Christianity in Modern China: The Making of the First Native Protestant Church (Studies in Christian Mission)

CHRISTIANITY IN MODERN CHINA STUDIES IN CHRISTIAN MISSION GENERAL EDITOR Marc R. Spindler (University of Leiden) EDI...

Author: David Cheung

59 downloads 1211 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CHRISTIANITY IN MODERN CHINA

STUDIES IN CHRISTIAN MISSION GENERAL EDITOR

Marc R. Spindler (University of Leiden) EDITORIAL BOARD

Adrian Hastings (University of Leeds) Jocelyn Murray (London) Jean Pirotte (Université de Louvain)

VOLUME 28

CHRISTIANITY IN MODERN CHINA The Making of the First Native Protestant Church BY

DAVID CHEUNG (CHEN YIQIANG)

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This series offers a forum for scholarship on the history of Christian missionary movements world-wide, the dynamics of Christian witness and service in new surrounds, the transition from movements to churches, and the areas of cultural initiative or involvement of Christian bodies and individuals, such as education, health, community development, press, literature and art. Special attention is given to local initiative and leadership and to Christian missions from the Third World. Studies in the theories and paradigms of mission in their respective contexts and contributions to missiology as a theological discipline are a second focus of the series. Occasionally volumes will contain selected papers from outstanding missiologists and proceedings of significant conferences related to the themes of the series. Enquiries and proposals for the publication of works in the series should be addressed to the Administrative Editor, Studies in Christian Mission, Koninklijke Brill N.V., P.O. Box 9000, 2300 PA Leiden, The Netherlands. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cheung, David. Christianity in modern China : the making of the first native Protestant church / by David Cheung (Chen Yiqiang). p. cm. — (Studies in Christian mission, ISSN 0924-9389 ; v. 28) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13143-4 (alk. paper) 1. Missions—China—Fujian Sheng—History. 2. Protestant churches—China—Fujian Sheng—History. 3. Fujian Sheng (China)—Church history. I. Title. II. Series. BV3420.F8C48 2003 280’.4’0951245—dc22 2003056283

ISSN 0924-9389 ISBN 90 04 13143 4 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...................................................................... Abbreviations ............................................................................ Technical notes ........................................................................ Glossary ...................................................................................... Chapter One

vii ix xiii xv

Introduction ....................................................

1

Chapter Two Missionary objectives and ideal .................... 2.1. The Sinkoe event .......................................................... 2.2. The missionaries, 1842–56 .......................................... 2.3. Missionary objectives .................................................... 2.4. Church growth, 1842–56 ............................................ 2.5. The envisaged church ..................................................

13 13 14 18 47 53

Chapter Three Mission methods .......................................... 3.1. Missionary perceptions of the Chinese Christians .... 3.2. Strict baptism/admission policy .................................. 3.3. Intensive oral instruction of a selected few ................ 3.4. Anti-foreignism in Amoy .............................................. 3.5. Work methods and membership quality ....................

61 62 64 83 94 106

Chapter Four Missionary limitations .................................... 4.1. Introduction .................................................................. 4.2. Shortage of missionaries .............................................. 4.3. Language, health and death ........................................ 4.4. Other work demands ....................................................

111 111 112 123 152

Chapter Five Chinese labours (I) .......................................... 5.1. Missionary attitudes toward a Chinese agency .......... 5.2. Paid Chinese agency .................................................... 5.3. Chinese voluntary work ................................................ 5.4. Chinese eﬀectiveness ....................................................

165 165 184 194 200

Chapter Six Chinese labours (II) .......................................... 6.1. Chiangchiu and Choanchiu ........................................ 6.2. Pechuia ..........................................................................

205 205 208

vi

 6.3. Chiohbe ........................................................................ 6.4. Pechuia and Chiohbe in historical context ................

225 236

Chapter Seven Ecclesiastical union ...................................... 7.1. Introduction .................................................................. 7.2. Church growth and quality ........................................ 7.3. Devolutionary necessity ................................................ 7.4. Historical cooperation .................................................. 7.5. Common vision ............................................................ 7.6. Denominational compatibility ...................................... 7.7. Methodological similarity ............................................

253 253 254 264 269 284 288 293

Chapter Eight An assessment ................................................ 8.1. Self-propagation ............................................................ 8.2. Self-government ............................................................ 8.3. Self-support .................................................................... 8.4. Union ............................................................................ 8.5. Chinese and missionary credits .................................. 8.6. Comparative perspectives ............................................

309 309 311 320 334 337 349

Bibliography .............................................................................. Index ..........................................................................................

367 391

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the many people to whom in one way or another I owe no little gratitude. To R.G. Tiedemann (University of London), for his kind interest in my research work, for his generous advice and help, and for modeling the precious blend of academic excellence and personal humility. Also, to Professor Andrew F. Walls (University of Edinburgh), Professor David Killingray (Goldsmith’s College, London) and the anonymous reader of the ﬁrst draft of my manuscript, for their many valuable comments and suggestions. For sure, these ﬁne scholars are in no way responsible for the ﬁnal product. All of its shortcomings are properly attributable to the author alone. For research assistance: Marsha Blake (Sage Library), Russell Gasero (RCAA), Rosemary Seton (SOAS), Martha L. Smalley (Yale Divinity School Library), Margaret Thompson (URCHS), Larry Wagenaar ( JAH), Alexander Library (Rutgers University), British Library, Cambridge University Library, Andrew F. Walls Library (Center for the Study of Christianity in the Non-Western World, Edinburgh), China Graduate School of Theology Library (Hong Kong), Columbia University Library (New York), Hong Kong Baptist University Library, Hope College (Michigan), London Bible College Library, Montgomery Memorial Library (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia), Union Theological Seminary Library (New York) and Western Theological Seminary (Michigan). For academic advice, interaction and assistance: T.H. Barrett (SOAS), Daniel Bays (Calvin College), Gordon Chan, Jonathan Chao (Chinese Church Research Center), Ad Dudink, Ryan Dunch (Edmonton, Canada), Nelson Estrada (Philippines), Stephan Feuchtwang (City University, London), George A. Hood (United Reformed Church), Rev. Wendell Karsen (RCA), Jinshui Lin (Fujian Normal University), W.H. Lam (Ontario), Tony Lambert (OMF International, UK), Douglas Lancashire, David Lim (CMI Philippines), Lauren Pﬁster (Hong Kong Baptist University), Nicolas Standaert (Leuven), John Stanley (SOAS), Hsien-chun Wang (Oxford University) and Meng Chang Yao (SOAS). For prayer support and various assistance and kindnesses extended to me and my family during my research sojourn in the UK and

viii



America: our families and relatives, the many friends in the PhilippineChinese churches, my colleagues at the Asian Theological Seminary (Philippines), Rev. Florentino Lim, the Fullicks (Berkshire, UK), National Health Service (UK), the brethren of the Chinese Church in London, Martin and Martha Wang, David and Jeanne Wang, Ivan En-kwang Tao and family, Huaxia Fellowship, Xiang Rong Shi and family, Randall and Connie Chan (Cambridge), Michael Phua and family (Philadelphia), Andrew Wong and family, Michael Ling and family, the Highland Park Shengming Tang congregation (New Jersey), ORS Awards Scheme (UK), Central Research Fund (University of London) and the Additional Award for Fieldwork (SOAS). Special thanks to Jane Chuaunsu, Rebecca Angsanto and Ronald and Irene Yang for their help in the management of our domestic aﬀairs while we were away from the Philippines. For various reasons, we regret for being unable to mention many more others whose concern and generosity we much treasure. During the ﬁnal stages of completing this work for publication, the brethren at St. Stephen’s Parish have been extraordinarily helpful and supportive in every way. I am most grateful for their encouragement, understanding and generosity. Likewise the cheerful and ready assistance of Joel Pan with regard to computer works is greatly appreciated. My family has been a precious source of encouragement and joy. At times when the temptation arose to rush things at the expense of quality, Ester’s advice to go slow with care has been very timely and comforting. Often when the research work wore me out, Matthew’s enthusiasm about his own ever-new world has the eﬀect of recharging me for play, for living and eventually for continuing the work. My wife and son are indeed God’s precious gifts which make life so much more meaningful and exciting. To my dear Ester and Matthew, this book is dedicated. Finally and most importantly, soli gloria Deo. David Cheung (Chen Yiqiang) Asian Theological Seminary/St. Stephen’s Parish Manila

ABBREVIATIONS 723CM/Bx1 ABCFM AEM AER

AMEM AP APGS APM AR-AB AR-BFM AR-FMC AR-SA

BFM BFMMin BL Bx118/F4 Bx119/F5 CAF CCC CF CFM ChronLMS CI CMS

723 China Mission, Box 1 (RCAA) American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions American Episcopal Mission Amoy Ecclesiastical Relations: Correspondence 1861– 1864 [more accurately 1856–63] folder. RCAA, 724 China Mission, Papers (1856–1951), Box 1 American Methodist Episcopal Mission American Presbyterian Acts and Proceedings of General Synod (RCA); including the early volumes entitled Minutes of General Synod American Presbyterian Mission Annual Report of the ABCFM Annual report of the BFM (RCA)1 Annual report of the FMC (PCE) Annual report of the Scottish Auxiliary/Association; or more exactly, Second Annual Report of the China Mission at Amoy, etc. Board of Foreign Missions (RCA) Minutes BFM Burke Library (UTS) SOAS, PCE, FMC, Series I, Box 118, File 4 SOAS, PCE, FMC, Series I, Box 119, File 5 China and Formosa, by Johnston Church of Christ in China Ching Feng Committee on Foreign Missions (RCA General Synod) Chronicle of the LMS Christian Intelligencer (RCA). Note: p. 50 c. 3 = page 50, column 3; etc. Church Missionary Society

1 Until 1868 (inclusive), the reports on home aﬀairs were for the BFM year (1st May to 30th April) while those on the Amoy Mission were for the calendar year preceding publication (with the exception that Chinese contributions were calculated on the Chinese year). AR-BFM (1868) pp. 7, 9.

x CR CRep CSSH CWML DCSA env EP EPM EPMF ECMin FMC FYA FYC IA IBMR IRM JAH JHCMC LMS LMSReport Mess MF MH NBTS NJ NY NYMS PCE PFS1/Bx94/F1/I53 PRC RCA RCAA RCC SA SL SOAS UPC

 Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal Chinese Repository Comparative Studies in Society and History Council for World Mission Library (SOAS) Dutch Colonial Studies Archives (Sage Library) envelope English Presbyterian English Presbyterian Mission English Presbyterian Missionary Fasti (URCHS) Minutes, Executive Committee (BFM) Foreign Missions Committee (PCE) Fifty years in Amoy, by Pitcher Forty years in south China, by Fagg In and about Amoy, by Pitcher International Bulletin of Missionary Research International Review of Missions Joint Archives of Holland (Michigan) Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China London Missionary Society [Annual] Report of the London Missionary Society English Presbyterian Messenger Minister’s File (RCAA) Missionary Herald (ABCFM) New Brunswick Theological Seminary New Jersey New York New York Missionary Society Presbyterian Church of England PCE, FMC, Series I, Box 94, File 1, Item 53. Note: PFS2 = Series II, etc. People’s Republic of China Reformed Church in America Reformed Church [in America] Archives The Reformed Church in China, 1842–1951, by De Jong Scottish Auxiliary/Association Gardner A. Sage Library (NBTS) School of Oriental and African Studies (London) United Presbyterian Church

 URCHS UTS WHP WR

United Reformed Church History Society Union Theological Seminary (New York) Working His Purpose Out, by Band The Weekly Review

xi

This page intentionally left blank

TECHNICAL NOTES Chinese Romanisation The pinyin system is observed with the following exceptions: (1) For Chinese personal names (including present-day authors), we retain the original Romanised form and refrain from converting into pinyin. For instance, because Fuk-tsang Ying is the proper English name of a person living in Hong Kong in the year 2001, we try not to ‘rename’ him Xing Fuzhen. (2) Following the usage in the missionary records, Amoy Romanisation is followed for names and terms connected with Banlam. In so doing, we do away with hyphenation and Amoy oralisms as much as possible; thus Sin-koe-a appears as Sinkoe, Chioh-be2 as Chiohbe, Peh-chui-ia as Pechuia, etc.3 The exceptions are: (a) when non-hypenation results in confusion, thus e.g. hap-it is not rendered hapit; (b) when dealing with personal nicknames, thus Kwaia or Kow-a remains unaltered; (c) following the more common missionary usage, we use Anhai (instead of Wa-hai), Maping (instead of Bay-pay or Beh-pih/Be-pi) and Tong-an (instead of Tang-wa). Another reason for using Amoy names is our uncertainty about the exact Chinese characters. Where our knowledge is certain, the pinyin equivalent of the Amoy term is given in the Glossary. (3) The provincial name appears as Fujian unless constituting part of a proper name, as e.g. in connection with some Banlam ecclesiastical unit. Punctuation and footnote number When the footnote information pertains to the whole sentence, the footnote number (superscript) follows after the punctuation. Where

2 Sometimes, ‘Chioh-bay’ ( Johnston of 7 December 1854) or ‘Chioh-bey’ ( Johnston, Review of 1854, p. 145; Matheson, Narrative, p. 9). 3 Fortunately this can be done with some conﬁdence as the researcher reads Chinese and speaks both Mandarin and Amoy.

xiv

 

the footnote number comes before the punctuation, the documentation relates only to the portion of the sentence which immediately precedes the superscript. Americanisms In direct quotations, we remain true to the original sources and refrain from Anglicising Americanisms; thus, e.g., evangelize is not converted into evangelise, nor favor into favour. Since this is a historical study, forced uniformisation in such details should perhaps give way to a more accurate pluralism.

GLOSSARY Amoy colloquial

Pinyin (English translation)

Banlam Chonghoe Banlam Hap-it Kaohoey Baypay/Bepi/Behpih Chiohbe Haihong Kolongsu4 Pechuia Sinkoe Tangwa Tekchhiukha Tionghua Kitokkao Hoe Hap-it Hoey Tionglo Taihoey Wahai

Minnan Zhonghui (South Fujian Synod) Minnan Heyi Jiaohui (South Fujian United Church) Maping (Horse peace/ﬂat) Shima (Stone Pile) Haifang or Haifeng tongzhi (a mandarin rank) Gulangyu (Drum wave island) Bai Shui Ying (White Water Camp) Sinjie (New Street) Tong-an (Together/common peace) Zhushujiao (Bamboo tree foot) Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui Heyi Hui (literally, United Chinese Protestant Church) Zhanglao Dahui (Elders’ Great Assembly) Anhai (Peace sea)

Special terms Sinkoe event

Taihoey event

4

The transactions of April-May 1856 resulting in the installation of the ﬁrst Chinese oﬃce-bearers of the RCA church in Amoy. See 2.1. The formation in April 1862 of the union classis/Presbytery consisting of the churches connected with the RCA and EPM. See 7.1.

In the literature, sometimes Kulangsu, Kolongsoo.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION In early post-imperial China, a Chinese man returned from America preaching with great excitement ‘the idea of a Chinese independent Church’. At Amoy, his public proposal of a church ‘absolutely free from foreign name or domination’ was applauded heartily by the local Christians. But when he urged them to join such a church, they replied, ‘All the freedom which you have held up before us we have already enjoyed for more than forty years.’1 What appeared as a novel and radical idea to one man turned out to be the normal state of aﬀairs to one community for more than a generation. The contrast is all the more striking considering that the zealous propagator conﬁdently thought himself to be ‘progressive’ and his audience ‘backward’. In truth, something approaching the opposite turned out to be the case. For no mean accomplishment was the Protestant Church in South Fujian (Banlam) celebrated. In China, Banlam owned the ﬁrst Protestant church building2, the ﬁrst organic union of churches and the ﬁrst bona ﬁde Presbytery3. At the same time, she was the ﬁrst church in the Central Kingdom to gain autonomy ‘for a fairly large group of Christians’4. Although in terms of the pursuit of the Threeself ideal, she still had a long way to go in 1863, Banlam represents the most advanced accomplishment among Protestant Missions at the time. The inauguration of her devolution preceded even that of the To Tsai Church (the present-day Heyi Church) which in 1888 became the ﬁrst congregation in colonial Hong Kong to achieve full independence of its founding mission.5 In many ways indeed was Banlam ahead of her times. When the English Presbyterian (EP) Synod of 1888 adopted the resolutions of the Edinburgh Conference

1

Mess (1915) pp. 140–141. RCC, pp. 25ﬀ; WHP, p. 15. 3 Not simply ‘the ﬁrst Presbytery’ (WHP, p. 47). See AER, Talmage from Amoy, 23 November 1861; Talmage, History, p. 60. 4 Latourette, History, pp. 259, 366. 5 Smith, Chinese Christians (1985) p. 183. 2

2

 

(1886) on ‘Co-operation in Foreign Missions’, it was hardly a novelty, much less a surprise, since the materials were almost in their entirety practically a rehearsal of the Banlam model.6 Nevertheless the inﬂuence of Banlam in nineteenth century China was quite limited. Had its domestic missions not been conﬁned to a narrow self-designated sphere, perhaps its inﬂuence would have been enlarged. As it happened, its best impact was via EP connections to Swatow and Formosa (presentday Taiwan). Ironically it was in the West rather in China that Banlam was admired and celebrated in pre-1877 times.7 However as interest in the ‘Chinese Church’ grew signiﬁcantly (especially from 1907), Banlam became known better as a precedent, a model and an inspiration.8 In the many interdenominational gatherings which took place beginning with the Centenary Conference (1907) and leading up to the birth of the Church of Christ in China (1927), not infrequently was South Fujian held up as the pioneering model for a nation-wide church union9. How the remarkable state of aﬀairs came about at Amoy is a subject warranting serious investigation. The present study aims to look into the historical causes and circumstances which allowed certain Protestant churches in Banlam to undertake the ﬁrst ‘successful’ indigenisation-union experiment in nineteenth century China. More particularly, we focus on the churches connected with the missions of the (Dutch) Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Presbyterian Church in England (PCE).10 In contemporary scholarly literature, the varied usage of the term indigenisation requires some comment. For sure, the terminologic ambiguity intensiﬁes when one crosses disciplines from mission theory or theology to mission history or vice-versa. The rise of interdisciplinary studies generates a new demand for greater precision in communicative exchanges. And

6 Actings and Proceedings of Synod (1888) p. 22. On only one point can we imagine some Banlam reservation, viz. that self-government ‘naturally’ follows self-support. 7 E.g. Sower ( January 1865) p. 2 c. 1; AR-SA ( January 1867) pp. 3–4. Cf. D.J. Fleming, Devolution in mission administration (1916) pp. 48–59. 8 E.g. W.A. Mather, ‘Some veriﬁed principles of self-support’, CR (1922) p. 27. 9 E.g. CMYB (1918) p. 77; CR (1923) p. 513; RCC, p. 186. 10 Until 1867 (inclusive), the American Church was oﬃcially known as the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church; thereafter it became the Reformed Church in America (RCA). For convenience, we use the latter name throughout. From 1844 to 1876, the English Church was known as the Presbyterian Church in England. In the latter year, it became the Presbyterian Church of England.



3

more so, with the recent interest of historians in mission theory11. In our study, indigenisation is not used primarily with reference to the cultural or theological task of recasting the Christian message into Chinese terms or forms. Illustrative of such are the accommodationism of the Ming Jesuits, the Protestant apologetical formulations of the 1920s and the lively discussion of a ‘Chinese theology’ in the 1970s12. Generally speaking, Roman Catholic theologians commonly speak of inculturation while Protestants would prefer the term contextualisation13. Rather in this study, indigenisation denotes ecclesiastical devolution. Within Chinese Protestantism, one may discern two strands in the emergence of indigenous churches. The ﬁrst strand includes the churches organised by Chinese Christians outside of the missionary institutional structure14. Then there were the churches that devolved from Western missions. The phenomenon of institutional indigenisation has to do with the second strand. Devolution consists of the transition from missionary to native leadership within an organised Christian community involving the attainment of structural independence and sovereign self-determination on the part of the Chinese party. As transfer of power and control is involved, to call this political indigenisation is not entirely inappropriate. By this deﬁnition, a Chinese church does not consist in the mere presence of Chinese church members or workers, for Christianity in China from the very start had always been a Sino-Western cooperative enterprise15. Neither is a majority Chinese membership or workforce acceptable. Rather, nothing less than full Chinese autonomous ownership of the ecclesia must be in place; in other words, a Chinese Church which is selfgoverning, self-supporting and self-propagating. This was the indigenous church ideal which occupied the thoughts of people like Rufus Anderson, Henry Venn, John Nevius and Roland Allen.16 But although

11 E.g. Forman (in Beaver, 1977, pp. 69–140); Christensen and Hutchison (1983); Hutchison (1987). 12 Lam (1983); Ching Feng (1970–74). Also e.g. Schineller (1992) pp. 50–53; Z.X. Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao shi gang (1959) p. 274; The life of Christ by Chinese artists (London, 1945). 13 E.g. Schineller (1992); Schineller (1996); Hiebert (1987); Haleblian (1983). Cf. Bevans (1985). 14 E.g. the China Evangelisation Society associated with Chen Mengnan; the churches of Xi Shengmo; Bays, ‘The growth of independent Christianity in China, 1900–1937’, in Bays (1996) pp. 307–316. 15 S.W. Barnett and J.K. Fairbank (eds), Christianity in China (1985) pp. 7ﬀ. 16 See e.g., Harris (1999); Beaver (1956); Williams (1990) ch. 1; Warren (1971);

4

 

the object of our investigation falls within the category of institutional indigenisation, it is by no means co-extensive with the latter. Rather we limit our focus only to the individual churches and congregations; or, in other words, the organised worshipping communities scattered over the Banlam region which were connected with the RCA and the EPM. Excluded are the medical, educational and other institutions which were turned over to the Chinese at a later period. Yet inasmuch as the lives of these institutions are sometimes relevant to our study, they shall be taken into regard albeit merely on an incidental basis. Our study, in short, is concerned only with ecclesiastical devolution. Hereon when unqualiﬁed, we shall mean by the term indigenisation this devolutionary signiﬁcation. But the signiﬁcance of nineteenth century Banlam is not exhausted in its devolutionary achievement. What makes it unique was the coincidence of the twin phenomena of ecclesiastical devolution and union. Basically three Protestant missions were at Banlam during our period. These were the RCA (arrived 1842), the London Missionary Society (1844) and the English Presbyterian Mission (1850). The American Episcopal (AE) and American Presbyterian (AP) missions were also present at Amoy but only in the early period; so too one missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) who was not a member of the Dutch-American Church.17 By the decision to study only the RCA and the EPM, we are in fact focusing on the parties who played the leading role in the most primitive phase of ecclesiastical devolution and union at Banlam. As it happened, the earliest devolutionary actions were heavily ﬂavoured by the ecumenical spirit. The emergence of the ﬁrst local church government (Sinkoe event, 1856), the union Classis or Presbytery (Taihoey event, 1862) and the ﬁrst pastoral ordinations (1863) were all joint activities of RCA and EP missionaries. At the Sinkoe event, the EPM representation took on guest status but at the others it became a full partner in the transaction. While the LMS churches did not unite with the Taihoey in the nineteenth century, cordial relations among the three Missions were maintained. Into the intertwining lives of the Taihoey churches was to merge

J. Nevius (1872) pp. 352ﬀ; idem, (1899); Clark (1937); Allen (1925); Long and Rowthorn (1989); Wickeri (1988) pp. 36ﬀ. 17 See Ch. 2.



5

the native Congregational Church in the twentieth century. The ecclesiastical union of 1920 brought about the emergence of a ‘postdenominational’ church in Amoy, the ﬁrst of its kind in Chinese Protestant history. Therefore in Banlam, devolution and union were largely an integrated experience and especially so in the mid-nineteenth century. Just as history sets the agenda in interlocking devolution and union, it also speciﬁes our time frame. The period under study begins with the arrival of Protestantism in Banlam (1842) and ends with the ﬁrst ‘realisation’ of the Talmage ideal in 1863. Our decision to do a local study ﬁts well with certain developments within Chinese and general historiographical studies. Recent decades have seen a shift of attention from exogenous to endogenous factors in the study of Chinese history18. Parallel with this has been the move away from simplistic pictures of a monolithic China to one of unﬁltered complexity. Accumulated research up to the early 1990s revealed many ‘empirical paradoxes’ which eﬀectively challenged the presuppositions behind Western analytical constructs applied to the study of Chinese social and economic history19. Early attempts to apply quantitative historical analysis to the study of Chinese social history were weakened by (among other things) uncertainties about generalisations on an empire-wide level20. In the early 1980s, Western scholarship was calling for the reconsideration of the use of social science quantiﬁcation methodology while Chinese scholarship was questioning the actual implementation of such on a China-wide scale.21 By that decade, the shift of emphasis had moved to a gradualism that favours longitudinal and local case studies22. Doubtlessly contributing to the revival of micro studies was the reopening of research doors in China, especially the local archives. The change of perspective from uniformity to diversity is by no means unique to Chinese studies23. In this regard, the impact of the Edward Said controversy24 should not be underestimated. Despite

18

E.g. Cohen (1984); Rowe (1985). Huang (1991). Cf. Hamilton (1985) pp. 65–89. 20 I.e., P.T. Ho, The ladder of success in imperial China (1962); C.L. Chang, The Chinese gentry (1955). 21 Rozman (1982); Y.C. Liu, ‘Qingdai qianqi de nongye zudian guanxi (Agrarian tenancy relations in early Qing times)’, Qingshi lunzong 2 (1980) pp. 57–88. 22 Rowe (1985) pp. 236ﬀ. 23 E.g. the study of Spanish Philippines (see Anderson, Studies). 24 Said, Orientalism (1978; 1995). 19

6

 

criticisms by professional historians25, the theory of ‘othering’ and Said’s own guiltiness of what he condemns in others have value, even if only for the warning they give to the obsessed or would-be generaliser. That subsequent testing conducted by researchers in other disciplines revealed greater diversity in reality than Said concedes26 merely intensiﬁes the warning. Likewise the contemporary rejection of totalistic concepts, such as for instance the ‘spirit of the age’27, favours historical speciﬁcity as against periodistic generality. The impressionistic-imaginary element which ordains upon the ‘big picture’ the illusion of compositional completeness is quickly being discarded as an overstaying Romanticist intruder. The methodological implications of the perspectival shifts are the need to recognise the ‘theoretical autonomy of Chinese studies’28 and, more importantly for our present concern, the need for microlevel research in contrast to macro-studies which tend notoriously to over-rely on analytical constructs. The diversity of local conditions advises less ambitious geographical parameters on the part of researchers. Yet it is equally important to remember that in the realms of both the natural and the social sciences, concrete situations are simple only to the imaginative selectivity of the reductionist perception29. But aside from the consideration of these developments in recent scholarship, there is another reason for our choice of a local study of Banlam. It is commonly conceived that ‘within the mission-related structures there was only slight movement toward an authentically autonomous or indigenous Chinese church before 1937’30. Indeed in the nineteenth century, Chinese Christians generally played a subordinate role under missionary leadership31. While much research has been done on the ‘big picture’ of the May Fourth era and especially on theoretical discussions and policy-level developments32, local

25 E.g. J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Edward Said and the historians’, Nineteenth-century contexts 18 (1994) pp. 9–25. 26 E.g. Jewitt (1995). Cf. also Sivaramakrishnan (1995). 27 E.g. Popper (1960) pp. 147–152; Eisenstein (1979). 28 Huang (1991) pp. 316–317, 335–336. Cf. the ‘middle-range’ approach of Y.S. Yu, in Kao (1982) pp. 7–26; the Chinese conception of modernisation in K. Yu (1994). 29 Cf. Popper, pp. 139–142. 30 Bays, Christianity in China, p. 309. 31 Cheung (1997) ch. 12. 32 E.g. San Mu, ‘Movement’; Chao (1986).



