ac 
 
 ■p 5c 
 
 To the Presbyterian Church 
 
 in the United States, Greeting: 
 
 FOREIGN MISSIONS. 
 
 / 
 
 5 5 ’-O.W.5 
 
 DI{. CTIESTER\S OFFICL^L CRITICISM AXD 
 SPURIOUS DOCTRINE OF MISSIONS. 
 
 The occasion of this criticism was a communication from 
 my pen published in the Presbyterian Standard and the 
 S. ir. Presbyterian — for which I now thank them — entitled: 
 “Pou-land for an Oliver — Anent Organic Union.” Mdiilst 
 such valiant leaders as Bishop Gordon and Professors Reed 
 and Strickler, with others, were industriously smoothing out 
 tlie kinkles of the Northern Church, it occurred to me that 
 perhaps it might come in place, with some of them, to as- 
 sist in a like service to the Southern Church; and, as kinks 
 worthy of notice. The Tolerance of Polygamy and The 
 Negative Character of our Foreign ^Mission AVork were in- 
 stanced. 
 
 But, lo! as a chartered corporation has full charge of our 
 foreign missions, its Secretary and Treasurer belligerently 
 rushed forth, as its official spokesman and apologist, and ad- 
 ministered to me a regulation dose of objurgatory criticism, 
 officiously warning the people of our Church “not to be 
 alarmed by any of the statements contained in the article of 
 Dr. Laws.” This, of course, is a startled confession that, if 
 the matters alleged are true, they are alarming. In this I 
 agree with him. 
 
 I term Dr. Chester’s criticism “official” for the reason that 
 he claims that it is “made by the Foreign Mission office,” 
 i. e., the office of the chartered corporation of which he is' a 
 co-Secretary and the Treasurer, and not of the Southern As- 
 sembly or Church, except vicariously. 
 
 Verj^ well, I propose to answer my official critic, and to re- 
 fute his spurious theory of foreign missions. The newspaper 
 
2 
 
 article which was the trumpet blast that waked up this offi- 
 cial apologist was only a partial statement of an exposure of 
 the condition of our foreign missions, for which this Char- 
 tered Corporation is primarily responsible, that was made 
 on the floor of the Synod of Virginia at its meeting in Staun- 
 ton last fall. So far from my critic furnishing a valid reason 
 for the recall, or even the modification of the points made 
 (then and there or since then), I now j)ropose to make a 
 fuller restatement and to challenge refutation. Indeed, we 
 shall see that my critic has substantially confessed the ca.>c 
 and has been exceedingly unfortunate, in both his informa- 
 tion and his judgment, in his vain attempt at avoidance. 
 
 My statement before the Synod was substantially and 
 now is ; 
 
 1. That our Southern Presbyterian Church has not an 
 individual church in its organic connection in all the 
 heathen world — not one. After some fifty years of labor 
 and the expenditure of perhaps more than five million dol- 
 lars, not to speak of the precious lives that have been .sacri- 
 ficed, there is not a church session, not a Presbytery, nor a 
 Synod of our Church connection in the entire foreign mis- 
 sion field. 
 
 2. That in our Assembly minutes of 190G there are given 
 among the mission statistics over ten thousand (10,824) 
 “communicants;” and yet not one of them is a member of 
 an}’ organized church under our care and control, although 
 they are served by missionaries and evangelists at our cost 
 and often referred to by correspondents, in* addresses to 
 the church and in the proceedings of the Assembly, as church 
 members. Our people are accustomed to associate com- 
 municants with church membership, and in all confiding 
 simplicity, in the absence of contrary information, under- 
 stand them to have a like membership in the mission field. 
 
 It cannot be truthfully denied that this is in general the 
 actual state of mind among what our critic condescendingly 
 calls the “ordinary people” of our Church. And I confess 
 myself to have been among the deluded. 
 
3 
 
 3. That, in our African IMission, where over four ihou- 
 yand baptized converts were reported last year — now prob- 
 ably over five thousand (5,000) — there is not a single 
 church session for government and discipline — no, not a 
 church oi’ganization of any kind, congregational or other- 
 wise. And 5'et oiir mission work has been carried on con- 
 tinuously at that Luebo mission since Lapsley founded it, in 
 1891 — over fifteen years since. 
 
 And yet, in spite of this esoteric information. Dr. Mor- 
 rison and INIr. Sheppard, during their recent home sojourn 
 of several years, were again and again introduced to our 
 liome churches and public audiences as the ministers or 
 pastors of the largest Presbyterian Church in the world; and 
 they addressed their audiences as representing this church. 
 Our people are misled by this unorganized multitude of 
 baptized converts being spoken of, by the Executive Com- 
 mittee in its reports and by the Assembly in its proceedings 
 and minutes, as a chiirch. 
 
 4. That the nine (9) churches reported as organized in 
 tlie mid-China Mission, not to speak of some thirty others, 
 are not only not in our ecclesiastical connection, but they are 
 not even regularly organized Presbyterian churches, as each 
 congregation is entirely independent of every other, so that 
 they may be described as independent or congregational 
 churches ; and hence our Church is sailing under two flags — 
 Pre.<l>yterianism at home and independency or Congrega- 
 tionalism (as explained) in heathen lands. 
 
 My critic makes a great parade over my description of 
 these churches as “independent or congregational,” wdiich 
 is literally and strictly accurate, notwithstanding his labored 
 attempt, by the use of a capital C in congregational (for 
 which I am not responsible), to give it a technical ec- 
 clesiastical sense. This was perfectly gratuitous, and the 
 apologist had good reason to know better, for the manifest 
 purpose was to concisely describe the undisputed fact that 
 these churches are individually organized as independent 
 
4 
 
 congregations, having no organic connection with other 
 churches or ehurch courts. 
 
