_Churches and Mission Stations under the care of the Reformed Dutch and English Presbyterian Missions at Amoy, December 31, 1862._
----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | |No. of |Died | | | |Members, |during|Excommunicated | | |Dec. 31, |the |during |Elders.|Deacons.|1861. |year. |the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- First Church at Amoy | 4 | 4 | 122 | 6 | 2 Second " " | 4 | 4 | 89 | ... | ...
Church at Chioh-be | 4 | 4 | 51 | 1 | ...
" " Peh-chui-ia| 2 | 2 | 27 | ... | ...
" " Ma-peng | 1 | 3 | 37 | 2 | ...
Station at An-hai | .. | .. | 29 | 2 | ...
" " Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy.
" " Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Ma-peng.
" " E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy.
" " Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Chioh-be.
" " Go-chhng | " " Te-soa | " " Khi-be | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |No. of |Under |Infant |Helpers |Members, |suspension |baptisms |supported by |Dec. 31, |Dec. 31, |during |Native |1862. |1862. |the year. |Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- First Church at Amoy | 139 | 4 | 17 | 1 Second " " | 100 | 3 | 2 | 1 Church at Chioh-be | 70 | 2 | 9 | 1 " " Peh-chui-ia| 30 | ... | ... | ...
" " Ma-peng | 38 | ... | ... | ...
Station at An-hai | 30 | ... | ... | ...
" " Khang-thau|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy.
" " Kang-khau |The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Ma-peng.
" " E-mng-kang|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |First Church, Amoy.
" " Chiang-chiu|The members at this Station are reckoned to the |Church at Chioh-be.
" " Go-chhng | " " Te-soa | " " Khi-be | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Of the three new Stations, Go-chhng and Te-soa, are under the care of the Reformed Dutch Mission, Khi-be under the care of the English Presbyterian Mission. The other Churches and Stations as in previous Report.]
The Board of Foreign Missions, being simply the organ of Synod, felt bound in their Report to eliminate, as far as possible, all the Presbyterian elements from the above Reports of the Mission. By so doing, we think that they, _undesignedly_ of course, keep our Church in ignorance, not only of the absolute unity of the Churches in the region of Amoy, but also of the real progress of the cause of Christ and of the Church of our order there. Among the members set down to our churches are those who belong to stations under the care of the English Presbyterian Mission, as is shown by the Tabular Views. The Church at home, not aware of this fact, gives to their Mission credit which does not belong to them; and then, when, in the progress of the work, new churches are organized at these stations, and these members are set off to them, because they belong there, the Dutch Mission is charged with deficiency of denominational feeling, in giving to the English Presbyterians that which, "by all rules of Christian courtesy and harmonious Missionary action," belongs to the Dutch Church. Is it well that we should be disputing among ourselves concerning who shall have that credit which all belongs to Christ? I know it has been asked, with disapprobation, by very high authority (not, indeed, by the Board) concerning the unity of the Churches at Amoy--"_how it came to exist at all_." In answer to such questions, let us consider one case, that of the Station, now Church, at E-mng-kang. It is near enough to the First Church, at Amoy, to be under its supervision. Doubtless, we might have said to our Presbyterian brethren, In gathering a church, we are willing to labor with you in preaching the Gospel, for no one will censure us for that, and we admit that, by all principles of our Church order, it would be altogether proper that the converts gathered in at E-mng-kang should be received and watched over by the First Church, at Amoy; but, by allowing this, there will be danger of unity between the Christians at E-mng-kang and Amoy ("that they all may be one"), which will be a violation of the important and radical distinction existing between them, because "some are supported by our funds, some by the funds of the English Presbyterians;" and then, when it becomes necessary to divide these Churches, for where there is such a radical distinction, "a division will necessarily come at some period, and the longer it is delayed, the more trying and sorrowful it will be," it will be found that the Church at Amoy can never "relinquish its powers and abnegate its authority" over the Church at E-mng-kang--therefore, rather than incur such risks of unity, we had better violate our principles of Church order at the commencement, and not allow the native Elders any responsibility in receiving and watching over the Church members. We might have acted on such principles, but shall we be _censured_ for not doing it?
Let it be distinctly understood, that I do not publish the above Reports with such remarks with any design of throwing blame on the Board of Foreign Missions. The members of it, and the Missionaries, have had no feelings towards each other but such as are altogether pleasant.
