missionaries, has ever suggested itself to any of the native members. If it has, we have no doubt they have taken for granted that the discipline of missionaries belongs to the churches which have sent them here. But we also have no doubt that Tai-hoey would exercise the right of refusing membership to any missionary if necessary.

It is suggested as an objection to the plan that has been adopted by the missionaries at Amoy, that "where two Presbyteries have "jurisdiction over one man, it may not be always easy to define the "line where the jurisdiction of the one ends, and the other begins; "and for the foreign Presbyter to have a control over the native Presbyter which the native cannot reciprocate, would be anomalous, "and contrary to that view of the parity of Presbyters which the "Scriptures present."

From our last paragraph above, it will be seen that the "line" of demarcation alluded to in the first half of the above objection has certainly never yet been defined by Tai-hoey, but it will be seen likewise that we have no apprehension of any practical difficulty in the matter. The last half of the objection looks more serious, for if our plan really involves a violation of the doctrine of the parity of the ministry, this is a very serious objection, fatal indeed, unless perhaps the temporary character of the arrangement might give some sufferance to it in a developing church. It does not however, in our opinion, involve any such doctrine. It does not touch that doctrine at all.

The reason why Tai-hoey does not claim the right of discipline over the missionaries is not because these are of a higher order than the other members, but because the missionaries have a most important relation to the home churches which the other members have not. The Tai-hoey respects the rights of those churches which have sent and are still sending the Gospel here, and has fullest confidence that they will exercise proper discipline over their missionaries. Whether they do this or not, the power of the Tai-hoey to cut off from its membership, or refuse to admit thereto, any missionary who might prove himself unworthy, gives ample security to that body and secures likewise the benefits of discipline. If time allowed us to give a full description of our Church work here, it would be seen that the doctrine of the parity of all who hold the ministerial office so thoroughly permeates the whole, that it would seem impossible for mistake to arise on that point.

In connection with this subject it is also remarked "that where "two races are combined in a Presbytery, there is a tendency to "divide on questions according to the line of race." With gratitude to God we are able to bear testimony that at Amoy we have not as yet seen the first sign of such tendency. We have heard of

such tendency in some other mission fields. Possibly it may yet be manifested here. This however does not now seem probable. The native members of Tai-hoey almost from the first have outnumbered the foreign. This disproportion now is as three or four to one, and must continue to increase. It would seem therefore that there will now be no occasion for jealousy of the missionaries' influence to grow up on the part of the native members.

But, it may be asked, if the native members so far out-number the foreign, of what avail is it that missionaries be more than advisory members? We answer; If we are in Tai-hoey as a foreign party, in opposition to the native members, even advisory membership will be of no avail. But if we are there in our true character, as we always have been, viz., as Presbyters and acting Pastors of churches, part and parcel of the church Judicatories, on perfect equality and in full sympathy with the native Presbyters, our membership may be of much benefit to Tai-hoey. It must be of benefit if our theory of Church Government be correct.

Of the benefit of such membership we give one illustration, equally applicable also to other forms of government. It will be remembered that assemblies conducted on parliamentary principles. were unknown in China. By our full and equal membership of Tai-hoey, being associated with the native members in the various offices, and in all kinds of committees, the native members have been more efficiently instructed in the manner of conducting business in such assemblies, than they could have been if we had only given them advice. At the first, almost the whole business was necessarily managed by the missionaries. Not so now. The missionaries still take an active part even in the routine of business, not so much to guard against error or mistake, as for the purpose of saving time and inculcating the importance of regularity and promptitude. Even the earnestness with which the missionaries differ from each other, so contrary to the duplicity supposed necessary by the rules of Chinese politeness, has not been without great benefit to the native members. Instead of there being any jealousy of the position occupied by the missionaries on the part of the native members, the missionaries withdraw themselves from prominent positions, and throw the responsibility on the native members, as fast as duty to Tai-hoey seems to allow, faster than the native members wish.

We now proceed to give answers to the definite questions propounded to us, though answers to some of them have been implied in the preceding remarks. We combine the questions from different sources, and slightly change the wording of them to suit the form of this paper, and for convenience we number them.

1. "Are the Missionaries members of Tai-hoey in full, and on a perfect equality with the native members?"

Answer. Yes; with the exception (if it be an exception) implied in the answer to the next question.

2. "Are Missionaries subject to discipline by the Tai-hoey?" Answer. No; except that their relation to Tai-hoey may be severed by that body.

3. "Is it not likely that the sooner the native Churches become self-governing, the sooner they will be self-supporting and selfpropagating?"

Answer. Yes. It would be a great misfortune for the native churches to be governed by the missionaries, or by the home churches. We think also it would be a great misfortune for the missionary to refuse all connection with the government of the mission churches while they are in whole or in part dependent on him for instruction, administration of the ordinances and pastoral oversight. Self-support, self-government and self-propagation are intimately related, acting and reacting on each other, and the native Church should be trained in them from the beginning of its existence.