 By means of the cheap fallacy of changing the premise, 
 by virtually fabrieating one to suit himself, in the language 
 of college boys, he “rowled” — but it blinks of being at the 
 exi)ense of fair dealing through carelessness or haste. 
 
 5. Another and important point made in the statement 
 before the Synod was: That this chartered corporation has 
 had in its employment, at the expense of our Church, a 
 dozen missionaries in the foreign field who are not in our 
 Clnrrch connection and are not in any way under our dis- 
 ciplinary care and control. I referred to the Assembly min- 
 utes of 1906 and will now quote the announcement and 
 avowal there made, on page 237, which is in the following 
 words : 
 
 “Ordained Missionaries . — Under the care of the 
 Executive Committee of Foreign Missions, but not 
 members of any Presbjderj'- of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States.” 
 
 This notification is in capitals. There follows a list of 
 twelve names, with their ecclesiastical relations. The second 
 in the list is a colored man — “G. E. Phipps, Luebo, Congo 
 Free State, Presbytery of Lackawanna, Pa., Presbyterian 
 Church in the U. S. A.” The others are meml^crs of the 
 Synods of Brazil and Mexico. Not one of this list holds a 
 ])osition of rc.q)onsibility to our Church for his doctrine, 
 preaching, or conduct. The corporation simply hires them 
 at a given compensation. This is a loose way of doing busi- 
 ness. It is too plainly at fault for comment. In strictness, 
 what authority have these men to baptize converts or to 
 organize churches in any other ecclesiastical church connec- 
 tion than their own ? But this corporation employs them to 
 organize churches in no particular connection. Hudson 
 Taylor employed missionaries of any denomination, and 
 
5 
 
 each might organize cluu'(‘hes as he saw fit; but once or- 
 ganized, the church was to coiitiime in that line. This 
 ])seudo-Presbyteriau scheme is no better. 
 
 6. This chartered corporation, to which the entire manage- 
 ment and control of our foreign mission work is entrusted 
 throughout the heathen world, tolerates polygamy among 
 its baptized converts and so-called communicants and church 
 members, in both ^Vfrica and China. There can be no truth- 
 ful denial of this. And thus this sanctioned agency is, be- 
 yond question, harboring pei’sonal and tamily licentiousness 
 among its converts and beneficiaries without disapproval 1)V 
 Presbyteries, Synods, or General Assembly. 
 
 It is a strange freak, that it is urged as a special virtue of 
 this non-denoniinational mission scheme of the independency 
 of the individual mission churches, that if polygamy is 
 tolerated in them, it is their concern and not ours. Only 
 think of it: Our missionaries may and do organize the.'^e 
 “free-born'’ isolated churches, and may and do, without re- 
 straint, baptize into their connection polygamists; yet we are 
 not responsible for putting these serpents’ eggs in their 
 nesks ! 
 
 riven conceding the independency of the.se churches thus 
 constituted, can any man, who.se conscience is not absolutely 
 debauched, plead exemption in such case from the gravest 
 responsibility? Strangely enough, it was the following up 
 of the amazing treatment of the Overture on ])olyganiy that 
 went up to the ^Mobile Assembly in 1904 and was crucified 
 in the Virginia Synod of 1905, and, as some may vainly 
 think, laid away in its grave by the Assemblj^ of 1906, that 
 brought to view the surprising discovery of the condition of 
 our foreign mission work which the 2^olygamist party in our 
 Church is zealously jmrsuiug and striving to defend. 
 
 If the fortune of that Overture on iiolygamy and the de- 
 fense of it in “Polygamy and Citizenship in Chvrch and 
 State” .shall only be to draw aside the veil that has hid from 
 die eyes of our people, whether “ordinary” or extraordinary. 
 
the gross deformity and lawlessness of that mission work as 
 now eondueted, a great and permanent benefit may result 
 to both the Church and the nations. 
 
 I will now add an item of some interest in this connection. 
 When the Overture on ])olygamy was taken to the Greenville 
 General Assembly by the complaint of a number of 
 the members of the Synod of Virginia, the petition that 
 accompanied the complaint was that an ad Inferiai committee 
 should he a])pointed to gather needed information before 
 final action, although the Synod had perfectly competent re- 
 spondents, Dr. Fleming being one of them, the Secretary 
 of Foreign ^liasioms, who properly had no connection what- 
 ever with the case, chose, at the instance of a single member, 
 “to butt into it,” although the complainants and petitioners 
 ])rotested against him as an outsider doing so. But he 
 officially and officiously assDted in defeating the movement 
 adverse to ]»olygamy and in gaining a decision in favor of 
 its tolerance and of ignorance. 
 
 7. 1 also called attention to a financial and business fea- 
 ture of this Corporation, the least objectionable point to which 
 e.vccption was taken, that seems to have a not improbable 
 bearing of importance on the interests of our Church. It 
 is the e.stablishment of “a special donation fund,” on the 
 basis of graduated rates of interest for life to all donors over 
 twenty-one (21) up to and over seventy (70). Of course, 
 it is iisually understood that all available missionary funds 
 are sini])le donations. But not so. To illustrate its inequali- 
 ties; From fifty to si.\ty-five the so-called donor is to be paid 
 for life five per cent, for his money. If a donor at fifty turns 
 over to this Corj)oration one hundred thousand dollars (quite 
 a possible case), then he is entitled to five thousand a year 
 as long as he lives. Suppose one such donor to live till 
 ninety — no extravagant assumption— then for the forty 
 years, from fifty to ninety, this beneficiary donor would be 
 entitled to two hundred thou.sand dollars. This “Executive 
 Committee of the Presbyterian Church in the United States” 
 
would be legally liable to that amount. This may not be 
 without example, and doubtless it is very sincerely intended 
 to subsidize worldly wisdom in the interest of foreign mis- 
 sions. But there may be a worm at its root. There are some 
 prudent business considerations, without urging the pro- 
 priety of treating all mission donors alike, that may suggest 
 a doubt, and the possibilitj’ of an accumulation of liabilities 
 at no very distant day, Hippleizing our Church. The old 
 proverb, “Penny wise and pound foolish,” is still worth re- 
 membering. 
 