7

studies have yet to catch up. As part of the ‘slight movement’ antedating 1937, Banlam as the pioneer in devolution and union becomes doubly signiﬁcant. The limitation of this study is dictated by the range of source materials extant and available for research purposes. As devolution and union were essentially internal ecclesiastical aﬀairs, our primary sources are mission and church records. The main holdings of the RCA are in the Reformed Church Archives and the Sage Library while a secondary collection is at the Joint Archives of Holland ( JAH) in Michigan. The latter actually consolidates the former archival holdings of Hope College, Western Theological Seminary and the Netherlands (Holland) Museum. In addition, the ABCFM’s Missionary Herald (MH) and Annual Reports (AR-AB) contained regular news on Amoy until 1857. For the EPM, there are the PCE archives held in the SOAS Library (London) and the holdings of the United Reformed Church History Society housed in Westminster College, Cambridge. It is unfortunate that on account of the bombing of London during the ﬁrst half of the 20th century, PCE materials from the nineteenth century are less than complete. For instance, the most extensive sub-collection on ‘South Fukien’ contains substantial materials from our period in only two out of its nearly two dozen Boxes.33 Also, the earliest extant EPM Amoy Committee Minutes dated from practically two decades after our period.34 From the pre-1864 period, the most voluminous collection is the Burns correspondence but the missionary’s fragmentary residence in Banlam reduced the amount of relevant data. Fortunately this relative deﬁcit is greatly compensated for by the material abundance of the RCA collections. Aside from these primary sources, there are the published secondary sources which may be gleaned from the footnotes. In addition, we occasionally consulted the LMS (CWML) collection (housed in SOAS) for background data and corroborative or comparative purposes. On the China side, the voluminous materials kept at Fuzhou are of little relevance to our subject matter.35 Understandably such internal

33 I.e. Boxes 9 and 17 from PFS1/Bx9 to Bx25. Note: Some Boxes have subserials, e.g. Box 24a, Box 24b, Box 25a, Box 25b. 34 I.e. PFS4/Bx4, Amoy Committee Minutes 1880–1896 and Amoy Council Minutes 1895–1905. 35 On this matter, I am particularly grateful for beneﬁting from the expert advice

8

 

church matters as devolution and union were of no interest to the authorities at the provincial capital during our period; and this is assuming the latter knew of these matters, a scenario which does not sound likely. At Xiamen, the seeming absence of church records is probably best explained by the destructive activities which took place during the Cultural Revolution. With this denial, we settled for post-period Chinese sources which are still extant and available for consultation by researchers. Basically, therefore, we are looking at the RCA-EP missionary side of the story albeit with occasional conﬁrmation, clariﬁcation or correction from other sources. Since both devolution and union were largely spearheaded by the Banlam missionaries, their writings become our foremost sources for understanding their thoughts and designs. While it is somewhat regrettable we are unable to investigate more fully the Chinese view of things, yet the missionary account does have independent historical value and thus also requires to be told. But not only does our study possess inherent signiﬁcance, it is of preliminary value for that day in the future, should it come, when the resources should become available for the telling of the Chinese account. The nature of our study should by now be obvious. It is neither simply a study of the history of Western Protestant missions only, nor of the history of a Chinese church only, but a study of the crossroads of the two, thus a study of both at once or a mission/church historical examination. While knowledge of the fact of Banlam devolution-union became more widespread from 190736, ignorance about the story itself persisted37. In the major denominational missionary histories38, one ﬁnds only brief discussions as the larger concerns of these writings precluded a sustained narrative of the devolutionunion story. Lesser hopes may be entertained for any comprehensive in-depth analysis of causation and historical signiﬁcance. Furthermore among the writers, only Pitcher had some working knowledge of the Amoy dialect. This general lack of secondary literature implies

of Prof. Jinshui Lin (Fuzhou). See also Dunch, ‘Archival sources for Fujian history’, China Exchange News 22:3 (1994) pp. 18–21. 36 Showing no knowledge of this were, e.g., Leonard (1895) and Warneck (1901). 37 E.g., note the many erroneous details in McNeill and Nichols (1974) pp. 204–205. 38 P.W. Pitcher, Fifty years in Amoy (1893); G.F. De Jong, The Reformed Church in China, 1842–1951 (1992); J. Johnston, China and Formosa (1897); E. Band, Working His purpose out (1948). Hereon FYA, RCC, CAF, WHP, respectively.



9

great reliance upon primary sources on our part. Moreover it implies the need for a meticulous and detailed study, supplying the many hitherto unknown historical facts as well as a pioneering in-depth analysis of a story yet largely untold. In trying to do so, we do not neglect to address the larger issues in China mission/church research at pertinent points in our discussion, thereby situating our rather exhaustive study of one narrow area within the context of current missiological debates. Likewise it is signiﬁcant to point out that our grassroots study, with its sustained and intensive focus on things as they happened on the ground level, complements the generalised— sometimes deceptively over-simplistic—pictures of reality often presented at missionary conferences and in general survey-type studies. To such pictures, our close-up examination of Banlam missionary operations, the inner life of the churches and the role of the Chinese Christians oﬀers the dual service of revision and reﬁnement. Despite the signiﬁcance of Banlam as far as devolution and union is concerned, no large scale work has yet been done on the subject. As the ﬁrst major study, we try to ﬁll this gap, thereby also adding to the literature on Christianity in south China, especially the less-studied South Fujian region. Furthermore there is the extra value of being useful in providing some background understanding for the study of the diasporal Amoy-speaking Chinese communities in southeast Asia, in particular those with some connection to Banlam Protestantism. From an even larger viewpoint, this study contributes to the wider scholarship on the indigenisation of Christianity outside the Western world. With the coming of age of churches in Asia, Africa and Latin America, we have entered the ‘beyond missions’ era39. Toward a history of global Christianity40, our study strives to locate another piece in the puzzle. Thus generally speaking, our subject embraces the historical causes and circumstances which enabled the eﬀective making of ecclesiastical devolution and union in Banlam among the churches connected with the RCA and the EPM from 1842 to 1863. Under this main heading, we focus especially upon three aspects, viz. leadership (who made it happen), motivation (why it happened) and accomplishment

39 40

Robert, ‘From missions’, pp. 154–157. W.R. Shenk, ‘Toward a global church history’, IBMR 20 (1996) pp. 50–57.

10

 

(what exactly happened). In terms of leadership, the main query is: who was primarily responsible for making devolution and union happen? The matter concerns the respective roles played by the missionaries and the Chinese in key moments of decision-making and in translating decision into action. Of relevance here is the general notion that the nineteenth century was, with little exception, an era of missionary leadership and Chinese followership41. The above makes up the main interest of Chapter 2. The second aspect focuses on what actually motivated or caused the Banlam phenomenon. The matter relates to missionary objectives and methods. Of relevance is the conventional argument that the indigenisation movement within the missionary structure was able to take oﬀ only as a reaction to the Chinese anti-Christianism of the 1920s42. In the matter of devolution, we are particularly interested in the theoretical motivation and the practical causes of the major devolutionary events of 1856 (the Sinkoe event), 1862 (the Taihoey event) and 1863 (the ﬁrst pastoral ordinations). In the matter of union, we look into the historical circumstances which gave rise to the organic union of 1862. As we shall see, the making of the Banlam phenomenon involved the intertwining of missiological principles (devolution) and historical happenstances (union). That is to say, the Banlam devolution-union aﬀair exhibited the dual character of design and ‘accident’. The said topics compose the bulk of our study (Chapters 4 to 7). Finally, we ask: what exactly was accomplished? Here we deal with the merits and limits of Banlam devolution and union. For a contextual perspective, we also compare Banlam with some nineteenth and twentieth century ideals and accomplishments. These matters comprise the contents of Chapter 8. Lying a few miles oﬀ the southeastern coast of Fujian province, Amoy Island in the 1840s was home to more than one hundred and thirty villages as well as to the thriving town of Amoy. Just about thirty miles in circumference, the Island is some ten to twelve miles long and ﬁve to seven miles broad, being situated about three hundred miles northeast of Hong Kong. The subtropical climate of

41

See Cheung, ‘Growth’. E.g. Chao (1986). Cf. Bays, Christianity in China, p. 309; T. Brook, ‘Toward independence: Christianity in China under the Japanese occupation, 1937–1945’, in Bays (1996) pp. 317–337. 42



11

the region is favourable to crops such as rice, sweet potato, peanut, sugar cane, hemp and tobacco. Within the hilly and sometimes mountainous terrain, nature has sporadically carved out countless fertile valleys where the villages of varying population sizes have long found their habitat. Sitting on the southwestern edge of Amoy Island and close to the Chinese mainland, Amoy town and its suburbs constituted the foremost population centre. Concentrated in the walled town of a little over two square miles as well as its outlying neighbourhood were some 250,000 inhabitants who comprised about four-ﬁfths of the Island’s ca. 300,000 people. Noted for their remarkable ‘hardihood, enterprise, and bravery’43, the natives were among the ﬁrst to venture out into Nanyang to seek their fortunes and among the last to submit to Qing rule. The fortune of having a naturally well-protected harbour allowed Amoy to gain prominence as a major maritime trade centre beginning in the seventeenth century.44 At the same time, various rivers fan out into the mainland covering directions from the northeasterly to the southwesterly, which made for easy access by water into hinterland towns, many of which eventually became venues of Protestant work, some even developing into secondary centres of the religious operation. Thus in the missionary literature, the ﬁeld of the work was commonly called the Amoy region, eﬀectively a geographical area of about 18,000 square miles wherein was spoken a common dialect. Relatedly the term Amoy Mission was in fact a missionary administrative category which remained unaltered even after the work had spread beyond Amoy town and Amoy Island or after the mission headquarters had moved to Kolongsu, a small island southwestward. In other words, the term was by no means an internal Chinese designation, nor does Amoy exhaust the physical space of missionary operations (except during the earliest times). Rather the designation Amoy Mission identiﬁed a work which ﬁrst started in Amoy town but eventually spread beyond it to include a larger physical space. For this reason and the sake of clarity, we shall speak of the geographical space of the work as Banlam, reserving Amoy for

43 Wm.S. Swanson, Sketch of the origin and history of the English Presbyterian Mission at Amoy (London, 1870) pp. 3ﬀ. 44 See Chin-Keong Ng, ‘The South Fukienese junk trade at Amoy from the seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries’, in E.B. Vermeer (ed.), Development and decline of Fukien province in the 17th and 18th centuries (Brill, 1990) pp. 297–316.

12

 

the town (present-day Xiamen, 26.24 N, 118.07 E), Amoy Island for that island and Amoy Mission for the RCA or EPM operational unit. It was in this region that a most remarkable phenomenon occurred in the history of Protestantism in nineteenth-century China. The chain of events started with the Sinkoe event which took place at Amoy in the spring of 1856. This brings us to the next Chapter.

CHAPTER TWO

MISSIONARY OBJECTIVES AND IDEAL 2.1. The Sinkoe event When the combined church membership at the two RCA places of worship in Amoy had reached ‘over one hundred and ten’, it was considered an ‘urgent need’ that the church be formally organised via the appointment of oﬃce-bearers.1 Thus on the Christian Sabbath of the 6th of April 1856 when both congregations assembled at the Sinkoe chapel to celebrate the Holy Communion, the announcement was made that there will be a special meeting of all male members to be held in the afternoon of Monday the 14th. Great care was taken to make the solemn agenda clear to all. The task at hand was to consider ‘the propriety of electing elders and deacons; and, if deemed proper and expedient, to proceed with said election’.2 On the following Sunday, the same notice was repeated at both the Sinkoe chapel and the Tekchhiukha worship place. At the same time, sermons were delivered ‘on the subject of Church Government, and on the relative duties of the Church and her oﬃce-bearers.’ On the following Monday morning, a special season of prayer was observed at Sinkoe with ‘a full attendance of churchmembers’ as well as the participation of Doty, Talmage and Douglas. The afternoon saw the election of Li Kahin, Loa Phanliong, Gui Chiongjin and Chhoa Giau-siok as church elders and of Ng Chekcheng, Ong Kau, Lau Pihu and Ng Hongsiong as deacons. With the publication of the names of the oﬃcers-elect meeting with no objections, the men were ordained at the Sinkoe chapel during the afternoon service on Sunday the 11th of May.3 The missionaries in attendance were Doty, Talmage, Joralmon and Douglas.

1

Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3 (i.e. page 50 column 3). Cf. 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856 = CI (18 December 1856) p. 98 c. 4 and (25 December 1856) p. 101 c. 1–2. Note the factual inaccuracies in De Jong’s excerpt (RCC, p. 65). 2 Talmage of 30 May 1856. Cf. AR-AB (1857) p. 122. 3 Ong Kau was absent on the day.

14

 

Our main interest in this Chapter lies in two subjects. The ﬁrst is the work objectives of the Dutch-American and English Presbyterian missionaries who came to Amoy during the period preceding the Sinkoe event. The basic question is: What was each Mission aiming to accomplish? Or, more speciﬁcally, what did each individual missionary set as his own personal objective(s)? Our answer to this question begins with a background discussion which consists of a brief historical overview of the foreign workforce of each Mission. Thereafter we present a lengthy and detailed survey of every individual missionary in terms of his work objective(s) and accomplishments. It will be noticed later that Joralmon is not included in the discussion. Having arrived after the Sinkoe elections were over, he did not play any substantial role in the earliest formative period of the RCA work. Beyond the individual level, we also look at accomplishments on the Mission level. Here we ﬁnd it necessary to document the growth of the various church memberships during the 1842–56 period. As shall be seen, the results of the investigation will help us understand why the RCA was able to move ahead of the EPM in the area of church formation. The second subject of our interest is the theoretical motivation of the Sinkoe event. In this case, the question is: What was the guiding vision of the RCA church formation plan? Or, what conceptualisation of the ideal native church were the missionaries trying to bring into realisation? This theoretical dimension is not unrelated to the question of missionary objectives. For the discussion of the RCA church formation objective is incomplete without also taking into consideration the content of that objective at a deeper level. The former names the direction; the latter, the destination. The former regards action; the latter, the goal. The former spells the form; the latter, the substance. 2.2. The missionaries, 1842–56 On the 24th of February 1842, David Abeel4 arrived in Britishoccupied Amoy5 with W.J. Boone (American Episcopal) and soon settled in Kolongsu. When Boone returned in early June from Macao, the Rev. T.L. McBride (American Presbyterian6) and Dr. W.H.

4 5 6

I.e. David Abeel III (12 June 1804 to 4 September 1846). Abeel from Macao, 30 December 1841, CI (21 May 1842) p. 174 c. 1. June to December 1842. IA, pp. 236ﬀ.

 

15

Cumming (independent, 1842–47) came with him.7 The death of his wife forced the premature removal of Boone in February 1843.8 For a while, the American Presbyterian (AP) presence continued in the persons of Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Hepburn (1843–45), W.M. Lowrie, Rev. John Lloyd (1844–48) and Rev. H.A. Brown (1845–47).9 Also in Amoy for some months was Lyman B. Peet (March to September 1847) who was an ABCFM agent though with no RCA connection.10 But soon one worker left after another11 and the last AP man, Lloyd, died in 1848.12 Fortunately the coming of the LMS (1844)13 provided some permanent company for the RCA while allowing also for the inter-Mission cooperation of the pre-EPM years. In 1844 Abeel moved into rented quarters at Amoy, thus eﬀectively moving the mission base oﬀ Kolongsu. In late June, Elihu Doty (1809–65) and William Pohlman (1812–49) and their wives landed in Amoy where they were warmly welcomed by the small missionary community already there. Toward the end of the year Abeel ended his short Amoy career14 and sailed for Canton en route to his home land15. In November 1845 Doty left for America out of domestic necessity.16 Until his return on 19 August 1847 with the second Mrs. Doty as well as with the new missionary John Van Nest Talmage17, Pohlman was left as the lone RCA man on the ground.18 Not long after the demise of the latter in early 1849, Talmage accompanied Pohlman’s ailing sister to America leaving Amoy on the 15th of

7

Circular letter of the missionaries, from Macao, 10 July 1842, CI (31 December 1842) p. 94 c. 4–5; AR-AB (1847) p. 166. 8 AR-AB (1847) p. 166. In the spring of 1843 Boone returned to the United States. Eventually he returned to China and posted in Shanghai. See M. Boone, The seed of the Church in China (Philadelphia/Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1973) pp. 97–98, 103, 111ﬀ; cf. AR-AB (1843) p. 136. 9 IA, pp. 236–237. On Lowrie, see G.R. Williamson, Memoir of the Rev. David Abeel, late missionary to China, by his nephew Rev. G.R. Williamson (New York, 1848) pp. 241ﬀ; AR-AB (1844) p. 185; Walter Lowrie, Memoirs of the Rev. Walter M. Lowrie, missionary to China, edited by his father [Walter Lowrie] (New York, 1849). 10 Pohlman from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5. 11 Peet left Amoy in September 1848. AR-AB (1848) p. 221. 12 AR-AB (1847) p. 166; Talmage, diary of 8 December 1848, in FYC, pp. 87ﬀ. 13 An early account of the LMS Amoy Mission is J. Macgowan, Christ or Confucius, which? Or, the story of the Amoy Mission, 2nd edition (London Missionary Society, 1895). 14 AR-AB (1847) p. 166. 15 AR-AB (1845) p. 164. 16 AR-AB (1847) p. 166; cf. AR-AB (1846) p. 170, cf. p. 84; APGS (1846) p. 84. 17 AR-AB (1848) p. 218; cf. (1847) p. 165. 18 AR-AB (1846) p. 169.

16

 

March.19 For a while, Doty became the only RCA missionary in the ﬁeld until Talmage and his new bride returned on 16 July 1850.20 Finally on 20 April 1856, John S. Joralmon the last RCA missionary of our period arrived.21 On the EPM side, the ﬁrst22 China missionary William Chambers Burns23 reached Hong Kong in November 184724 where he later recruited Dr. James Hume Young25 who began his missionary term in 1850.26 When Burns sailed oﬀ England in mid-1847, the FMC had designated no speciﬁc locality to be its ﬁrst station in China.27 At its meeting on 31 July 1849, the FMC had heard the Synod’s decision to accept Amoy as the headquarters of the EPM in China but Donald Matheson proposed Canton as the best site for an educational institution.28 Amoy was the original choice for the ﬁrst EP station in China on two accounts, viz., the aﬀorded work opportunities were believed to equal those of Shanghai and secondly, the comparative fewness of missionaries at work there.29 Thus at the next meeting held on 9th October, the FMC reversed themselves agreeing that Canton be the preferred site.30 Following a brief and unfruitful sojourn in Canton, Young returned to Hong Kong where he met a company of eight ‘newly-arrived missionaries who were about to proceed up the coast to their sev-

19

AR-AB (1849) pp. 167–168; cf. APGS (1849) p. 500. AR-AB (1851) p. 124; cf. (1850) p. 160. 21 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. Cf. MH ( January 1856) p. 9; Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181; AR-AB (1856) p. 10; AR-AB (1857) p. 122. 22 In 1845 the sending of Rev. William Charteris by ‘an unoﬃcial Ladies’ Association’ commenced the Corfu mission (1845–64). However it was not until 1849 that the PCE Synod accepted him as its oﬃcial agent (Dale, Our missions, p. 2n). Relatedly the Women’s Missionary Association was organised later in 1878. 23 1 April 1815 to 4 April 1868; ordained 22 April 1847; sailed 9 June 1847. 24 Burns to Dr. Hamilton, 26 November 1847, in CAF, p. 69. This was Burns’ ﬁrst letter from China being dated ten days after his ﬁve-month voyage had ended. So too Dale, Our missions, p. 2. Cf. AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) p. 150. 25 Matheson, Narrative, p. 2. The appointment of Young was transacted at the FMC meeting in July 1849. See FMC Minutes, pp. 74–76. 26 AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 150–153. 27 Dale, Our missions, p. 2. 28 FMC Minutes, pp. 74–76. 29 Mess (1851) p. 140. Cf. WHP, pp. 11–13. 30 FMC Minutes, pp. 77–80. Cf. Mess (September 1850) p. 473; AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) p. 140. Contra Dale who wrote that Amoy was replaced by Hong Kong (see Dale, Our missions, p. 3). 20

 

17

eral destinations’ in a chartered lorcha.31 With them Young sailed oﬀ the British colony on 8 May and reached Amoy on 18 May32. Back at Canton for which Burns had set out at the end of February33, failure to obtain housing led to his departure from Whampoa on 26 June 185134. The enthusiastic letters of Young urging Burns to join him ﬁnally paid oﬀ when on 5 July 1851 the latter caught up with the physician in Amoy.35 In December 1853 the second EP ministerial missionary James Johnston arrived.36 In August 1854 the duty fell upon Burns to bring the ill-stricken Young back to England.37 Meanwhile perennial health problems forced Johnston to leave for home in 1855 shortly before38 Burns and Rev. Carstairs Douglas39 arrived at Hong Kong in early July.40 Parting ways thereon, Douglas proceeded to Amoy arriving in mid-July41 while Burns went to Shanghai42. Except for a very brief visit, it was not until 1858 that the latter next returned to Amoy.43 Thus the Protestant occupation began with Kolongsu as its base but relocated to Amoy after two years. The geographical site of the genesis of Banlam devolution was thereby ﬁxed a dozen years before

31

Young from Amoy, 10 June 1850, Mess (1850) pp. 473–475. Contra Islay Burns and Matheson who thought that Young started labour at Amoy in March 1850. See Islay Burns, Memoir of the Rev. William C. Burns (1870) pp. 383–384; Matheson, Narrative, p. 4. 33 AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) p. 150. 34 Burns from Amoy, 5 August 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 370–371. 35 Burns, Memoir, pp. 375ﬀ which include excerpts from Burns to his mother, from Amoy, 25 July 1851. 36 18 December 1819 to 16 October 1906. EPMF/Johnston. CAF, p. 81. 37 Bx119/F5, Burns from Hong Kong, 10 August 1854. 38 CAF, p. 110. 39 27 December 1830 to 26 July 1877. 40 By early June, Douglas and Burns were nearing their destination. See Bx119/F5, Burns from Singapore, 6 June 1855; Douglas to his mother, Straits of Sunda, 6 June 1855, in J.M. Douglas, ‘Memorials of the Rev. Carstairs Douglas’ in J.M. Douglas (ed.), Memorials of Rev. Carstairs Douglas (1878) pp. 19–20 (hereon respectively as Douglas, ‘Memorials’ and Douglas, Memorials); Burns and Douglas from Anjer, Straits of Sunda, 7 June 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 281–282. A month later the duo landed at Hong Kong (Bx119/F5, Burns from Hong Kong, 5 July 1855). Contra WHP, pp. 23–24 (i.e. they arrived at Hong Kong in May). 41 Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. See also AR-FMC, in Mess (1856) p. 153. 42 Douglas of 21 August 1855; AR-FMC, in Mess (1856) pp. 152–154; Burns from Shanghai, 26 July 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 343–344. 43 Burns, Memoir, pp. 486ﬀ. On the one-week visit to Banlam in 1857, see Burns from Swatow, 10 September 1857, Mess (1857) pp. 380ﬀ. 32

18

 

the Sinkoe event. The physical movements of the early missionaries resulted in such a state that during the Sinkoe event only four male missionaries were present. These were Doty, Talmage, Joralmon and Douglas. 2.3. Missionary objectives The early Amoy missionaries were basically practitioners before they were theoreticians. It is therefore not surprising to ﬁnd from them no full length systematic treatise of missionary goals and methods at the outstart. Not that they had no idea at all of what they were setting out to do but that in their written remains from various times, we ﬁnd both notions in the process of ﬁeld-testing as well as conclusions presented as already ﬁeld-proven. Indeed they were pioneers in a new environment engaged in methodological experimentation and were self-consciously so. Two important implications emerged at this point, viz. the appropriateness of the diachronic approach which we adopt below and secondly the increased inﬂuence potentials of senior missionaries who with their experiential leadership served as the reference handbooks in the textbook-less period of early missionary work in Banlam. Although Doty, Talmage and Douglas were the only foreign players in the Sinkoe event of 1856, the inﬂuences and performances of their predecessors or former colleagues were not entirely immaterial. Thus even if the RCA sometimes dated the oﬃcial inauguration of its Amoy Mission to 184444, the proper place to begin our survey is with Abeel. On the EP side, we likewise begin with Burns its ﬁrst China missionary. On account of the pioneer character of our period, the matter of missionary objectives tended to be somewhat ﬂuid especially in the earliest years. The small number of the foreign agents presents both a challenge and a consolation as far as our study is concerned. It is a challenge in that the smallness of the missionary workforce makes each individual important to the development of the work of his Mission. It is a consolation in that smallness makes the in-depth study of every individual missionary a possible though, not by any means, less tedious task.

44 E.g. AR-BFM (1858) p. 9. Later issues retraced to 1842, e.g. (1926) page i, (1957) p. 5.

 

19

Abeel The work of the RCA pioneer missionary may be discerned to have consisted of three roles. The ﬁrst was that of Abeel as the advocate of foreign missions. During his tour of Europe (1833–34) and America (1834–39), he became the outspoken and zealous promoter of the said cause among various Christian communities.45 The missionary interest at the RCA’s Theological Seminary at New Brunswick also seems to have been triggered by his visit.46 This is signiﬁcant to note for the reason that the later RCA agents who came to Amoy were graduates of this institution which at that time was the theological training ground of the Dutch-American denomination.47 However as the mission advocacy of Abeel has primarily to do with the churches in the West, it is of secondary interest to us. It is the other two roles he played which bear a direct relationship to the Amoy work, viz. Abeel as mission ﬁeld surveyor and Abeel as preacher rather than church planter or pastor. Both roles found roots in his pre-Amoy religious work experience. When Abeel ﬁrst arrived in China in 1830, his main task was to serve as chaplain to the Englishspeaking sailors at Canton under the auspices of the Seaman’s Friend Society48 and the ABCFM. Less known is that his secondary work was to ﬁnd out whatever could be done among the Chinese accessible to him.49 The latter work became primary when Abeel at the instruction of the ABCFM50 undertook a tour of southeast Asia during 1831–33.51 The work of the preacher can be traced to an even earlier period. Commissioned in 1826 as an agent of the Missionary Society of the Reformed Dutch Church, Abeel began to do

45 See Williamson, Memoir; A.J. Poppen, ‘The life and work of David Abeel’ (S.T.M. thesis, UTS, [1959]). The latter has a Chinese translation by W. de Velder (Hong Kong, 1963). 46 See Bruins (1962) pp. 142–162. 47 E.g. Doty graduated in 1836, Pohlman in 1837, Talmage in 1845. FYA, pp. 65ﬀ, 70ﬀ; A Sermon delivered May 6, 1849, pp. 40–41; FYC, pp. 43ﬀ. 48 So CI (11 May 1844) p. 170 c. 2–4; or, ‘Seamen’s Friend Society’, CI (12 May 1859) p. 182 c. 6–7. 49 Abeel, journal of 24 September 1829, in Williamson, Memoir, pp. 49–51. Cf. also the journal of October (exact day not speciﬁed) on pp. 51–52. 50 AR-AB (1831) p. 33. 51 See D. Abeel, Journal of a residence in China (1834) p. 143. So too the 2nd edition (1836). Hereon, Journal and Journal (1836), respectively. Not 26 December, as in Rubinstein (1976) pp. 183–184.

