Part 2 (1/2)
”2. That the Board of Foreign Missions be, and hereby is, instructed to send to our Missionaries a copy or copies of this report, as containing the well-considered deliverance of the Synod respecting their present relations and future duty.
”3. 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.”
The above is only an extract from the close of the Report of the Committee, and contains the result at which they arrived. In reference to it we would make three remarks. (1). It (Res. 3) 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. 1) 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 un.o.bjectionable, 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 j.a.pan. Has it been tested in j.a.pan? 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 Cla.s.sis is more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a native Cla.s.sis, before the test can be p.r.o.nounced at all satisfactory. True, that Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called a Cla.s.sis in connection with the Synod in America. But has it been more successful than the Mission at Amoy? Compare the amount of labor and the money expended on the two Missions, and then look at the results, and thus decide about the tests. It is in no spirit of vainglory that we call for such a comparison. Studiously have we avoided it, and the responsibility must rest on those who compel us to it. (3.) No consideration is had for the feelings, wishes, or opinions of the native Churches. Some consideration is shown for the feelings of the English Presbyterian Missionaries. This is as it ought to be. Yet it is a matter of _comparatively_ little importance. _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!
It would have occupied too much s.p.a.ce to have quoted the whole of the Report of the Committee. The preceding part of it occupies nearly six pages of the Minutes of Synod. Yet we may not pa.s.s that part over in silence, for, while with much of its contents we have no dispute, it contains some grave mistakes of fact, and, as we think, some very grave errors of doctrine. It grieves me to say thus much, and also to feel compelled to add the following strictures. But, in order to discuss this subject, duty required the careful examination of the whole of the Report, and, finding in it such errors, the clear statement of them. It might be easy, perhaps, to account for the fact, that mistakes, in a report, unprinted, and of such length, should escape the notice of Synod, but an attempt to apologize for that body might give occasion to infer more disrespect than simply to point out the mistakes.
After some introductory remarks, chiefly concerning the difficulty of their task, the Committee ”begin with the a.s.sertion of principles.”
These they make three in number. The sum of the first principle is that _a Church, by divine arrangement, has government_. The essential idea of their second principle, so far as we can understand it, is, that _the Dutch Church has a clearly defined government_. The Missionaries at Amoy, as well as the ministers in this country, admit both these principles fully. But they do not affect the question in dispute. Not so with the third principle of the Committee. Lest I might be supposed to misrepresent, I will quote their own language: ”No government can, voluntarily, relinquish its powers, and abnegate its authority without thereby inviting disorder, disquietude, and, in the end, its destruction.” Is this, indeed, as the Committee a.s.sert, one of the ”admitted principles” of our Church? one of the ”convictions in the mind of our Church, hardly separable in idea from its very existence?” one of the ”old truths maintained through blood and flame?” If the doctrine be true, the Church in Holland had no right to relinquish its authority over the Church in America. If this doctrine be a ”principle” of our Church, never, _never_ could your Missionaries consent to be instrumental in bringing the Church in China, which now has liberty in Christ Jesus, into such _perpetual_ bondage. Once bring the Chinese churches under the authority of the Church in America, and it matters not how great may be their growth, and how many centuries may pa.s.s away, the Church in America can never relinquish her authority over them! But this is not an ”admitted principle” of our Church. The Dutch Church is _protestant_, not _papal_. Instead of the principle being one of the ”_old truths_ maintained through blood and flame” by her, it is an _old error of the Papacy_, for rejecting which she poured out her blood so freely, and would do the same to-day. Yet in the Report of the Committee this error of Romanism, guilty of the blood of thousands upon thousands of the saints of the Most High, is made to lie at the basis of the action of the last Synod!
The Committee next proceed to the statement of ”certain historic facts.”
