History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial Order at Amoy, China | Page 3

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 Missionaries, 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, 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."[1] It would therefore be great
dereliction of duty to return to my field of labor, allowing 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.
[Footnote 1: If this language seem too strong or uncalled for, see
Appendix B, at the end.]

I have been advised by some to delay the publication of this paper a
few months, until we learn the effect of the decision 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 return 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 action of the
last Synod, but we could not discuss it previously 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 disobedience "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 willing 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 impression, I ought to
add that the relations between the Missionaries 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 subject, 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 always 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
friendship? 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.V.N. TALMAGE.
Bound Brook, N.J., October, 1863.

HISTORY