and I of “ Apollos,” &c., but it was not the doctrine of the Apostle who reproved them. Besides this, how shall we know which of them were converted through our instrumentality ? The English Presbyterian brethren and ourselves have preached indiscriminately. Is it because they were baptized by our Missionaries ? But many of them were baptized by the Eng- lish Presbyterian brethren. They have baptized in our churches, and we in theirs. If they be an integral part of the Dutch Church in America, they are also an integral part of the Presbyterian Church in England. We, it is true, bap- tized a majority, say two-thirds. Are thejq then, two-thirds of an integral part in America, and one-third of an integral part in England? No. The whole is a fallacy. Each indi- vidual Church there is an integral part of the whole of them. All together, they form an integer. They might by the act of our Church, and a correlative act on their own part, become an integral part of the Church in America ? In a similar way they might become an integral part of the Church in Euglaud. They are now an integer of themselves. To make one por- tion of them an integral part of the Church in this country, and another portion an integral part of the Church in Eng- land, is to be guilty of causing a violent rupture. We felt that the consequences were so momentous, that, before we should allow ourselves to be instrumental in thus (as we supposed) rending the “ Body of Christ ” at Amoy, we should make another effort to get the facts before the Church. As yet, we could not, if we would, carry out the resolution of Synod, and organize a Chassis in connection with the Particular Synod of Albany, for, it was not till several years after, only very recently, that we had materials “ enough to render the permanency of such an organization reasonably certain.” Therefore we wrote, as above, under date of December 23, 1S-57, and frequently wrote on the sub- ject, as occasion offered. Although our views were not made public (the Board judg- ing that they had no right, or that it would not be for the good of the Church, and the interests of the Mission, to publish them), still we continued to prosecute our labors, in connection with the English Presbyterian brethren, receiving and giving mutual assistance. We were encouraged thus to o O o continue our work : 1 . Because of letters we received from home, some of them written by individuals who were able advocates of the decision of the Synod of 1S57. They told us that it could not be otherwise than that a separation must come between us and the brethren of the English Pres- byterian Church, but they would not have us inaugurate that separation. 2. (and more important) Because a marvelous blessing from on high was attending our labors. 3. (and most important) Because we knew this harmonious and mutual assistance to be entirely in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel. In process of time a Church was organized at Chioh-be by the appointment of elders and deacons, then at Peh-chui-ia, then at Mapeng, and then the Church at Amoy was divided into two distinct organizations. Thus we had five organized churches, all of our order — the elders and deacons chosen and set apart according to our Forms, and all our Forms in use so far as there was yet occasion tor them. Two of these churches were under the especial care of the English Presbyterians, 26 and pecuniarily the work was sustained by funds collected in England and Scotland. The other three were under our especial care. The pecuniary expenses, beyond what the native churches could themselves raise, were borne by our Church at home. One of the essential principles of our Church polity is, that individual Churches are not independent of each other. They are members one of another. They are to be subject to each other. They are individual parts of a whole. Each part should be subject to the whole. Hence the necessity of higher judi- catories. Thus we felt that these five churches had a right to an ecclesiastical organization, by which they might enjoy this essential principle of Presbyterianism. [I trust we shall hear no more of the charge that the Missionaries at Amoy are Congregationalists.] But we were afraid to give this organization to the native churches, lest we should give offense at home. We knew that we were misunderstood, and as yet could see no way to make the Church acquainted with our position and our views. If the Master should plainly call us to go forward, of course we must obey, and leave the results with Him. These churches, having grown out of each other, were essentially one, and were as closely united together as it was possible for them to be, without a formal organization. The first formal meeting of all these churches was held at Chioh-be (a church under our care), in 1S61. No ecclesias- tical power was assumed. The next similar meeting was held in April, 1S62, in the churches at Amoj'. This was still more formal. It was composed of all the Missionaries of our own and of the English Presbyterian Church, and of one representative Elder from each of the five organized churches. This body may be called an incipient Classis. The only ecclesiastical power exercised, however, was con- 27 nected with church discipline. Heretofore each individual Church, in connection with the Missionaries, had exercised the power of discipline, even to excommunication. Now certain cases of excommunication were referred by individual Consistories to, and acted on by, this body. Is it necessary to defend such acts? We felt that if each individual church could exercise such power, and the principles of our Presby- terianism be scriptural, then could a body, composed of the representatives of these churches, together with the Mis- sionaries, with safety exercise such power. It was approach- ing as nearly as possible to the practice of our Church at home. We expected soon to be called to the performance of ecclesiastical acts more momentous. Already had two of the churches chosen two of the native members, who were now engaged in careful study, that in due time they might be set apart to the office of the Ministry of the Word, and ordained pastors of the churches respectively choosing them. But for reasons given above we would not go forward faster than we were plainly led by the hand of Providence. There- fore, while the Missionaries, in presence of this assembly, ex- amined these pastors-elect, in reference to their qualifications for the office of Pastor, the body, as such, took no part in the examination. This incipient Classis met next in the autumn of the same year at Peh-chui-ia, a church under the care of the Eng- lish