Perhaps the Board, in view of all the circ.u.mstances, has simply performed its duty. I add this Appendix only to ill.u.s.trate the unity of the churches at Amoy, and show that the Missionaries have acted according to the doctrines of G.o.d"s Word and the fundamental principles of our Church order.
Appendix B.
In the _Christian Intelligencer_ of June 18, 1863, in the Report of the Proceedings of General Synod of Thursday, June 11, the last day of the session, appeared the following paragraphs:
"AMOY MISSION.
"Rev. Dr. Porter arose and said that he was about to utter what to himself was the gladdest and happiest word he had been permitted to speak during the Synodical sessions, delightful as they all had been. He was informed by his beloved brother Talmage, that by permission of Synod, he would like to express briefly his content, in the main, with the action which the Synod had taken respecting the Amoy Mission. It is of the Lord. He has melted all hearts together as one, for his own work and honor. We see eye to eye, and Zion may lift up her voice in thanksgiving.
"Rev. J.V.N. Talmage said he wished to express his grat.i.tude to the fathers and brethren for all their kindness to himself and the Missionaries at Amoy. If the Synod has not arrived at the very best decision, he hoped it is the best under the circ.u.mstances. He felt no desire to disobey the Synod, nor will the Missionaries at Amoy.
If we cannot organize a Cla.s.sis at once, we will do the best we can. He had been defeated, and he had no qualms of conscience in submitting to the decision that had been reached."
I was willing to allow the previous, and, as I considered, very partial, report of the proceedings of Synod to pa.s.s unnoticed, but felt that I had no right to allow errors, such as are contained in the above two paragraphs, to remain uncorrected. Therefore I addressed to the editor the following note:
"_To the Christian Intelligencer._
"Mr. Editor:
"In looking over the report of General Synod, as given in the last number of the _Intelligencer_, I find a very grave mistake in reference to the position taken by me near the close of the session. A similar mistake appears in the report made to the _New York Observer_.[3]
[Footnote 3: I addressed to the editors of the _Observer_ a card, correcting the mistake which had appeared in their paper, and they published it.]
"When, in the order of business on Thursday morning, there seemed a suitable opportunity for me to address the Synod, I was sitting near Dr. Porter, and remarked to him that I wished to make such address. He said that he desired to speak first. He arose and addressed the Synod, in substance, as is reported. I was altogether surprised, for I had given him no authority to speak for me; neither had I expressed to him or any other man the sentiments he attributed to me. I felt that his speech was altogether unfortunate, for it seemed almost to demand of me a restatement of my views. But I felt, also, that it would be improper, then, to occupy the time of Synod with any further discussion, and contented myself with merely taking exception to Dr. Porter"s statement, saying that I could not use the language he had just used.
"I also stated that although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet _perhaps_ it was the best under all the circ.u.mstances. As these circ.u.mstances seem to be entirely misunderstood by some, I may now explain them. I had remarked in the previous debate, and still firmly believe, that the decision of Synod, if it be fully carried out, would only be disastrous in its results, as far as the churches at Amoy were concerned. But there was another disaster to be apprehended. If the Synod had allowed the work of G.o.d to proceed at Amoy, as it had always been carried forward, and with such marvelous blessings from on high, for so many years past, it was feared that some of the members of Synod would use their influence in the Church against that Mission, to such an extent as possibly to cut off the resources of the mission. Such were the circ.u.mstances to which I alluded, and I was well understood, at least by some of the members of Synod. It seemed necessary to choose between two evils. My own opinion was, and is, that the Synod had chosen the greater evil, still I was willing to yield "the benefit of the doubt," and therefore remarked that _perhaps_ (I used the word "perhaps") the decision was the best under the circ.u.mstances.
"I did express for myself, and as I believed, in accordance with the views of the Missionaries at Amoy, that we did not wish, and never had wished to disobey the injunctions of Synod. Besides this, we were under obligations to do what was best for the churches under our care. If we were not allowed to do that which is absolutely best, we should do the best we could.
"I also expressed my grat.i.tude that the Synod had manifested so much patience and Christian courtesy towards myself and the Mission, for with one or two exceptions, not an unkind word had been uttered.