 Those who were present on the occasion when the above 
 strictures were made will recognize this as a substantial 
 restatement of what I then submitted to the Synod. No 
 member of that body questioned the truthfulness of that 
 presentation of the condition of our foreign missions. Dr. 
 Chester was present, and at the conclusion of my remarks, 
 for which the Synod had allotted the time, and in answer 
 to the inquiry, “Why no church had been organized in the 
 African Mission?” far from denying the truthfulness of 
 the presentation made, he replied; “Because no suitable ma- 
 terial could be found for elders.” Considering the length 
 of time this mission has been in operation — over 15 years — 
 and also the fact that forty native evangelists are reported as 
 raised up and now at work there, this did not seem like an 
 altogether satisfactory answer, considering that one of the 
 charter purposes of the corporation is '‘to establish, maintain 
 and conduct churches.” Certainly this purpose has not yet 
 been materialized at- Luebo. 
 
 Relative to the churches in China, Dr. Chester did not ques- 
 tion their distinct and independent individual organization, 
 as described, but claimed that nevertheless they were really 
 Presbyterian and not Congregational churches. To illus- 
 trate his view, he gave the South American case, at Aragaiay 
 where some converted Roman Catholics desired to organize 
 themselves into a Protestant church, and applied to a mis- 
 sionary, Dr. Lane, of the Xorthern Church, who, instead of 
 
8 
 
 visiting them or giving them specific directions, advised 
 them to read The Acts and Paul’s Letters to Timothy and 
 Titns, and then organize as they deemed best. The result 
 was, he informed ns, that they “organized their church hy 
 the election of elders and deacons” (the italics are his). 
 This was the crucial test of this heing a Preshyterian Church, 
 that it “elected elders and deacons,” and it thus served to 
 show his view of the Presbyterianism of the Chinese churches 
 in question. At this point the Rev. J. K. Harris, of Floyd, 
 \’irginia, asked Dr. Chester: “How they would get along 
 with a case of discijiline?” Dr. Chester replied that “they 
 would take it before the session,” and no intimation was 
 given by him of any higher appeal. He made no claim that 
 any one of the Chinese churches, of which nine are given, 
 had any organized connection in this or any other country 
 with any other church or church court. Nothing higher was 
 claimed than their individual congregational .sessions. 
 
 My critic grievously complains of me as doubting his 
 veracity as to the Araguay Church, and graciously recurs 
 to it and repeats it with the urgent hope that I will deal 
 fairly with him and recognize it and not again speak of such 
 churches as other than genuine Preshyterian churches. 
 
 My dear sir, I did not question your story. T accepted it 
 when given for all there was in it, as it was intended to 
 illustrate the anomalous condition of the Chine.se churches. 
 And I now take no excej)tion, as I might, to any variation 
 of it in the new and more recent version. But when you (as 
 now indicated) expect and demand of me to recognize such 
 a body, to"u.se your own language, as “organized according 
 to the Preshyterian form of church government,” and com- 
 plainingly censure me for not doing so, I must not only 
 dissent from your claim, but must squarely repudiate your 
 misconception of what constitutes a Presbyterian church. 
 The idea, that if a congregation has “elders and deacons” it is 
 “organized according to the Pre.sbyterian form of church 
 government,” will not pa.ss muster. Assuredly, my dear sir. 
 
0 
 
 this is an eleuicntaiy mistake, and it seems to be the proton 
 pseudos of your manifest bewildennent and it may have mis- 
 led others. 
 
 It is radically important to note that there are three (3) 
 constituents of every particular church that can be legiti- 
 mately called Presbyterian: 1st, the people as an essential fac- 
 tor in its government, choosing their own officers and pastor; 
 2d. the Elders, or Presbrters, chosen by them, as its highest 
 officers and on a parity; and, 3d, the recognition of the ec- 
 clesiastical oneness of those of like faith and order in out- 
 ward and visible association, so that each part is subordinate 
 to the whole through the organic union and agency of Ses- 
 sion, Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly. The power 
 of the whole touches every part. It is not the holding of 
 one. nor of two of these principles of church order (as by 
 the Araguay and the Chinese churches), but it is the hold- 
 ing and the realizing of all three that constitute a particular 
 church a Presbyterian church. This fundamental idea of 
 church unity is essential to Presbyterianism and is in op- 
 position to the theory of the independence (or Congrega- 
 tionalism) of individual churches. "So that." to quote 
 one of the highest Pre.sbrterian authorities, "an independent 
 ( particular or individual Presbyterian church) is as much 
 a solecism as an independent Christian, or as an independ- 
 ent finger of the human body, or an independent branch of 
 a tree." "And so ordain I in all the churches, ' says Paul. 
 
 But my critic has the courage of his perver.se conviction. 
 Only listen to the following proud ‘boast which he makes of 
 the independency of the pseudo-Presbyterian churches or- 
 ganized by our missionaries in heathen lands. He says: 
 
 e are proud of the fact that none of the 
 churches organized by any of our missions (with the 
 one [unexplained] exception mentioned alxtve) have 
 attempted the ab.surd and impracticable arrangement 
 of being in organic ecclesia.stical connection with 
 
10 
 
 church courts in this country. All of them, however, 
 have been organized according to the Presbyterian 
 form of church government.” 
 