As with the ”admitted principles,” so with the ”historic facts.” With some of them we have no dispute. But when they come to describe the present condition and relations of the churches at Amoy, their language, to say the least, is very unfortunate. ”These six Churches,” say they, ”have grown up together under such an interchange and community of labor on the part of our own Missionaries, and on the part of those belonging to the English Presbyterian Church, that all are said to have a two-fold ecclesiastical relation--one with England--one with America, and still a third, and economical and domestic relation among themselves, which is covered and controlled by what is styled 'The Great Presbyterial or Cla.s.sical Council of Amoy.'”
We do not know by whom these native Churches ”are said” to have a two-fold or three-fold _ecclesiastical_ relation. It is not so said by the Missionaries. They contend that the native churches are neither English, nor American, but _Chinese_ churches. They are ecclesiastically related to each other, and ought to remain so. But the effort is now made to sever this ecclesiastical relation to each other, and bring half of them into ecclesiastical relations.h.i.+p with the Church in America, making them the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of _North America, in China_! At present the native churches have an intimate, but not an _ecclesiastical_, relation to both the Church in England and America.
From the above mistaken statement the Committee have drawn out three ”_particulars_” which they seem to think especially worthy of note.
”1st. That while this Chinese Presbyterial or Cla.s.sical Council is itself an autonomy--having the right to ordain ministers, exercise discipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Cla.s.sis' or Presbytery can or may do, still the whole in England is claimed to be the Presbytery of Amoy, and to this Synod it is reported as the Cla.s.sis of Amoy.”
How dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a _Presbytery_, and American Dutchmen call it a _Cla.s.sis_! If this language is also meant to imply that the Cla.s.sis at Amoy is usurping authority, it is answered in other parts of this paper.
The next ”particular” of the Committee is:
”2d. The Missionaries, while they are members of this Grand Presbyterial or Cla.s.sical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are, at the same time, members either of Cla.s.ses in America, or of Presbyteries in Great Britain.”
The meaning of this second ”particular” is, that the Missionaries have a two-fold ecclesiastical relation. Is there anything contrary to Scripture doctrine, or to Presbyterian principles, or to common sense, that ecclesiastical relations should correspond to fact?--that the Missionaries should have some sort of an ecclesiastical relation, both to the Church at home and to the Church in China? They have a peculiar relations.h.i.+p to both these Churches. Why forget or ignore the fact that they are _Evangelists_ and _not Pastors_? Why object to an ecclesiastical relations.h.i.+p exactly corresponding to, and required by, their office and position? The two parts of this relations.h.i.+p do not contradict each other. They are altogether correlative. The Missionaries are still agents of the Church which sent them out. Their ecclesiastical relation to it should be direct, that they may be controlled by it, independent of any intermediate body. The Church at home cannot afford to cut off her Missionaries from this immediate relations.h.i.+p so long as they remain her agents. This does not conflict with, but requires some sort of a corresponding relations.h.i.+p to the Churches planted and growing up through their instrumentality. Their relations.h.i.+p to those Churches must have reference especially to local matters, for the proper organization, and control, and development of the native churches, not at all to be controlled by them. When they cease to be agents of the Church at home, and become the proper _pastors_ of the native churches, then will be the proper time to put themselves under the control of the native churches, instead of the Church at home. We must not confound _evangelization_ with _colonization_. Does any one imagine that Paul and Barnabas, and Timothy and t.i.tus, or any of them (for they were not all apostles), had connection with the Church which sent them out, _only_ through the churches and ecclesiastical bodies organized by them? or that they were in any sense under the control of those bodies?
The next and last ”particular” of the Committee is ”3d. That while the Churches, three at least, are organized under and according to the Const.i.tution of our Church, it is, nevertheless, claimed that the members of said Churches are not more members of the Reformed Dutch Church here, than they are members of the Presbyterian Church of England.”
The words of this third ”particular” are almost (not quite) accurate.
Yet they appear to us like special pleading. They would have been strictly correct if they had run as follows: ”These Churches are _all_ (why say, '_three at least_'?) organized according to (not '_under_'--see pages 28-30) the Const.i.tution of our Church. Therefore it is claimed that they form a Church of our order in China, but that the members thereof are neither members of the Reformed Dutch Church here, nor members of the Presbyterian Church in England.” Such are the facts.
