Part 2 (2/2)

They have no such desire. The contrary is altogether the fact. They do not desire to be placed under the control of the native Chinese churches. They did not derive their authority from those churches, they are not sustained by them, and they are in no sense their agents, but they derive their authority through, are sustained by, and are altogether the agents of the Church in this country; therefore the Church at home has and should retain control over them. They are amenable to the Church at home, through their several Cla.s.ses. These are the only courts qualified to take cognizance of their doctrines and morals. They desire to remain in this relation. We think they have a right to demand this, until such time as they become agents of the Church in China, instead of the Church in America.

Suppose by some means suspicion should arise at home concerning the orthodoxy or morality of one or more of your Missionaries. On the plan proposed, what can the Church do with them? May the Board of Missions, on mere report or suspicion, recall them without giving them a proper trial? Can the Board try them? No. It is not an ecclesiastical court.

Will the Church be satisfied with the decision of a court, a majority of whose members have recently been converted from heathenism through the instrumentality of these very Missionaries? But continue the plan of the Missionaries and all will be simple. If any of the Missionaries give occasion for suspicion, let them be tried by their proper Cla.s.ses in this country. This is all that the Church at home can do _ecclesiastically_ towards keeping the Church pure in China. Whether the proposed _nominal_ union be consummated or not, the only hold you will have on the Chinese churches will be through your Missionaries. If they will not receive the instructions, and listen to the advice of your Missionaries and of the Synod through them, you would not expect them to obey the injunctions of Synod. Your only other resort will be to withhold from them help. Can you not do the same now?

But in all this discussion, I fear, we lose sight too much of our dependence on the Head of the Church to keep His Church pure. Sure I am that the Church in China cannot be kept pure by legislation on this, the opposite side of the globe. But we expect Christ to reign over, and the Holy Spirit to be given to the churches, and the proper ecclesiastical bodies formed of them in China as well as in this land. Why not? Such are the promises of G.o.d. The way to secure these things is by prayer, and the preaching of the pure gospel, not by legislation. Let the Church be careful in her selection of Missionaries. Send only such as she has confidence in--men of G.o.d, sound in the faith, apt to teach--and then trust them, or recall them. Don't attempt to control them contrary to their judgment. Strange if this, which is so much insisted on as the policy of our Church, be right, that she cannot get a single man, of all she sends out to China, to think so. Can it be that the Missionary work is so subversive of right reason, or of correct judgment, or of conscientiousness, that all become perverted by engaging in it?

2. Another supposed advantage is the effect it will have in enlisting the sympathies of the Church in behalf of the Mission at Amoy. It is said, tell the Church that we have a flouris.h.i.+ng Cla.s.sis at Amoy, a part of ourselves, connected with General Synod, just like all the other Cla.s.ses of our Church, the effect will be wonderful in enlisting sympathy, money, and men in behalf of that Mission; otherwise the opposite evil must be apprehended. If these things be so, they are indeed of grave importance. The Mission in China cannot live without the sympathy of the Church at home. But are these things so? It seems to us that the supposition takes for granted that our Church in its Missionary work is influenced by a desire for self-glory, or self-gratification; or, at least, that she is not a Church of liberal views--that she is not at all to be compared, in this respect, with the English Presbyterian Church, or the Free Church of Scotland. Allusion has already been made to the liberality of the English Presbyterian Church. I may now also remark that a large amount of the funds for carrying on the work at Amoy is raised in Scotland from members of the Free Church. They never had any idea that the churches gathered in China were to be a part of their own Church. They do not even ask that they be a part of their sister Church in England. They only ask that they shall be sound in the faith and hold to the essentials of Presbyterianism, even though they have some characteristics peculiar to the Dutch and other Reformed Churches.

These Presbyterian brethren in England and Scotland are not only ready to support their own Missionaries in their work of building up the churches under their especial care, but they stand ready to a.s.sist the Missionaries of our Church in building up the churches under our especial care. Of their frequent offers to a.s.sist us, when they feared we should be in want of funds, our Board can bear testimony. We are not yet willing to believe that our people are a people of narrow views in a matter like this. It is contrary to our history in time past. It is contrary to the facts of the present day. It is contrary to all my observation among our churches. Our people do not first ask whether it be building _ourselves_ up, before they sympathize with a benevolent object. We believe the contrary is the exact truth. It requires a liberal policy to call forth liberal views and action. As regards the enlisting of men, look at the facts. Every man who has gone out from among you, to engage in this Missionary work, begs of you not to adopt a narrow policy. So in regard to obtaining of funds. Usually, the men who are most liberal in giving are most liberal in feeling. This must be so in the very nature of things. The way to alienate the sympathies of the Church from the Mission at Amoy is to divide the Church there by a sectarian policy; and the way to enlist her sympathies is to continue the former plan, and let the work go forward with the Divine blessing as in days past. The people will be more encouraged, and praise G.o.d more heartily, when you tell them of six organized churches like our own, and many others growing up all around, than they will if you tell them of only three churches, and only a few out-stations, under our care. They will not object to hear that the English Presbyterian brethren are laboring with us, and organizing churches so nearly like our own.

