ART. V.-History and Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial order at Amoy, China. New York, 1863.

THIS pamphlet treats of a somewhat novel case in the work of Christian Missions, and one that teaches lessons of general interest. We need not enter into the history of these churches, nor of the discussions to which they have given rise in a respected body of our Presbyterian brethren—this publication showing that the questions at issue are hardly yet settled; but we may state that the peculiarities of the case grow out of the fact, that the missionaries concerned belong to two different ecclesiastical bodies, one American, the other English, though these bodies hold the same views of doctrine and church order. It was to be expected that these brethren would labour together in a spirit of Christian harmony, and their labours, by the blessing of God, have resulted in the gathering of several churches in Amoy and its vicinity. Should these churches be connected with the churches in England or America, or be independent of foreign control? This is the main question here discussed. A connected question is also discussed. Should the missionaries at Amoy become members of the ecclesiastical organization, which embraces these native churches, or retain their connection with their presbyteries at home? The writer of the pamphlet, who is a respected American missionary of Amoy, contends earnestly for the separation of the churches from all foreign ecclesiastical relations, and for the missionaries remaining in their church relations at home. A particular point which he endeavours to make is, that these native churches should not be so connected with the American Synod, whose missionaries are on the ground, as to separate them from equal connection with the English brethren. And the conclusion of his argument is, that "all the branches of the great Presbyterian family in the same region in any heathen country, which are sound in the faith," should "organize themselves, if convenient, into one organic whole, allowing liberty to the different parts in things non-essential."

The subject has received the consideration of the chief judicatory of the church with which the author is connected, and we do not feel called to review their decision in the case, which was adverse to his wishes. We may respectfully suggest, however, that as both the home churches can endorse each other's soundness in the faith and general ecclesiastical position, some method might perhaps be devised by which the native churches could remain in the same presbytery, and yet sustain relations to the churches at home sufficient for needful purposes; while the missionaries of both bodies might be members of the Amoy presbytery, but with unbroken relations to their home churches respectively. We see how complex this looks, and yet if both these respected churches could adopt some well considered joint regulation on the subject, it might be found that no serious practical difficulties would be met with. Considering the past course and present status of the case, taking it as it stands, as described in this pamphlet we suppose correctly, and not as it might have been if the missionaries had pursued a somewhat different course, we are disposed to think it would be expedient to sanction now what cannot well be changed at this late day. We express this opinion, not only with deference to the views of others, but with some hesitation, because it may appear to uphold the arguments of the pamphlet. Some of these are just and weighty, but others are the reasonings not of Presbytery, but of Independency. We found our suggestion on grounds of Christian expediency, no true principle of Presbyterianism seeming to be involved, and this expediency as shown by the facts here reported.

We pass from the case of these churches at Amoy to the general subject of the superintendence of foreign missions. This will lead us to consider the relations of missionaries and of mission churches to each other and to the mother church, as these relations affect the question of supervision. We may have occasion to refer to some things in this pamphlet, but our topic is one not of local, but of general interest. We shall look at it from the point of view occupied by our church. Other churches have their respective methods of superintending the work of missions, methods formed or modified by doctrinal or ecclesiastical views; with these we have no quarrel. Christian

union is nowhere more important than on missionary ground, and it is nowhere more practically exemplified; while yet denominational preferences are manifested there, as they must be everywhere else so long as men are not agreed in their views of doctrine or church order. It is not possible to give the gospel in the abstract to the heathen; men can no more disregard questions of church order and of doctrine in China than in America; they present themselves whenever a child is to be baptized, a church to be organized, or a minister to be ordained. Christian union is not to be promoted by throwing down denominational lines, but in the good old way of spreading the truth as it is revealed-doing this more and more in the loving spirit of the great Teacher, and then when men are agreed they will walk together.