It would have been better if the Committee had so stated them. The effort is now made to divide these churches, and make three of them a part of the Dutch Church in America.
There is one more paragraph in the report of the Committee which demands notice. It is:
”Your Committee can easily understand how reluctantly our Missionaries may have been, or may still be, to disturb, or alter, or modify the relations of the Churches at Amoy. But they conceive it to be their duty to say that feeling should never be allowed to take the place of conscience, nor to discharge its functions; and so long as our Missionaries claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod, they should allow this body to a.s.sume the responsibility of its chosen and deliberate policy.”
It seems to us the Committee are not much more fortunate on the subject of casuistry, than on Church ”government” and ”historic facts.” The Missionaries do ”claim to be subordinate to the authority of General Synod,” but they also claim to be subordinate to the _Supreme authority_. Now suppose--we shall not be charged with insubordination for the mere supposition--suppose the Synod, through some misapprehension, should direct us to pursue a course, which, after the most mature reflection, we felt to be injurious to the cause of Christ, and consequently contrary to His will--will the fact of the Synod ”a.s.suming the responsibility” clear our skirts? Who is the Lord of conscience? General Synod? It seems to us, while the Committee conceive it to be their duty to deliver to the Missionaries at Amoy a lecture on the importance of giving heed to conscience, in the very same sentence they direct us to hold conscience in abeyance. But where did the Committee learn that their Missionaries were influenced by _feelings_ and not by _conscience_, and that too in reference to the laying of the foundation of the Church of Christ in such an empire as that of China; that they felt called upon in this solemn manner to deliver such a lecture? Would such a reflection have been cast on any other body of ministers in our Church? or is it supposed that men who give themselves to the work of preaching the gospel in heathen lands are less under the influence of conscience than those who remain at home? _They conceived it to be their duty!_ Was it?
So much for the Report of the Committee of Synod. The decision of Synod has been given, as stated above. The important question now is, what will be the result of this decision on the Church at Amoy? This question, however, cannot yet be answered with certainty, for we cannot yet even guess what course the Missionaries there, when they learn the decision of Synod, will feel it their duty to pursue. There may be more, but I can now only think of three ways open before them. (1.) _To ask the Board to recall them._ They firmly believe that their course of proceeding, in organizing the Church at Amoy, is not only in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but also with the principles of our Church. To be the instruments, then, of dividing the Church, which G.o.d has gathered by their hands, may be to sin against their consciences. They may therefore ask the Board to appoint other agents to carry out the decision of Synod. This would not be insubordination, but perfect subordination both to the authority of Synod and also to that authority which all Protestant Christians acknowledge to be _supreme_.
This, I suppose, would be the most natural course for the brethren to take, except for one consideration; that is, their love for the Churches gathered by them, or under their care, and their responsibility in reference to the spiritual welfare of those disciples of the Lord. It would be the severest trial they have ever been called on to endure to be recalled from their work. Therefore (2.) _They may delay their action_, making one more effort to get their views published, hoping that the Church will yet change her decision, and not require of them to engage in a proceeding which they think will be so injurious to the cause of Christ; but, on the contrary, will approve of the course heretofore adopted by them as altogether scriptural, and the true doctrine of our Church. Or (3.) They may _possibly_, after mature reflection, think the _least evil_ will be _to carry out the decision of Synod_, although that decision be altogether contrary to their own judgment. Then they will take three of the six churches, which now are all of our order, and organize these three a separate Denomination and an integral part of the Church in America. This is the course which at home will be generally expected of them.
Now let us suppose that they will adopt this third course, and then let us look calmly at its results--at the supposed or real advantages thereof, and the supposed or real evils thereof.
We first look at the _Advantages_.