 Whom does my critic embrace in this “We”? If the 
 Southern Church at large, I protest not only for myself, but 
 for the seven thoiLsand, at least, who have not bowed their 
 knees to this strange Baal of pseudo-Presbyterianism. As 
 he speaks officially for his Chartered Corporation, and none 
 have made disclaimer, it is competent for him to claim 
 them. And yet I feel constrained to believe, that they have 
 inherited a questionable policy from the near and revered 
 pa<t, and sequaciously drifted into its enforcement and per- 
 Ijetuation Avithout due consideration. Of that I feel quite 
 sure. By the “We” it is boastingly denied that any of these 
 mission churches have ecclesiastical connection Avith church 
 courts, such as Presbytery, etc., in this country, and there 
 is no intimation of their having connection Avith such courts 
 in any other country. This is a “proud” confe.ssion of the 
 correctness of my statement that our Southern Church has 
 neither churches, church courts, nor church members in 
 heathen lands. The third element is absent. As indi- 
 vidually independent and ignoring church unity, they are 
 not properly or technically Presbyterian churches. As hav- 
 ing or recognizing a plurality of elders in each congrega- 
 tion, they are not technically Congregational churches. 
 Technically and strictly, therefore, they are neither Presby- 
 terian nor Congregational. They do not fit into the Con- 
 gregational nor either the Southern or the Northern Presby- 
 terian Church order. They are anomalous. They are not 
 amphibious, as they could not have a normal life in either 
 connection. Yet they are severally independent and have 
 ruling elders, so that the nearest approach I can make to 
 naming them is to call them hybrids. I knoAv of but one 
 such church in the United States Avhich has a history, ex- 
 planatory, and by courtesy it is called Presbyterian because 
 
11 
 
 it ha.' a luember of Presbytery as its pa.stor. The eharaoter 
 of the offspring in our inissions does not, therefore, indieate 
 its parentage. 
 
 This pseudo-Presbyterian and non-denoininational foreign 
 mission party — very respectable indeed — in our Southern 
 Church, which my critic represents and defends, not only 
 has under its control a chartered organization and the 
 handling of all the money we give (or invest) for foreign 
 mi^'ions, but it also has its organ. As aiding both the ‘‘'ordi- 
 nary" and extraordinary members of our Church to under- 
 stand the radical nature of the issue in controversy, I will 
 (piote an editorial of the Christian Observer, June ‘27, 1906, 
 p. 3, col. 2, as it may have escaped the attention of some of 
 my readers. It is too important in this connection to be 
 overlooked. It amazed not a feAv. It is in the following 
 words : 
 
 ‘‘CIII RCHES IX HE.VTHEX LAXDS. 
 
 “It should not be forgotten that the position of our 
 Church from the beginning has been that in foreign 
 lands our missionaries organize free-born native 
 churches. There is no Southern Presbyterian 
 Church anywhere outside the United States. Our 
 missionaries belong to our Church, but their con- 
 verts do not. Some of these converts may be guilty 
 of polygamy. Yet no one has the right to say that 
 the Southern Church harbors polygamous members, 
 inasmuch as their converts are members, not of our 
 Church but of their oavu. The nati\'e Churcli, under 
 the leadership of the missionaries, may Avisely be left 
 to deal Avith polygamy. It is a question Avhich 
 specially concerns them.’’ 
 
 In harmony Avith the view here expressed, and perhaps I 
 may say. from the source of its inspiration there appeared in 
 the same paper, August 22, 1906. a reA'iew of the Assembly 
 at Green A'ille, 1906, by my friend, the PeA’. R. H. Fleming. 
 
12 
 
 I). I)., of Lyuc'hbui'g, Mrgiiiia, from which some extracts 
 must be submitted. Dr. Fleming says: 
 
 “Much has been said in tlie Assembly and else- 
 where of the distinctive principles of the Southern 
 Church. But it seems to be forgotten that one of 
 our chief characteristics, and that which until our 
 testimony on this point had time to bear fruit, dis- 
 tinguishes us from all other churches, is that, from 
 the beginning, we have not attempted to organize 
 our Church in mission lands. It is the Presbyterian 
 Church in China. The Presbyterian Church in 
 Africa. * * =t= Synod of Virginia, nor the 
 
 As.sefnbly of 1904, nor that of 1906, has any sym- 
 pathy with polygamy in the Church; nor has it any 
 sympathy with an attenph to govern the Church in 
 mission lands. The Church in China, or the Church 
 in Africa is free-born. It is self-governing; it is self- 
 per})etuating ; the members of the Church at Luebo 
 are not under the jurisdiction of the General Assem- 
 bly of the Church in the United States, nor of any 
 Presl)ytery.” 
 
 How could indej)ciidency or individual Congregationalism 
 be more plainly expres,sed? Dr. Fleming took the tloor after 
 Dr. Chester at the Synod and did not cpiestion a single point 
 in my statement repeated above. Nor did any member of 
 the Synod do so. In fact. Dr. Fleming accepted and de- 
 fended the indicated condition. 
 
 Here we have the new doctrine unccpiivocally set forth, 
 (juite in harmony with the oracular editorial of the Chrls- 
 liaii Ohfierrrr, and also with the “proud” ])roclamation and 
 oliicial utterance of tlie chartered foreign missionary cor- 
 poration of the Southern Church, Dr. Fleming says, in 
 terms: “44iat, from the beginning, we have not attempted 
 to organize our Church in mission lands,” and claims that 
 tliis non-denominational character of our foreign missions 
 differentiates or “distinguishas iis from all other churches.” 
 Tt is sufficiently obvious that, in this matter, our Church has 
 to deal not only with a condition Init with a theory. That 
 
13 
 
 the present polygamous and non-denoniinational and 
 pseudo-Presbyterian condition is as above indicated, cannot 
 be successfully questioned, T believe, however tardy the 
 Church may have been in waking up to it. That the awak- 
 ening, and the rubbing of the eyes, have been measurably 
 occasioned by the discussion of polygamy, since 1904, must 
 be recognized as a state of fact. 
 