20

 

pastoral work that same year at Athens, New York.52 It was while serving this pastoral term that he received ordination as an ‘evangelist’53 in October 1826. In the year 1827, Abeel was also engaged in some itinerant evangelistic activities54. During both of his sojourns in China, Abeel never actually planted any church in the mission ﬁeld. Although he resided in Kolongsu for nearly two years55 and despite the rather fast growth of his congregation there56, not one person was baptised much less was a church organised. Instead of staying on in the island, he moved to Amoy in early 184457. The decision to rent a chapel in the treaty port was no doubt inspired by the ‘unbroken succession of Sundays’ of preaching58. Just as his Kolongsu term, no baptisms were administered until his departure from China. The agenda of Abeel in Kolongsu-Amoy seems quite similar to that he embraced during his southeast Asian tour when he set out ‘with the double purpose of ascertaining the most important posts for missions, and of rendering himself useful in that station, which presented the most claims upon his services’.59 As it turned out, the work of Abeel the reconnoitre ended with his ‘occupation’ of Amoy. Primarily on account of feeble health, his Amoy work was terminated prematurely. Yet he made it his duty not to leave his post until reinforcements should arrive which eventually happened in June 1844. The objective Abeel set for himself therefore partook of a transitory nature. That is, he strove to identify a ﬁeld and occupy it until he could pass it on to others at the soonest time. Thus Abeel’s contribution was more in laying the groundwork for later RCA church planting rather than

52

Annual report of the Missionary Society of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America (1826) p. 28. 53 I.e. today’s equivalent of a classical missionary. Poppen, ‘Abeel’, p. 11. 54 On Abeel’s background, early life and Athens years, see Williamson, Memoir, chh. 1–2; Poppen, ‘Abeel’, chh. 1–2. 55 I.e. February 1842 to January 1844. There was a brief absence in 1843. Abeel from Canton, 11 July 1843, CI (23 December 1843) p. 90 c. 4. 56 The average attendance was ﬁfty by June 1842. Circular letter of the missionaries, from Macao, 10 July 1842, CI (31 December 1842) p. 94 c. 4–5. Cf. Abeel to Dr. Washington, from ‘Kolongsoo’ [= Kolongsu], 4 August 1842, CI (7 January 1843) p. 98 c. 2; Abeel of 3 June 1843, CI (23 December 1843) p. 90 c. 4. 57 Abeel to Rev. Dr. De Witt, from Kolongsu, 1 February 1844, CI (6 July 1844) pp. 202 c. 6–203 c. 1. Also AR-AB (1845) p. 165. 58 See AR-AB (1845) p. 164, citing Abeel, journal of 15 January 1844. 59 Abeel, Journal, ‘Preface’.

 

21

in church formation or devolution. When one recalls that during the period in which he worked there was neither church membership or property to pass on nor any Chinese party on the receiving end to complete the process, then it is not diﬃcult to understand that it could not have been otherwise. Pohlman, Doty and Talmage There is little doubt or ground for ambiguity when it comes to the missionary aim of Abeel’s immediate and later successors. Among Pohlman, Doty and Talmage, the main and rather consistent objective was determinedly the making of Chinese converts and the organisation of these into a church. In the pursuit of this objective, the ﬁrst baptisms were held in the spring of 1846 and beginning in 1849 new members were received every year.60 Not long after the newly erected Sinkoe chapel was dedicated in 1849, Talmage started Sunday services at Tekchhiukha (1850) which resulted in the birth of a second congregation in Amoy.61 Sustained work over the years eventually culminated in the Sinkoe event. Toward the chief end of church formation, the RCA was never directly involved in proper medical work and could on only one occasion be said to have been side-tracked (if at all) by educational concerns. For the reason that the Mission was without any medical missionary until some three decades after the Sinkoe event62, RCA involvement in medical work took the form of collaboration with non-RCA agents, viz. Cumming63, Hepburn64 and Young65. At all times, the main RCA interest was in the evangelistic opportunities occasioned by the presence of waiting patients rather than in the treatment of their physical ailments. With regard to the latter type of service, the absence of a medical missionary ruled out any realistic RCA participation. In the matter of educational work, the story is a little bit more complicated. The ﬁrst instance of involvement

60

Details in 2.4 infra. RCC, pp. 26–27. 62 I.e. in the 1880s. See RCC, ch. 11. Yet Doty’s plea for a physician was made as early as mid-1855. Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5 = MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. 63 E.g. Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. 64 RCC, p. 149. 65 More on Young infra. 61

22

 

was the elementary school opened in 1845 by Doty which closed after a few months on account of Mrs. Doty’s demise.66 The episode reveals that the RCA obviously had an educational concern from early on. After the departure of Doty for America, Pohlman focused all his attention and eﬀorts upon the church formation objective. However during the summer of 1846, upon learning of the imminent re-sending of Doty by the ABCFM, Pohlman thought of having the latter open a boys’ school and work full-time in it since such ‘is now frequently called for and should be prosecuted with vigor’.67 Nevertheless the RCA did not take the initiative to open a school even after Doty had returned, although the Mission became involved nonetheless in educational work. In the following June (1847), Peet was able to open a school with two to three boys whose number soon grew to twenty-six. After his departure for Fuzhou in early September, the work devolved upon Doty who in December transferred the operation to a larger room.68 Speaking retrospectively, Pohlman saw no reason to regret the delayed commencement of educational work, explaining that the ‘danger’ is when ‘schools and printing and other labors’ engaged ‘the ﬁrst attention of a missionary to the heathen’ when these are all ‘only secondary’ to ‘the great and all-important end—the oral communication of the gospel of Christ’69. In speaking of the latter ‘end’, he of course had at the back of his mind the making of converts and the ultimate aim of church formation. For Pohlman, school work though valuable should not in any fashion supersede the work of preaching which was reckoned the evangelistic method.70 Educational work was not absolutely forbidden but granted secondary importance, so that unlike the work of preaching it may be postponed. Even when commenced, it was to be undertaken in a manner which will not challenge the primacy

66

RCC, p. 34. SL/MSS.XT8.Ab3, ‘Abeel papers and journals’, env.5, Pohlman to Abeel [America], from Canton, 7 August 1846. The short-lived school which opened in summer 1846 was not an RCA but an LMS operation. See Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4; cf. Pohlman from Macao, 22 June 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1. 68 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. More on the school in Doty to Anderson, Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. 69 Pohlman of 18 December 1847 (italics original). 70 More in Ch. 3 infra. 67

 

23

of preaching. The same hierarchy of priorities was shared by Doty who had charge of the school from September 1847 to May 1850. When in a state of overwork and the occasion arose to lighten his load, he gladly handed over the education work to the newly arrived Young.71 However during the post-Pohlman period, a redeﬁnition of the aim of educational work was brought about. The transformation consisted of the operation of evangelistic educational work being replaced by the parochial school system. The growth of church membership had brought about a corresponding increase in the number of children needing Christian education.72 Thus in February 1854, Doty re-possessed73 the EP school at Keklai and limited the enrolment to children of church members.74 In mid-1856 the two Amoy schools (one being an EP operation) had a total of ‘between 40 and 50 scholars, mostly children of Christians’ whose ‘principal study is of course the word of God’.75 The new educational objective therefore signiﬁed a shift in the instrumental use of the school. No longer was it mainly a means of ingathering (making new converts) but of consolidation (educating existing converts). Thus in opting for parochial schools, the missionaries, far from having gone oﬀ their main pursuit, were perfectly on track toward the objective of church formation. The RCA missionaries therefore set to work toward a church formation objective at least as early as 1844. If we are to regard Abeel’s work as an ‘aborted’ attempt at the same end, then the date pushes back to 1842. Perhaps it is fair to say that the desire and intention to engage in church formation work had been in existence since the beginning and that actual engagement began with the arrival of Pohlman and Doty. On account of this objective, the Mission did not really try to press for any medical missionary to be sent from America during our period. The plea of Doty in 1855 was a simple

71 See Burns, Memoir, pp. 383–384. Cf. Burns to his mother, from Amoy, 25 July 1851 (p. 285). 72 See Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 73 It is unclear whether the case was that of the RCA actively asking to have the school back or that of the EP giving up the school on their own and thereby putting the RCA in a responsive position. More in the sub-section on Young infra. 74 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282; cf. AR-AB (1854) p. 143. 75 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856.

24

 

request and throughout his lifetime never became anything like a sustained pressure on the BFM. But although the RCA never did undertake proper medical work prior to the 1880s, the advantages of medical service were availed of at diﬀerent times, thanks to the medical missionaries who happened to be then in Amoy. Educational work was done at ﬁrst on evangelistic grounds and then in the later years for intramural beneﬁts. Throughout the period under study, the RCA ﬁxated upon one objective and did so with determination and substantial steadiness. Thus in 1846 the ﬁrst converts were baptised and three years later a Mission chapel was completed. Before long, two congregations were meeting regularly in diﬀerent parts of Amoy. Twelve years of church planting eﬀorts eventually gave birth to the Sinkoe Consistory in 1856. Burns On the part of the EPM, church formation or pastoral work did not start as soon as its ﬁrst missionary landed in China. Burns came to China under the stipulation that he be a thorough-going evangelist with no obligation to undertake church-planting or pastoral duties.76 For certain, the inclination of the evangelist in Burns did not originate during his China years but can actually be traced to earlier times. Toward the end of his student days at Glasgow, Burns decided to oﬀer himself ‘for the work of an evangelist . . . whether in this land or among the perishing heathen’.77 During his pastorate at St. Peter’s in Dundee, ‘his power as a preacher’ became known.78 Between 1839 and 1846 Burns was involved with revivalistic work in various places, most notably Kilsyth, Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen.79 We see therefore that while some pastoral post was indeed held in his home country, it was nevertheless the zeal of the itinerant preacher which dominated the pre-1847 Burns. Perhaps the ‘freedom’ oﬀered by the foreign mission ﬁeld was no little attraction for such a restless soul as his.80

76

CAF, p. 68; Dale, Our missions, pp. 2–3. Burns, as quoted in Miller, ‘Greatheart’, p. 99. 78 See the testimony of a church elder, as cited in WHP, p. 6. 79 See Burns, Memoir, pp. 87–288, 557–573. 80 Johnston wrote, ‘[Burns] went to China, on condition of perfect freedom . . .’ (CAF, p. 92). 77

 

25

Credit should go to the FMC for their commitment to the original agreement with Burns. The earliest demonstration of this was in connection with the episode of ‘centralisation’ in 1851. Sometime after Young had settled at Amoy, the FMC expressed some disappointment that the two EP agents should be a geographically divided force as well as the hope that they can soon unite forces in one place. It was explained that hitherto the Committee had avoided ‘giving speciﬁc instructions’ on the subject, ‘the work having been of the nature of an experiment . . .’81 In nearly breaking this habit, the FMC took care to guarantee that geographical centralisation will not mean the cessation of individual freedom over ‘whatever department of labour each of the missionaries may, from his peculiar gifts, be led to pursue’82. As should be obvious, the last remark was an unambiguous assurance that the original stipulation of Burns will not be overturned. Along with other motivational factors, the FMC tactic proved eﬀective in getting both Burns and Young to proceed to Canton and later to Amoy83. In the annual report of 1851 wherein a public apology about the divided state of their Amoy force was oﬀered, the FMC could do no more than give the explanation that Burns ‘has always wished us to understand, that little reliance can be placed on him for the establishment of any permanent or progressive operations, and that he must be left free to avail himself of such openings as may appear to be made for him in Divine Providence’.84 Throughout his whole missionary career, Burns played out the FMC-sanctioned role of a pure-and-free evangelist with great consistency. In pre-1854 times, he was involved in various kinds of work except for church formation. Soon after landing in Hong Kong, Burns opened an English school, although Johnston later revealed that in fact ‘he disliked teaching’85 which disposition Burns himself later conﬁrmed. On the very day when he in Canton heard from Young about the latter’s smooth-going educational work in Amoy,

81

FMC, in Mess (1851) pp. 120–121. Ibid. 83 AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) pp. 138–140; Burns from Canton, 19 June 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 281–283; Burns from Amoy, 5 August 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 370–371. 84 AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) p. 140. 85 CAF, p. 70. 82

26

 

Burns wrote that he would certainly join his physician-colleague ‘without delay’ if only he had ‘an aptitude’ for ‘the instruction of the young’.86 In this light the later report (1853) that Burns ‘is kindly giving his assistance in superintending and instructing the Keklai school’87 should be better understood as referring to the religious instructions given at the daily morning and evening services held in the school-room88. Considering Burns’ rather consistent evangelistic focus, it is likely some informal pressure from home may have led to the opening of the Hong Kong school in 1847. Nevertheless in late January 1848, Burns informed the FMC secretary of his decision to end the brief 89 educational enterprise and devote his time to preaching in the mainland with two Chinese evangelists furnished by Gutzlaﬀ.90 Here we see at play not only the dislike for educational work but also the spirit of the evangelist. The same must have motivated Burns to recruit Young to whom he intended to turn over the educational burden thereby freeing himself to be a full evangelist. It is interesting to note that the recruitment of Young came conspicuously after the home Synod had passed the formal resolution calling for the launching of educational work in China.91 With the abrupt termination of the school in Hong Kong, EP educational work had to wait more than a year before Young revived it in Amoy. After Burns had ended his short-lived educational labours, he nevertheless did not devote himself to starting a church much less to pastoral work. Rather he focused on fulﬁlling the role of an itinerant evangelist. At a later time when reporting about his activities at Canton during March-June 1851, Burns wrote that ‘all may be summed up in a single sentence’ i.e. he had been ‘happy’ to ﬁnd so many preaching opportunities even though there had been no real visible success.92 In expressing this personal satisfaction, Burns was well aware that to many at home ‘I may seem as if wasting

86

Burns of 19 June 1851. Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) p. 287 (italics added). 88 See AR-FMC, in Mess (1853) p. 142. 89 Since Burns arrived in mid-November, his school could not have lasted more than ten weeks. 90 Burns to Dr. Hamilton, [from Hong Kong], 29 January 1848, in CAF, pp. 70–71. 91 See Mess (September 1850) pp. 473–475. 92 Burns of 19 June 1851. 87

 

27

my time in moving from post to post, and doing nothing which is separately connected with your Mission, and on a basis which is, humanly speaking, permanent’.93 With FMC sanction, Burns’ freedom in China had translated into an operational style characterised by a lack of long-term planning and ﬁxed objectives, and this coupled with an extreme openness to spontaneity. During his ﬁrst year in Amoy, Burns found little opportunities for preaching although he did undertake three visits to the surrounding country. With the regular worship services ‘well occupied by others’, his work became ‘of a more undeﬁned and uncertain kind’.94 Beginning in March 1852, wet weather further conﬁned him indoors. As an alternative he took up literary labours, helping to edit a collection of hymns and translating a portion of Pilgrim’s Progress. Partial motivation for the translation project derived from his fondness for the Christian classic which he once in childhood ‘read over and over again during a time of conﬁnement occasioned by an accident’95. For the last half of the year, Burns continued to do little preaching giving as his excuse his literary engagements.96 Begun in June 1852, the translation of the ﬁrst part of the Pilgrim’s Progress was ﬁnally done by March.97 During 1853, his activities at various times included rebuilding the EP house, preaching as opportunities allowed, superintending the Keklai school98 and pursuing literary work.99 There

93

Ibid. (italics original). Bx119/F5, Burns to H.M. Matheson, from Amoy, 8 June 1852 = Mess (1852) pp. 282–283. 95 Burns, Memoir, pp. 10–11. 96 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 17 January 1853 (typed copy in Bx118/F4). Cf. Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 290–291; 6 June 1853, Mess (1853) p. 291; 16 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 217–218. 97 Burns, journal of 12 March 1853, in Miller, ‘Greatheart’, p. 143. This Pilgrim’s translation was not the one done later in Beijing which Band claimed to have ‘ranked third in the list of Christian classics drawn up by the Centenary Conference of 1907’ (WHP, p. 16, italics added). The claim is in fact questionable, for Burns’ work appeared third in a list which seems to follow no particular order of ranking, being in nature ‘representative rather than comprehensive’ and consisting of what ‘the average missionary’ would at an ‘spontaneous’ instance regard as ‘the best Christian books in Chinese’. China Centenary Missionary Conference Records (ca. 1907) pp. 196–197. 98 Young from Amoy, 15 August 1853, Mess (1854) p. 52. At one time, Burns was also preaching regularly on board a British steamer. 99 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 17 January 1853; from Amoy, 16 May 1853 = Mess (1853) pp. 290–291; to Mr. Matheson, from White Water Camp [= Pechuia], 16 January 1854. Also, Burns of 6 June 1853, Mess (1853) p. 291. 94

28

 

was much activity indeed but deﬁnitely no intentional eﬀorts at church formation in any way. Even during and after the Pechuia awakening of 1854, Burns exhibited no desire for church planting or pastoring. In April when he thought ‘the time is near’ to gather some of the inquirers into a church100, he asked the Dutch-American missionaries to take the full responsibility for the examination, baptism and subsequent ‘pastoral oversight’101 of the Chinese converts. By Burns’ own account, he did so in order to avoid ‘the peculiar duties of the pastoral oﬃce’.102 With this, the RCA missionaries concurred, showing full respect for Burns’ desire to stick to the original stipulation with which he accepted the appointment as an EP missionary. In his sympathetic explanation, Doty said, ‘During the whole course of his ministry, he has ever acted simply as an evangelist, and is unwilling to do otherwise.’103 Talmage thought that an additional reason for the RCA action in assuming the inland work was the fact that Burns had been ‘assisted’ at Pechuia by RCA converts.104 Relatedly the Americans had something the EPM had not, i.e. natives to oversee the proposed out-station105. Yet while these latter points were good grounds for desiring RCA oversight, the primary cause was Burns’ non-pastoral inclination. Thus some three months before he left Amoy, Burns oﬃcially turned Pechuia over to the care of the RCA.106 Immediately after assuming responsibility, Doty and Talmage set out for the inland town and, after examining the inquirers on the 10th of May, accepted ﬁve men for baptism on the Sabbath of the 14th107. Three months afterwards, Burns left China with the illstricken Young. During this period, we observe that the planless Burns was taking on bits and pieces of work as opportunities presented themselves but none of these really involved the gathering of

100

Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282. Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46. Cf. AR-AB (1855) p. 112; Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315; Mess (1855) pp. 115–117. 102 Burns of 3 March 1854, in CAF, pp. 91–92. 103 Doty of 20 April 1854. Cf. AR-AB (1854) p. 144. 104 Talmage of 18 August 1854. 105 RCC, p. 58. 106 Bx119/F5, Burns from Shanghai, 24 August 1855. 107 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (February 1854) p. 268, entry dated 11 May. 101

 

29

a congregation or pastoral work. Even when the opportunity for pastoral work oﬀered itself, he passed on the duty to his DutchAmerican colleagues without the least hesitation. The same operational mode applied during Burns’ second period in China. Upon returning to the empire in 1855, he immediately set out for Shanghai and arrived on the 20th of July. It was the desire to reach the Taipings in Nanjing that brought him to that city ‘but notwithstanding this I shall not be rash in seeking to force my way to that place, but I shall be ready to fall in with any indication that may be given by God in his Providence etc. that it is my duty to take such a step’.108 About this time, Burns received a letter from Banlam asking him to return at the soonest time. This request he declined explaining to another party that he was ‘unwilling by taking a pastoral oversight of them to restrict my liberty in preaching the Gospel at large’ and that it was for the same reason that he had turned Pechuia over to the RCA earlier.109 Not only did Burns’ characteristic planlessness prevail beyond the Taiping sidetracking aﬀair, it enveloped the remainder of his future career. He wrote, ‘How I shall be afterward occupied and how long, I cannot tell but looking to the Lord for guidance and grace. I would desire to do from day to day what my hand ﬁnds to do in the work of His Kingdom’.110 After the aborted visit to Nanjing, Burns left Shanghai for Swatow in March 1856.111 Of the length of his stay in Swatow, Burns again confessed uncertainty but looked up ‘to our God and Saviour to guide us as to the future’.112 In 1863 Burns left Banlam for Beijing arriving in October intent on holding talks with Sir Frederick Bruce on the enforcement of missionary property-holding rights under the Chinese-Western treaties.113 The ‘Brethren at Amoy’ did not expect Burns back until his business with the British ambassador was done.114 But the story on Burns’ side was not even slightly diﬀerent: 108

Bx119/F5, Burns from ‘Shanghae’, 26 July 1855. Burns of 24 August 1855. 110 Ibid. 111 Bx119/F5, Burns from ‘Shanghae’, 4 March 1856; Burns from Swatow, 31 March 1856. 112 Burns of 4 March 1856. 113 Bx119/F5, Burns from ‘Pekin’, 25 January 1864; Burns to H.M. Matheson, from ‘Pekin’, 24 May 1864. 114 In fact Burns failed at his Beijing objective. See Bx119/F5, Burns to Mr. Matheson, from ‘Pekin’, 6 September 1864. 109

30

  . . . even should that matter be soon settled I am not persuaded to say that I shall then certainly leave this place. Should I get engaged in any new work of Translation etc. I would probably consider this as more important than any aid which I could render whether at Amoy, Swatow, or in Formosa.115

Relatedly in a later letter, Burns complained that in ‘the South’ he never could ﬁnd any time for heavy writing, which made the Beijing situation very precious.116 It was not long indeed long before new literary projects took his fancy.117 Though the literary work in Beijing was captivating, yet Burns never considered that city ‘my proper station’ but maintained that he will stay only until his publications get done.118 In August 1867 he left for unoccupied Newchwang where his life and career were to soon end.119 Even there, his pioneering work consisted of free unstructured activity and, just like before, partook of no pastoral character. With this characteristic mode of operation rather consistently maintained throughout his entire China career, Burns could certainly allow no space for any real church formation or pastoral work. Even so, the dissenting opinion of Islay Burns has it that Burns’ later labours at Amoy constituted pastoral work, as too those at Hong Kong, Fuzhou and Beijing.120 But then in the same spirit we may as well include his work at Pechuia in particular and Banlam in general. However this is to miss the point. For the fact is that Burns was willing to assist in the pastoral work of other missionaries but not to be the initiator nor the head pastor in such work. Consider for instance his other two extended stays in Banlam.121 The return to Amoy in 1858 was occasioned by discipline problems at the Pechuia church122 and the sudden death of Rev. David Sandeman

115

Burns from ‘Pekin’, 25 January 1864. Bx119/F5, Burns to Rev. J. Hamilton, from ‘Pekin’, 25 October 1865. 117 Bx119/F5, Burns of 24 May 1864; Burns to H.M. Matheson, from ‘Pekin’, 14 January 1865; Burns to Rev. J. Hamilton, from ‘Pekin’, 25 October 1865. Also EPMF/Burns, Burns to Rev. David Brown, from ‘Pekin’, 12 April 1866. 118 Burns of 25 October 1865. 119 WHP, p. 69; Bx119/F5, Burns from Yingtsze, Newchwang, 9 March 1868. 120 Burns, Memoir, p. 587n. 121 The three extended stays of Burns in Amoy were (a) 5 July 1851 to 5 August 1854, (b) mid-October 1858 to October 1859 and (c) 22 April 1862 to August 1863. See Burns, Memoir, pp. 379–425, 480–504. Two short visits were made in 1857 and 1860. See Burns from Amoy, 25 November 1858, in Burns, Memoir, p. 479; pp. 498, 596–597. 122 Burns, Memoir, pp. 486ﬀ. 116

 

31

in July123. With the Pechuia matter resolved, Burns promptly left for Fuzhou in October 1859. The sojourn of 1862–1863 was compelled by ‘the desire of friends at home’ and the numerical weakness of the workforce brought about by the temporary removal of two RCA missionary families.124 In both cases, not only was Burns simply ﬁlling in a gap left by others, his quickness to leave at the soonest opportunity proved that he never intended the ﬁlling-in to take on a permanent basis. His determined avoidance of a ﬁxed long term post could not be made any more evident. Furthermore length of stay in a particular place does not automatically imply the doing of pastoral work. The testimony of an EP colleague summarises things well. Speaking of the Burns of 1862–63 (that is, just before he ﬁnally left Amoy for good), Swanson said that the EP pioneer missionary did regularly visit the stations and preach on the Sabbaths but stubbornly refused to do baptismal examinations, administer sacraments or even the administrative work of the Mission.125 Indeed church formation never did become a signiﬁcant part of Burns’ primary object throughout his missionary career. The original stipulation which he had made attendant upon his China commission was carried out in practice with remarkable consistency. As far as the EPM is concerned, the task of church planting had to be postponed until such time when another of its missionaries should be ready to take it up. Young Neither did the second EP missionary really involve himself in church formation or pastoral work. Not only because Young was never an ordained minister but that from an early time the PCE had envisaged doing educational work in China. Even before he had oﬃcially begun his missionary term in 1850, the Synod of the previous year had decided that educational work be launched at Amoy while allowing Burns and Young freedom ‘to act as they might think best’.126 After a brief and unfruitful sojourn in Canton, Young came to Amoy, and, ﬁnding the place desirable beyond his expectations, soon

123 124 125 126

Bx118/F4, Burns from Swatow, 4 August 1858. Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 5 May 1862. Swanson, in Burns, Memoir, p. 593. FMC, in Mess (September 1850) pp. 473–475.