"The closing sentence of my remarks being somewhat playful, might have been omitted from the report, but if thought worthy of publication, it should have been given correctly. I know that I can give it now with accuracy, almost _verbatim_. "I have fought hard, and have been beaten; I could wish I had been able to fight better, but I did my best, and consequently have no qualms of conscience on the subject." Does that mean that we had no qualms of conscience about "submitting to the decision that had been reached?" No. It means that I was not responsible for the evils of that decision.
"It will, I think, serve the cause of truth, Mr. Editor, if you will be so kind as to publish this card in your next issue. If I was so unfortunate in the use of language as not to express sentiments similar to the above, I desire now to express them.
"Allow me also to ask whether you will open the columns of your paper for a full statement of the views of the Amoy Mission on the subject of the ecclesiastical relations of the churches under their care? I find that there is still altogether a mistaken impression among our churches on this subject. Our people who sustain the Mission have a right to know the condition of that Mission. From the report in the last Intelligencer, they will get no light on that subject, but will get the impression that some great mistake has been committed by the Missionaries at Amoy. _Allowing_ this to be the case, the Missionaries have a right to be heard before the churches. Let the churches understand the matter, and decide concerning the mistake. The Missionaries have been desirous for years to get their views made public, but have not yet succeeded.
"Very truly, yours, &c, "J.V.N. TALMAGE."
June 19, 1863.
Instead of finding my note inserted in the next number of the _Intelligencer_ I found the following:
"REV. MR. TALMAGE"S LETTER.
"We have received from the Rev. J.V.N. Talmage, a communication respecting our report of his remarks at the close of the session of the General Synod, accompanied with a request that he be permitted to appeal through these columns to the Churches in support of his position. The communication is long, and perhaps we can give the substance of it briefly.
"1st. He wishes to correct the statement of Rev. Dr. Porter. And this he shall do in his own words, viz.:
""I felt that his speech was altogether unfortunate, for it seemed almost to demand of me the restatement of my views. But I felt, also, that it would be improper then to occupy the time of Synod with any further discussion, and contented myself with merely taking exception to Dr. Porter"s statements, saying that I could not use the language he had just used. I also stated that, although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet perhaps it was the best, under all the circ.u.mstances."
"So far Mr. Talmage, in disclaiming agreement with the statement made by Dr. Porter.
"We can, on this point, only express regret that there should have been either seeming or real difference. But as Brother Talmage confesses that our report correctly represents him as having said, that
""Although the Synod had not arrived at the best decision, yet perhaps it was the best, under all the circ.u.mstances,"
"We therefore suppose that the report of verbal differences--if the spirit of the remarks be anything--between him and the gentleman to whom he refers, cannot be accounted as very serious.
"2d. As it respects the opening of these columns to a fresh discussion of the matter relating to the Amoy Churches before Synod, we have simply to say that we dare not give consent, for the following reasons: The Synod is the legislative body for the Church. The doc.u.ments and statements respecting the Amoy Churches were full and thorough in the information imparted. Four sessions and more of the Synod were occupied with a careful preparatory hearing and final adjudication of the matter, and it is not the duty of the _Christian Intelligencer_ to allow itself to be used as the agent of dissension among the Churches, and of opposition to the const.i.tuted authority of the Synod."
Whether my views were _misrepresented_, and whether I was charged with seeking a different object from that for which I had asked--I had not asked that the columns of the paper be opened for a fresh "_discussion_ of the matter" which had been "_before Synod_," but "for a _full statement_ of the views of the Amoy Mission," because of "_mistaken impressions_" in "_our Churches_"--the Church will be able to decide as accurately as myself. But I wish to say this much. Your Missionaries do not consider that by becoming Missionaries they lose their rights as _men_, and _Ministers of the Dutch Church_. They have the right to expect that, when away from home, their reputation will be protected.
When mistaken statements concerning their views get abroad in the Church, there should be, and we believe there is, a responsible party whose duty it is to correct such statements. At any rate, a paper which professes to be the organ of the Dutch Church, has no right to refuse to the Missionaries themselves the privilege of correcting mistaken statements of _their own views_ and _their own language_, that appear in its columns. The Editor doubtless is responsible for what appears in his paper. He may refuse to publish improper articles, but he may not garble and misrepresent them without incurring reproof. The expense of publishing in pamphlet form corrections of mistakes which appear in the columns of a newspaper, is too heavy a tax to impose on any of the Ministry of the Church, especially on your Missionaries; and, even then, the corrections can be read by only a small portion of those who read the misstatements.