 My critic follows the lead of the Observer and of Dr. 
 Pdeming, in claiming that this non-denominational theory 
 of foreign missions has been the doctrine of our Church 
 “from the beginning.” T must be allowed, confidently, to 
 challenge this declaration. As I read the facts of history 
 they do not sustain it. At the very beginning, in further- 
 ance of our foreign mission work as the extension of our 
 denomination as a branch of the visible Church of Christ, 
 Presbyteries were organized in the foreign field in different 
 countries; 1871 in South America, 1874 in China and con- 
 tinued on the list till 1880 ; and in 1886 the Executive 
 Committee reported to our Ceneral Assendjly that it had 
 stated, in corre.spondence with “sister chiirches and their 
 missionaries, that the prevailing view in our Church favored 
 the method of having Presbyteries on mission ground com- 
 posed exclusively of native Presbyters, the missionaries hold- 
 ing only advisory relations to the Presbytery.” (Alex. 
 Digest, })]). 49-55, 100.) The only two questions legiti- 
 mately raEed in the Assembly of 1876 were (1) whether the 
 Ceneral As,sembly or the 8ynod was the competent and 
 proper authority to organize these Presbyteries; and (2) 
 “whether our foreign missionaries should become members 
 associated with natives in the composition of Presbyteries.” 
 The decision was that the Synod is the proper organizing 
 ))ower and against the dual association or membershi]) of 
 Presbyters. That power of Synod is still in our constitution 
 as it was then. The several efforts to change the constitution 
 touching missions were decidedly voted down. And the 
 
14 
 
 gratuitou.s sugge-stiou of iioii-denominatioiuil luisj^ioiis never 
 has been constitutionally sanctioned by our Cburcb. 
 
 But the conservative majority relaxed its diligence in 
 1887, and the minority seems to have improved its oppor- 
 tunity, for under the chartered organization now doing our 
 foreign mission work, since 1895, explain it as we may, all 
 these marks of our denominational presence among the 
 foreign nations have disappeared. So that our mission in 
 foreign lands has become a sort of non-denominational 
 evangelism, instead of the definite extension and establish- 
 ment of our branch of the visible Church whereof the fruit 
 would be an index to friend and foe of the tree that bore it. 
 
 4'bis niksion work from 18(!1 to 1895 was conducted by 
 annual committees of the General A.s.sembly. Then “a body 
 ])olilic and cori)orate” was chartered for the purpose under 
 the laws of the State of Tennessee. Such a step may have 
 made the .spirits of Thornwell and others turn over in their 
 graves and groan. And unless this corporation faithfully 
 obeys its charter, which subordinates it to tbe constitution of 
 the Church, without foisting unauthorized novelties into 
 the work entrusted to it, it is to be deprecated as a calamity 
 and a misfortune. 
 
 There are some antecedent circumstances which should be 
 recalled, for they .seem to .serve as a searchlight on the vexed 
 question before us. Prior to 1837, the Presbyterians had 
 done their foreign mis.don work through the A. B. C. P. 
 M. — that great Congregational organizatioii. But the critical 
 tem})er of that controversy, sharpened and informed by tbe 
 experience of a quarter of a century of association and co- 
 operation, led to the entire elimination of the Congregational 
 element from the courts and operations of the Church -as cc- 
 clesia.stically incompatible with Presbyterianism. After the 
 division of 1837, the Old School party, from which some 
 consider that our Southern Church may be viewed as sul)- 
 stantially a descendant, decided that it was its duty in “our 
 (its) ilisti nctivc character as a Church of Christ to send the 
 
15 
 
 gu:?ljel to the heathen, Jews and ^lohannnedans.’' A plan 
 was .at once devised as a solemn duty in the sight of God 
 “‘to impart to others the same good and in the same form 
 of it which they en.joyed themselves.” (Baird, 369, 370.) 
 
 The New School party clung to the Congregational Board 
 till their union with the O. S. in 1870; since that, their 
 united mi.ssions have been strictly denominational. 
 
 When our Southern Church was organized, in 1861, a new 
 school element was incorjwrated in it (1863-4), and the 
 non -denominational idea of inis.sions, fii’st suggested in 1876 
 hy way of argument, has run a career with us. Certainly the 
 introduction anuong us of this old bone of contention, what- 
 ever the explanation, is most unfortunate and augurs only 
 evil. For strict Presbyterianism never has been and never 
 can be reconciled to it. Some individual and family pedi- 
 grees might, perhaps, be an interesting study in this con- 
 nection. 
 
 That the work of Christian missions, pro.jected and en- 
 joined by the ^la.ster in the Great Commission, consists in 
 the organized extension of the denomination engaged 
 therein, as ostensibly a branch of the visible church, seems 
 to be a definition that has the consensus and practical sup- 
 ])ort of all Christian churches. The i^rofound principle of 
 human action and moral duty to which this command thus 
 defined appeals is, That in our efforts to bless the destitute 
 and needy with the gospel, we should impart it to them in 
 its best form as we conceive and believe it. This seems to 
 he the dictate of common honesty, in the exercise of a 
 worthy benevolence. It cuts up by the roots the specious 
 and fallacioas objection, ‘“'That we ought not to seek to prop- 
 agate our own distinetive Presbyterian body in various parts 
 of the world, but rather to disseminate simply the principles 
 and doctrines that we hold.” (Alex. Dig., 53.) This would 
 do for a school of philosophy which is a human embodiment 
 of individualism. But the Gospel is a divine institution and 
 not a mere scheme of speculative opinions. And it is thus 
 
16 
 
 stated ill our Hook of Cliureli Order, par. 10; “Olirist, a.s 
 King, has given to his Church, officers, oracles and ordi- 
 nances; and especiallj’ has he ordained therein his system 
 of doctrine, government, discipline and worship * * * 
 
 to which things he commands that nothing be added, and 
 that from them naught he taken away.” It is with this or- 
 ganized visible church that our ini.ssions have to do. And our 
 Confession of Faith speaks of “The visible Church * * 
 the house and family of God, out of which there is uo ordi- 
 nary possibility of salvation.” (Ch. xxv: 11.) The neglect 
 of this visible pillar and ground of the truth is the crying 
 sin of the present. God is jealous of its honor. And any- 
 thing in the life or proceedings of any denomination that 
 discredits it is to he deijrccated as pernicious and displeasing 
 to our God. 
 