32

 

settled into Pohlman’s former house127 which was next to that of Doty. Upon learning of Young’s intention to do educational work among Chinese boys, Doty quickly oﬀered to turn over his dayschool which consisted of thirty boys and was situated in ‘the middle of the town’. The American missionary explained that ‘from his having so much other work on his hands he was not able to give it due attention and was indeed considering the propriety of disbanding the boys’.128 Having agreed to take charge of the school129 which was at that time ‘superintended by a teacher connected with Mr. Doty’, Young was ‘formally inducted’ on 27 May on which day he also obtained a teacher to teach him the Amoy dialect.130 The ﬁrst-named Chinese must have been ‘the Heathen teacher’131 since Tekchoan the RCA member only joined Young’s school shortly before March 1851. Immediately the EP missionary began daily instruction of the English language among the boys although most of the time was spent studying Chinese books both secular and Christian. Reporting back to London, Young maintained unequivocally: ‘Amoy is [in] every way suitable for an educational institution, and is inviting to labourers for this end. There is no ground of ineligibility.’132 The supremacy of the educational objective is simply too clear. The ﬁtness of Amoy for EP school work was regarded as by itself alone a suﬃcient justiﬁcation for the occupation of that port as the Mission’s main station. And it was to the educational objective that Young dedicated himself steadily until the time he left China. 127 By late 1850 Young seemed to have been living in Talmage’s house for some time. See Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (May 1851) pp. 152–154. This suggests that upon returning to Amoy Talmage settled in the house of the late Pohlman. 128 Young from Amoy, 10 June 1850, Mess (1850) pp. 473–475; AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) p. 138. Contra Johnston who claimed that Young ‘commenced operations at Amoy by opening schools . . .’ (Glimpses, p. 16, italics added; which was echoed by Matheson, Narrative, p. 4). In his later writing, Johnston himself became more accurate. See CAF, p. 76. The mis-impression likely arose from the ambiguous language of AR-FMC (1852): Young ‘succeeded in establishing two native schools . . .’ But the same AR-FMC also stated: ‘. . . the native school was made over to us immediately on Dr. Young’s arrival, and that at the very time when such premises were needed we have been able to rent for two years a large schoolroom and suitable preaching-hall’ (Mess, 1852, pp. 150–153, drawing from Burns of 8 January 1852). 129 Cf. Talmage of 17 December 1850. 130 Young of 10 June 1850. 131 Young of 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 212–214. 132 Young of 10 June 1850 (italics original).

 

33

On the ﬁrst day of March 1851, Young divided133 the school taking most of the original pupils plus a few others along with ‘the Heathen teacher’ into his house (twenty-three students) while Tekchoan the Christian teacher remained at the old school at Keklai (thirtytwo students)134 which was located in ‘a distant quarter of the town’135. For some time after Amoy was taken by the insurgents on 18 May 1853, none of the boys came to the schools.136 Successive weeks of ﬁghting resulted in the great reduction of the student body and the removal of the school at Young’s house in order to join with the one at Keklai in July. But another imperialist oﬀensive further brought down the number to no more than eight to ten boys, ‘chieﬂy the older ones’.137 The occupation ended in November when the town was recaptured by government forces.138 By March 1854, the Keklai school house had been returned to the RCA who originally owned the work. Meanwhile Young had rented two nearby tenements for education and preaching purposes.139 The occupation episode revealed that Young was consistently determined in the prosecution of educational work. The disruption to the work brought about by the insurgents’ occupation of Amoy did nothing to alter this focus. Almost immediately after peace was restored, Young was back at re-ordering the school work. This preoccupation was maintained until his departure for home in August 1854 and Johnston took over the work. Beside doing educational work, Young inaugurated EP medical work in December 1850. Initially undertaken on a daily basis in the said month, the public service was reduced to twice a week beginning on 1 January 1851.140 Just a week before the insurgents’ occupation

133 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 134 Young of 15 April 1851. 135 AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 150–153. 136 Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 288–290, entry dated 20 May. For more on Young’s educational work up to May 1853, see his letters of 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89–91; 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116; 6 May 1852, Mess (1852) p. 283; 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371–373. Also see Burns of 8 June 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 282–283. 137 Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. The uniting of the schools took place at the time Young moved out of his house (also in July). 138 AR-AB (1854) p. 141. 139 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854 = Mess (1854) p. 218. More on the new EP school in Young from Amoy, 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 140 Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89–91; Young from Amoy, 17 January 1851, Mess (1851) p. 121; AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) pp. 138–139.

34

 

of Amoy commenced in 1853, he wrote that his time ‘has been, and is still, increasingly taken up with medical work’, having to face the increase of patients during the normal dispensary times, of cases needing immediate treatment on other days and of opium addicts seeking relief.141 An earlier letter revealed that there was also the making of frequent house calls upon both missionaries and converts.142 But the reality was that Young placed priority upon the educational rather than the medical work. Thus he started the doing of the former about half a year ahead of the latter. Moreover as early as mid-/late summer 1852, he had felt it needful on account of the schools to curtail the medical work.143 In this light, the remark of 1853—i.e. that his time ‘has been . . . increasingly taken up with medical work’—should be read as an expression of dissatisfaction rather than otherwise. From the period of the occupation of Amoy, there is little extant detailed information on the regular or daily activities on the part of Young. Understandably the war conditions made for the breakup of routines and for irregularities in transportation and communication. But even in the letters from the occupation period, Young took care to include updates on the EP educational work but said practically nothing about the medical work, thereby revealing his chief concern.144 This however was not a case of simply not reporting something but rather that of having nothing to report. The matter was not unrelated to the physical condition of Mrs. Young. The ﬁrst hint came in the fact that the desire to curtail medical work in 1852 was expressed some months after April when Mrs. Young ﬁrst began experiencing some rather serious health problems145. Presumably the new development aﬀected Young himself, even if there was no outright statement that medical work was totally stopped that year. In 1853, the health problem was further compounded by the state of war which brought about the moving of the Young res-

141

Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) p. 287. Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371–373. 143 Ibid. 144 I.e. Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 288–290; Burns of 6 June 1853, Mess (1853) p. 291; Young of 9 September 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 381–382; Burns of 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. Among the things he did talk about were war-related items and local conditions as well as the personal safety and property damages on the part of the missionaries. 145 Young from Amoy, 6 May 1852, Mess (1852) p. 283. 142

 

35

idence more than once. In July146 the Youngs moved into a bungalow for the reason that the mother of two ‘had been seriously ill’.147 On 8 August at the suggestion of her attending physician, the family relocated aboard a foreign store ship because the ﬁghtings between the insurgents and the imperialists had been detrimental to Mrs. Young’s physical recovery (aside from the need to escape from the dangerous ﬁrings of the imperialist junks).148 Less than a week later with the political situation having improved, the Young family returned to their own house. Whereas the changing of residence by itself did not put a full stop to the school work which was mainly dependent on Chinese teachers, it had the eﬀect of halting the medical work which totally relied on Young himself. Understandably the absence of the physician entails that of the patients and their companions, leaving the colporteur with no one to preach to. The indication is that it was during the occupation period that Young’s medical work came to an end. Moreover the steady deterioration of the health of Mrs. Young hindered the re-opening of the dispensary. By mid-August both husband and wife were prepared for the possibility of demise.149 As it turned out, she never really recovered and ﬁnally breathed her last before the year ended.150 With regards to the re-ordering of the EP work after occupation, no provisions were speciﬁcally made for medical work. As far as Young’s missionary career is concerned, settled medical work in Amoy was never revived. From the above, it may be concluded that for Young medical work was of secondary importance and something which was more easily given up when circumstances called for work reduction. Conﬁrming this conclusion is the only recorded medical work Young undertook after 1853. We refer to the two-week ‘medico-missionary tour’ to Chiangchiu in January 1854151 whose main object was more evangelistic than medical in nature. Strictly speaking, it was in no

146

Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. Mess (1854) p. 51. 148 Young from Amoy, 15 August 1853, Mess (1854) p. 51. 149 Young of 15 August 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 51–52. 150 Johnston to Dr. Hamilton, from Amoy, 21 December 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 82–83; Burns of 16 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 217–218; AR-FMC, in Mess (1854) p. 149. 151 Bx119/F5, Burns to Mr. Matheson, from White Water Camp, 16 January 1854; cf. Young of 11 January 1854, Mess (1854) p. 217. 147

36

 

uncertain terms that Young regarded educational work as a means to a higher end. Its main function consisted in enabling pupils to acquire the ‘knowledge of religious truth’152. In other words, the aim was religious conversion with education as the evangelistic means. Likewise medical work served the same purpose. Thus after a short while of receiving patients in his room, Young immediately made arrangements so that medical service may be oﬀered in connection with ‘the preaching place below’.153 That is, the plan was to have the dispensary function in connection with Talmage’s chapel.154 When the dispensary began to operate regularly twice a week, it was ensured that during the ﬁxed opening hours (9:30 am–2 pm) two converts were present to ‘preach, converse, and give books to the people as they wait’155. A few months later, it was reported that a colporteur was present to preach to the waiting patients for about an hour each day.156 Therefore upon discovering the popular demand for medical service, Young lost no time in connecting it to evangelistic work. Similarly during the Chiangchiu tour in early 1854, he applied his medical skills in an instrumental manner, making health service into an auxiliary to Chinese evangelisation. From that time forth, he allotted no more ﬁxed times for medical work but simply concentrated on educational and preaching work. Thus in renting the tenements near Keklai in 1854, Young had only two intended uses of the premises, e.g. for a school and a chapel.157 Started in the early part of that year, the preaching station at A-kui-a (Amoy) initially featured three evening services per week.158 In a letter dating from a few months later, Burns referred to Young’s ‘nice little chapel, distinct from his school and house, in which native agents chieﬂy speak’159. By early July it had become customary for the preaching hall to be open for four times a week with Chinese converts oﬀering assistance to the operations.160 It was at about this time that Young

152

Young of 17 December 1850. Ibid. 154 Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (May 1850) pp. 152–154. 155 Young from Amoy, 17 January 1851, Mess (1851) p. 121. 156 Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. 157 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854. 158 Johnston, Review of 1854 [dated early January 1855], AR-FMC, in Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. Cf. Johnston from Amoy, [no exact day] November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54. 159 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (September 1854) p. 268. It seems the preaching converts were connected either with the RCA or the LMS. 160 Young from Amoy, 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 153

 

37

for the ﬁrst time mentioned about having less than ideal health.161 A month afterwards, the physician sailed for home in seriously ill condition. Even while engaged outwardly in educational and medical work, the main and underlying concern of Young was with the ultimate aim of evangelisation. Within the school room, it was the impartation of ‘the knowledge of religious truths’. Outside the school room, it was the proclamation of Christian doctrines. In the non-doing of church formation or pastoral work, he and Burns were of one mind as illustrated in the incident of ‘generosity’ in 1851. In autumn when Young ﬁrst reported ‘the opening of the chapel in this house for public worship’, he also made it known that the spacious room which can seat more than a hundred people, ‘we considered it our duty to place at the disposal of the missionaries of the London [Missionary] Society’ who greatly needed it, and also in order that ‘another place of worship and of testimony would be kept well supplied with services, and thus best employed for the promotion of the Lord’s work’.162 Two interesting observations should here be noted. Firstly, the chapel was ﬁtted up by Burns ‘at his own expense’.163 Secondly, the oﬀer of the place to the LMS was done after Burns had gained ‘a suﬃcient command of the new dialect’.164 In fact by Young’s writing, Burns was to begin week-day public services on the following day in the said chapel.165 Notwithstanding this, the ﬁrst Sabbath worship held on the 28th of September was an LMS service.166 To decide to keep the chapel for their own use, the EP agents had every justiﬁcation. That is, every reason except one: the readiness to do settled work with a view toward organising a local church and assuming its pastoral care. However an evangelistic aim is not tantamount to a church formation objective. In fact Young’s work served as a feeder to the church formation programme of the other Missions. The truth was that during the pre-1854 years Young had never considered it feasible to organise an EP church at Amoy. That he should attempt

161 Ibid. In early May, Burns had testiﬁed that Young ‘is well’. Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 268. 162 Young to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 9 October 1851, Mess (1852) p. 20. 163 AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 150–153; Young of 9 October 1851. 164 AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 150ﬀ. 165 Young of 9 October 1851. 166 Ibid.

 

38

no church formation or pastoral work is understandable considering that the FMC originally envisaged an educational work and Young himself was a physician, not an ordained minister. But even after Johnston had arrived, Young wrote, ‘In regard to the visible church which they join, those who come in any measure under my inﬂuence are left entirely to the freedom of their own choice; we having as yet no means of forming a church (so to speak) of our own . . .’167 Thus in spring 1854 when the evening meetings at his house had more than a dozen attendants, four had been for some time church members (church aﬃliation not speciﬁed), three had just been received by the LMS (on 5 March), and some (including the carpenter) were seeking RCA admission while others were applying with the LMS.168 Since Johnston started to learn the local dialect only in ca. May and Young’s health started to trouble him in ca. July, one may say in eﬀect that throughout his China years there was not one point in time when Young regarded the EPM as being in a position to undertake church formation. Thus whereas with Burns the non-doing of church formation or pastoral work was an instance of wilful refusal, with Young it was a case of believed inability. To recapitulate on Young’s work objectives, we note that previous to 1854 the second EP missionary was occupied mainly with educational and medical work albeit underlied by an evangelistic motivation. Stated medical work was undertaken but only until July 1853. Despite the disruption brought about by the insurgents’ war, educational work was continued until the incapacitation of the physician. In 1854 Young began to directly sponsor stated preaching work in a pure chapel context rather than in tandem with a dispensary. But throughout his Amoy career, Young never thought that the EPM was at any time ready to start a church on its own. Just like Burns, the main concern of Young was evangelisation. But unlike Burns, it was the sincere belief in EP inability which made Young postpone any church formation plan. Johnston The third EP agent came to China with a rather well-deﬁned educational mission but ended up continuing the work left behind by

167 168

Young of 20 March 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 164–165. Ibid.

 

39

his predecessors. However in that Johnston exerted the earliest EP eﬀorts toward church formation on an intentionally permanent basis, he actually took EP work beyond the playing ﬁeld of Burns and Young. Unfortunately these eﬀorts were seriously hindered by language and health problems on the part of Johnston who was ﬁnally removed from Banlam against his desire. In 1851 with Burns and Young in the ﬁeld, the FMC appealed for a third missionary.169 The wanted man was speciﬁed as one ready to do educational work on the principles ‘so clearly enunciated by Dr. Inglis thirty years ago’ and at that time being acted out by Alexander Duﬀ in India.170 In April 1852, leading a Scottish deputation, Duﬀ ‘the great and honoured father of the India Mission’ had given ‘heart-stirring appeals’ before the EP Synod171 upon whom the eﬀect had been the multiplication of enthusiasm. To the combined appeals of the FMC and Duﬀ himself responded the young Johnston who was later ordained at Manchester on 22 April 1853172. In line with his main objective to attempt Duﬀ-style educational work in China, he had ‘studied methods of teaching in Glasgow Normal Seminary’173 after completing his theological schooling at the EP College and en route to China had also visited Madras to observe the work there ﬁrsthand174. Sailing oﬀ Southampton on 14 July 1853175, the third EP missionary arrived in Hong Kong on 12 November but was prevented from proceeding immediately to Amoy on account of bad weather and the unsettled political state of the treaty port176. After a brief delay during which he was able to visit Canton, Johnston reached Amoy in the third week of December177 and stayed with Alexander 169

FMC, in Mess (1851) pp. 120–121. AR-FMC, in Mess (1851) p. 140. 171 Mess (1852) p. 150; cf. AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 152–153. 172 Mess (May 1853) pp. 161–162; CAF, pp. 79–80. Johnston was almost certainly the unnamed missionary candidate mentioned in AR-FMC, in Mess (1852) pp. 150–153. Cf. Mess (1852) p. 371; (1853) pp. 142–44. 173 PFS1/Bx84/F3, Rev. T.W.D. James, ‘Missionaries of the Amoy Mission. English Presbyterian Church. 1850–1942’ (13-page typescript) p. 2. Cf. Mess (1852) p. 371. 174 AR-FMC, in Mess (1854) p. 149. See also CAF, pp. 80ﬀ. 175 Mess (August 1853) p. 255. 176 PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Victoria [Hong Kong], 23 November 1853 = Mess (1854) pp. 53–54. 177 PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 21 December 1853 = Johnston to Dr. Hamilton, 21 December 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 82–83; cf. ARFMC, in Mess (1854) p. 149. 170

40

 

Stronach (LMS) for four days before moving in to live with Young who had just lost his wife.178 On ca. 8 April179, Johnston left Amoy for Shanghai to explore its readiness for the type of educational work desired by the FMC180. Returning to the south in May, he concluded that ‘the time has not yet come for establishing Christian Educational Institutions for the youth of China, as a primary or even prominent branch of missionary operations’181. Soon the decision was made to join the EP work in Banlam182 and Johnston began giving serious thought to an EP church formation programme. By the beginning of July, Young had moved in to live with Johnston who on his part was still engaged in language studies while at the same time ‘forming plans for active labour’.183 With the departure of Burns and Young, he assumed full responsibility for the EP school in Amoy and quickly became involved also with the Pechuia work. However shortly after taking over the charge of the whole EPM, Johnston was caught up with the matter of ‘rescuing’ two scholars from parental persecution an aﬀair which went so far as to involve seeking the intervention of the British Consul.184 Thus it was not until 25 August (Friday) that he ﬁrst set foot in Pechuia where he was thought to be Burns’ ‘younger brother’.185 Out of this visit was started a free186 school there when Johnston hired a teacher to instruct some twelve to fourteen187 boys whose previous teachers had expelled them for refusing to follow certain directives which were incompatible with Christian teachings.188 Among the pupils, two had been admitted to the Pechuia church ‘some months ago’ and another two were in the process of application.189 Soon however ill health 178

PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston of 23 November 1853 and 21 December 1853. Burns of 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 268, entry dated 9 May. 180 Johnston of 6 May 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 268–271. 181 Ibid. The letter was begun in Shanghai and ended in Hong Kong. 182 Johnston to the Secretary of the Edinburgh Bible Society, from Amoy, 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180. 183 Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) p. 315; cf. Young of 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) p. 315. 184 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 19–20. 185 Ibid. 186 Pechuia converts to Burns [Britain], ca. September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 181–182. 187 Doty to Burns, November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. 188 Johnston of 5 September 1854; idem, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 145–146. Johnston did not expect many students at that season of the year but anticipated increased enrolment after the Chinese new year holidays (pp. 145–146). 189 Johnston of 5 September 1854. 179

 

41

rendered him inactive for practically the rest of the year.190 In 1855 the missionary met with more health disturbances which ﬁnally resulted in his forced departure in June.191 In assuming responsibility over the Pechuia work, Johnston became the ﬁrst EP missionary to attempt to move towards intentionally permanent church work.192 Previously Burns did undertake ‘pastoral oversight’ of Pechuia but only for a while and on an interim basis. That the intention of Johnston was never fully realised during his entire missionary career is another matter. What is clear is that shortly after Burns left, Johnston worked toward the re-possession of Pechuia and this intention was made known to the RCA.193 Speaking of his work obstacles at that time, Johnston later wrote, The greatest diﬃculty was with [Pechuia], the responsibility of managing which Mr. Burns had, to a certain extent, devolved upon the brethren of the American Church, who had baptized the converts. It was not, however, by any means my desire to relinquish all connexion with such an interesting ﬁeld of usefulness, in which, from the ﬁrst, I had felt the liveliest concern, nor were our brethren in a position to have the whole burden thrown on them in the present state of their Mission.194

Consequently on account of ‘the repeated desire’ of the Pechuia Christians as well as with ‘the hearty concurrence’ of the RCA, Johnston ‘gladly consented to spend a part of my time there . . .’.195 The latter also claimed that the Pechuia desire was coupled with that of Burns196. This is somewhat doubtful especially since we ﬁnd no other corroborating evidence for it. But even if we assume its reality, the question remains as to whether the request was made at Burns’ initiative or whether it was Johnston who drew it out of Burns’ mouth by the use of means. Relatedly at the start of July (1854), Pechuia was still an RCA charge.197 190 Johnston of 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22; [no day] November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54; 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180; Johnston from Greenlaw, [September 1855], Mess (1 October 1855) pp. 314–315. 191 PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 1 May 1855 = Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. 192 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (1854) pp. 280–282. 193 AER, Doty & Talmage & Joralmon to the General Synod of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, from Amoy, 17 September 1856, p. 9. 194 Johnston of November 1854, Mess (1855) p. 53. 195 Ibid. 196 ‘. . . at the request of Mr. B[urns] . . .’ (ibid.). 197 Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) p. 314.

42

 

From the extended quotation above, we see that the concern about RCA shorthandedness was somewhat overshadowed by Johnston’s expressed desire to retain fruitful and promising Pechuia which at the time was the only thing that could pass for a trophy of EP work in China. In speaking of Pechuia as being ‘to a certain extent’ an RCA charge, Johnston implied the Americans had no monopolistic claim over it. However the non-clariﬁcation of the ‘certain extent’ opened up a space of ambiguity so that the critical reader of Johnston’s reports is often unsure whether the credit for some particular reported accomplishment should go to the RCA or the EPM. Indeed this seems to have been eﬀect intended by Johnston who delighted to cooperate with other Missions ‘without any regard to the share of honour to be claimed by the respective Churches’198. But although Johnston constantly spoke of the Pechuia during his days as an EP work, the RCA was nearly as consistent in claiming responsibility for the inland station over the same period. During his illness and house conﬁnement, Johnston spent much time assessing and planning ways to overcome the major obstacles associated with the EP work which had devolved upon him including especially the Pechuia station.199 Later in his annual work review, he again mentioned Pechuia as comprising part of his work.200 Likewise the RCA acting on the refusal of Burns to take primary pastoral charge counted Pechuia within its Banlam operations practically from the beginning of the work201 However the American attitude had always been that the oversight of Pechuia was forced upon the RCA by circumstances and to be held merely in an interim.202 Fortunately the RCA record is able to clarify the said ambiguity. In response to Johnston’s desire to retain Pechuia, the RCA ‘very willingly relinquished’ it to the EPM for ‘three weighty reasons’, viz. the work was commenced ‘under the care’ of Burns so that ‘it originally belonged more properly to [the EP]’, the EP possession of such a promising work would stimulate greater interest in its China mission on the part of the British home churches, and lastly, the RCA missionaries were them-

198

Johnston of November 1854. Johnston of November 1854, pp. 52–53. 200 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 144. 201 See AR-AB (1855) pp. 17, 112, 114; APGS (1856) p. 113, cf. APGS (1857) pp. 223–224; AR-BFM (1857) pp. 5, 122, cf. p. 123. 202 AR-AB (1855) pp. 112–113. 199

 

43

selves already so overloaded with work that they were unable to attend to Pechuia as ‘its interests demanded’.203 Consequently Johnston assumed the ﬁnancial responsibility for Pechuia and took up its oversight as much as his language (in)ability allowed him. To compensate for his linguistic deﬁciency, the RCA missionaries ‘continued to visit the place as often as we could, to preach the gospel, converse with inquirers and administer the sacraments’204. Thus in eﬀect, Johnston assumed the pecuniary and administrative duties while the Americans did the pastoral work. This state of aﬀairs lasted until Johnston left Banlam. Therefore it was the RCA-EPM division of responsibilities which allowed Johnston to report accurately in 1854 that he was involved with the Pechuia work and that the thing was never an exclusively American jurisdiction nor a purely EP operation. In not specifying unambiguously the nature of each Mission’s role, Johnston was able to give the factually correct impression that during his Amoy days he was in charge of an EP station where pastoral work was being done. The over-all picture that emerges is this: Johnston came to China with the expressed aim of prosecuting an speciﬁc kind of educational work which was eventually discovered to be impracticable. During the exploratory process leading to that discovery, some six months were let to pass with no real eﬀorts expended at learning the Amoy colloquial. When the decision was made to prosecute settled work in Banlam, the responsibility for the Pechuia station had already been assumed by the RCA at the default of Burns. With the rather unexpected but necessary departure of his two colleagues just three months into his Amoy settlement, Johnston was caught ﬂat-footed as the lone EP agent who was without speaking ability. Nevertheless on the strength of the desire of the Pechuia believers and with RCA consent, Johnston agreed to get seriously involved in the work. Initially the involvement took the form of administrative and ﬁnancial responsibility. Meanwhile the Americans consented to be the temporary giver of pastoral care until such time the EPM could competently take over this duty as well. Although the RCA had in the ﬁrst place assumed the Pechuia charge with reluctance

203

AER, Doty & Talmage & Joralmon to the General Synod, 17 September 1856, pp. 9–10. 204 Doty et al. of 17 September 1856, p. 10. Cf. RCC, pp. 58–59.

44

 

and did intend to return it to the EPM at the soonest time, the existential predicament of Johnston disallowed that desired transfer from taking place during his missionary term. It was not long before linguistic inability met with physical illness resulting in his permanent withdrawal from the Amoy ﬁeld. To his chagrin and and regret, his severely limited eﬀorts had failed to bring about results commensurate with his zeal. Consequently the Pechuia work up to June 1855 was never at any time an exclusively EP eﬀort. In the end, the EP man who expended the ﬁrst eﬀorts toward settled church work did not have occasion to see such work consummated. Nonetheless, during his short missionary term in Banlam, Johnston had initiated the earliest eﬀorts toward church formation and intentionally permanent pastoral work on behalf of the EPM at the inland station of Pechuia. That his premature retirement from the ﬁeld left the work in an uncompleted state does not detract from his honours on this point. Douglas Whereas it was Johnston who inaugurated EP church formation work, the credit goes to Douglas under whose term the work actually attained consolidation and expansion. But that is getting ahead of our story, for until the Sinkoe event Douglas was hindered from entering into full missionary work. Ordained at Glasgow in February 1855, Douglas sailed with Burns the following month for China.205 In mid-July 1855, the ﬁrst agent to be fully supported by the Scottish Association (SA)206 arrived at Amoy to ﬁnd himself the sole EP agent in Banlam. The task of assuming the supervision of EP schools at Amoy and Pechuia207 proceeded promptly and rather smoothly. However taking over the charge of Pechuia is a somewhat diﬀerent story. For about a year after Douglas arrived, the RCA continued to provide the pastoral care. About the summer of 1856, American visitations to the inland town reduced in frequency as Douglas was becoming ‘better acquainted’

205

Mess (1855) p. 114; Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 10; CAF, pp. 109–110. FMC Minutes (6 March 1855) pp. 132–135; cf. Mess (1855) p. 114. 207 Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181. The new school year started with twenty-seven pupils at Amoy and twenty at Pechuia. Cf. Douglas of 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 206

 

45

with the dialect.208 But as of July, the RCA still had charge of Pechuia since he was still unready to take over the work.209 The ABCFM report emphasised again that this oversight was temporary in nature and only at the request of the EP mission until the latter ‘should be able to assume the care’.210 Thus in the ﬁrst-ever statistical report of its work, the RCA presented ﬁrstly the data of the RCA-connected churches (Amoy and Chiohbe) and then secondly and separately those of the same churches and Pechuia.211 The awareness that Pechuia was only an interim charge was faithfully reﬂected in print lest there should be any misunderstanding at home. It was sometime in autumn that Douglas ﬁnally took full charge of Pechuia.212 On the 30th of November, Douglas personally admitted ﬁve members into the inland church. There were the ﬁrst admissions after August and the last such for the year 1856.213 In April the following year, he performed the ﬁrst baptisms at Maping.214 In late July or early August 1859, Douglas with Burns and Talmage met privately with the Pechuia members with the speciﬁc purpose of discussing the election of church oﬃce-bearers.215 Some weeks later, the two elders and two deacons chosen at the said meeting were installed at the communion Sabbath on October the 2nd.216 Even though both Burns and Douglas were present at the decisive meeting of July/August, it was Douglas who was instrumental in pushing forward the EP church formation plan. Therefore of Douglas’ aim there is no doubt. His clear intention was to continue both the

208

Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, p. 10. 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 210 AR-AB (1857) p. 123. 211 Ibid. 212 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, p. 11. At this writing, the RCA was expecting that ‘Douglas will soon be able to take the entire pastoral charge of [Pechuia]’. 213 Douglas from Amoy, 3 December 1856, Mess (1857) pp. 84–86. 214 Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) pp. 251–252. We use the Mandarin transliteration of the place-name (which Burns termed ‘Horse-ﬂat’), following Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, AR-SA (1856) pp. 14–16 = Mess (1856) pp. 337–338. The missionaries seemed to have diﬃculty deciding whether to render the Amoy pronunciation as ‘Bepi’ or ‘Baypay’. See Douglas from Amoy, 29 March 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 14. 215 Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 20–21. Cf. Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 25ﬀ. 216 Grant from Amoy, 8 October 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 19–20. Cf. Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 33ﬀ. 209

46

 

school work left behind by Johnston and the church formation work initiated by the latter. This was amply conﬁrmed by the lines of action he pursued and the results brought out by these. However his assumption of the full charge of Pechuia occurred some months after the Sinkoe event. In eﬀect, EPM pastoral oversight of its ﬁrst church began after the RCA had been pursuing its church formation objective for more than a decade. In this particular endeavour, the RCA was indeed moving way ahead of the EPM. Our investigation of missionary objectives and accomplishments up to 1856 yields some deﬁnite conclusions. As early as 1844, the RCA had started work toward church formation. Three years later, Talmage arrived and joined Pohlman and Doty in the same pursuit. The EPM had to wait until 1854 when Johnston ‘recovered’ Pechuia from the RCA. Even so, language deﬁciency hindered him from assuming any thing more than administrative and pecuniary responsibilities while the pastoral work remained in RCA hands. Moreover his forced departure the following year made for the renewed consignment of that station to the Americans for a few weeks. Soon after his arrival, Douglas picked up where his predecessor left oﬀ but like the latter was unable to take pastoral charge until after more than a year. Thus by April 1856, the RCA church formation work had been on-going for twelve years. In contrast the EP had been attempting intentionally permanent church formation work for only less than two years. Furthermore until the Sinkoe event, EP eﬀorts had consistently fallen short of taking the full pastoral charge of its one and only inland station. Therefore in terms of the having and the pursuit of a church formation objective, both Missions were one. But in terms of progress achieved, the RCA was much in advance of the EPM, the commencement of RCA church work having preceded that of the EPM by about a decade, since the latter for internal reasons started its church planting work later than it could have. The implication which stands out is clear. The stage was deﬁnitely set also for RCA leadership in the matter of ecclesiastical devolution. Yet this is still not the whole picture as far as church formation is concerned. For intention and work meant nothing if such were not matched by some degree of fruition. This brings up the matter of actual church membership growth.

