History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial Order at Amoy, China | Page 8

name those whom thou hast given me, that
they may be one as we are one.' 'That they all may be one, as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou
gavest me, I have given them, that they may be 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--be violently separated into two
Denominations? We cannot believe it. Suppose the case of two
Churches originally 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 but one Denomination?
Yet, such a supposition 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
our 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 concerning 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,
intelligent) 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 Foreign Missions,
it is said: 'It would have been well if the memorial had been placed, in a
printed form, in the hands of the ministry. 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 asked, but we
suppose that the Board in their official capacity 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
sufficient 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 coming 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 Arcot Mission
(or Classis