We have recently received letters making inquiries concerning the Relations
of the Missionaries of the English Presbyterian Church, and of the American
Reformed Church to the Tai-hoey [Presbytery, or Classis,] of Amoy; stating
views on certain points connected with the general subject of the
organization of ecclesiastical Judicatories on Mission ground; and asking
our views on the same. We have thought it best to state our answer so as
to cover the whole subject of these several suggestions and inquiries, as
(though they are from different sources) they form but one subject.
Our views are not hasty. They are the result of much thought, experience
and observation. But we are now compelled to throw them together in much
more haste than we could wish, for which, we trust, allowance will be made.
As preliminary we remark that we have actual and practical relations both
to the home churches, and to the churches gathered here, and our
Ecclesiastical relations should correspond thereto.
1. Our Relation to the Home Churches. We are their agents, sent by them to
do a certain work, and supported by them in the doing of that work.
Therefore so long as this relation continues, in all matters affecting our
qualifications for that work,--of course including "matters affecting
ministerial character,"--we should remain subject to their jurisdiction.
In accordance with this we retain our connection with our respective home
Presbyteries or Classes.
2. Our Relation to the Church here. We are the actual pastors of the
churches growing up under our care, until they are far enough advanced to
have native pastors set over them. The first native pastors here were
ordained by the missionaries to the office of "Minister of the Word," the
same office that we ourselves hold. In all subsequent ordinations, and
other ecclesiastical matters, the native pastors have been associated with
the missionaries. The Tai-hoey at Amoy, in this manner, gradually grew up
with perfect parity between the native and foreign members.
With these preliminary statements we proceed to notice the suggestions made
and questions propounded. "To extend to the native churches on mission
ground the lines of separation which exist among Presbyterian bodies" in
home lands is acknowledged to be a great evil. To avoid this evil and to
"bring all the native Presbyterians," in the same locality, "into one
organization," two plans are suggested to us.
The first plan suggested (perhaps we should say mentioned for it is not
advocated), we take to be that the missionaries become not only members of
the ecclesiastical judicatories formed on mission ground, but also amenable
to those judicatories in the same way, and in every respect, as their
native members, their ecclesiastical relation to their home churches being
entirely severed. This plan ignores the actual relation of missionaries to
their home churches, as spoken of above. Surely the home churches cannot
afford this.
Perhaps we should notice another plan sometimes acted on, but not mentioned
in the letters we have now received. It is that the missionaries become
members of the Mission Church Judicatories as above; but that these
Judicatories be organized as parts of the home churches, so that the
missionaries will still be under the jurisdiction of the home churches
through the subjection of the Mission Judicatories to the higher at home.
This plan can only work during the infancy of the mission churches, while
the Mission Church Judicatories are still essentially foreign in their
constituents. Soon the jurisdiction will be very imperfect. This
imperfection will increase as fast as the mission churches increase.
Moreover this plan will extend to the native churches the evil deprecated
above.
The second plan suggested we take to be that the missionaries, while they
remain the agents of the home churches, should retain their relation
respectively to their home churches, and have only an advisory relation to
the Presbytery on mission ground. This is greatly to be preferred to the
first plan suggested. It corresponds to the relation of missionaries to
their respective home churches. It takes into consideration also, but does
not fully correspond to the relation of the missionaries to the churches on
mission ground, at least does not fully correspond to the relation of the
missionaries to the native churches at Amoy. Our actual relation to these
churches seems to us to demand that as yet we take part with the native
pastors in their government.
The peculiar relationship of the missionaries to Tai-hoey, viz., having
full membership, without being subject to discipline by that body,--is
temporary, arising from the circumstances of this infant church, and rests
on the will of Tai-hoey. This relationship has never been discussed, or
even suggested for discussion in that body, so that our view of what is, or
would be, the opinion of Tai-hoey on the subject we gather from the whole
character of the working of that body from its first formation, and from
the whole spirit manifested by the native members. Never till last year
has there been a case of discipline even of a native member of Tai-hoey.
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 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. 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 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.