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 of causing _a violent rupture_.

We felt that the consequences were so momentous, that, before we should
allow ourselves to be instrumental in thus (as we supposed) rending the
"Body of Christ" at Amoy, we should make another effort to get the facts
before the Church. As yet, we could not, if we would, carry out the
resolution of Synod, and organize a Classis in connection with the