 If a chemi.st, in his laboratory, wishes to combine a given 
 gas with kindred ga.scs, his lirst concern is that it shall he 
 as free as po.ssible from impurities. The strict fidelity of 
 each denomination to its own faith and order, free from 
 Ihgotrv, in mission work, is its best preparation for con- 
 tributing its ])art, whether by co-operation or combination, in 
 transjilanting the gosjiel into the foreign held. The idea 
 that churches can ever he established in heathen countries 
 free from the differences of Calvinism and Arminianism in 
 doctrine, or of Independency, Presbyterianism, Prelacy, or 
 Pajiacy in government, may safely he set down as child- 
 ishly visionary. It is going too far to claim that Christian 
 ehurehes accept any such fanciful scheme or agree in any 
 such jioliey as this vain and suicidal prcteiice implies. 
 
 And for auy individual church to attempt to exemplify its 
 faith ill 'such a formless, colorless, and characterless result 
 1)V its own self-abnegation, instead of commending itself as 
 rational, would rather seem to indulge a crazy fanaticism. 
 It is certainly a delusion to think and to act on the idea that 
 we can trans])lant conscientiously our Christianity from 
 Christendom to heathendom without our dilfereuces, actual 
 or ])otcntial, .so long as mortal man remains human. 
 
17 
 
 Although this communication is running beyond expected 
 bounds, there is another anatter which cannot be .allowed to 
 pass unanswered. In the matter of establishing churches 
 in foreign lands, my critic censoriously arraigns me for mi.s- 
 representation in the following fashion : 
 
 'T)r. Laws refers to the policy of the Presbyterian 
 Church North as in contrast with that of onr Church 
 in this particular. There has never been any such 
 contrast.” 
 
 Let ns look into that. As to the labor of the two churches 
 in the foreign held, my newspaper article under criticism 
 mentions two points of oonti’ast : (1) The tolerance of 
 polygamy by one and its intolerance by the other; and (2) 
 tlie treatment of baptized converts by the one as contrasted 
 with their treatment by the other. And now, (3d), I will 
 lay an important document before my readers which will aid 
 them in forming an intelligent and valid opinion of the 
 fairness of this official criticism and also of the critic him- 
 self, in some important particulars. 
 
 Last September, to make sure of my footing, I addressed 
 a letter to Mr. Eobert E. Speer, one of the F. M. secretaries 
 of the Presbyterian Church, Li. S. A., submitting some ques- 
 tions, and to make assurance doubly sure, requested that his 
 very distinguished and venerable colleagues, Drs. Ellinwood 
 and Brown, would join him in the answer. (Their reply is 
 dated September IS, 1906.) I will for brevity only give the 
 answer to the first question. 
 
 “September 18, 1900. 
 
 “My Dear Dr. Laws: 
 
 ‘AVe have received your letter of September loth 
 with its inquiries. 
 
 “Yon ask first: ‘Are the baptized converts in your 
 foreign missions counted and treated as church mem- 
 bers and under the -care of your General Assembly 
 in the U. S. A.?’ Yes, until the Presbyteries with 
 which their churches are connected are separated 
 from onr General Assembly and recognized as con- 
 stituting an independent national church. In 
 Africa, for example, all church members are mem- 
 
18 
 
 hers of the Preshyterian Church in the U. S. A., and 
 the Presbyteries are related to onr General Assembly 
 exactly as Presbyteries in Pennsylvania and New 
 Jersey are. In India, however, within the last three 
 years all onr Presbyteries have been released by onr 
 Assembly and are now parts of the Presbyterian 
 Church in India and church members there have no 
 connection with onr General Assemhl}'. The same 
 is true of Japan and of part of China and will he 
 Irne soon of all ot China. But until these inde- 
 pendent national chnrcheis are set up, it has been 
 customary to organize churches and Presbyteries in 
 connection with onr General xVssembly, the Pre.sby- 
 tcries being connected with those home Synods, as 
 a rule, from which the majority of missionaries orig- 
 inally forming the Presbyteries went out. So long 
 as the Presbyteries on the foreign field are connectecl 
 with onr General Assembly, onr General Assembly 
 legislates for them on such questions as properly come 
 before it and its decisions are l)inding on these Pres- 
 byteries.’" 
 
 >fc :|c 5|c Jjc * 
 
 ■‘Very sincerely yours, 
 
 “(Signed) Arthur J. Brown. 
 
 “Robert E. Speer. 
 
 “F. F. Ellinwood.” 
 
 J'here are some instructive and important points so ap- 
 ))arcnt, in this statement from such eminent mission au- 
 thorities, that they should be distinctly though briefly noted. 
 
 1. There is here no abnegation, nor repudiation of the 
 distinctive denominational character of the home chnrcn. 
 
 (Indeed, the mission work of the Congregational churches, 
 as the Baptists and the A. B. C. E. M., is avowedly for de- 
 nominational church extension.) 
 
 2. The churches organized by the missionaries of the 
 Northern Presbyterian Church are “in organic ecclesiastical 
 connection with the church courts in this country. (Not- 
 withstanding my critic pronounces it “ahsvrd and imprac- 
 ticahle,” the success of it has been marvelous — 444 churches; 
 ()P>,000 members, and, last year. 10,000 converts.) 
 
 3. In their mission churches— “in Africa, for example. 
 
19 
 
 all church members are members of the Presbyterian Church 
 ill the U. 8. A.,” subject to its government and discipline. 
 