1. The most important is, or is supposed to be, that there will thus be higher courts of jurisdiction to which appeals may be made, and by which orthodoxy and good order may be the better secured to the Church at Amoy. Such advantages, if they can be thus secured, we would by no means underrate. There sometimes are cases of appeal for which we need the highest court practicable--the collective wisdom of the Church so far as it can be obtained; and the preservation of orthodoxy and good order is of the first importance. Now let us see whether the plan proposed will secure these advantages. Let us suppose that one of the brethren feels himself aggrieved by the decision of the Cla.s.sis of Amoy, and he appeals to the Particular Synod of Albany, and thence to the General Synod. He will not be denied the right to such appeal. But, in order that the appeal may be properly prosecuted and disposed of, the appellant and the representative of Cla.s.sis should be present in these higher courts. Can this be secured? Is the waste of time, of a year or more, nothing? and where shall the thousands of dollars of necessary expense come from? Now suppose this appellant to be a Chinese brother. He also has rights. But how, on this plan, can he possibly obtain them? Suppose (which of itself is an absurdity) that the money be raised for him, and he is permitted to stand on the floor of Synod. He cannot speak, read, or write a word of English. Not a member of Synod can speak, read, or write a word of his language, except it be the brother prosecuting him. I ask, is it possible for him thus to obtain justice? But, waiving all these disadvantages, the only points on which there is the least probability that an appeal of a Chinese brother would come up before the higher courts, are points on which these higher courts would not be qualified to decide. They would doubtless grow out of the peculiar customs and laws of the Chinese--points on which the Missionary, after he has been on the ground a dozen years, often feels unwilling to decide, and takes the opinion of the native elders in preference to his own. Is it right to impose a yoke like this on that little Church which G.o.d is gathering by your instrumentality in that far-off land of China? But it is said, that these cases of appeal (because of impracticability) will very rarely or never happen. Be it so; then this supposed advantage will seldom or never occur, and if it should occur, it would prove a disadvantage. The highest practical court of appeal for the native churches can be secured only on the plan for which the Missionaries contend. Why must we deprive the native Christians of the benefit of the collective wisdom of all the churches of like doctrine and order among them?
As regards orthodoxy and good order, it is inc.u.mbent on the Church at home to use her utmost endeavors to secure these. Doubtless this was the great design of Synod, both in the action of 1857 and in the action of 1863. But will the plan of Synod give us any greater security for these things? How can they be secured? We answer, under G.o.d, _only_ through your Missionaries. The greater your hold on your Missionaries, the better security for the churches under their care. The plan of Synod would place your Missionaries _ecclesiastically_ almost beyond your control. They must be dismissed from the various Cla.s.ses in this country, and, together with the native churches under their care, form themselves into a Chinese Cla.s.sis. Either they will have a controlling influence over the native portion of this Cla.s.sis or they will not. If they have, then your only way to discipline them will be to discipline their Cla.s.sis. It would be a new doctrine in our Church, to make the Board of Foreign Missions an _ecclesiastical_ medium between the Synod and one of its Cla.s.ses, or to enforce discipline over the ministry by the _money rod_. The Cla.s.sis, _as such_, must be disciplined by the direct act of Synod. Or, suppose the Missionaries do not have such controlling influence over the native members of Cla.s.sis, for the native members will outnumber, and, unless the action of Synod (as we greatly fear) seriously r.e.t.a.r.d the work at Amoy, will very soon greatly outnumber the Missionaries. What then? Your Missionaries are under the ecclesiastical control of the native converts. Their doctrines and morals are to be decided on by a court composed mainly of recent converts from heathenism. The only way to bring them before the higher courts in this country, is through this native court, as we have already seen, almost an impossibility. Is it not plain that the Church at home will not thus have a moiety of the control over her Missionaries she now has? Is this the way to keep the Church at Amoy sound and pure? It seems to be supposed by some that the Missionaries desire to be separated from the control of the Church at home. This is altogether a mistake, and another result of withholding their views from the public.