 

47

2.4. Church growth, 1842–56 The immediate factor that occasioned the organisation of the Sinkoe Consistory was the sizable adult church membership which was attained by early spring 1856. In this Section, we look at quantitative church growth from the beginning of missionary work until the Sinkoe event. As we shall detail later (Ch. 3), the peculiar process of preparing candidates for church admission was the main reason for the slow numerical growth of the membership. Nevertheless it will be seen below that membership growth accelerated somewhat dramatically during the years 1854 to 1856. But before entering that discussion, two methodological problems need to be addressed. First, in the early period the numerical data on church membership given by both Missions focused practically only on gains and oﬀered sparse information on losses by death, excommunication, etc. This means that when we attempt to give cumulative ﬁgures over time, it is almost certain that we are really looking at all-time admissions rather than the exact number of members at a given point in time. In other words, the tendency is not to under-count but to over-count. Fortunately there is positive evidence that the RCA Amoy church membership during this period never exceeded six scores, thus providing a baseline to guard us against any large over-count. The second methodological problem is that there was fuller reportage of adult admissions rather than of infant or child baptisms. For instance, in giving the Pechuia membership at the start of 1855 Douglas distinguished between adults (twenty-ﬁve) and children (eight) but did not do likewise for the RCA memberships which were simply pegged at one-hundred for Amoy and twenty-two for Chiohbe.217 However this poses no eﬀective obstacle to our main concern as our interest is in the growth of adult membership which has immediate relevance to formal church organisation. By March 1844 the number of patients and visitors at the Amoy ‘hospital’ was on the increase218 and about sixty to one hundred people were hearing the gospel there daily219. During mission year

217 218 219

Douglas from Amoy, 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119. Abeel, journal of 9 March 1844, cited in AR-AB (1845) p. 164. So Pohlman, in AR-AB (1845) p. 165.

48

 

1845–46, Pohlman reported with delightful enthusiasm how the regular weekly attendance of some at the services ‘implies more interest in the exercise than such an attendance does in a Christian community’.220 It was however about half a year later that the ﬁrst church members were admitted. The ﬁrst RCA admissions took place on the 5th of April 1846 when Ong Hokkui (died 10 August 1850) and Lau Unsia (died 1 November 1858) were baptised at Liau-a-au by Pohlman.221 The third man to gain church membership was U Teng-eng who however was not baptised in Banlam. Becoming the ﬁrst RCA Chinese evangelist on 1 March 1847, Teacher U was actually already earlier baptised in Nanyang (ca. 1843).222 It took more than two years before the next admissions were had. On 29 July 1849, the aged Hong Sinsi223 and her two sons224 received baptism and were admitted. Hers was believed to the case of the ﬁrst female Protestant baptism in China225. On the following Christian Sabbath (5 August), a communion service was held for the ﬁrst time in the new Sinkoe chapel.226 Hitherto the RCA and LMS missionaries normally had had joint communion in a private house. On the last Sabbath of July in the following year, ﬁve Chinese including three women were admitted into the Amoy church227. With these, the RCA adult church membership thus numbered nearly a dozen after eight and a half years of missionary operations. In its 1849 report, the ABCFM proclaimed Amoy as among the ‘most encouraging’ of all its mission ﬁelds.228 220

AR-AB (1846) p. 170. Pohlman [from Amoy], 1 May 1846, MH (September 1846) pp. 321–322; AR-AB (1846) p. 172; Pohlman to De Witt, from Amoy, 6 November 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2; AR-AB (1847) p. 167; IA, p. 232; Stronach to Doty [America], from Amoy, 8 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1–2; CRep ( July 1846) pp. 357–361. Note: ‘Hok-kui-peyh’ and ‘Un-sia-peyh’ are literally Senior uncle Hok-kui and Senior uncle Un-sia. 222 Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4; Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6. 223 Or ‘Ng Si-Sin’ (died 8 September 1858) the 64-year old widow. IA, p. 232. 224 I.e. Ong Chhiengchoan (‘Chhieng-chuan’) and Ong Chhienghong. Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. Cf. AR-AB (1850) pp. 161–162. 225 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 226 AR-AB (1850) p. 162. 227 AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 228 AR-AB (1849) p. 66. 221

 

49

On 30 March 1851, the ca. 50-year-old Hong Bunhong (died 29 May 1851), the ca. 40–50 year old woman whose husband was a police oﬃcer, and the wife of church-member Chhienghong were admitted by Doty.229 For the rest of the year, seven230 more admissions were registered, so that the total active adult membership was nineteen at the end of 1851.231 Relatedly in May, the ﬁrst child baptisms were administered upon six-year-old (and the later Rev) Ong Ki-siong (son of Ong Hokkui), his seven-month-old brother Un-iam and another child.232 The practice was quickly imitated and the following year saw twelve child baptisms on record.233 For 1852, two youthful converts were added, one in March and one in August, both men suﬀering greatly for their faith.234 When the year ended with only twenty-one active adults235, Doty attributed the poor growth to certain internal problems and the controversy centering around ‘our evangelist’236. In 1853, the work was greatly disturbed by insurgent activities in Banlam especially the troubles at Chiangchiu and the extended warfare in Amoy between the rebels and the imperial forces (August-November).237 During the months of ﬁghting, the missionaries were caught in the crossﬁre although suﬀering no harm other than minor house damages.238 The absence of missionary casualties means that the work was able to resume after peace and order was restored. For the latter half of 1853, Doty reported increased Sabbath and weekday attendances at both places of worship in Amoy, especially as many of the insurgents ﬂocked to hear the chapel

229 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4; AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 230 Contra Matheson who claimed that between July and December 1851 there was a total of nine RCA adult baptisms (Narrative, 1866, pp. 4–5). 231 I.e. ﬁve in November and two in December. Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149ﬀ; AR-AB (1852) pp. 123–124. Among the seven was Young’s servant. Young from Amoy, 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116; cf. Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89–91. In comparison, our calculation thus far yields a total number of twenty. 232 I.e. 19 May 1851, AR-AB (1851) p. 125; contra IA, p. 232. 233 AR-AB (1853) p. 128. 234 Doty [from Amoy], 16 September 1852, MH (March 1853) pp. 65–67. 235 AR-AB (1853) p. 128; APGS (1853) pp. 372–373. 236 Doty [from Amoy], 28 January 1853, MH ( June 1853) pp. 161–162. 237 See Talmage [from Amoy], 22 April & 19 May & 3 June & 10 June [1853], MH (November 1853) pp. 349ﬀ; Doty [from Amoy], 18 January 1854, MH ( June 1854) pp. 168ﬀ. 238 AR-AB (1854) p. 141; (1855) p. 17.

50

 

preachings.239 However the year ended with only six admissions which were further oﬀset in half by three deaths, thus resulting in a total of twenty-four active adult members. It was from 1854 that the missionaries saw their eﬀorts bearing accelerated church growth. During the ﬁrst eight months of that year, some twenty-eight new members were gained.240 The year ended with a total of forty-two additions in Amoy, thereby bringing the full membership in the treaty port to sixty-six adults.241 Adding the nineteen received at Pechuia (twelve)242 and Chiohbe (seven)243 made up a cumulative ﬁgure of eighty-ﬁve converts for the whole region244 by the beginning of 1855. In the latter year Amoy received forty-six new members, Chiohbe logged in twenty-four245 and Pechuia had thirteen; thus altogether setting a record eightythree admissions in a single year246 and pegging the total active count at 168 by the close of the year247. In the ﬁrst two months of 1856, Amoy received seven more while Chiohbe gained ﬁve.248 The increase for the ﬁrst half of 1856 was eighteen for Amoy, eight for Chiohbe and twelve for Pechuia, thus yielding existing memberships

239

Doty of 18 Januay 1854, MH ( June 1854) pp. 168ﬀ; AR-AB (1854) pp. 141–142; APGS (1854) pp. 473–474. The insurgents occupied Amoy from 18 May until 11 November when they were driven out by government troops. 240 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282; Talmage from Amoy, 18 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 5–6 = MH (February 1855) pp. 41ﬀ; Mr. Bonney from Canton, 18 April 1854, MH (1854) p. 250; AR-AB (1854) p. 144; AR-AB (1855) pp. 111–112; FYC, pp. 150ﬀ. 241 Cf. Doty’s report of another twenty-eight admissions at Amoy during August to June 1855. Doty [from Amoy], 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5 = MH (December 1855) pp. 354ﬀ. 242 Nine members were gained before Burns left and three added afterwards. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146; Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. 243 Contra the ABCFM report, the seven Chiohbe members were in fact admitted in January 1855. See Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143ﬀ; RCC, p. 60. 244 AR-AB (1855) pp. 111–112; AR-AB (1855) p. 17. Cf. APGS (1855) pp. 605–606; Talmage [from Amoy], 9 January 1856, APGS (1856) p. 113. 245 I.e. including the seven admissions of January 1855. 246 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Cf. Talmage of 9 January 1856; APGS (1857) pp. 223–224; AR-BFM (1857) p. 5. 247 AR-AB (1856) p. 10. Note the inaccurate ﬁgures of annual admissions for 1851, 1854 and 1855 in AR-AB (1857) p. 122. 248 I.e. two on 6 January and ﬁve on 3 February at Amoy; ﬁve on 3 February at Chiohbe. Douglas [from Amoy], 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148; Talmage from Amoy, 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 6; APGS (1856) p. 114.

 

51

of 129, 25 and 37 respectively.249 For the entire year the admission ﬁgures were thirty for Amoy, ten for Chiohbe and twenty-two for Pechuia, thus giving respectively 127, 31 and 47. Of the all-time number of 217 converts of both Missions to this time, some 187 were received over the last three years.250 The numerical growth of 1854–56 was so impressive to the missionaries, as to make Johnston proclaim even before the close of 1854 that Amoy is the most favourable Protestant station in all China.251 Later he reported that the RCA and the LMS had over one hundred baptisms in the last six to eight months of that year.252 Even after leaving the ﬁeld, he continued to propagate this Banlam reputation253. In so doing, he was by no means a lonely voice in the wilderness. As early as 1852, the ABCFM had acknowledged Amoy as its most successful mission in China.254 Four years later, it was again reported that while all four ABCFM China missions were ‘making progress’, Amoy had ‘the most signal blessing of divine grace’.255 In speaking of the numerical growth of 1854–56, the RCA missionaries rarely made use of the term ‘revival’. Not that it was unknown to them, for Doty seemed to have used the word at least once of Pechuia256 and the missionaries were familiar with the ‘history of revivals’257. Instead they normally spoke of ‘awakening’258 and ‘ingathering’259, the former referring

249

723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. AR-AB (1857) p. 123. Cf. AR-BFM (1857) p. 5; APGS (1857) pp. 223–224. 251 Johnston from Amoy, 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22. 252 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. 253 Johnston from Greenlaw, 19 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 51–53. 254 MH (May 1852) pp. 149ﬀ; APGS (1852) p. 277. 255 AR-AB (1856) p. 10. See also AR-AB (1857) pp. 17, 22. 256 Some reference to the ‘revival’ at Pechuia had been made in an earlier letter to a friend of his at Canton. See Mr. Bonney from Canton, 18 April 1854, MH (1854) p. 250. 257 See Pohlman to Rufus Anderson and Thomas de Witt, Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI 18:41 (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 4. 258 E.g. Doty of 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282; AR-AB (1854) p. 144; Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. Cf. the case of Chiohbe, in Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46; Doty of 17 January 1855, MH ( June 1855) pp. 186–187. Cf. also Pohlman to Dr. Anderson and Dr. De Witt, Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI 18:23 (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4 (‘It is not to be expected that a permanent interest will be awakened . . .’); Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI 19:2 (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5 (‘[Teacher U] visits much among the people, seeking to awaken them to the concerns of the soul . . .’). 259 The admission of the father and son in March 1848 by Alexander Stronach 250

52

 

to the phenomenon of the Chinese taking an interest in Christian preaching and the latter to natives formally joining the church. But perhaps the choice of terminology makes no substantial diﬀerence, especially when we recall that the RCA missionary endeavour in China was preceded by a revival movement which started in late 18th century America and came to be known popularly as the Second Great Awakening. Thus by April 1856, the RCA Amoy membership had a cumulative total of 126 adults. In contrast, De Jong asserts that the total Amoy membership was 122 but gives no supporting documentation for his ﬁgure.260 One wonders whether any connection exists at all with Douglas’ report that at the start of 1856 the RCA had 100 members at Amoy and 22 at Chiohbe.261 In comparison, our ﬁgure for the same time is 119 members. In May 1856, Talmage wrote that the two RCA worship places in Amoy had ‘over one hundred and ten members’262. Tellingly he did not say rather that there were over 120 people. If he was using the latest year-end ﬁgure, then the weight of the evidence clearly falls toward our count of 119. On the other hand, if he was citing current data, then De Jong’s ﬁgure is closer. However the failure of De Jong to furnish documentation in eﬀect relegates his to the level of pure assertion. In our case, the claim of 126 members is solidly substantiated and sustained by the qualiﬁcation that it is presented as a cumulative rather than a current ﬁgure. At any rate, the concern about over-counting which we raised at the start of this Section turns out to be after all far from any serious error. With the attained ecclesial population came the need for some form of church organisation263 which matter eventually brought up the issues of church government and independence as well as of ‘the status of the foreign missionary before the native church just

(LMS) was called ‘his ﬁrst ingathering here’. Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI 19:2 (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. Cf. FYC, p. 172 (‘. . . the gracious awakening and ingathering at Amoy and in the region about . . .’). 260 RCC, p. 65. 261 Douglas from Amoy, 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119; Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120; AR-FMC, in Mess (1856) p. 153; Burns, Memoir, pp. 481–482; Matheson, Narrative, p. 23; WHP, p. 24. 262 Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. 263 Ibid.

 

53

organized’ and his relation to the home church.264 Yet human numbers alone cannot adequately explain the course taken at Sinkoe in 1856. For after all, the missionaries could have opted to establish a mission church or a Chinese appendage of the sending denominational church habitating in the distant West. Indeed other important factors, as we shall later see, were at work which brought about the inauguration of ecclesiastical devolution in 1856. However before this Chapter closes, there is one factor which is best taken up immediately. This is on account of two reasons: ﬁrst, it is intimately related to the objective and task of church formation, and second, it provides a launching point for further discussion. The said factor concerns the nature of the church envisaged by the ﬁrst church-planting missionaries of both Missions. 2.5. The envisaged church Having shown that both Missions did have a church formation objective during our period, we are next faced with some signiﬁcant questions which arise naturally from that ﬁnding. What kind of church(es) were the individual protagonists aiming to raise up even as they set out in their work? Did Doty, Talmage and Douglas share the same ecclesial ideal or vision? Was there any self-conscious attempt to establish a distinctively ‘Chinese’ church? Or was it the case that things just happened to turn out the way they did apart from human pre-intentionality? How does the envisaged church relate to the Threeself ideal which many today commonly associate with Rufus Anderson265 and Henry Venn?266 Sometime after Talmage had died, Rev. William Swanson (EP Amoy) who was a younger contemporary wrote in this manner (1894): ‘The ideal of the church in China which [Talmage] had set before him[self ], the goal he desired to reach, was a native, selfgoverning, self-supporting, and self-propagating church.’267 Similarly

264

FYC, p. 171. 1796–1880; ABCFM Secretary, 1826ﬀ; Corresponding Secretary, 1832–66. A recent major monograph is Harris (1999). 266 1796–1873; CMS Honorary Secretary, 1841–72. Cf. Williams (1990). For earlier studies, see Williams, pp. 275–284. 267 Swanson, ‘Dr. Talmage—the man and the missionary’, in FYC, p. 271. 265

54

 

in recalling the life work of his late senior colleague Douglas, he had this to say (1878): [Douglas] saw clearly that what he had to do was so to work as, by God’s blessing, to be instrumental in setting up a native Church so organized as to be self-supporting and self-propagating. He felt that he was not sent to Anglicize but to Christianize the Chinese, and everything must be so ordered as not to hinder but to further this end. And the longer he lived, the more cautious was he of importing methods of work useful in the West, but unsuitable to the peculiar conditions of China. Two things were demanded of him, and to these two he set himself: the earnest, faithful, and loving preaching of the Gospel; and the organizing of the Church so that from it might go forth natives properly qualiﬁed and trained to carry the message to their fellow-countrymen. He might have been tempted to other more agreeable and congenial lines of work, but he held on his way because he felt it was his duty and wisdom so to do.268

Thus according to Swanson, the church ideal of Douglas virtually matched the Three-self ideal held by Talmage. Along similar lines, Johnston writing in the 1890s asserted that the ‘ideal which has been kept before the minds of the Missionaries in China, and the Committee at home, has all along been to raise up a Church in China which should be 1. A self-governing Church; 2. A self-supporting Church; 3. A self-propagating Church’.269 As to what point in time this ideal was ﬁrst in place, it was emphasised ‘the Missionaries had from the ﬁrst aimed at the formation of a self-governing, a selfsupporting, and a self-propagating Church. . .’270. The implication of these statements is that the ideal of Douglas traced its roots to Johnston and/or the FMC. While it may be suggested that Johnston, the man that he was, would surely have left behind documents (whether of a directive or suggestive nature) for his successor in the work, there is simply no extant physical evidence of such. More signiﬁcantly, it should be noted that all the citations above originated from a later period. This immediately raises the question of historical reliability and the possibility of retrospective creativity.

268 Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 63 (italics added). Hereon, Swanson, ‘Career’. 269 CAF, p. 363. 270 CAF, p. 206 (italics original). Cf. the EP ‘has succeeded in so short a time in raising up so large a number of converts, so fully organised, so largely self-supporting, and so self-reliant . . .’ (CAF, pp. 197–198, italics original); also ‘. . . to plant a Native Church, organised, self-supporting, and aggressive’ (These forty years, p. 18).

 

55

In this regard, three points may be noted. First, in the case of Talmage, there fortunately exists some materials from the pre-1856 period which shed some light on his thinking about the said subject. In autumn of 1848 or just after about a year in Amoy, Talmage wrote that the only work which fell on its entirety upon the missionaries was the laying of the foundation upon which the church was to be built.271 Nevertheless in the actual work of ‘rearing the superstructure’, foreign agents were still needed to ‘render some little assistance’.272 However in the long term, the only manner to evangelise China was to mobilise Chinese Christians to do it.273 On a similar note, a few months before the Sinkoe event, Talmage had written, ‘Missionaries may be employed in commencing the work, and guiding it at ﬁrst’.274 From the above, the natural questions which arise concern (a) when the foundation should be considered laid and (b) how long the said missionary ‘care and assistance’ was thought necessary. To the ﬁrst question, Talmage’s answer was that the foundation will be ‘fully laid’ only when there exists a certain population (size unspeciﬁed) of converts, good Christian schools and a trained native ministry.275 To the second question, the reply was simply an unqualiﬁed and unclariﬁed ‘many years’276. Despite the vagueness of this short answer, one thing at least is certain, viz. perpetuity was not in Talmage’s mind. What is obvious is that at least since 1848 Talmage already held the view that missionary leadership will at some point become unnecessary, as eventually also missionary assistance itself. Admittedly this does not tell us directly what kind of Chinese church Talmage had in mind then. What was implied though is that the envisaged church was a Chinese church which is ﬁrst free of foreign leadership and then later without need of foreign assistance. One wonders therefore what essential diﬀerence there is between such a church and a

271 Talmage to Middle Ref[ormed] Dutch Church (Brooklyn), from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (18 January 1849) p. 109 c. 1. Cf. FYC, pp. 70–72. Note: Either FYC mis-identiﬁed the addressee of the letter as the Sabbath School of the Central Reformed Church (Brooklyn) or the same letter was sent to multiple recipients. 272 Talmage of 12 September 1848. Cf. FYC, pp. 73–74. 273 Ibid. 274 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6 (italics added). 275 Talmage of 12 September 1848. 276 Ibid.

56

 

Chinese church which is self-governing, self-supporting and selfpropagating. Perhaps we may reword the ‘Talmage ideal’ in this manner: The long term task of evangelisation and church work is to be done by the Chinese Church, or in other words, a self-propagating Chinese Church. That in the building up of the superstructure the missionaries are to play the role of mere assistants implies Chinese self-government at some point. When it is said the period of needed missionary assistance is transitory, the suggestion is that Chinese work must take on self-supporting capability in the long run. The inference of the above is that the essential features of the Threeself ideal were already contained in the Talmage ideal as early as 1848 even though his actual terminology was somewhat diﬀerent. Indeed later in America, Talmage explicitly wrote (1863): ‘Self-support, selfgovernment, 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.’277 Practically simultaneously in Amoy, Doty wrote that the missionary object is to plant a church which is ‘self-sustaining, self-governing [or ‘self-standing’] and self-propagating’.278 Although both writings dated from after the formation of the union Presbytery and the ﬁrst pastoral ordinations in Amoy, the existence of the 1848 documentation leads to the conclusion that the 1863 writings were simply verbalising older ideas in a more compact form. This explains Swanson’s remark of 1877 that from the beginning both Missions shared the ideal of a ‘selfsupporting’ and ‘self-propagating’ native Church. In particular, it was the senior missionaries—Doty, Talmage and Douglas—who ‘most carefully indoctrinated’ those arriving after them with this ideal and who succeeded in doing so.279 The crux of the matter therefore is not whether the Three-self formulation of Swanson (1894) was historically accurate from a vocabulary standpoint but that the concept itself was substantially contained in the Talmage ideal. In extant pre-1856 records, the absence of any competing church ideal or contrary viewpoints on the part of the other RCA missionaries suggests a Talmage hegemony in this respect.

277 Talmage, ‘Ecclesiastical relations of Presbyterian missionaries specially of the Presbyterian missionaries at Amoy, China’, in FYC, p. 300. This pamphlet was from 1863 (FYA, pp. 96–97). 278 AER, Doty from Amoy, 10 September 1863, pp. 1–5. 279 W.S. Swanson, ‘The Presbytery of Amoy, China’, Mess (1877) pp. 83–84.

 

57

Moreover the non-discussion of the subject in the post-1848 records gives the impression that the Talmage ideal soon took on canonical status. The signiﬁcance of the matter is this: we have established that theory was a key and basic motivation in the church formation programme of the RCA and that the Talmage ideal was the guiding vision leading up to the Sinkoe event and beyond. Second, Swanson was a contemporary of Talmage and Douglas. Having arrived at Amoy in July 1860280, he was a Banlam missionary for twenty-one years281. Since the American controversy in 1863 over the matter of the Amoy church organisation retrieved the 1857 resolution of the RCA General Synod282, Swanson could not have been unaware of the details pertinent to the Sinkoe event. Neither do we mean just the historical details but the theoretical foundations as well. On his part, Douglas participated in the Sinkoe event with great enthusiasm and agreed with what the RCA did in AprilMay 1856.283 In other words, there is good warrant for saying the Swanson testimony was based directly on Talmage and Douglas. Thus this brings us back to the Talmage ideal which itself contained the essence of the Three-self ideal. Therefore when Swanson expressed Talmage’s vision with the Three-self formula, he was simply recasting the thoughts of Talmage in the missiological language of the times. On the other hand, note that his description of Douglas’ vision in the 1870s partook of incipient (not full-blown) Threeself terminology, i.e. ‘. . . a native Church so organized as to be selfsupporting and self-propagating’ (italics added). In both cases Swanson’s manners of expression are understandable. They were instances of the re-wording of the Talmage ideal or the Douglas vision in the developing missiological jargon of the nineteenth century. Therefore Swanson’s testimony about the church visions of Talmage and Douglas may be regarded as historically accurate on a conceptual if not terminological level. Lastly it should be recalled that Johnston was the ﬁrst EP missionary to have held a church formation objective. Without denying the possibility of memory lapse or historiographic creativity, his very

280

Swanson to Dr. Hamilton, from Amoy, 16 July 1860, Mess (1860) p. 315. WHP, p. 59. 282 APGS (1863) pp. 334–340; CI (1863) pp. 97 c. 6, 99 c. 3, 99 c. 4, 100 c. 3–5, 106 c. 5–107 c. 3. 283 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. 281

58

 

position as the pioneer in this regard should carry some weight. By his own testimony, the Three-self ideal was what the EP Amoy Mission ‘had from the ﬁrst aimed at . . .’284 This was saying in eﬀect that he himself shared the same aim. Unfortunately an early removal from Amoy disallowed Johnston any practical occasion to prove his intention. What we may say with certainty is that he did at some point hold the Three-self ideal. But to assert that he held that ideal in 1854–55 we have no external evidence beside his subsequent selfattestation. What we do have however is an indication that from very early on, he had close sympathies with the Talmage ideal. In 1854 Johnston practically echoed Talmage when he wrote that even though his Chinese assistants had been doing well, an enlarged missionary workforce was still needed because the ‘training and teaching of these new churches is a most arduous and important work’.285 This remark proves that in the very year of the birth of its church formation objective, the EPM already held some elements of the Talmage ideal. That is to say, at least some elements of the Talmage ideal. This is as far as the evidence goes. One can only wonder whether the Talmage ideal was not actually adopted in its entirety even then. But there is a way out of this seeming dead-end. For while Johnston was the ﬁrst EP missionary with a church formation objective, it was during the term of Douglas that the practical realisation of that objective ﬁrst took place. What we can do then is show that Douglas actually shared the Talmage ideal, so that for all practical reasons the earliest actualisation of the EP church formation objective was attended by the Talmage ideal or in essence the Threeself ideal. This is tantamount to saying that in relation to the EPM, we again ﬁnd the RCA taking the leadership and, in this case, leadership in terms of church theory. To begin with, between the two Missions the oldest documentary evidence for the existence of the concept of the Three-self native church came from the RCA camp more than two years before Young landed at Amoy and nearly six full years before the EPM assumed a church formation objective. Furthermore the RCA leadership was aﬃrmed by later EP testimony. With reference to Douglas’ determination to organise a truly

284 285

CAF, p. 206 (italics added). Johnston from Amoy, 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84 (italics added).

