the work to which the Master has called her. These thoughts might be easily extended and multiplied, but I shall not detain the Council by dwelling upon them further at present. I trust that the question that I have touched upon will receive some attention in the discussions of to-day. I simply wish in closing to point to one-out of many of the practical aspects of this question which I think is worthy of your careful consideration, and which requires to be pressed upon the consideration of our people. When the Church, as a Church, decides to occupy a certain mission-field, where is she to look for the men and the money that are required for the work? Is it not to her own members? When the Supreme Court of one of our churches-be it Synod or Assembly-undertakes a mission, the whole Church should look upon herself as committed to it; the honour of the Church is at stake in regard to the supporting of it; it has the first claim on the liberality of the members, and until this claim is met, they should consider well whether they are free to send their help to other objects. We in Scotland-and the same is true, I suppose, of all the countries represented here-we in Scotland are visited by very many zealous friends, pleading for certain schemes, missionary and benevolent, all, I have no doubt, most excellent in themselves, and all probably doing much good. Many of the members of our churches become interested in these; they have a charm in their eyes on account of their being (as they are called) unsectarian, undenominational. A large proportion of the benevolent contributions of our members thus goes to outward objects, while perchance the missions of their own church to which they are committed, whose claims they do not at all dispute, are starving for want of funds. I would not presume to dictate to any man the channels in which his benevolence should run, but I feel that it is nothing more than our duty to remind the members of our churches that the missions which the Church has deliberately undertaken ought to be maintained in their efficiency, however little they have to spare over and above for other objects.

ORGANISATION OF NATIVE CHURCHES AND THEIR RELA

TION TO THE CHURCH AT HOME.

The Rev. W. S. SWANSON, late of China, now Mission Secretary of English Presbyterian Church.-I have been asked to say a few words upon two most important subjects. The first is the organisation of

native churches. It seems to me axiomatic that so soon as we can organise a native church we should do so. We don't want to build up native churches that are to hang on the pity or charity of the

churches at home. There is no other order of Church government that lends itself so beautifully to the speedy and thorough organisation of native churches as the Presbyterian. I think we are rather confining the idea of the missionary spirit. We have to preach God's grace so far as He gives us ability; but that is not all. Our work is only accomplished when we have raised up a native church, selfsupporting, self-governing, and self-propagating, and the sooner we organise for this purpose the better. In my own field (China) we have organised our churches with native elders and deacons, we have formed a Presbytery, and even formulated a creed. Some Presbyterian churches are only now beginning to look at the question of organisation; it is a matter of history with us. In 1863 we organised the native church, and to-day, to my intense delight, you have received this body into the Alliance of the Presbyterian churches. What we have done in China why can't we do elsewhere? The second point is the relation of the mission church to the home church. The only relation is that of love; no other can possibly exist. We want the native churches to do their own work. Twenty-five years ago the church consisted of a few hundred members, now it has 4000 within its bounds, eleven native ministers, fifteen native elders, and also deacons. We have likewise a native mission, and native organisation of the church is the cause of its existence.

TRAINING OF NATIVE CHURCHES.

The Rev. Professor MACLAREN (Toronto Presbyterian College).— There seems to be a very remarkable consensus of opinion, as we gather from these reports, in regard to two points-first, that we should encourage native churches to assume an independent position as soon as possible; and, second, that where there are various Presbyterian missions operating on the same field, we should encourage all our converts to unite in one church. I very fully concur in both these positions. Self-support, self-government, and aggressive movement should go together, and, as a matter of fact, they can never be very long separate. A church is not fit to be self-governing until it is in the main self-supporting, and until it has so far entered into the spirit of the great commission as to be prepared to go forth and make itself felt in the evangelisation of the world.

The native Christians should be so trained that they may possess a loving and liberal spirit. We should guard against Europeanising or Americanising our native converts, especially our native ministers. We should educate our native ministers in the knowledge of Divine truth, and give them, moreover, such a general education as will put

them clearly and unmistakably in advance of the mass of those to whom they are to speak; but it is a great mistake to expect from them full university training, or such an education as we demand for our ministers in Europe and America. It would be a pity, too, if the native ministers were looked upon as the paid employés of the home church; they should be part and parcel of the native church to which they belong.

CONSTITUTION OF NATIVE CHURCHES.

Dr. ELLINWOOD, New York (Foreign Mission Secretary, Presbyterian Church, North), said :-The chief question is, How can the native churches in heathen lands be placed in the most favourable position for rapid and substantial development? From their standpoint, and not that of our ecclesiastical interests at home, should we consider the subject before us. The wise parent in planning for a child consults not so much his own interests or affections as those of the child, whose separate and independent life is to be provided for. What is best for the new household that is to be set up?

It is plain that the Presbyterian Churches of Japan, for example, cannot be an American nor a Scotch church, much less a half-dozen of each. It is vital to their future welfare that there should be a Japanese Presbyterian Church, and that it should be one. The argument for economy in missionary appliances, such as institutions, literature, etc., need not be discussed; it is, I believe, universally acknowledged.

