History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial Order at Amoy, China | Page 9

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 controversy 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, demands 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 ministry, 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 jurisdiction
over churches so far removed in time, distance, and circumstances, we
remarked:--'Will written correspondence 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
frequently 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 correspondence, 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 organizing 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 anything else in leading our Church into the false position
which she seems now to occupy. Therefore, we should examine it with
some care. It is the assumption, as a matter of course, that, "the
converts at Amoy" are "an integral part of our Church," in this country.
What made them so? Is it because they were converted through the
instrumentality of the preaching of our Missionaries? This is a new
doctrine, 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 English 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, baptized a majority, say
two-thirds. Are they, 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 individual 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 England. They are now an integer of themselves.
To make one portion of them an integral part of the Church in this
country, and another portion an integral part of the Church in England,
is to be guilty