In the meantime our missionary work must, from the nature of the case, conform to the views of truth and church order which are held by those who engage in it. Missions are but the outgrowth of Christian piety in the churches at home, streams from fountains in distant countries, and the distance to which they flow will not make them rise higher than their source. It will be found unwise for missionaries to adopt measures that are much in advance of the home position of their churches on union with other churches. It is doubtful whether Christian union has been promoted by the course pursued at Amoy, the brethren there having outrun their churches at home, or at least one of these churches, causing not a little painful feeling, of which we do not yet see the end. We are indeed warmly in favour of the union of all Christians, and especially of all Presbyterians, but we see clearly that it must be union founded on agreement in the truth-in the doctrines of grace, and agreement also, though not so completely, in respect to the order of the church.

The work of missions needs superintendence of some kind. It is, indeed, a work divinely simple in its objects and resting on the principle of faith; but it is vast in its extent, and it is carried on in different countries, and among people of various languages; it relates to preaching, teaching, translating the Scriptures, organizing churches, transforming the moral elements of society; it involves a considerable expenditure of

money, which is given by numerous and widely separated donors, each of whom is entitled to be well assured that his gift is expended to the best advantage of the great object in view; it includes many details, and often it must be accomplished in new and perplexing circumstances. The missionaries are at first usually young men, necessarily possessing but little experience, needing counsel; and they are mostly men of such excellence that they welcome, within proper limits, the assistance and direction of their brethren. It is never the best and ablest missionaries, so far as our observation goes, who say, "Send out the best men, supply them with all the funds they need, and then let them do all the good they can." It is not any missionary of our church, we have reason to believe, who could make the remark of a letter writer in this pamphlet, "that your Boards at home should be content to consider themselves a committee to raise and send on the funds." It is not necessary to dwell longer, however, on the importance of the superintendence of missions. It should be properly regulated, and by no means irresponsible; it should be intelligent, wise, considerate, and eminently forbearing; but that it should not be real and sufficient, we see no more reason for believing in the work of missions than in the work of the ministry at home. Indeed, our church system is pervaded with this salutary influence in all its parts. Sessions watch over the members of the church, and these over each other in a brotherly spirit; presbyteries watch over churches and all persons under their care, and so of all our church courts. Congregations watch over their pastors, informally but really, with sympathy, kindness, and prayer it ever should be. Our professors, secretaries, and committees, are all men under law, and not independent; and we see not why missionaries should be considered an excepted class, and, so far as we are informed, it is not the missionaries of our church who would covet an independent position.

How then shall this superintendence be conducted? In a full reply to this inquiry, the home and the foreign aspects of the subject might be separately discussed, but we need not pay much attention to this division; the principles involved are of common value in the home or executive administration of the work, and in the performance of the work on missionary

ground, as will be apparent further on. Our reply to the question is, that so far as the supervision of the work of missions is official, it should be made through our church courts, and through such committee of missions as the General Assembly may appoint. To the former part of this answer no Presbyterian will object. In practice, the missions of our body are conformed to our theory; both missionaries and churches are connected with the church at home, amenable to its authority, and fully enjoying the benefits of its supervision. Where there are ministers enough in the mission they are organized as a presbytery, and it is an object of desire to have presbyteries formed in every missionary field as soon as the number of ministers will permit. We need not dwell on the subject of presbyterial superintendence, the same substantially in all parts of the world, and familiar to our readers. So far as the work of missions is concerned, it includes whatever is necessary in the relations of missionaries and their churches, both to each other and to the church supporting the mission.

While this supervision of presbytery is not repudiated in discussions such as we find in this pamphlet, it suffers loss from two opinions; indeed these virtually set aside the home superintendence of our Presbyterian system. One of these opinions maintains that the missionaries should not become members of presbyteries in the mission field, but should retain their connection with presbyteries at home; the other maintains that the native churches should be independent of our churches. According to one of these opinions, the church at home could exercise no ecclesiastical supervision whatever over the native converts of her missionaries; and according to the other, the missionaries would be virtually irresponsible to the church at home in their ecclesiastical relations, for no presbytery in this country could exercise much more than a nominal supervision over brethren living on the other side of the world. The situation of the native churches in this matter is in some respects peculiar. Too far distant to send commissioners to the General Assembly, speaking a different language, mostly in very straitened pecuniary circumstances, it is obvious that these native brethren cannot enjoy the full benefit of our presbyterial system; nobody claims this on their behalf. But this should