But we cannot over-estimate the importance of cultivating a manly spirit of self-help, and self-government, and self-propagation. Professor Drummond's chapter on Parasites has been aptly applied to native Christian communities which are being trained up in entire dependence, wholly governed, wholly employed and supported by others, and wholly destitute of aspiration for anything better or higher.

I remember the strong words spoken to me by a missionary in India, when he said that he had been almost on the point of advising his society to abandon its stations and begin on new soil in order to avoid the mistakes which had been made in this respect.

Perhaps a main reason why the churches of Japan have made so great progress is, that there has been from the first a manly feeling of independence among them. Their ministers are nearly all from the chivalric Samauri class. They have almost forced the question of Union and Independence. They have insisted that divisions, which had grown up in other lands, and were based often upon local prejudice, should not be inflicted upon the infant churches of Japan. And,

I believe, that just so far as our churches in other fields grow into that nobler spirit which we all must respect, they will insist upon the concessions which have been made to the Japanese.

And, moreover, Mr. President, there is another element whose importance cannot be overlooked, in some, at least, of our great mission fields, and that is the political aspect of this question. For example, Japan and other Asiatic nations are constantly in dread of foreign invasion, or at least of foreign protectorates, and other entanglements injurious to their own welfare. A year or two ago the bishop of the Greek Church in Japan was incautious enough to publish a manual which revealed the fact that the Japan Church was under the supreme spiritual headship of Russia. It also proclaimed the dubious promise that in any case of persecution from the Japanese government Russia would protect her.

Græco-Japanese converts! This was really too kind and considerate to be accepted. The astonishing revelation produced what is known on the American cattle ranches as a stampede. Nearly onehalf of the Greek converts, whose numbers had reached 3000, abandoned the bishop. One whole congregation, with its pastor, came into the Presbyterian Synod, probably after some catechising. Multitudes went to the Congregational, others were scattered.

There is a lesson in this event which all missionary societies and all our Church organisations may well take to heart. In a diplomatic point of view nothing can be so important, nothing so calculated to produce rapid development, nothing so sure to allay political jealousy and avoid conflict with native governments, as to build our churches on a national basis, and to foster in them a laudable patriotism and national spirit. What is true of Japan will be found true of Korea, of Siam, and even of China.

In the Western Hemisphere we have the same thing precisely. Ever since the beginning of our Protestant missions in Mexico the priestly party have striven industriously to create a prejudice against them on the ground that they are American and not Mexican; that their ecclesiastical connections are in the United States; that they are sure to be made use of some day to bring about political annexation, and the consequent destruction of Mexican liberty.

What better answer to all these allegations than to set up an outand-out Mexican Presbyterian Church, and give it full control of its own ecclesiastical affairs? In Central and South America doubtless the same considerations will be found in force.

On one other point only will I speak: What shall be the relation of the missionaries to the United and Independent churches?

In three of the leading Presbyterian bodies of the United States.

this question has, I believe, been settled, and settled in favour of a full and complete membership in the native presbyteries.

The further question, how they may at the same time be related to their old presbyteries and synods at home, may well be left for each body to determine. In the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the Assembly, while recommending full membership on the field, gives to its missionaries a qualified but cordial relationship to the home churches.

So far as I am informed the plan has not been found otherwise than satisfactory to the missionaries. It is a very significant fact that in three of our great mission-fields, China, Mexico, and Brazil, steps have been promptly taken to consummate such a union during the present summer.

In some of our fields there seemed to be no room for any other policy than that of a complete membership with the Native Union Presbyteries. Take Brazil: our missionaries there have for years been full members of the native presbyteries dwelling in honour and sweet fellowship among their spiritual children, and not at all afraid of being tyrannised over by their ecclesiastical power.

Now, in the event of union the question arises, (a) Shall they still be members as before, though the presbyteries will no longer be connected with the home synods? or (b) Shall they transfer their real presbyterial relationships to their old homes in the United States, and hold only an advisory relation to the New Union Church?

If they choose the latter course, what will be the result? They will become ecclesiastically separated not only from their native brethren, but also from each other. One will be a member of a Presbytery, for example, in New York, another in Ohio, still another in Indiana. If prospered in their work they may hope to attend their Presbytery after a sort of Rip-Van-Winkle fashion, once in ten years! They will know nothing of its affairs, add nothing to its counsels, and gain very little of real help. Ecclesiastically they will be as good as dead. Would such an arrangement be likely to satisfy an ardent and devoted missionary? Would it be any compensation for the nobler privilege of casting in his lot heartily and unreservedly with his brethren on the field, and counting it a chief joy to help them build up a strong national church? In case of Union in India, our missionaries there would be brought to the same alternative. Some of them have lived in the fellowship of their Presbyteries till they are old men.

The members and missionaries present were now invited to state their views on the whole subject:

The Rev. W. M. MACKAY ALEXANDER of Australia said—

In the New Hebrides we have found it impossible that the native