 

59

Chinese church, Swanson said his senior colleague ‘was doubtless led to these views from intercourse with the missionaries of other churches already in the ﬁeld’ even as Johnston likewise ‘followed in the same path’.286 This was somewhat corroborated by Johnston who declared that one reason why the EPM was able to see ‘so much of these [Three-self ] characteristics at so early a stage of its growth’ was because the work at Amoy had enjoyed the ‘great advantage’ of union with ‘the old and experienced’ RCA missionaries.287 That in attributing credit Swanson included the agents of both the RCA and LMS is less material than the point that the EP agents were led by others which included the RCA missionaries. As a matter of fact, EPM relations with the RCA were far more intimate than with the LMS.288 Yet Swanson never meant the earlier EP agents were blind imitators of the RCA. For, as he put it, Douglas ‘the longer he lived in China, and the deeper insight he got into Chinese life and thought, was the more convinced of the wisdom of the plans adopted by the men who had preceded him’289. Therefore on the basis of Swanson’s testimony, his senior contemporary Douglas pursued the task of church formation with the Talmage ideal as his blueprint. That is to say, in addition to its lead over the EPM in the project of church formation, the RCA was also providing theoretical leadership in the form of a Chinese church ideal. But that was only the theoretical dimension. Having argued that the Talmage ideal guided RCA church planting work and came to be adopted by the EPM, our next task is to present concrete historical evidence illustrating the pursuit and the realisation of that ideal. The same evidence should be able to shed some light on the accuracy of the Johnston testimony about the early date of the EP Three-self ideal. As is evident by now, the main concern is not whether the very terminology of the Swanson-Johnston Three-self formulation could be found in the pre-1863 period but whether the ideas contained in that formulation actually coincided with the missionary accomplishments of that period. The answer to this is certainly in the aﬃrmative, as convincingly proven by the Sinkoe event, the Taihoey event and the pastoral ordinations of 1863 (see infra).

286 287 288 289

Swanson, ‘Career’, p. 63. CAF, p. 208. See Ch. 7 infra. Swanson, ‘Career’, pp. 63–64.

60

 

In other words, both the pursuit and realisation of the Talmage ideal on the one hand, and the substantiation of the SwansonJohnston claim on the other, have strong historical validation. In this Chapter we have presented very detailed evidence that in the having of a church formation objective, the RCA was ahead of the EPM by at least a decade. By the time of the Sinkoe event, the EPM had been attempting the same type of labour for no more than two years. Furthermore during this period, its personnel were all the while held back from full-scale work on account of health and/or language hindrances. Consequently the RCA leadership was maintained in terms of both eﬀorts and results. By early spring in 1856, the Dutch-American Mission could boast of over a hundred members in Amoy alone which constituted solid justiﬁcation for the formal organisation of a church. Relatedly we have seen that later accounts testiﬁed to the early existence of the RCA-EPM Three-self church ideal. The earliest church-planting missionaries had aimed at establishing a Chinese church characterised by the features of self-government, self-support and self-propagation. Early on in Talmage, we already see the vision of such a Chinese church. The Talmage ideal became standard RCA doctrine and the guiding vision of its church planting eﬀorts. When that ideal was later also adopted by the EPM, the RCA leadership took on a third dimension, that is, theory (in addition to objective and eﬀorts-results). Finally we have argued that the Talmage ideal was the theoretical motivation behind the RCA church formation programme in general, and the formal organisation of the ﬁrst RCA Amoy church in particular.

CHAPTER THREE

MISSION METHODS The simple possession of the Talmage ideal for a theoretical motivation is clearly insuﬃcient by itself to initiate the process of missionchurch devolution. Two other elements were indispensable for the inauguration of ecclesiastical self-government in 1856. First, there must exist a sub-group of converts whom the missionaries regarded as qualiﬁed to be church oﬃce-bearers. The sub-group need not be large in numerical composition but should deﬁnitely be a plurality of persons, for what was constituted in 1856 was a Consistory and not a pastorate. But for any convert to attain such standing, it was essential that the missionary standards for native church leadership be met with satisfaction. Second, since the Sinkoe event involved an electoral exercise, it was equally needful for an electorate to have attained a certain level of ‘Christian maturity’ in the perception of the missionaries. In this and the next two Chapters, it shall be seen that the Chinese converts were able to win the high regard of the missionaries by way of their quality Christian character and impressive religious labours. With the two indispensable elements provided by such means, the Sinkoe event proceeded with relative smoothness and the missionaries found the results quite pleasing. In this Chapter we examine the ‘Christian quality’ of the Banlam church members. Our aim is to show that the creation of what to the missionary perception was a generally high-quality church membership is intimately related to the admission policy and work method adopted by the American missionaries. In particular we focus on two speciﬁc methodological features which helped to ensure that, as much as could possibly be done, only desirable candidates were admitted into the church. The ﬁrst was the policy of strict admission the eﬀect of which was to over-test every baptismal applicant in both religious knowledge and personal sincerity. The second methodological feature was the application of the method of intensive oral instruction of a selected few as the chief means of inculcating Christian doctrines among the Chinese inquirers. After covering these two items, we attend to a historical peculiarity of the Banlam situation which served as part of the larger background against which the

62

 

mission methodology was developed, viz. the region’s attitude toward foreigners and especially toward the Western representatives of Protestantism. Thereafter we examine the correlation between missionary methodology and the quality of the Chinese membership. The discussion of the said topics will be done in a thorough manner because they are of great signiﬁcance for a proper background against which one can fully understand and appreciate how the missionaries came to have high regard for the personal Christian character of the average individual church member. The last emphasis is important because the Sinkoe event did not involve only the few oﬃce-bearers nor just the missionaries but also the electorate of more than a hundred male church members. Had the missionaries not had conﬁdence in the general membership, the electoral transaction of 14th April 1856 would never have been allowed to happen. In other words, a full discussion is needful to explain why the Sinkoe event took place at all. 3.1. Missionary perceptions of the Chinese Christians There is no doubt that during the 1850s the missionaries held a somewhat high view of the general quality of their converts. In mid1851 Talmage expressed his satisfaction at the way the Amoy Christians ‘continue, so far as we can judge, to give pleasing evidence of being sincere followers of Christ’.1 With no apology, it was boasted that some may well be ‘patterns of Christian activity and zeal, even for church members in Christian countries to imitate’2. In the following years the missionary reports sustained the notion that the church members had ‘generally evinced consistency of Christian character’.3 Of special delight to the missionaries was the perceived quality of the Pechuia Christians in 1854. Doty highlighted their ‘spirit of prayer’ and ‘rapid progress’ in gaining Scriptural knowledge.4 In full agreement, Talmage aﬃrmed the same while also stressing especially ‘their lively faith . . . [and] their joy in the Holy

1 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4 (italics added). 2 Talmage of 14 July 1851. 3 APGS (1854) p. 473. 4 Doty, as cited in Young of 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316.

 

63

Ghost’5. It was a matter of missionary pleasure and pride that the members spent most of each Sabbath at the chapel, some not even going home for their meals. In addition, during week days some of them went to the chapel spending their time in constant Bible study. This phenomenon of chapel-centripetalism was striking when seen against the larger background of the non-Christian society. Having observed the native zeal at Bible study, Talmage added another aspect to the comparison between the Chinese and their Western counterparts, i.e. although in terms of religious knowledge the Chinese converts were no match for American Christians, yet in terms of Christian character those at Amoy were better than most believers of comparable religious age whether in China or America.6 In other words, the missionary perception was that the Christian quality of the Banlam converts was in advance of what was believed to be the normal state of things in the known worlds (i.e. America and China) of the RCA missionaries. The high regard of the foreigners for the local believers could hardly be put any clearer. Conﬁrmation of the said impression was not lacking on the EP side. With reference to the thirty-six to forty converts which the three Missions had gained by the winter of 1853–54, Johnston later approvingly remarked that their ‘character’ had been ‘highly satisfactory.’7 Likewise in early 1856, Douglas was able to face the future with good hope on the following bases, viz. the supportiveness of the home front, the steady increase of ‘the converting work, which is also peculiarly free from any excesses of enthusiasm or superstition’, and (most important to us), the zeal of ‘almost all’ the converts to preach to unbelievers and to instruct newer believers.8 The last two items point, respectively, to the strict admission policy (see 3.2 infra) and the active self-propagation eﬀorts of the Chinese believers (see Chh. 5–6 infra). Thus regarding the Christian quality of the Banlam converts, the missionaries of both Missions were in agreement. Based on observations made during 1854–1856, Joralmon and Johnston attested to

5

Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, Mess (1855) p. 115. Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (1855) p. 43. Cf. FYC, pp. 154–155; AR-AB (1855) p. 112. 7 Johnston, Glimpses, p. 5. 8 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 6

64

 

the general superior quality of the Chinese Christians on the basis of their religious suﬀerings and evangelistic zeal.9 Clearly and quite consistently the missionaries took pride in the over-all character of the church members of 1851–56. 3.2. Strict baptism/admission policy Since the beginning, the RCA had always maintained an ardent belief in the prudence of a strict baptism/admission policy. The roots of the matter went back to Pohlman but the policy was sustained by his later colleagues and then modiﬁed in 1854. The RCA policy was likewise observed at Pechuia where until May 1856, admissions were virtually all regulated and oﬃciated by the American missionaries. The eﬀect of this practice was the maintenance of a general church membership whose Christian character was found highly satisfactory by the missionaries. This in turn helped to generate strong missionary conﬁdence in the quality of the Banlam believers and their readiness for self-governance. Before proceeding further, some preliminary remarks are in order which have to do with a certain limitation set by the nature of our sources upon the task of historical analysis. The matter relates to our discussion on mission methodology. As the RCA missionaries in their letters (including the annual and semi-annual reports) did not always take care to separate the oﬃcial from the personal, it is unclear at some points whether the penman was presenting the consensus of the Mission or his own personal opinion pertaining to mission methods or future plans. The penchant for speaking in the ﬁrst person plural added another dimension to the ambiguity. For the period now under examination, the problem does not apply materially to the writings of Abeel, for in them we do not ﬁnd any substantive theoretical discussion of mission methods nor any studied long term work plan, although there was much reportage of actual ﬁeld work in progress. The same holds true for the interval from late 1845 to summer 1847 when Pohlman was the only RCA man in the ﬁeld. Neither does the problem aﬀect the EP side. Previous to Johnston’s adoption of the church formation objective, theoretical

9

723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856; CAF, pp. 20–21.

 

65

or methodologic statements coming from Burns and Young may be taken as personal thoughts rather than work policy. From ca. May 1854 to ca. May 1855 Johnston was the spokesman for the entire church-planting program. From July 1855 onward this role devolved upon Douglas. But the problem applies to the periods preceding and succeeding Pohlman’s lonely years, for therefrom our sources were penned by individuals at diﬀerent times when there was a plurality of workers on the ground. The nature of the sources therefore requires us to say that for these periods the discernment of thought development on an individual level cannot always be made with deﬁniteness or surety; neither can the same be done on the collective level. Since it is not easy to determine whether the individual writer was speaking his own mind or that of the Mission, it is proper to limit the force of our statements which have to do with mission theoretical thinking. When we say, for instance, ‘Talmage wrote/believed/thought that . . .’, it should not be taken to mean we are suggesting that some said thing was one man’s personal opinion nor that it was a group idea. Rather we are simply stating that this item came from the pen of Talmage; or, we are merely specifying the literary source of a certain piece of historical information. The force of our statement is then that Talmage wrote such a thing at a certain time and that it was not Doty (or Pohlman) who said it, with no suggestion as to whether Doty believed or disbelieved the thing. However when dealing with the development of actual work, we can speak with conﬁdence on both the individual and collective levels. With the said caveat in mind, we proceed with our main task. Pohlman From the outset Pohlman had always adhered to high qualiﬁcations for church admission. Even though as early as November 1845, there was mention about the interest of Ong Hokkui and Lau Unsia in baptism,10 it took many more months before they were ﬁnally received. As there were yet no cases of baptism up to this time, Pohlman took great care to ensure that the proper qualitative standards were set in place. For the reason that the Pohlman policy

10 Pohlman to De Witt, from Amoy, 6 November 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 3.

66

 

was to take on decisive signiﬁcance, it is needful to discuss its features in detail. The ﬁrst feature was the concern not with mere verbal confession of faith but with some outward behavioural manifestations of a sincere internal reception of Christian teachings. Of great interest to us is the external testimony of George Smith who paid a sixweek reconnaissance visit to Amoy on behalf of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) during January-February 184611. At both the LMS and RCA chapels, Smith observed that more than two-thirds (18) of the regular attendants (ca. 25) were ‘those who, from their situation or employment, were in some measure dependent on the Missionaries, and whose sincerity might, on that account, be exposed to suspicion’.12 The ‘dependents’ consisted of the aged and nearly blind chapel-keeper Shwuilo, the six language teachers employed by the missionaries and eleven others who were attached to missionary households or the hospital. Attached to the hospital were Chinghan the medical student and Anjean the leper-patient. Aware that this group had greater knowledge of Christian doctrines but not necessarily borne of sincere seeking, extra care was exercised to mark out those ‘who had not yet shown any decided proofs [sic] of a change of heart’13. Because Pohlman no doubt was aware that dependence upon a foreign source of livelihood complicated the correlation between external behaviour and inward sincerity, he found it necessary to explore other means to determine the authenticity of personal religiosity. Second, even among those not materially dependent on the Mission, Pohlman tested out their sincerity by deliberately delaying their baptism/admission. The said group included Ong Hokkui, Lau Unsia14, the wealthy tea merchant, Limpai the ‘old reclaimed opium smoker’, Masing, Ban15, Kheycheong the conscience-stricken manufacturer of

11

G. Smith, A narrative of an exploratory visit (1847) pages i–iv, 378, 492–94. On his stay in Amoy, see chh. 25–33. 12 Smith, Narrative, pp. 397–399. 13 Page 399. 14 I.e. ‘Hok que-peh’ and ‘Un sea-pai’ (more accurately, Un sea-peh); or literally, Senior uncle Hokkui and Senior uncle Unsia. Cf. ‘Hok-kui-Pe’ and ‘Un-Sia-Pe’ in Stronach to Doty [America], from Amoy, 8 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1–2. 15 I.e. ‘Ma-sing-hea’ and ‘Ban hea’; or literally, Elder brother Masing and Elder brother Ban.

 

67

‘idol-paper’ and lastly, Hok-ha the ropemaker who was described as being ‘of very promising character’.16 But although all the regular attendants ‘had ceased to worship idols’, it was only Ong and Lau who were ‘about to be admitted to baptism’.17 Both men were among those who ‘came nearly every day’ to the missionaries for instruction.18 As we can ﬁnd no supporting evidence for Smith’s assertion that the two old men ‘had been four years under a course of daily instruction’19, it is safer to regard this as an extrapolation which took the arrival of Abeel as its starting date. Of the duo’s protracted wait for baptism, Smith (CMS) wrote: Their baptism had been deferred so long, possibly even from an excess of caution unwarranted by scriptural examples, but, nevertheless, under the strong conviction, that, in the present circumstances of the Mission, delay was far preferable to a premature admission of converts; which, though it might increase the number of professing Christians, was calculated also to lower the standard of spiritual religion in the eyes of the heathen.20

As can be clearly seen, the delaying of baptism was ‘far preferable’ to its administration with haste and laxity. Related to this strictness was the maintenance of a high ‘standard of spiritual religion’ which exhibited a thoughtful concern with the long-term quality of the future church. Even at this stage when the missionary work could boast of no native baptisms, Pohlman was not preoccupied with the production of a good report of ‘solid’ results to the American home front. Rather the primary concern was to start oﬀ church formation with a strict policy of admission, or a strong quality-conscious approach to the making of a church membership. Third, an important part of Pohlman’s admission policy was the strong stance on the incompatibility of the Christian faith with ‘idolatry’ and ancestral worship. On 11th February 1846 the Amoy missionaries met to discuss two questions related to baptism. Although Smith (CMS) did not name the missionaries individually, we do know that the residents at the time were Pohlman, John Stronach and William Young (LMS), Lloyd and Brown (AP), and Cumming

16 17 18 19 20

Pages 397–399. Page 399. Page 397. Ibid. (italics added). Ibid.

68

 

(independent).21 The two questions were (a) ‘Could an open renunciation of idol-worship, although the idols remained in the house out of compliance with the superstitious fears of relatives, be deemed a suﬃcient test of Christian sincerity?’ and (b) ‘How far was retaining the ancestral tablets permissible, as mere tokens of respect for the departed dead, without any worship being oﬀered?’22 On the ﬁrst question, the unanimous decision was that if the convert holds chief authority in the household then he must renounce and get rid of all emblems of idolatry. As related to one of the two old men candidating for baptism, it was found that though he was still the household head he had eﬀectively lost the authority to his adopted son, sister-in-law and other relatives. Consequently he decided to remove himself with his wife and children to another house where he can do what he desires, for which decision he won the ready approval of the missionaries. The second question encountered ‘more diﬃculty’ but nevertheless also reached a consensus. It was agreed that the convert must cease the worship of all ancestral tablets, remove them from any juxtaposition with the idols and put them out of sight. Even ‘as mere memorials of the dead’, the ancestral tablets were not allowed to be retained because, among other reasons, ‘[i]ts retention would open a door for the too ready admission of converts, and the admixture of pagan superstitions with Christian doctrines’.23 In this matter, neither of the two applicants was in any diﬃculty since both were not native in Amoy and the ancestral tablets were ‘in the keeping of other relatives at a distance’.24 About the said transaction, we note two important points. First, although at that meeting, baptismal standards were still in the formative stage, the resolutions soon became part of RCA admission policy. Since the candidates were connected with the RCA, Pohlman was in eﬀect ‘consulting’ the larger missionary community on the issue. Even though the ﬁnal decision was a consensus, he was deﬁnitely in agreement with it (or, perhaps more accurately, the others in

21

See Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church of Albany, from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. Alexander Stronach arrived at Amoy later on 17 October 1846. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6 (i.e. pencil marking has p. 134). 22 Smith, Narrative, pp. 462–463. 23 Pages 465, 466. 24 Ibid.

 

69

agreement with him?) and was unfailing in the upholding of it later within RCA work. Thus for instance, reporting on his Guangdong visit in 1847, the ﬁrst RCA native preacher (whom Pohlman recruited and presumably trained according to his ways) pointed out with negative connotations that Roman Catholic converts at Canton were still ‘continuing the worship of ancestral tablets’25. The second point is that the RCA admission policy did not gradually become strict in nature; rather it started out strict in the ﬁrst place. The requirement of giving up native traditional worships made it extremely diﬃcult for any Chinese to obtain baptism. For one raised with such practices as a part of life and lineal identity, the time needed to lead to their denial and surrender could hardly be short. For instance, one of the three men baptised by Doty in June 1856, although counted among the very ﬁrst ones who were ‘under impressions’ since the earliest times of missionary work, saw his admission tarried by more than a dozen years because of ‘his unwillingness to put away his ancestral tablets’.26 Clearly as a matter of course in the Chinese cultural context, the requirement to rid of ancestral worship translated easily into the delay of baptism. And neither was Pohlman satisﬁed with mere riddance of the externals of ‘idolatry’, as illustrated by the incident from the 1st of March 1848. On the day, an old lady upon hearing widow Hong Sinsi preached on ‘the folly of idolatry’ burned all her ‘idols’ and then surrendered the last of them (non-combustible) to Pohlman. Hearing the confession that she had yet to destroy the ancestral tablets, he told her not to do so in rash but to ﬁrst consider the matter carefully. She was advised to get rid of these only when she should become fully convinced that such worship was sinful in God’s sight.27 Evidently Pohlman was not interested in simple outward conformity neither preceded by careful reﬂection nor coupled with deep conviction. It is admirable how he determinedly upheld the strict admission policy at a time when there was only a couple of baptisms to show after some fortyﬁve months in Amoy. Fourth, the admission standard was in fact stricter than we have thus far portrayed, for there were still other requirements. Consider

25 Pohlman to Rufus Anderson and Thomas De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6. 26 Douglas from Amoy, 19 June 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 338–339. 27 Talmage of 1 March 1848, in FYC, p. 83.

70

 

for instance the case of the rich tea merchant. Although he had discarded his ‘idol’ and been oﬀering incense to ‘the one true God’ at home while also being present ‘every day at one of the chapels, with his Chinese Testament and hymn-book’, he continued to be an object of ‘frequent censures’ by the missionaries on account of ‘his self-righteous views, and love of the material worship of incense’.28 Here we see clearly the existence of other requirements beside the renouncement of ‘idol’/ancestor worship. The immediate account revealed that some standards of moral character (i.e. non-self-righteousness) and worship forms (i.e. non-use of incense) were maintained. Furthermore there is no reason to assume that the material contents of both these categories were exhausted by the two speciﬁc examples cited, just as there is likewise none to suggest the two categories were all there were. Both of these assumptions found conﬁrmation in the sources. In mid-1847 Pohlman referred to a few attendants whose attendance was as regular ‘as the sun is in performing his daily course’ but all were deemed unready for admission because all ‘have not a spark of holy ﬁre’ and still fell short of ‘renouncing all for Christ’29. Some comment on the last two expressions are helpful. The ﬁrst—some ‘spark of holy ﬁre’—is seemingly related to what Pohlman sought in those somehow dependent on the missionaries, i.e. concrete proofs of ‘a change of heart’.30 It is not at all unlikely that the object in mind was something commonly associated with a ‘genuine’ conversion experience, or more precisely, some kind of change in personal character or behaviour which was believed to be result of such an experience. The other expression—‘renouncing all for Christ’—seems to be related to Pohlman’s belief that a good test of sincerity was the readiness of converts to endure suﬀering or loss for the sake of their Christianity. Thus it was regarded a positive sign when the ﬁrst two converts were observed to have stood ﬁrm in their religious faith while suﬀering from trying circumstances, viz. Ong losing a son and Lau enduring business losses.31 It seems not unlikely that the economic ‘trial’ of Lau was somehow connected with Sabbath observance.

28

Smith, Narrative, pp. 399–400. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5, entry dated 12 June. 30 See text connected with footnote 13 above. 31 Pohlman [from Amoy], 1 May 1846, MH (1846) pp. 321–322; AR-AB (1847) p. 167. 29

 

71

Thus far we see the existence of multiple criteria for baptism. These included the cessation of ‘idol’/ancestor worship, the upholding of certain moral standards and worship forms, some character or behavioural change connected with a conversion experience, the willingness to ‘renounce all for Christ’, the readiness to suﬀer for one’s faith and (likely also) faithful Sabbath-keeping. One can reasonably further the list by associative extension, e.g. by adding ‘noninvolvement in business or work related to idolatry’ (on the strength of abstinence from ‘idolatry’). But to go beyond the admission requirements explicitly named above and into more particulars is to venture into guess-work. Nevertheless we have said enough to show that from the very ﬁrst, the admission requirements were many in number, tough in nature and maintained with strictness. Lastly, the earliest-mentioned rationale for the strict admission policy is not at all diﬃcult to appreciate. Pohlman believed that baptismal regulations needed to reckon with the discrepancy between the outward seemingness of things and the unseen inwardness of conviction. From the manner in which [the Chinese] are brought up, they have a power of self-restraint which enables them to keep up appearances remarkably well. Thus it will be diﬃcult often to get an insight into their real object or designs. Their coming to worship, their seeming desire to hear the gospel, their external restraint, may frequently be narrowed down to that one great ultimate end, money; for, of all men on the face of the globe, none seem equal to the Chinese in the “love of money.” The most promising hearers are not to be trusted without a long trial, under diverse vicissitudes in which deception is impossible. This will require time. Many Christians, and even missionaries, will not readily conﬁde in the sincere purposes and intentions of this people.32 (italics original).

Conspicuously the statement above was penned some twenty-four days after Pohlman reported the resignation of his language teacher ‘who has been in my employ since our removal to China’33. Not only had Teacher Tan34 been exposed to Christianity for years, it

32 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. 33 Pohlman of 1 May 1847. 34 ‘Tan seen-sang’ is literally Teacher Tan or Mister Tan. The appearance of the term revealed Pohlman’s novice acquaintance with the local dialects. ‘Tan’ is the Amoy pronunciation of a common Chinese surname while ‘seen-sang’ is Cantonese, for which the Amoy equivalent is ‘sien-si’.

72

 

was also he who ‘after receiving preparatory instruction from a Missionary [i.e. Pohlman] during the morning, frequently accompanied him in the afternoon to the chapel and to other places, where he took his turn in addressing the assembled Chinese’.35 After working for Pohlman for about three years, Tan left in order to become listed as a military mandarin. Even though Pohlman entertained some hope that Tan might ‘carry the gospel where we cannot go’, yet the RCA missionary was sure his ex-teacher was no more than ‘a speculative believer in Jesus’.36 Though Tan ‘has spoken most eloquently in public [and] knows the doctrines of the cross’, Pohlman nevertheless looked forward to a future time when ‘the seed sown in [Tan’s] heart may take deep root, and bring forth divine and saving fruit’.37 Thus despite having in the past allowed the Chinese man to participate in evangelistic work, Pohlman ironically fell short of regarding him a genuine believer. Possibly the assessment of Tan as a ‘speculative believer’ was retrospective, i.e. after Pohlman came to know how Tan was able to gain his new political job. For it was not the mere seeking of the high-proﬁle and well-paying position which disappointed his former American employer. The latter was convinced that the preferment of Tan by virtue of ‘ancestor’s merit’ involved nothing less than a grand act of ‘deception’38. That one who had the beneﬁt of receiving Christian instruction for some three continuous years and who had even assisted in the public preaching of the Gospel could in an instant become a participant in such an un-Christian undertaking must have been no mild shock to Pohlman. It was in such a state of aﬀairs and mind that Pohlman condemned the Chinese ‘love for money’ and lack of sincerity, both of which were believed to be found even among the ‘most promising hearers’. It seems therefore the Tan incident was the immediate factor which caused Pohlman to crystallise into policy the dual test of time (‘long trial’) and suﬀering (‘diverse vicissitudes’) in the assessment of sincere faith among the Chinese. In the light of Pohlman’s ‘positive’ attitude toward the suﬀerings of the ﬁrst two converts (supra), we cannot say it was now that he ﬁrst discovered

35 36 37 38

Smith, Narrative, p. 399. Pohlman of 1 May 1847 (italics added). Ibid. Ibid.

