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 institutions, and ought to be corrected. It is so contrary to our time-honored Constitution that either it or the Constitution must be sacrificed. In order to save the policy it was found necessary during the past year to amend the Constitution by a clause so sweeping, that if the circumstances of a Missionary Classis require it, "all the ordinary requirements of the Constitution" may be dispensed with by the General Synod. Can it be that a policy which requires such constitutional 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 Japan, 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 Constitution. 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 Classes at Arcot and Amoy are to be considered integral parts of the Church in this country, related to General Synod like the Classes 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 Classis now required of them; what will be the relation of the Classis of Amoy to the Board of Foreign Missions? Is the Classis, in evangelizing the heathen around, to operate through the Board, or the Board through the Classis? The Classis 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 Classis and Board will both be composed of men with infirmities. Ask the Board whether there have not already been incipient difficulties, in the supposed clashing of the powers of the Board and the powers of the Classis of Arcot. But the Classis of Arcot as yet is little more than an American Missionary Classis. What will be the difficulties when it becomes an Indian Classis? But we are told, "keep the Mission and Classis distinct." Is the Mission, then, to attend to all the evangelistic work, and the Classis 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 Classis? Or is the Classis 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 Classes remain, and there will be no occasion for the clashing 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 God 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 illustration 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 asserted 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.