We do not know that the thought that occasion may also arise for the discipline of 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 grat.i.tude to G.o.d 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. The 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 outnumber 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 ill.u.s.tration, equally applicable also to other forms of government. It will be remembered that a.s.semblies conducted on parliamentary principles were unknown in China. By our full and equal membership of Tai-hoey, being a.s.sociated 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 a.s.semblies, 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 prompt.i.tude. 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 self-propagating?"

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 framed 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 G.o.d should so direct. We think it much better, however, unless the providence of G.o.d 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, etc., such as to make different organizations necessary and inevitable?"

Answer. All Presbyterians in China, as far as circ.u.mstances 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 Pan-Presbyterian Council. One Presbyterian Church for China would be very