 (It is difficult to see how the dogmatical denial of such 
 obtrusive contrasts can be creditable to the intelligence or 
 careful scrupulousness of my official critic. But this is not 
 all.) 
 
 4. Within the past few years a General A.ssembly has been 
 organized in India and become an independent body. But 
 prior to that, for more than half a century, the churches 
 thus set apart had been cherished and nurtured in organic 
 connection with the Northern Church in preparation for 
 this devoutly anticipated destiny. 
 
 (Is this, or is it not, in contrast with the policy and prac- 
 tice of organizing so-called free-born churches out of the 
 newly converted heathen, and at once dropping the reins on 
 their necks and starting them off individually as national 
 churches, like young partridges with the shells on their 
 backs, and without proper ecclesiastical disciplinary training 
 for such autonomy, as though the discipline of church and 
 Christian life would come to them “by nature,” like reading 
 and writing to I)ogberr 3 ^ This Dogberry scheme of found- 
 ing national churches should “give pause.” 
 
 (On this preparation of mission churches for National 
 Autonomy .see “Polygamy and Citizenship,” pp. 20-23.) 
 
 5. In regard to China, my critic is also at fault. He says: 
 
 “The Presbyteries of China have been organized into a 
 Synod * * * organic connection with any for- 
 
 eign church.” The least that can be said of this is that it 
 is an unrectifiable and inexcusable misstatement of a 
 state of fact. From the 1906 miniites of the General As- 
 sembly of the Prasbyterian Church in the U. 8. A., which 
 lie before me, I learn that there are, at this very time, three 
 Synods in China, with a dozen Presbyteries and thousands 
 of members connected with this Church court in the U. 8. A. 
 ITowe^r, after long years of devoted service as a nursing 
 mother, as in India, these churches have been trained in 
 her family for a transition which they are now in process 
 of making with loving approval. It may be consummated 
 
20 
 
 f 
 
 next suiunier. (For this sec Minutes 1906, p. 102.) But of 
 this my critic .seems to be quite oblivious. One of the 
 Synods did not ask for the change and may not enter into 
 the movement. 
 
 But I am now about to give what has been to me a genuine 
 surprise. It relates to onr mid-China mission, whose churches 
 my critic j)roudly boasts have not been guilty of the ab- 
 surdity of ecclcsia.stical connection with any church court 
 in this country. I have received corre.spondence from China 
 for more than half a century, and will now quote a letter 
 written from China to a friend some time after the meeting 
 of the Synod of \hrginia referred to above. It .says relative 
 to (»nr Church : 
 
 “The mid-China vii>ision notv lum ita <nrn one 
 Preshjifery which one of secer(d forming a Synod 
 in connection with the Prexhyferie>i of the Presby- 
 terian Church, r. S. .1. This in niy ini)id is the cor- 
 rect policy.” 
 
 But this is not all. Notice the reason a.ssigned for this 
 course of action, which is that they “cannot form Presby- 
 teries which sh(dl be an organic part of the home Church.” 
 
 1 know not whether my critic is in po.ssession of this 
 .startling information, or, if so, whether he has conde.scended 
 to, give it to “ordinary people.” Tf not, I hope he will re- 
 ceive this news with becoming docility and inwardly and 
 prayerfully digest it. 
 
 I confe.ss that I feel no surprise at Presbjderian mis- 
 sionaries who love their Pre.sbyterianism breaking away from 
 the cramped and cabined scheme of independency and 
 isolated church individualism, so incongruous therewith, 
 and gliding into another but kindred fold rather than en- 
 dure their isolation. And I sympathize with his expressed 
 sur])rise “that the Chnrch is willing to let the condition 
 of things in Nashville continue.” 
 
 The approval of this, irregular novelty of non-denomina- 
 tionalism and pseudo-Presbyterianism by our General As- 
 sembly, so far from legitimating these aberrations, only ag- 
 
21 
 
 gravales the enibarrassineiit. Every intelligent Prashyterian, 
 Pre.^byter or layman, is. bound to accept, as a valid common- 
 place, the following deliverance of the 0. S. General As- 
 sembly, made some seventy years ago: ‘AVe believe that our 
 })owcrs, as a judicatory, are limited and prescribed by the 
 Constitution of the Presbyterian Cburch. Whatever any As- 
 sembly may do which it is not authorized by the Constitu- 
 tion to do, is not binding on any inferior judicatory, nor on 
 any subsequent .Vssembly.”* And to the same test must be 
 brought the approval of male appointments of the committee 
 by Presbyteries; and the charter of the foreign missionary 
 corporation distinctly subordinates it, not simply to the Gen- 
 eral .Vssembly, but “to the Constitution of said Presbyterian 
 Church,” to the extent not incompatible with the laws of the 
 State. And the Assembly has no power to authorize the 
 Corporation to neglect or violate its charter obligations. 
 
 And I believe that this Corporation is so seriously de- 
 parting from its chartered duties that if the General Assem- 
 hly do not act, then an injunction should be sued out re- 
 straining it from neglect as at Luebo, and also from mal- 
 fciisance in using the money of the Church in ways not duly 
 authorized. 
 
 Dr. Chester officially warns the good people of our 
 Church, who are so liberally supporting our foreign mis- 
 sions as now conducted, that they “need not be alarmed by 
 any of the statements contained in the article of Dr. Laws.” 
 It is therein virtually confessed that if my statements arc 
 ti'uc, there is reason for alarm. But their truthfulness is 
 indicated above, and I will be obliged and stand corrected 
 if in a single [)articular any one can show them to be sub- 
 stantially untrue. Oh, no ; ignoring the truth of the situa- 
 
 *Tlie actions of the General Asseinbh’, hitherto, tolerating or ap- 
 ]>roving irregularities in its foreign missions are absolutely destitute of 
 any binding force whatever on subsequent assemblies or inferior cburch 
 courts. These deliverances cannot be intelligently pronounced constitu- 
 tional. Moreover, the matters in question are not matters of opinion or 
 simple expediency, but of chui’ch order and duty, where discretion is 
 superseded by covenant obligation. 
 