4. "Is it the opinion of Missionaries at Amoy that the native Presbyters are competent to manage the affairs of Presbytery, and could they safely be left to do so?"

Answer. Yes; the native Presbyters seem to us to be fully competent to manage the affairs of Presbytery, and we suppose it would be safe to leave them to do this entirely by themselves, if the providence of God should so direct. We think it much better however, unless the providence of God direct otherwise, that the missionaries continue their present relation to the Tai-hoey until the native Church is farther developed.

5. "Is it likely that there can be but one Presbyterian Church in China? or are differences of dialect &c., such as to make different organizations necessary and inevitable?"

Answer. All Presbyterians in China, as far as circumstances will allow, should unite in one Church organization. By all means avoid a plurality of Presbyterian Denominations in the same locality. But differences of dialect, and distance of separation seem at present to forbid the formation of one Presbyterian organization for the whole of China. Even though in process of time these difficulties be greatly overcome, it would seem that the vast number of the people will continue to render such formation impracticable, except on some such principle as that on which is formed the PanPresbyterian Council. One Presbyterian Church for China would be very much (not entirely) like one Presbyterian Church for Europe.

CHURCH ORGANIZATION IN CHINA.

BY A PRESBYTER.

THE progress of missionary effort in North China would seem to indicate that at no distant day the general question of Church organization will assume practical shape and importance, and will force itself more directly than hitherto upon the attention of those who are charged with the supervision of this work.

There are at present about 50 missionaries at labor in the province of Chihli representing some six different Societies, and established at five different centers. The number of denominations thus represented is four, or five if the American Methodist Episcopal and the English Methodist are to be classed separately. The writer has no hesitation, and he presumes his readers will have none, in classing the London Mission and American Board as of one denomination. The writer has not within reach the necessary data to enable him to speak accurately as to the number of nominal church members. enrolled in the twelve or more so-called churches which have been partially organized. These are at best only partially organized since among the entire number there is not one, so far as I have been able to learn, which has a complete list of subordinate officers with its own pastor chosen and entirely supported by the membership of the Church. In other and more general terms, there is not one so symmetrically and vigorously developed as to be competent to take care of itself and to carry on an aggressive warfare against heathenism.

But the success which has followed missionary effort in the more recent past, warrants the belief that the time is near at hand when there will be not one but many independent, vigorous, self supporting, and self-controlling Churches in this province. And it is this belief, thus warranted, which gives pertinence and interest to the topic which it is proposed to discuss at this time.

This topic naturally divides itself into two general heads which for the sake of convenience, are here thrown into the form of questions. 1st. What particular form of organization may best be given to each Church?

2nd. Into what general form of ecclesiastical organization shall these churches be combined?

It may be proper, and indeed necessary, for the writer of this paper to disclaim all intention of seeking to develop any controversy as to the merits of the various forms of church government known in Western lands. Nor does he wish to be understood, in any thing that may follow, as making invidious comparisons or unfriendly criticisms between any or towards all of these well known forms. In his opinion, to be a Christian is a matter of vital importance to every man.

Being that, it is not of the faintest possible consequence whether he be of this, that, or the other denomination. And assuredly the perfect harmony and good fellowship which have characterized all the labors, both joint and separate, of the members of this body for the past 15 years, are the best guarantee that the subject raised in this paper may be discussed without embarrassment or friction of any sort.

At first thought the answer made by any person to the first question raised in this paper would be decided by the fact of each person's own church membership. That is to say there will be as many answers to the question, what particular form of organization may best be given to each church, as there are denominations represented and each person will answer by giving the name of his own denomination.

But after all, on second and more serious thought, is this the wisest and best course to take? Is it either necessary or desirable to endeavor to perpetuate in this new field the denominational divisions which have prevailed at home? Is it certain, or even probable, that such an effort, if made with the utmost earnestness, will be permanently successful? Is it not quite within the bounds of possibility that the Chinese race, so different in its modes and habits of thought from any Western nation, will finally demand, and adopt, some form of church organization or structure different in essential points from any now known in Christendom? Have we any more right to assume that they will follow our guidance more in this matter than in the adoption of our fashions of speech, clothing, or architecture? We see many traces and remnants of the old patriarchal system of government in their political structure, and especially in their village and clan organizations. Is it improbable or unlikely that they may interject this same form into their ecclesiastical system, and, without an educated or paid ministry, make the old men in each church the governing body, the priesthood, so to speak, of the organization? Would it be possible or wise to interfere with such a system? To go a step further, might not such a system be even better and more efficient in China, than any transferred from Western lands? These ideas are put forward as questions, because they are questions, and are not to be understood as covering either a theory or the opinion of the writer.

It must be remembered that race peculiarities and habits of thought and mental organization have much to do with deciding questions of this sort. It is idle to ignore such peculiarities, as they will not be ignored, and any attempt to work in the face of them results in a foreordained and necessary failure. Is it wise to invite this failure by assuming that what suits us will suit the Chinese? An illustration in point is found in the efforts made during the past 18 years by the Romish Church among the freedmen in the southern portion of the United States. These efforts, made