their misconception of our views.  But, we have also learned, how easily our views may be mistaken.  In our paper, addressed to General Synod, when discussing the difficulties in the way of the Synod’s jurisdiction over churches so far removed in time, distance, and circumstances, we remarked:—­’Will written correspondence supply the place of representation?  It would place our Classis under great disadvantages.  There must usually be a delay of one or two years on every subject on which there is need of a decision by either Synod.  If anything is not understood, or is misunderstood, in our communications, there will be no one to explain for us.  Difficulties of this kind, from want of knowledge of the civil and social circumstances of this people may frequently occur.  Could we have representatives from among us, they could usually be easily explained; but without this representation, they can only be explained by a long correspondence, which may cause years of delay.’  The whole of this misunderstanding, which has arisen out of our first communication, and the length of time and the amount of correspondence which may yet be necessary, before we can see ‘eye to eye,’ give a striking illustration of the force of these remarks.”

So far as the preamble and resolutions of the Synod of 1857 embody the doctrines, and what we supposed to be the policy of our Church, we heartily agreed with them.  Of course we were pained to see that they implied, that, in organizing a Church at Amoy, we had not proceeded according to the order of our Church, or had found great difficulty in doing so.  This was altogether a mistake, and was already producing evil results.  We think there is another mistake in the preamble.  It seems small, but because of this fact, and of its plausibility, it has done more, perhaps, than anything else in leading our Church into the false position which she seems now to occupy.  Therefore, we should examine it with some care.  It is the assumption, as a matter of course, that, “the converts at Amoy” are “an integral part of our Church,” in this 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