Report, with a copy of the action of 1857, and that he inform him by letter of the wishes and expectations of the Synod respecting the ecclesiastical relations which this body desires its churches in Amoy to sustain to it."

The above is only an extract from the close of the Report of the Committee, and contains the result at which they arrived. In reference to it we would make three remarks. (1). It (Res. 3) seems rather a cavalier answer to the fraternal wish of the Synod of the English Presbyterian Church, as expressed in their action. (2.) The action of Synod is made to rest (Res. 1) on the fact that Synod had "tested" this "plan of conducting Foreign Missions." If this be so, and the plan had been found by experiment unobjectionable, the argument is not without force. But how and where has this test been applied, and found so satisfactory? Our Church has three Missions among the heathen: one in India, one in China, and one in Japan. Has it been tested in Japan? No. They have not yet a single native Church. Has it been tested in China? If so, the Missionaries were not aware of it. The test applied there has been of an opposite character, and has been wonderfully successful. The test has only been applied in India, and has only begun to be applied even there. There, as yet, there is but one native pastor. Their Classis is more American than Indian. We must wait until they have a native Classis, before the test can be pronounced at all satisfactory. True, that Mission has been very successful since they formed what is called a Classis in connection with the Synod in America. But has it been more successful than the Mission at Amoy? Compare the amount of labor and the money expended on the two Missions, and then look at the results, and thus decide about the tests. It is in no spirit of vainglory that we call for such a comparison. Studiously have we avoided it, and the responsibility must rest on those who compel us to it. (3.) No consideration is had for the feelings, wishes, or opinions of the native Churches. Some consideration is shown for the feelings of the English Presbyterian Missionaries. This is as it ought to be. Yet it is a matter of comparatively little importance. The inalienable rights of the native churches, their relation to each other, their absolute unity—things of the utmost consequence—are not at all regarded, are entirely ignored!

It would have occupied too much space to have quoted the whole of the Report of the Committee. The preceding part of it occupies nearly six pages of the Minutes of Synod. Yet we may not pass that part over in silence, for, while with much of its contents we have no dispute, it contains some grave mistakes of fact, and, as we think, some very grave errors of doctrine. It grieves me to say thus much, and also to feel compelled to add the following strictures. But, in order to discuss this subject, duty required the careful examination of the whole of the Report, and, finding in it such errors, the clear statement of them. It might be easy, perhaps, to account for the fact, that mistakes, in a report, unprinted, and of such length, should escape the notice of Synod, but an attempt to apologize for that body might give occasion to infer more disrespect than simply to point out the mistakes.

After some introductory remarks, chiefly concerning the difficulty of their task, the Committee "begin with the assertion of principles." These they make three in number. The sum of the first principle is that a Church, by divine arrangement, has government. The essential idea of their second principle, so far as we can understand it, is, that the Dutch Church has a clearly defined government. The Missionaries at Amoy, as well as the ministers in this country, admit both these principles fully. But they do not affect the question in dispute. Not so with the third principle of the Committee. Lest I might be supposed to misrepresent, I will quote their own language: "No government can, voluntarily, relinquish its powers, and abnegate its authority without thereby inviting disorder, disquietude, and, in the end, its destruction." Is this, indeed, as the Committee assert, one of the "admitted principles" of our Church? one of the "convictions in the mind of our Church, hardly separable in idea from its very existence?" one of the "old truths maintained through blood and flame?" If the doctrine be true, the Church in Holland had no right to relinquish its authority over the Church in America. If this doctrine be a "principle" of our Church, never, never could your Missionaries consent to be instrumental in bringing the Church in China, which now has liberty in Christ Jesus, into such perpetual bondage. Once bring the Chinese churches under the authority of the Church in America, and it matters not how great may be their growth, and how many centuries may pass away, the Church in America can never relinquish her authority over them! But this is not an "admitted principle" of our Church. The Dutch Church is protestant, not papal. Instead of the principle being one of the "old truths maintained through blood and flame" by her, it is an old error of the Papacy, for rejecting which she poured out her blood so freely, and would do the same to-day. Yet in the Report of the Committee this error of Romanism, guilty of the blood of thousands upon thousands of the saints of the Most High, is made to lie at the basis of the action of the last Synod!

The Committee next proceed to the statement of "certain historic facts." As with the "admitted principles," so with the "historic facts." With some of them we have no dispute. But when they come to describe the present condition and relations of the churches at Amoy, their language, to say the least, is very unfortunate. "These six Churches," say they, "have grown up together under such an interchange and community of labor on the part of our own Missionaries, and on the part of those belonging to the English Presbyterian Church, that all are said to have a two-fold ecclesiastical relation—one with England—one with America, and still a third, and economical and domestic relation among themselves, which is covered and controlled by what is styled 'The Great Presbyterial or Classical Council of Amoy.'"

We do not know by whom these native Churches "are said" to have a two-fold or three-fold ecclesiastical relation. It is not so said by the Missionaries. They contend that the native churches are neither English, nor American, but Chinese churches. They are ecclesiastically related to each other, and ought to remain so. But the effort is now made to sever this ecclesiastical relation to each other, and bring half of them into ecclesiastical relationship with the Church in America, making them the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of North America, in China! At present the native churches have an intimate, but not an ecclesiastical, relation to both the Church in England and America.

From the above mistaken statement the Committee have drawn out three "particulars" which they seem to think especially worthy of note.

"1st. That while this Chinese Presbyterial or Classical Council is itself an autonomy—having the right to ordain ministers, exercise discipline, and do whatever else a 'self-regulating Classis' or Presbytery can or may do, still the whole in England is claimed to be the Presbytery of Amoy, and to this Synod it is reported as the Classis of Amoy."

How dreadful! English Presbyterians call the body at Amoy a Presbytery, and American Dutchmen call it a Classis! If this language is also meant to imply that the Classis at Amoy is usurping authority, it is answered in other parts of this paper.

The next "particular" of the Committee is:

"2d. The Missionaries, while they are members of this Grand Presbyterial or Classical Council, exercising full ministerial functions in it, are, at the same time, members either of Classes in America, or of Presbyteries in Great