 

73

suﬀering as a test of religious sincerity. What can be said though is that the Tan aﬀair brought home to him the usefulness, or better, the necessity of such testing; thus the crystallisation of it into policy. The implication of Pohlman’s attitude toward the Chinese was the extension of the observation/testing time required of every inquirer. In relation to the admission policy, the practice of testing out a candidate by material losses or persecution only served to lengthen the delay of baptism, for neither the missionaries nor the candidates were in a position to create or even hasten the coming of such kinds of testing. Yet more often than not, such visitations took not long in materialising. Still it cannot be denied that delay in any manner or by any length of time is delay. Therefore the RCA baptism/admission policy was traceable to Pohlman whose negative impression of typical Chinese character promoted an initial skepticism toward every inquirer and the presumption of the latter’s insincerity unless proven otherwise. Both the policy and its rationale were quickly accepted without question later by the returned Doty and the newly-arrived Talmage. Doty and Talmage Regarding Pohlman’s admission policy, we ﬁnd continuity in Doty and Talmage. Consider, for instance, Talmage’s objection to ancestral worship.39 Another example was the reckoning of religious suﬀerings as an index of convert sincerity. In the missionary letters, it is not infrequent we come across accounts of some convert(s) or inquirer(s) enduring income or property loss, persecution from family or the community, or even physical harm. Thus one credential of widow Hong and her sons was their having successfully passed through ‘very severe trials’40. Likewise from the 1850s there is no want of instances at all. Speaking of the ten people admitted in 1851, Talmage noted most of them ‘have been called to experience severe trials’ including especially the giving up of the source of livelihood.41 For her opposition to ‘idolatry’, the aged woman baptised in February 1853 was ‘in a measure disowned’ by her son on whom

39 40 41

Talmage from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (4 January 1849) p. 102 c. 4. Doty, in AR-AB (1849) p. 170. Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–153.

74

 

she depended and for her religion had to suﬀer ‘cruel mockings . . . bruises and wounds’.42 Admitted at the same time was the ex-sailor who resigned from his job so that he may be enabled to hear the gospel ‘in more favorable circumstances’ and who later lost his work as boatman at Amoy harbour on account of persistent Sabbathkeeping.43 Another example was the young man who became unemployed for refusing to work on the Sabbath and became so poor that his health suﬀered until he fell ill. When the missionaries ‘felt called upon, as an act of common humanity, to relieve his immediate and pressing need’, he declined until by much persuasion they prevailed over him.44 Then there were the converts of the ﬁrst seven months of 1854 whose religious steadfastness amidst great trials took hold of the missionaries in a most dramatic way. Included herein were the two youthful inquirers (aged 17 and 13) who endured much physical abuse; the man from Tong-an who for giving up his idols was severely persecuted by friends and neighbours; the 51-year-old ex-opium addict who tasted the wrath of his own household but still preached the gospel to those ‘who had met to oppose him for two hours, until his voice failed him’; the cloth-dealer and his family who preferred to suﬀer the consequences than to contribute toward ‘idolatrous celebrations’.45 About the cloth-dealer, it was later said that immediately upon the personal decision to become a believer, he made it a habit to close shop on Sundays ‘even though Sunday often fell on a busy market day’.46 From these instances we see that aside from perseverance amidst persecution there was the re-appearance of other admission criteria such as rejection of ‘idolatry’, refusal to contribute to ‘idolatrous’ festivals, Sabbath observance, and the ready suﬀering of economic or job loss. But moving beyond a simple adoption of the Pohlman policy, the period following the arrival of Doty and Talmage actually witnessed the intensiﬁcation of strictness over applicant qualiﬁcations. Speaking of the father and son earlier baptised by Alexander Stronach (LMS) and recommended for LMS admission in March 1848, Doty wrote:

42

Doty of 16 September 1852, MH (1853) p. 66. MH (1853) p. 349. 44 Doty of 16 September 1852. 45 Talmage from Amoy, 18 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 5–6. Cf. FYC, pp. 152–154, also pp. 157ﬀ. 46 Dale, Missions, pp. 3–4. 43

 

75

Neither can read; hence all their knowledge of the religion of Christ is from oral instruction. If sincere, as we trust they are, that sincerity is mixed with much ignorance; if truly in Christ, they are the merest babes. On this account our own views would have led us to have deferred their baptism until they had been further instructed, and time had given a more satisfactory development of Christian character. Our brother of the London Society thought not with us. Though we would have preferred delay, believing it would have been for the interests of the cause, as by further instruction and greater maturity in divine truth they would have been better prepared for the duties as well as the privileges of the church; still, with our brother, we do rejoice over his ﬁrst ingathering here, though it is with a degree of trembling.47

It is obvious that Pohlman’s view had become de facto if not oﬃcial RCA admission policy. If the RCA missionaries could have their way, there would have been no admission at that time. But as it was properly an LMS aﬀair, the Americans could act as no more than consultants. Although the older man had ﬁrst heard the Christian message from Teacher U only about a year earlier48, both men were admitted on 5 March 184849. This methodological diﬀerence partly explains why the RCA-EPM bond was stronger than the RCALMS one.50 However the more signiﬁcant point is that we observe here the ﬁrst mention of another factor in the equation of admission qualiﬁcation, i.e. doctrinal knowledge. In a later letter Doty explained the basis for this admission requirement. Unlike Christians in the West, Chinese converts were ‘just emerging from the darkness of heathenism’ and this ‘deep soul-darkness can be removed only by much watchful care and diligent instruction’.51 Earlier Pohlman did mention the need for ‘introducing light and knowledge into these dark minds’52 but at that place he was talking about the necessity of religious education and neither there nor elsewhere in his letters did

47

Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. 48 AR-AB (1848) pp. 119–220. 49 Doty of 16 March 1848, p. 6 c. 3–5. 50 See 7.7 infra. 51 Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5. 52 Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4 (i.e. pencil marking has p. 170).

76

 

he ever connect knowledge examination with admission. This of course is not to say that he never did in his mind.53 Thus whereas Pohlman argued for the prolonged testing of inquirers in order to determine their sincerity, Doty was saying that extensive instruction was needed even for sincere inquirers on account of their ‘heathen’ upbringing and ignorance of Christianity. In practical terms, this added another dimension to the screening of baptismal candidates and the delay of baptism. Moreover Doty was not only looking for a mere ‘mental conviction of the truth of the gospel’. Rather what was desired was the ‘sense of sin or need of a spiritual work—in the heart’54. The following related remark deﬁned a diﬀerence not easily given to quantiﬁcation: ‘. . . even in such as we trust there is a genuine spiritual operation—there is not that deep heart work.’55 Whatever Doty meant by the latter expression, he did not elaborate. But by any estimate, it seems most likely to be the kind of character or behavioral change believed to be connected with ‘genuine’ conversion. At any rate, for our investigation the knowledge criterion further denied the thought of any quick baptism. With the case of the reluctant admission of the father and son in 1848 (above) being somewhat a negative illustration, we now present some positive evidence of the application of the Pohlman-Doty criteria of knowledge and sincerity. Consider for example the case of Hong Sinsi and her family as recounted by Doty himself. They have applied for baptism. Previous to the departure of Mr. Talmage, we had several examinations of them as to their views, experience, &c. It was our aim to be very close; and although there is still much ignorance, showing that they are but children in the school of Christ, they nevertheless appear to be very truly in that school, and give very pleasant evidence, perhaps all that we can reasonably expect, of a genuine work of grace in their hearts. We saw no good reason to forbid water that they should not be baptized. If nothing unfavorable occurs, I shall feel it a privilege and duty to welcome them soon to the fellowship of the church. They have now been for about a year and a half under our constant observation and instruction. They have passed through very severe trials arising from sickness, in circumstances well ﬁtted to shake the weak faith of but partially instructed and enlightened minds, just loosened from hea-

53

Recall our caveat at the beginning of 3.2. Doty of 25 June 1855. 55 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 54

 

77

then superstitions, as also from the taunts and opposition of neighbors and friends; and yet they have stood ﬁrm. Their example and inﬂuence have been decidedly in accordance with their professed interest in Christ and his religion. I have some hope, moreover, that the truth is ﬁnding its way to the minds of the wives of the two sons. They have asked, indeed, to be admitted, together with their motherin-law and husbands, to the privileges of the church; but I shall be under the necessity of deferring their case for more satisfactory evidence of a genuine work in their hearts.56

Here we see again the two grounds for delaying baptism. In the case of the daughters-in-law, the hindrance was insuﬃcient proof of sincerity while for mother and sons the obstacle was doctrinal ignorance. Eventually it was about a year and a half after she had gotten rid of her idols that Hong and her two sons were baptised. If including the period of instruction preceding the latter event (a period which may go as far back as late 184657) we are talking of some two and a half to three years of religious instruction and character observation. Even though to her credit she had actually played the role of an evangelist in converting one of her neighbours from ‘idolatry’ in March 1848, the missionaries did not see this as suﬃcient ground for exemption from more teaching and supervision. On the contrary it took another sixteen months before the baptismal application was approved. Likewise for the most part of mission year 1848–49, there was no addition to the RCA membership not because there was a lack of applicants but rather on account of the delayed baptism policy.58 The strict admission process was applied also upon the money-changer from Chiangchiu who ‘was subjected, as is our invariable custom, to several as searching examinations as we have the ability to institute, both as to his knowledge and experience’ before he was ﬁnally baptised in August 1853.59 Furthermore from post-1847 sources we also ﬁnd an RCA position on opium smoking. From late 1850 Talmage wrote that any opium user will never be admitted into the church.60 Naturally this included non-involvement in opium-related work and business.61 Although it

56 57 58 59 60 61

Doty, in AR-AB (1849) p. 170. Doty of 16 March 1848, p. 6 c. 3–5. AR-AB (1849) p. 170. Doty of 16 September 1852, MH (1853) p. 66 (italics added). Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (1850) pp. 152–154. Cf. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 11 March 1862.

78

 

is unsaid at what point in time this criterion came into eﬀect, there is nothing in the sources to suggest that opium smokers were admitted in the 1840s. Nevertheless what the extant records allow us to say with certainty is this: By late 1850 opium abstinence was a baptismal requirement. Relatedly it was also an operational principle of the missionaries that any uncertainty or doubt at all calls for delay. Thus in late 1850 when the missionaries encountered great diﬃculty in deciding whether to admit or reject the majority of applicants, the recourse was to rather risk erring on the side of caution. It was reported that ‘[w]e have thus far put oﬀ admitting the applicants to baptism for a long time, and until we could have the evidence of his conduct, as well as the confession of his mouth’62. In early 1853 after examining some twenty applicants, the missionaries announced that only two were scheduled for baptism at the next Sabbath service. Doty confessed that ‘we felt it diﬃcult to decide that several ought not to be admitted to the ordinances of the church’. In the end however it was ‘only because further delay and instruction seemed more prudent, and could not be injurious, that we did not receive them at once’63. Even after 1854 the principle of delay-if-in-doubt was sustained. Thus after the admission of seven out of twenty-ﬁve applicants at Chiohbe in early 1855, Doty commented, ‘Of those whom we felt constrained to put oﬀ, several, we trust, are truly the subjects of the Holy Spirit’s work. But our past experience teaches that delay is prudent, where there is any doubt.’64 In the pursuit of extreme care in applicant screening, the missionaries did not hesitate to impose delay upon delay. For its time, this practice was, to put it mildly, rather unusual. For this reason, the peculiarity was quick to capture the attention, and admiration, of newcomer Joralmon. In summer 1856, the latter after having learned ‘the principles on which [Doty and Talmage] examine inquirers—their delay in receiving them—their inquiries of those acquainted with them’ testiﬁed to having ‘no hesitation in saying that the brethren here are far more careful in the reception of members than are the churches at home’.65

62

Talmage of 17 December 1850. Doty of 28 January 1853, MH (1853) pp. 161–162. Cf. Talmage [from Amoy], 22 April 1853, MH (1853) p. 349. 64 Doty of [no day] January 1855, AR-AB (1855) p. 113. 65 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 63

 

79

A similar impression appears in the BFM comment on the ﬁfty admissions of January-September 1856: ‘Nor were these hasty additions, for the method of examination and trial used by the missionary brethren is shown to be as rigid and cautious as could well be devised.’66 Indeed the strict admission policy had been successful to no little extent in producing a membership regarded as being of generally good quality. Based on the above, one is inclined to think that the strict admission regulations were consistently maintained until 1856. However the evidence does not support this idea. Rather beginning in 1854 the rigour with which this policy had hitherto been held was slightly modiﬁed. The explanation for this should be related to the Pechuia ingathering which was totally unexpected by the missionaries. What led to the giving up of the belief in slow conversion results67 proved to be also eﬀective in the occasional loosening of the practice of delaying admission. Not that missionary guardedness over the admission criteria was done away with but that an extended period of delay was no longer always observed. For instance, in early April68 while Burns was away from Pechuia, the former image-maker in his zeal went to Amoy to seek church admission. The examining RCA missionaries were ‘astonished and delighted by the evidence which he gave them of knowledge, repentance, and faith’ and would have admitted him along with ten other Amoy people ‘had it not been that [Burns’] two native companions, returning the day before to Amoy, urged the expediency of delay’.69 Note that when the missionaries had relaxed the ‘normal’ observation time, it was the Chinese who restored them to the original standard. Another case concerns Chiohbe where the work was started by Pechuia believers. After two Pechuia men became the ﬁrst to preach there in ca. July 185470, some Amoy evangelists took turns going there. Of the twenty applicants for baptism examined in January, Doty and Talmage ‘with their usual caution’ passed only seven for admission.71 Earlier

66

BFM in APGS (1857) pp. 223–224 = AR-BFM (1857) p. 5. See 6.2 infra. 68 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 267. 69 Ibid. 70 Doty [from Amoy], 17 January 1855, MH (1855) pp. 186–187; Editorial remark (MH, 1855, p. 46) which followed Talmage of 18 August 1854 (pp. 41–46); Talmage, Sketch of the Amoy Mission (1888) p. 10. Contra Johnston, Mess (1855) p. 145. 71 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. 67

80

 

in November Doty had felt it necessary to soon admit several persons at Chiohbe who had given ‘pleasing evidence of regeneration’ but the reluctance to do so derived from the hesitation to ‘add another [ﬂock]’ at such time when the missionaries ‘are already taxed beyond time and strength, and cannot give adequate pastoral care to the ﬂocks already gathered . . .’72 One can hardly fail to note that the baptisms were administered just about ﬁve months after the ﬁrst instance of preaching at Chiohbe. Or a bit more unexpectedly that Doty had felt some to be admissible in November, i.e. after just three or four months of preaching and instruction. Adding even more interest is the fact that only recently at the start of that month Doty had baptised three men at Pechuia after having turned down two others who were examined and ‘appeared well, but it was thought prudent to delay [their admission] for the present’.73 Therefore by all the indications we could garner from the Pechuia-Chiohbe experience, it is evident the strict requirements had not changed except in the case of the time factor. However even if the entry process could be cut short, there was no lowering of the other admission standards. This consistency was evinced by the case of Tan Bu-Siat from Pechuia. The 28-year-old rice merchant ‘gave such conclusive evidence of a genuine change, and underwent such a severe ordeal of persecution in a spirit so truly Christian, that it required but a limited examination to satisfy all parties that he was a proper subject for baptism’.74 However to earn this privilege, Tan not only had ﬁrst to renounce ‘the worship of both gods and ancestors’ but also to suﬀer persecutions from relatives including physical violence and the threat of ‘the loss of his trade’75. Since it was explicitly stated that the other two male converts who were baptised along with Tan were tested in religious knowledge, there is no reason to deny Tan was likewise examined.76 On the other hand, it was not stated outrightly that the knowledge test was applied upon the fourth and last convert who was the lone female. But then one is hard pressed to conclude that this meant

72

Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. Ibid. The two were likely Chengsoan and Sui-mui of Kalang. See Pechuia converts to Burns [Britain], ca. September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 181–182. 74 Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 197–200. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 73

 

81

she was not. Relatedly one wonders whether the knowledge standards were diﬀerent for women whom the missionaries knew to be generally unschooled. At any rate what the case of Tan demonstrates is that the strict admission policy did not always necessitate a full length examination and thus that the length of the observation period could be cut short. However the sincerity of the applicant must be beyond any doubt and the expected level of his doctrinal knowledge uncompromised. To put things in perspective, it should be emphasised that the laxing of the time factor was not a matter of normality. The case of Tan was never regarded as an ordinary one. What we are saying is that the missionaries had began to entertain the possibility of exceptional cases wherein the time factor may be allowed greater leeway. The ﬁrst baptisms at Chiohbe should likewise be seen in this light. That the norm of strictness was nevertheless still retained may be seen in the manner in which the examination of applicants was carried out in 1854. We pay particular attention to the lengthy and tedious nature of the examination process. Early that year, a special meeting was called for all interested in applying for baptism. The response was so overwhelming that until at least August similar examination-instruction meetings were had weekly, sometimes twice weekly or once every fortnight.77 A letter by Doty from the time grants us an idea of the nature of such gatherings. In these meetings we are usually engaged from three to four hours, during which time we may converse with or examine, as the case may be, three or four individuals in the most searching manner, both as to their experimental knowledge of the Holy Spirit’s work in the heart, and their acquaintance with Christian doctrine. This brings us into the closest personal contact with their minds and enables us to give instruction, to correct misconceptions of truth, guide the inquiring, encourage, warn and exhort, so as to meet the diﬃculties of each individual, and to the proﬁt of all.78

While this quotation reveals the tedious character of the work, the case of widow Hong and her sons (supra) shows that the task of examination was carried out over a number of sessions. Moreover the missionaries never set down any time limit upon the duration

77

Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (1855) pp. 41–46; Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (1854) pp. 280–282. 78 Doty of 20 April 1854.

82

 

of the process. On the contrary they preferred delay to haste and would not accept any examination outcome which had the slightest unsatisfactory appearance. Thus the dramatic increase of examination hours in 1854 should be interpreted as an attempt to accommodate more applicants without at the same time compromising high quality control. With the ﬁrst eight months of 1854 yielding a fruition of twentyeight baptisms79, the eﬀort on the part of the small missionary force was quite draining. In the succeeding months, the number of inquirers and candidates sometimes went over forty and the missionaries were found lamenting ‘our utter inability to give that [i.e. examination work] time and strength, which the importance of the work demanded’.80 Likewise during the communion Sabbath at Chiohbe in May 1855, no admissions were gained ‘not however because there were no hopeful candidates but chieﬂy for want of time for a full and thorough examination’.81 Nevertheless through all these demands and pressures, the missionaries strove to maintain the strict admission standards even when doing so taxed them greatly. Therefore the strict baptism/admission policy initiated by Pohlman was unreluctantly inherited, then intensiﬁed and modiﬁed by Doty and Talmage. With the criteria of sincerity and knowledge (among others) upheld uncompromisingly, the delay of baptism became the standard operating procedure. What was presented as ﬁeld data (i.e. typical insincerity and religious ignorance) served as the rationale for the wisdom of protraction. The principle of delay-if-in-doubt made for a case of delay upon delay. On the strength of all these the tendency was to over-test baptismal candidates. The Pechuia-Chiohbe awakening modiﬁed the policy by relaxing the time factor for exceptional cases although not at the expense of the other admission criteria which were generally maintained with little compromise. The over-all result was that the general Christian quality of the church membership appeared highly satisfactory to the missionaries.

79 80 81

Talmage of 18 August 1854; Doty of 20 April 1854. Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (1855) pp. 354–356. Ibid.

 

83

3.3. Intensive oral instruction of a selected few Alongside the strict admission policy was another methodological feature which was just as critical for the making of a quality church membership. That is, the application of the oral method of preaching/instruction and the strategy of the intensive oral instruction of a selected few as the means of instilling Protestant doctrines among inquirers and believers. As will be seen in the ensuing historical survey, the preaching method went through a major paradigm shift during Pohlman’s time and it was its latter mode which proved eﬀective in generating quality Christian character in the converts. After some six to eight years of unfruitful work in Borneo82, Doty and Pohlman arrived in Amoy to ﬁnd so great an openness and so much opportunities for labour—something hitherto unseen in their missionary lives. Fortunately the novelty of the new situation did not result in an over-excitement characterised by thoughtless venturing into every conceivable kind of work. In the annual report of the Mission dated September 1845, Pohlman had this to say, I may safely say that during the year, we have done more at preaching and oral instruction among the people than any previous year of missionary life. We have started no schools, and engaged in no labors, which would interfere with what is now the great work of Chinese missionaries,—preaching every where the everlasting gospel to the millions by whom they are surrounded. More than a generation has passed since the ﬁrst missionary eﬀorts were made in behalf of this people. Comparatively little labor, by preaching and persuasion, has yet been bestowed upon them. The ﬁrst missionaries—Drs. Morrison and Milne—devoted their main eﬀorts to the preparation of valuable dictionaries, and other indispensable works for the use of their successors. We are now proﬁting by their labors. But at present the accessible multitudes are so numerous, and the calls so loud and urgent, that the demand is for faithful, devoted preachers, who are able to exhibit divine truth in all its beauty and force, urging this deluded people to forsake their refuges of lie, and rely on Christ alone for pardon, acceptance, and eternal life.83 (italics added)

82

See G. De Jong, Mission to Borneo (1989). Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church of Albany, from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. Cf. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. 83

84

 

Thus immediately upon arrival in Banlam, Pohlman and Doty decided that preaching should be their foremost mission work. More speciﬁcally, what was initially adopted was the strategy of itinerant preaching. That itineration was in mind is shown not only by Pohlman’s pen (‘preaching every where . . . to the millions by which [the missionaries] are surrounded’) but also by his explicit action. During the last quarter of 1844, Pohlman spent much time with Abeel in itineration both within and outside Amoy surveying the ﬁeld while also giving tracts and ‘speaking a word as I could’.84 Based on the unwavering friendly responses they received and the easy accessibility of the many villages about Amoy, Pohlman perceived ‘a wide ﬁeld of itinerary labor’.85 That he had preaching work in mind is clear when he assessed the one hundred and thirty six villages on Amoy Island as being all ‘perfectly accessible to the “circuit preacher”’86. The same impressions were expressed by Doty shortly before his departure for America.87 By autumn 1846, it was reported the villages on Amoy Island had been visited almost exhaustively.88 A somewhat similar strategy was conceived in autumn 1844 when Pohlman came to believe the city work will not reach many unless street preaching was made ‘a part of our constant operations’.89 During winter, this was done during four afternoons of the week. On medical advice, the frequency was reduced in half during the hot season. The premium placed upon the ability to preach in the colloquial is most vividly illustrated in Pohlman’s letter to Rufus Anderson written shortly before Doty left Amoy in 1845. In the discussion about Doty’s return to the Banlam ﬁeld, it was pointed out the man suﬀered from ‘the want of an ear to distinguish the tones and vocal organs to ennunciate [sic] them properly . . .’90 After Pohlman and the other Amoy missionaries passed their opinion that Doty will ‘perhaps never’ be able to master the dialect, the latter himself con-

84

Pohlman of 17 September 1845. Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 AR-AB (1846) p. 170; cf. (1847) p. 165. 88 Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4. 89 Pohlman of 17 September 1845. 90 RCAA, 713 Borneo Mission, 1838–1845 folder, Pohlman to Rev. R. Anderson, from Amoy, 4 November 1845. 85

 

85

cluded that unless he ‘can be a formal preacher he ought not to return, but go to some other ﬁeld . . .’91 Evidently by this time the idea of the priority of the oral mode of propagating the faith was already an RCA consensus. Thus far the missionary method appeared to be that of saturated preaching on a geographical level. The great contrast of open Banlam to their former ﬁeld in Borneo was so overwhelming as to cause the missionary duo to ﬁxate on the ‘multitudes’ and become virtually blind to the individual Chinese. But this strategic focus was not destined to captivate the Mission for long. One thing however is signiﬁcant, viz. the concentration of eﬀorts upon oral work. Not that literary and educational work were thought to be of no value, as evinced by the honour and credit bestowed upon Morrison and Milne. Rather the motivation derived from the observed lack of eﬀorts at ‘preaching and persuading’, the perceived evangelistic opportunities oﬀered by the accessibility of the people and the believed native desire to hear Christian preaching (‘the calls so loud and urgent’). The missionary optimism could not be unconnected to the fact that just in May the missionaries had received a copy of what they thought to be an ‘imperial edict’ on the toleration of Roman Catholicism.92 As the missionaries received a copy on the 6th of May, the said document was most likely Kiying’s memorial dated 28 December 1844 which was published in the Chinese Repository93. Even though the edict did not cover Protestants, the unambiguous improvement in the oﬃcial policy on foreign religion created no little excitement among the Amoy missionaries. Further reinforcing the missionary optimism was the favourable attitude toward the Christian religion expressed by the ‘highest city oﬃcer’ in the presence of the missionaries sometime earlier in the year 94. And as we shall shortly see, as far as Pohlman was concerned, the prospect with respect to the evangelisation of China did not darken even after 1845. It was in late 1845 that the shift of focus from extensive to intensive preaching took place. Reﬂecting on mission year 1845–46,

Ibid. However the ﬁnal decision on the matter was referred to the PC. Pohlman of 17 September 1845 [second part of letter], CI (9 April 1846) p. 154 c. 1–2. 93 See CRep (1845) p. 145. 94 Pohlman of 17 September 1845, p. 154 c. 1–2. 91 92

86

 

Pohlman began for the ﬁrst time in his extant letters to speak outrightly95 of the need for settled missionaries and stated preaching at the more important villages. These itinerary eﬀorts do little more than prepare the way. It is on our regular, stated eﬀorts at home, that we mainly depend for introducing light and knowledge into these dark minds. There must be “line upon line,” “precept upon precept;” and the more our labors are concentrated on a select few, the more probability is there that the seed will take root, and bring forth fruit.96

The re-evaluation of itineration marked an advancement in the strategic methodology. Itinerary preaching was recognised for its preparatory value only in relation to the potentially more fruitful practice of regular stated oral communication of the gospel and the intensive instruction of a select few. Contributing to this reﬁnement of method was no doubt the experience of the recent past. During the summer of 1845 when hot weather reduced the amount of street preaching, Pohlman compensated for the loss by resorting to house calls and in the process found such to be ‘surer work than random visits and talkings in the streets’97. Aside from this discovery, the readiness of some for deeper catechism also helped to convince him of the value of the new mode of preaching. Following the various visits to the villages on Amoy Island during mission year 1845–46, several persons had also called ‘upon us at our houses in Amoy, and received further instruction’.98 In spring 1847 Pohlman seemed to have arrived at a revised understanding of the nature of the impact (or, more presisely, non-impact) of his early itinerary preaching upon his hearers while also assigning greater value to that activity but only as a form of preliminary work.99 More importantly, his faith in the practice of stated preaching became stronger.