Presbyterian brethren. At this meeting it became a real Classis, not fully developed as a Classis in a mature Church, but possessing the constituent elements and performing the functions of a Classis. Not only were there cases of dis- cipline to act on, but a distinct application was made by one of the churches, that a pastor be ordained, and placed over them. The body decided, not only that they had the right, but that the plain call of the Great Head of the 28 Church made it their duty to go forward in this matter. Preliminary steps were taken, other meetings of Classis were appointed and held, candidates were examined, calls pre- sented and approved, until early in the present year the First and Second Churches at Amoy had each a native pastor ordained and installed over them. By the authority of this Classis, in the early part of this year, a third church was organized at Amoy according to our order. It is in the suburb called E-mng-kang, and is under the especial care of the English Presbyterian brethren, as mentioned in a previous part of this paper. So now there are six organ- ized churches, all of the same order, and some others almost ready to be organized. If the Missionaries at Amoy have been guilty of any great mistake, it has been in this matter of forming such a Classis, and proceeding to the ordination and installation of native pastors, and the organization of new churches. Therefore, this subject demands a careful examination. When we commenced the work among the heathen, it was found that the Constitution of our Church had made no provision for such work beyond the simple ordaining of men as Missionaries. We might preach the gospel, but no provision was made for receiving into church fellowship, administering the sacraments, electing and ordaining office- bearers, and all the incipient steps of the organization of the Church from among the heathen. The Constitution was made for the government of a Church already organ- ized and matured, and in America ; therefore, it is not strange that such things were not provided for. Our duty seemed very plain. We must fall back on the great princi- ples of church government taught in the Word of God. We believed these principles to be set forth in the Consti- tution, and other standards of our Church. 29 WI ien, through the instrumentality of the preached Word, men gave satisfactory evidence that they had experienced “ the renewing of the Holy Ghost,” without the advice of Consistories, by virtue of our office of Ministers of the Word, we administered to them the sacrament of baptism, thus admitting them into the church Now the Lord’s Supper must be administered to these believers, baptism to their infant children, and to new converts, and the discipline of God’s house maintained. By virtue of that same office, and by virtue of the authority given by the Master to his Church, we felt that we had the right, aye, that it was our bounden duty, to perform such acts. We could not yet for a long time set apart a proper Consistory, but we must not therefore be “ lords over God’s heritage.” In receiving new members, and in all acts of discipline, we must advise with the church already gathered. The church grew, and in due time a Consistory was called for ; must the work stop, because the Constitution had made no provision? No. The little church had the right to choose men, and having chosen suitable men, it was our duty to ordain them. The authority we thus exercised was not usurped, but was implied in the commission we received from our Master through the Church. The same may be said of the authority of the brethren at Amoy, when, in connection with the representative elders of the various churches, they pro- ceeded to the ordination of native pastors, and the organiza- tion of new churches. It was not necessary for the perform- ance of every act to get a new commission from the Church. When the Church sent us out, the one commission contained all the authority necessary for the complete organization of the church. It is an absurdity to deny, on constitutional grounds, the right of the Missionaries to perform these last acts unless you deny their right to perform all their other 30 acts except the simple preaching of the Gospel. Their acts were all extra, not contra constitutional. If their authority thus to act be justified in reference to the former acts, and denied in reference to the latter, the justification and denial must be on other grounds than the Constitution of our Church. Will any one assert that the Classis thus formed at Amoy is not a Classis de facto ? or that the native pastors ordained and installed by that body are not scriplurally set apart to their offices, and that its other acts are null and void? If so, then, as yet, there are no organized churches — no Consisto- ries — -at Amoy, and there have been no scriptural baptisms, for all ecclesiastical acts performed there, have been perform- ed on the same principles, and by the same authority. No one will have the hardihood to assert such a doctrine. It will be admitted that there is a Classis dc facto at Amoy. Then it is competent to perform all the functions of a Classis. But it will not be contended that that Classis is a part of the Dutch Church in America. Yet it is essentially like a Classis in America, just so far as the present state of development of the Church at Amoy, and its Chinese character, render likeness possible. It is Chinese , not American. The organiza- tion of such a Church is what we always supposed required of us. We never imagined that we were sent to organize the American Dutch Church in China. If your Missionaries are allowed to proceed, and are not required to repel the English Presbyterian brethren from their united labors with us, there will be but one Church at Amoy of the Presbyterian order. With the continued blessing of God on such harmonious labor, it will be the Church of that region. It will be dear to both the Presbyterian Church in England, and to our Church in this land, and peculiarly dear to our Church in this coun- try, because of its Dutch characteristics. Your Missionaries 31 will still be your agents, responsible to the Church at home, as they have always been. The near relation to the Church in this land, which they have always held, they desire to re- tain. The late action of Synod contemplates the formation of two denominations at Amoy of the Presbyterian order, giving our peculiarities to one-half instead of to the whole , thus producing rivalries, injuring the efficiency of the native churches, and making the relation of the Missionaries to the Church at home more distant, thus weakening your hold on them, and all, • '