However powerful the motive addressed to the desire to build up our own Church, there are motives infinitely more powerful. Such are the motives to be depended on in endeavoring to elevate the standard of liberality among our people.

Let brethren in the Ministry try the experiment, and tell their people of the wonders of G.o.d's grace:--that he has led his servants from our own Church in this land, and from the Presbyterian Church in Great Britain, in their work of evangelizing the heathen, and laying the foundation of the Church of Christ, to lay aside all national animosities, and rise above all denominational prejudices and jealousies--that he has given to the Presbyterian Church in England, and the sister Church in Scotland, a spirit of catholicity and liberality as exhibited in the previous part of this paper--and that, as a consequence, he is causing his Church to grow up in the region of Amoy in beautiful proportions, all the congregations under their care and ours also manifesting the same spirit of catholicity and liberality, submitting to each other according to the Divine command, working together with the utmost harmony, and, as a consequence, with wonderful effectiveness. Can you account for such things except by the energy of the Spirit of G.o.d? Surely it is not the spirit of the world, neither is it the spirit of the devil. Try the experiment, then, and see whether the wonders of G.o.d's grace will alienate the hearts of his people. Your Missionaries have no doubt--we can hardly understand how any who examine the subject can doubt--we are sure that no one can personally behold the work and yet doubt, that the wonderful blessing of G.o.d, which has accompanied the work at Amoy, has been both the cause and the result of this harmonious labor on the part of your Missionaries, and those from the sister Churches in England and Scotland. Therefore, we feel a.s.sured that the simple recital of the grace of G.o.d thus manifested, must influence the hearts of his people most powerfully, and therefore it is that we beseech the Church not to interfere with, and hinder the work of G.o.d. May we not refer, without being charged with disrespect, to the Synod of Jerusalem as a proper example for our General Synod? Peter says, ”Why tempt ye G.o.d to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?” And then the decree, which the Synod sent to the Churches, runs thus: ”It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these _necessary_ things.” The ecclesiastical ”power which the Lord hath given” to his Church is ”to _edification_, and not to _destruction_.”

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 G.o.d 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 n.o.ble 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 inst.i.tutions, and ought to be corrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Const.i.tution that either it or the Const.i.tution must be sacrificed. In order to save the policy it was found necessary during the past year to amend the Const.i.tution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circ.u.mstances of a Missionary Cla.s.sis require it, ”_all the ordinary requirements of the Const.i.tution_” may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it be that a policy which requires _such const.i.tutional 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 j.a.pan, 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 Const.i.tution. 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 Cla.s.ses at Arcot and Amoy are to be considered _integral_ parts of the Church in this country, related to General Synod like the Cla.s.ses 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 Cla.s.sis now required of them; what will be the relation of the Cla.s.sis of Amoy to the Board of Foreign Missions? Is the Cla.s.sis, in evangelizing the heathen around, to operate through the Board, or the Board through the Cla.s.sis? The Cla.s.sis 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 Cla.s.sis and Board will both be composed of men with infirmities. Ask the Board whether there have not already been incipient difficulties, in the supposed clas.h.i.+ng of the powers of the Board and the powers of the Cla.s.sis of Arcot. But the Cla.s.sis of Arcot as yet is little more than an _American Missionary Cla.s.sis_. What will be the difficulties when it becomes an _Indian_ Cla.s.sis? But we are told, ”keep the Mission and Cla.s.sis distinct.” Is the Mission, then, to attend to all the evangelistic work, and the Cla.s.sis 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 Cla.s.sis? Or is the Cla.s.sis 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 Cla.s.ses remain, and there will be no occasion for the clas.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 a.s.serted 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 Cla.s.sis 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 Cla.s.sis, 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 Cla.s.sis of the Church of Christ without the consent of that Cla.s.sis? ”_What G.o.d 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 Cla.s.ses 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 a.s.sociate 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 a.s.sociate 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sembly, 1863.

<script>