22 
 
 (ion, lie fraiilically pleads that “they have only to read the 
 thrilUny reports which are constantly being published in 
 oar Church papers.” This is simply to beg the question at 
 issue. Yes, it is by those very “reports” that hitherto we 
 have been so seriously and innocently misled. The Church 
 has su})posed that our foreign mission work is, as we all 
 believe it should be, for the extension of our own denomi- 
 nation ; and words, words, words have hypnotized us into the 
 easy faith that the churches spoken of are such as we have 
 and know here at home. I speak with some feeling as well 
 as confidence, for I confess that I have been one of the dupes. 
 But at last I have waked up, and I am intensely in earnest 
 when I say that I shall do all I can, with God’s help, to 
 awaken others. I have given my money under a false im- 
 pression, and T am sure others have done the same; and I 
 am not alone in resolving, unless a change is promptly made, 
 to give no more for this sort of mission work. I could name 
 more than one pastor who on the forward movement ])lan 
 pro})ose to specially covenant their representatives in the 
 mission field to conform to our standards by not baptizing 
 polygamists and by organizing their converts into genuine 
 Presbyterian Churches, according to our Book of Church 
 Order (ch. 2, sec. 5), and to report the same, as is provided 
 in paragraph 78, la.><t clause, &c., thus repudiating the false 
 l)lca (hat our standards do not provide for foreign missions. 
 
 'I'lie ])croration of my critic has the same sophomoric and 
 frothy vagueness (hat has too long been doled out to us on 
 foreign missions, instead of giving us, “plain i)eople” (hough 
 we he. (he plain facls of the situation. And he who shall 
 ]ilcad, though with an air of piety and sincerity, that these 
 ignorant and false Auews should not be disturbed, and that, 
 if only sincerely entertained, they will be more effective than 
 the simple, plain, straightforward truth, deserves to be re- 
 garded and treated as an impostor. We have too much ex- 
 perience with chaffy and superficial evangelism at home, in 
 parading its numbers and di.screditing the labors and the 
 work of the regularly organized and solid churches and 
 pastorates, to have any abiding faith in such work abroad. 
 
23 
 
 The present outlook is against it. This work wrongs the 
 missionaries themselves. 
 
 I think I see a most impressive object lesson and an un- 
 answerable argument in the career of the Executive Com- 
 mittee of Home IMissions. It is chartered under the laws of 
 the State of Georgia. Yet that Corporation strictly conforms 
 to our Church order and faithfully aims at our denomina- 
 tional Church extension in the regions beyond. And in my 
 judgment its work is not only surprisingly successful, but it 
 gives more solid and satisfying promise of the future than 
 does that of the Corporation for foreign missions, with its 
 irregularities and lawless aberrations and superficial and ex- 
 perimental novelties. Yet the law of the Church and the 
 authority of God’s word, for both, are identically the same. 
 
 This whole matter can be promptly rectified by a single 
 deliverance on the part of the General Assembly. And the 
 next Assembly, and every succeeding one, as long as I live, 
 unless effected prior to that not-very-distant event, will be 
 memorialized to rectify this p.seudo-Presbyterian and non- 
 denoniinational mission work of our Church. Brethren, we 
 should first take this mote out of our own eye. 
 
 But if the conscience and the intelligence of the Church 
 are so changed as to approve of this new doctrine and prac- 
 tice of foreign missions, then in the holy name of truth and 
 consistency, change the constitution so as to differentiate in 
 principle the foreign from home missions — though a 
 desperate alternative — and harmonize the prayers and gifts 
 of our devoted people with the actual condition of our for- 
 eign mission work. Place on the brow of our Church the 
 jewel not of self-consistency, but let it be consistency with 
 the truth. Either change the work or change the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 It is not only the privilege, but the right and duty, of the 
 humblest member of the Presbyterian Church to hold its 
 courts and agencies to strict account. My exposure of the 
 condition of our foreign mission work is not done in a 
 pessimistic spirit, but with an honest and sincere solicitude 
 
24 
 
 for the good of our Church. Corruptio optimi pessima esi — ■ 
 The best things when corrupted become the worst. 
 
 All this has a vital bearing “anent” all questions of 
 union. The internal reformation of our Church is vastly 
 more important to us than the formation of any external 
 relations can be, and should not be pushed aside thereby. 
 .Moreover, the manifestly lapsed condition of our Church, 
 in the respects indicated, should check even the desire, in 
 our present condition, for any new complications. Un- 
 doubtedly, in unanticipated ways, these lapses and irregu- 
 larities would turn up or crop out to disturb and embarrass 
 any new and untried connections. Those who accept and 
 approve these abnormalities should naturally shrink from 
 and oppose an association, in various ways, incongruous 
 therewith. And those opposed to them should favor the 
 prospect of the needed internal reformation, apart from any 
 new complications. Wash our linen at home. 
 
 This is a valid though novel and alternative viewpoint 
 from which to decline for the present, at least, any change 
 of our autonomous ecclesiastical position, involved in the 
 adoption of the Charlotte or any other articles of superfluou.s 
 inachinery. 
 
 “lie that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper: 
 
 “But vhoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain 
 mercy.” (Prov. xxviii : 13.) 
 
 It is vain to attempt to ignore or by criticism to suppress 
 or choke down the views here submitted. They will not 
 down till the truth prevails, and that will multiply fruitful- 
 nes.s. 
 
 “ Truth crushed to earth will rise again, 
 
 The eternal years of God are hers ; 
 
 But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
 
 And dies amidst his worshipers.” 
 
 Samuel Spahr Laws. 
 
 Wasiiikgton, D. C., 1733 Q Street N. W., 
 
 March 7, 1907. 
 
 [529331