95 The only previous mention of stated preaching was in connection with Doty’s dim chances of ever addressing ‘a worshipping assembly on the Lord’s day’, i.e. non-evangelistic preaching to converts gathered for Sabbath worship. Pohlman of 4 November 1845. 96 Pohlman of 17 September 1846. For more on the preference for settled rather than itinerary work, see Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. Cf. Stronach to Doty [America], from Amoy, 8 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1–3. 97 Pohlman of 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. 98 Pohlman of 17 September 1846. 99 Pohlman of 1 May 1847.

 

87

A factor which facilitated the adoption of the stated mode of preaching was related to the elevated optimism of Pohlman in 1846. It was no mere coincidence that the methodological shift came in the same year in which he mentioned to his church back in Albany about the ‘new edict’ which extended toleration to Protestants.100 Since this was said to have been issued in December, it is none other than the ‘explanatory notice’ which was given by Kiying himself 101. The latter is probably also to be identiﬁed with the ‘explanatory edict’ cited by Smith (CMS) during his visit to Amoy in JanuaryFebruary 1846102. It is not only the terminology (‘explanatory’) which argues against identifying Smith’s edict with the imperial decree received by Kiying at Canton on 20 February 1846. The fact that the imperial decree focused exclusively on Roman Catholics further conﬁrms our case. Also since Smith left Amoy on 23 February103, we cannot be certain that he knew about the decree before then, although it can be said with fair certainty that the missionary community knew about the explanatory notice before then. Whether the missionaries were correct in thinking that imperial toleration included Protestantism is less critical than the fact that the missionaries believed so and built their optimism upon such a belief. The belief certainly made the adoption of the stated mode of preaching not only a feasible but also a desired option. At this point in our discussion of mission methods, some word should perhaps be said about that regular partner of preaching in missionary work, viz. colportage and literature dissemination. To a good extent, the Amoy missionaries and their Chinese assistants were in fact engaged in such work. In his ﬁrst annual report from China Pohlman stated that his main ﬁeld activities during the ﬁrst quarter of the year consisted mainly of surveying the region and giving out tracts.104 Within Amoy a regular exercise was to go into the streets and the temples seeking conversation partners and dispensing religious literature.105 In 1846 the RCA chapel on Boey-Koey-hang 100

Pohlman of 17 September 1846. S.W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, 4th ed. (New York, 1861) II: pp. 368–372. So, too, idem, The Middle Kingdom, rev. ed. (London, 1883) II: pp. 355–358. 102 Smith, Narrative, pp. 486–487. 103 Pages 492–494. 104 Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church of Albany, from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. 105 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5, entry dated 12 June. 101

88

 

(street) was opened on four weekdays at 3pm during which times people were received and tracts given away.106 This practice seemed to have been maintained107 until some time after the new chapel at Sinkoe opened when the afternoon service for tract dispensation and conversation was actually increased to ﬁve times weekly108. Meanwhile out-of-town tours were also had whose normal activities included the dissemination of tracts.109 To complete the picture on colportage/literature-distribution, perhaps we may be allowed to get a little ahead of our main story. In 1850 and/or 1851, an RCA church member was engaged in colportage at Amoy under the supervision of Young.110 When Talmage began in mid-1851 to consider making Chiangchiu ‘the head-quarters of a colporteur . . . and a preaching-place’,111 preaching and colportage were again in tandem. Local diﬃculties however prevented any concrete action by the RCA in this regard until 1853.112 Nevertheless shortly after verbalising the Chiangchiu option, Talmage himself actually started late afternoon street preaching and literature dispensation in Amoy.113 During a much later visit to the villages on Amoy Island and the mainland, the procedure of Joralmon and Douglas was to begin with public preaching by the Chinese agents and close with the giving away of tracts and books.114 For 1854 the missionary printer Samuel Wells Williams reported that the RCA had distributed some 50,000 ‘books’, the EPM 26,000 and the Amoy LMS 8,881.115 The RCA on their part reported that some 500 copies of Burns’ Pilgrim’s progress and 1,042,000 pages of tracts were printed aside from the purchase of ‘377,000 pages of Scripture, with 483,000 pages of tracts’.116 For the EPM, Johnston announced the giving

106

Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. Cf. AR-AB (1847) p. 168. 107 See e.g. the annual report of 1847, i.e. Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6. 108 AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 109 Pohlman of 4 January 1847. Cf. AR-AB (1847) p. 168. 110 AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 111 Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. See also Talmage of 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–152. 112 See AR-AB (1853) p. 129; Talmage of 3 & 10 June, MH (November 1853) pp. 349–353. 113 AR-AB (1852) p. 123. 114 Joralmon to Rev. James Scott, 16 April 1857, CI (30 July 1857) p. 17 c. 3–4. 115 S. W. Williams, List of Protestant missionaries (1855). 116 AR-AB (1855) pp. 113–114.

 

89

away of 1,400 New Testaments, ‘a few hundred’ of the Pentateuch and 25,000 tracts during the last 4 months of the same year.117 Furthermore the joining of preaching and colportage/tract-distribution was also reﬂected in the labours undertaken by both the employed Chinese agents and the general laity on their own apart from the accompaniment of the missionaries. For 1852–53 the RCA reported that a good deal of work in the form of tract distribution as well as informal ‘conversation and exhortation’ had been performed by ‘the evangelist colporter [sic]’ and the Chinese converts.118 Beginning in 1854 the salaried Chinese agents were called ‘our colporteurs or evangelists’ for the reason that ‘our native helpers are both’.119 During that year the Chinese members at Amoy were involved in ‘several preaching and colporter [sic] excursions’ (although sometimes in company with Burns).120 In March 1853 Chheng-choan the Amoy church member succeeded in getting ‘the colporteur’ to accompany him to his hometown Chiangchiu in order to preach and dispense tracts there.121 A few years later the Chinese converts were commended for their evangelistic zeal especially in preaching to relatives and friends as well as in tract-distribution work in ‘the streets [of Amoy] and neighbouring villages’.122 Having ﬁnished what we wish to say about colportage and literature distribution, we return to our main story. Despite the good amount done of the said kind of work, the supremacy of the oral method was steadily maintained. The reason for this is not by any means diﬃcult to appreciate. The hearers observed to be most receptive to the missionary message were not at all the ablest nor the keenest readers. Amidst the opportunities of unmolested preaching and the general friendliness of all classes in the region, the nonreceptivity of the gentry toward the Christian religion did not escape the perceptive eye of Pohlman. He seemed to be well aware that

117

Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 146; cf. Johnston from Amoy, November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54 and 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180. 118 AR-AB (1853) p. 129. Cf. APGS (1854) p. 473. 119 Doty of 17 January 1855, MH ( June 1855) pp. 186–187. So too 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 120 MH ( January 1855) pp. 9–10. Cf. the many opportunities Burns had had for both preaching and colportage as reported in AR-FMC, Mess (1854) pp. 148–150. 121 Talmage to Anderson, 3 & 10 June 1853, in FYC, pp. 134–136. 122 Joralmon of 30 July 1856.

 

90

the oﬃcials who came to visit were motivated more by the curious desire to see ‘experiments of electricity’ rather than by a genuine interest in the Christian message.123 The missionary believed the literati regarded his kind as ‘mere moralists, far below many of their own wise men’ and that ‘[a]t heart . . . the Chinese gentry oppose us [and] scorn the idea of our teaching a better way than they and their fathers have trodden hitherto’.124 Nevertheless he considered it ‘very encouraging’ that ‘the lower orders . . . [were] disposed to listen to our message’ for then, We have just the class of hearers here who are generally thought to be the most hopeful in all countries. The under ranks are the basis of the community, just as the lowest parts of the wall sustain the higher parts. Religion must ascend from the populace to the middle classes, and then again by progressive stages to the higher ranks, to the oﬃcers and the Emperor on the throne. We would have much to fear for the genuineness and complete success of Christian eﬀorts in China, were it otherwise. Thus it was in the time of our Saviour, and thus it will ever be.125 (italics original)

It was therefore on account of actual ﬁeld responses and not purely theoretical considerations that Pohlman came to narrow his target group to the lower classes in the short term. The good words said of the latter appear more like justiﬁcation for a course pre-ﬁxed by extraneous circumstances rather than argumentation for a decision freely and deliberately made. But whether free choice or not, the group now targeted set the parameters for the near-future operational methodology. The masses, Pohlman observed, were generally illiterate and most of the readers he had met were never taught the meaning of the characters they knew so that ‘they cannot explain the simplest sentence’126. Furthermore while the advantage of having a chapel as a physical center especially for tract distribution was acknowledged, it was believed that many did not actually read ‘our books’ even though the people were ‘eager to obtain them’.127 The consequence was more reason to defer any plan of literary work, thus adding more weight upon the oral preaching method.

123 124 125 126 127

Pohlman Pohlman Pohlman Pohlman Pohlman

of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. of 1 May 1847 (italics original). of 1 May 1847, entry dated 12 June. of 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4.

 

91

Various measures were taken in pursuit of the stated preaching method and the intensive instruction of a select few approach. The Sabbath preaching schedules of Pohlman’s chapel (9 am, 3 pm), the LMS chapel (9 am, 3 pm) and the chapel connected with Cumming’s dispensary (10 am) were structured in such a way that a person could hear three sermons a day if he so desired.128 Private meetings were held on Sabbath evenings129 to test whether hearers remember the sermons previously listened to. The latter exercises, though slow and tedious, were nevertheless essential, so hearers could be diagnosed on an individual level. Since December 1845, daily (except Thursdays) worship with the normal component of preaching was maintained and visitors received in the afternoon (3–5 pm).130 By May 1847 the chapel became open also during mornings and the 3 pm session had converted into ‘stated worship’ followed by ‘an hour or more’ of free conversation with the people.131 Started on 5 January 1846 with an attendance of thirty people132, the monthly Chinese concert of prayer, which Pohlman later considered to be of second importance only to the Sabbath meetings133, actually partook of a large oral communication component. The concert often featured the reading of papers about mission-related topics.134 Intensive Bible study was another line of action undertaken. In September 1846, a second Bible class was started to study the Old Testament via ‘a critical explanation of every verse and phrase’135. In July 1847 the ﬁrst Bible

128

Pohlman of 17 September 1846. See Smith, Narrative, pp. 466ﬀ. We know the unnamed missionary in charge was Pohlman because of the attendance of Hok-ha who was associated with the RCA (see p. 418). 130 Pohlman of 17 September 1846. 131 Pohlman of 1 May 1847. 132 Pohlman [from Amoy], 25 February 1846, MH (August 1846) pp. 277–278; cf. AR-AB (1847) p. 167. The level of attendance was maintained at least until March/April 1846. Pohlman of 1 May 1846, MH (September 1846) pp. 321–323; cf. AR-AB (1848) p. 222 and (1849) p. 170. 133 Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6. 134 More in Pohlman of 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 c. 2–4. See also Pohlman of 25 February 1846; of 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4; of 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5; of 18 December 1847. 135 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6. Cf. Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 162 c. 5–6 (the second Bible class was started about ﬁfteen months ago, or ca. September 1846). Writing in early 1852, Talmage was mistaken in thinking the second Bible class was started three years ago (i.e. 1849 or perhaps 1848). Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152. 129

92

 

class136 began the study of the New Testament Epistles ‘taking up character by character, phrase by phrase, and verse by verse, and dwelling at some length on the great and important truths therein revealed’.137 This ‘slow’ process was believed to be not only proper but necessary for ‘laying a good foundation, on which should God bless us, we may erect a ﬁrm and enduring superstructure . . .’138 Thus in line with his revised strategy, Pohlman adopted individual work methods whose common character was reliance upon the oral medium. As illustrated most powerfully by the choice of the tedious and slow procedure of detailed Bible study, methodical gradualism was not something he wished to avoid. The return of Doty with Talmage did not change things much. In the report for 1847 Pohlman emphasised that ‘[h]itherto this mission has been almost exclusively a preaching station’.139 The greatest value continued to be assigned to the Sabbath preachings and the subsequent private meetings (5:30 pm). Despite the continued aloofness of the upper classes, the response of the lower and middle classes who came to the meetings140 greatly encouraged the missionaries to persist in the systematic stated oral work. Nevertheless the elites were never totally removed from the long-term schedule of evangelisation. The plan was to soon ‘lay the foundation of a neat and substantial house of worship, to which the better class will be induced to come. . . . [for i]t is thus that we may acquire a commanding inﬂuence among the Chinese, by a system of regular instruction vigorously prosecuted at respectable chapels, where we can at stated seasons be always sought and found’141. Here it should be noted that the oral method was maintained even in the planned attempt to reach the elites. To attract the latter, it was believed a more impressive physical setting (‘respectable chapels’) was what was required. Methodological continuity was also evident in the next Mission report. The ‘general plan of labor’ remained constant with gospel

136

Begun on 21 March 1844 by Abeel. AR-AB (1847) p. 166. Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 162 c. 5–6. See also AR-AB (1848) p. 223. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 See Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 166 c. 3–5. ‘Those under our inﬂuence are not of the rich, the proud, the learned, and the great, who frequent our chapels, but the poor and middle classes.’ 141 Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 162 c. 5–6. 137

 

93

preaching and oral instruction142 as ‘the burden of our eﬀorts’ as these two ‘seem more and more to be the method of reaching the mind and arresting the attention of the people’143. Indeed new experiences conﬁrmed this conviction. Consider for instance the father and son admitted by the LMS in 1848 who were both illiterate, so that ‘all their knowledge of the religion of Christ is from oral instruction’. Or the case of ca. 50-year-old Hong Bunhong who though a non-reader passed all examinations and was admitted in 1851,144 thereby proving both the necessity and the eﬀectiveness of the oral method. The system of stated preaching was also conﬁrmed by actual experience when the ﬁtted-up building on the newly-acquired chapel site was opened for Sabbath services and weekday instructions.145 For three consecutive months, the missionaries witnessed the attendance of a record-breaking number of newcomers. At the Sabbath services, the normal show-up was ‘a crowd, as great as the place can accommodate, of attentive, and (in regard to some we think it can be said) interested listeners’. Such concrete results powerfully aﬃrmed the wisdom and propriety of methodological continuity. During the 1850s the same continuity was in operation. Thus Talmage spoke approvingly of existing practices, viz. strict admission, oral preaching (due to widespread illiteracy) and intensive instruction (due to heathen upbringings).146 Continuity was further attested by the mid-year report of 1851 which noted that operations had ‘assumed so much regularity’147. The primacy of intensive instruction suﬀered no subordination even after the Pechuia awakening when the oral instruction of inquirers and baptismal candidates became ‘our most solemn work and most pressing duty’148. Up till

142

Cf. Ch. 8, n. 315 below. Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5 (italics original). No doubt in consideration of Pohlman’s eye handicap (see 4.3 infra), the semi-annual was written by Doty who was senior to the newly arrived Talmage. The latter arrived with Doty and his (second) wife on 19 August 1847. Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 144 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 145 Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. By this writing, government approval of the building project had been obtained and likewise the PC grant of $3,000. 146 Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (May 1851) pp. 152–154; Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–153. 147 Talmage of 14 July 1851. 148 Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. 143

94

 

1856 gospel preaching was maintained as ‘our ﬁrst and great work’, it being understood as the directive of Christ and the model set by the Apostles, thus also the foremost task of the present. Both faith and experience sustained the missionaries in this conviction. As Talmage put it, ‘we doubt not that, as the missionary work advances, experience will prove that the plan of Christ and his apostles is the best plan. This at least is the testimony of our own experience.’149 Doubtlessly the oral method had attained nothing less than axiomatic status among the missionaries. Even later in spring 1857 during his visit with Douglas to Amoy Island and the mainland, Joralmon was extremely careful to give away literature only ‘to those who are able to read—which, I am sorry to say, is but a small proportion—so that our principal means of reaching this people must be by oral proclamation of the truth’.150 In our survey of the evolution and adoption of RCA strategy, we ﬁnd that the initial practice of itinerary preaching gave way to that of stated preaching and the intensive instruction of a ‘select few’. From the start, oral communication was regarded the medium of reaching the Chinese due to various factors, viz. the receptivity of the lower orders, the problem of extensive illiteracy and the suspicion that dispensed literature was not actually read. Conﬁrmed by ﬁeld experiences, the later Pohlman methodology was continued by Doty and Talmage until 1856 and beyond.151 Before examining the relationship between mission methods and membership quality, we shall ﬁrst look at an aspect of the larger working environment generally encountered by China missionaries, i.e. the widespread hostility toward foreigners. 3.4. Anti-foreignism in Amoy In the matter of anti-foreignism, Amoy proved to be an exception as far as the early Banlam missionaries were concerned. In other words, there was a general non-antagonism toward foreign missionaries. The

149 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6 or MH (1856) pp. 167–170. 150 Joralmon to Rev. James Scott, [from Amoy], 16 April 1857, CI (30 July 1857) p. 17 c. 3–4. 151 On the attitudes of the EP missionaries toward the intensive oral method, see 7.7 infra.

 

95

friendliness toward foreigners was believed by many to be peculiar to Amoy among the treaty ports during the 1840s. Having previously visited Hong Kong, Canton, Macao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Chusan Island and Fuzhou152, Smith (CMS) arrived in Amoy in January 1846 and found such amiability as he had nowhere else seen153. Despite this favourable impression, his account of the Chinese was not entirely rosy as he reported both the admirable and the abhorrable traits of the people.154 But this only shows that Smith was attempting what he intended to be an objective account of things.155 Earlier Pohlman and later many others were to make similar comments on Amoy friendliness, often in contrast to the situation in Canton.156 Exceptionally we ﬁnd from Johnston a positive remark on Cantonese hostility. After visiting that port in 1853, he declared that the hostile attitude to foreigners has been ‘greatly modiﬁed’ and the place looks promising for an English school.157 But in the light of uniform testimony to the contrary, one wonders whether Johnston had an exceptional experience during his short visit or whether in his eagerness to start educational work he had read the situation with an overdose of optimism. Or perhaps it was because he was comparing the Canton he saw (not with Amoy but rather) with the Canton he had before heard about. Anyway he did afterwards mention

152

Smith, Narrative, chh. 1–24. Pages 490–491. Smith was the unnamed English missionary whose testimony was cited in AR-AB (1846) pp. 171–172. 154 Pages 489–490. 155 For sure, any claim of objectivity would be seriously questioned by both postmodernists and non-postmodernists today. But this is not the place to go into that discussion. 156 E.g. Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (9 April 1846) p. 154 c. 1–2; Pohlman of [no day] February 1846, AR-AB (1846) pp. 170–171; Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4; Pohlman [from Amoy], 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4; AR-AB (1847) pp. 167–168; Pohlman from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5, entry dated 12 June; Pohlman of 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4; Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6; Doty of 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5; Burns of 25 July 1851, in Burns, Memoir, p. 285; Burns of 5 August 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 370ﬀ; Burns of 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219ﬀ; Bx119/F5, Burns of 16 May 1853; Talmage, diary, 5 June 1848, in FYC, p. 85; Talmage of April-June 1853, MH (1853) pp. 349–353; Swanson, ‘Career’, p. 58; Joralmon of 16 April 1857; Macgowan, Christ, pp. 13–16, 41–47; FYA, pp. 34–37. 157 Johnston from Victoria [Hong Kong], 23 November 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 53–54. 153

96

 

Amoy friendliness although without contrasting it with the Cantonese situation.158 In sum, the missionaries unanimously believed in the non-prevalence of strong hostility toward foreigners in Amoy. Even before coming to Banlam, Abeel already had had opportunities of coming into contact with natives from that region which impressed upon him their non-antagonistic attitude. During the fairweathered winter of 1839–40, Abeel was able to mingle with the Amoy-speaking people in Macao.159 Finding them friendly and open to intercourse with Westerners despite the tensions of the First SinoBritish War, he spent the summer working with this dialect group as much as he can although reaping little desired results.160 Earlier in 1832 Abeel did distribute literature among the Amoy-speaking Chinese in Singapore161 but there was then no speciﬁc reference to any friendly disposition which of course need not suggest the nonexistence of such. Positive local response in Banlam itself was ﬁrst reported by Abeel a few months after his arrival. In contrast to Macao where his attendance ranged from two to seven people162, Abeel’s Kolongsu congregation attained an average of ﬁfty by June 1842 or in just four months163. During the summer, Abeel wrote: I am preaching every Sunday to about 50 Chinese, some of whom are regular attendants, others patients. It is the most promising missionary ﬁeld I ever occupied. The number who come for medicine is large. Indeed we are obliged to limit them, or it would consume nearly all our available time. The patients are men of nearly all classes, to whom we have the opportunity of preaching the gospel every day. I have several around me at this moment, to whom I have been talking and giving books. But I must close, as I feel rather exhausted.164

Clearly the problem for the missionary was not the lack of an audience but the overtaking of the supply (preachers) by the demand

158

Johnston of [no day] February 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 162–163. See SL/MSS.XT8.Ab3, ‘Abeel papers and journals’, envelope 4, journal of 30 May 1839, p. 38. 160 Abeel, journal of 5 February 1840, in Williamson, Memoir, p. 194; Poppen, ‘Abeel’, pp. 119–121. 161 Poppen, ‘Abeel’, p. 61; cf. Williamson, pp. 96ﬀ. 162 Poppen, ‘Abeel’, p. 121; cf. Abeel, journal, 5 June 1840, in Williamson, Memoir, p. 196. 163 Circular letter of the missionaries, from Macao, 10 July 1842, CI (31 December 1842), p. 94 c. 5. See also Abeel to Dr. Washington, from ‘Kolongsoo’, 4 August 1842, CI (7 January 1843) p. 98 c. 2. 164 Abeel of 4 August 1842. 159

 

97

(hearers). In late October Abeel noted that since arrival, the missionaries ‘have been preaching to audiences varying generally from 30 to 80’.165 Not only so, their ‘houses are the daily resorts of visiters [sic], and the country around invites us to more labor than is likely to be bestowed upon it for many years to come’.166 By the following spring there were as many as a hundred in attendance.167 Whether rain or shine (literally), the Chinese interest continued unabated. From early June, Abeel reported, Yesterday, notwithstanding the storm, I had a large congregation of Chinese; I have generally everyday in the week this privilege. The sermons you hear are an hour long, or generally less; I begin after breakfast and often keep at it until exhausted nature cries out for repose, and I am obliged at times to leave visitors and go to bed.168 (Italics original)

The phenomenon of general non-antagonism requires some explanation. First, there was the larger background of anti-Manchu sentiments in Fujian. During the early years of the Qing regime, organised pro-Ming resistance against the ruling dynasty had lasted for nearly two decades, the armed movement having ended only after the death of Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) at Formosa on 23 June 1662.169 From 1649 to 1661 Zheng was at various times in Fujian including Banlam where anti-Tartarism170 was fomented and did endure beyond those years. Thus it was not entirely surprising that soon after the ﬁrst Protestant missionaries arrived in the 1840s, a Chinese man ‘proposed to one of them to eﬀect an expulsion of the present Tartar dynasty, which he demonstrated to be perfectly easy, if they would only bring 4000 men to Amoy, to assist in carrying out his plan!’.171 The resentment against the ruling regime made for an openness to other parties which were perceived to be capable of providing an alternative space of existence. Second, there was the more immediate background of the ﬁrst Sino-British war.

165 Abeel to Dr. De Witt, ‘Kolongsoo’, 31 October 1842, CI (8 April 1843) p. 150 c. 2. 166 Ibid. 167 Poppen, ‘Abeel’, p. 136. 168 Abeel of 3 June 1843, CI (23 December 1843) p. 90 c. 4. 169 See e.g. Lynn A. Struve, The Southern Ming, 1644–1662 (Yale UP, 1984). 170 The rulers of the Qing dynasty were Tartars. 171 Smith, Narrative, p. 394.

98

 

As Smith (CMS) noted, the kindly attitude in Amoy toward foreigners may also be attributed to the lenient treatment of the local population during the British occupation of 1841–1845 which stood in contrast to the merciless conduct commonly expected of victorious Chinese troops172. Then there are the factors more directly related to the missionary presence. One of these was the attractive power of medical work, or as Pohlman out it, the ‘happy inﬂuence of the Dispensary’.173 After quarters were obtained at Amoy in early 1844, Dr. Cumming quickly moved into the port city while Abeel and Dr. Hepburn commuted from Kolongsu.174 But more signiﬁcantly, Smith (CMS) called attention to the peculiarly advantageous position of Abeel in the earliest days. Since he arrived in Amoy already with knowledge of the local dialect, the RCA pioneer was able ‘to remonstrate with the people on the very ﬁrst appearance of danger, and to disarm the ﬁrst symptoms of hostility’.175 Also as the interpreter-mediator between Chinese and foreign authorities and with the advantage of living during the regimes of two liberal-minded Haihongs, Abeel was able to quickly establish good relations with Amoy oﬃcialdom.176 On the whole, Smith’s analysis is certainly on the right track. But it is necessary that we should highlight some details in order to better understand the exact position of Abeel in his historical context. We call attention to his popularity and indispensability as the only ﬂuent Amoy-speaking foreigner177 in the uncertain diplomatic situation of post-war Amoy. The linguistic ability allowed ‘the opportunity of doing little favors for those in authority as well as for others . . .’178 These earned him the courtesy, ‘friendly’ visits and occasional hospitality of various local oﬃcials during the latter part of 1842.179 Among these oﬃcial kindnesses, the most memorable was the formal

172

Pages 379ﬀ. Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (9 April 1846) p. 154 c. 1–2. 174 AR-AB (1845) p. 165. 175 Smith, Narrative, pp. 381–382; Johnston of February 1854. Cf. Pohlman of 17 September 1845 (p. 154 c. 1–2). 176 Smith, Narrative, pp. 382, 388ﬀ. A civil mandarin but with military powers, the Haihong was practically the most powerful local oﬃcial. 177 Circular letter of the missionaries, from Macao, 10 July 1842. 178 Abeel to De Witt, from ‘Kolongsoo’ [= Kolongsu], 31 October 1842, CI (8 April 1843) p. 150 c. 2. 179 Poppen, ‘Abeel’, pp. 133–134, citing Abeel, journal, 9 & 24 & 29 November 1842. 173

 

99

reception of the missionaries by the chief magistrate in late October180, i.e. just about two months after the Nanjing Treaty was ratiﬁed. Thus we see it was the fortunate conglomeration of many factors which made for the advantageous position of the early Amoy missionaries, viz. the language ability of Abeel, the post-war situation, the liberal-mindedness of the Haihongs as well as the arrival of medical missionaries which made possible the rendering of medical services and the winning of public appreciation. The same position of advantage was soon enjoyed by the LMS and RCA agents who came after Abeel.181 This explains the comparative ease with which each Mission was able to acquire a chapel by early 1846.182 On this point, it is important to note that it was commonly with the greatest diﬃculty that Missions were able to obtain property (if at all) during the early stage of their work.183 A few years previously, the chief magistrate had expressed the desire that the missionaries move to live in Amoy ‘that he might have frequent opportunities of seeing us’.184 In early 1845 the ‘highest city oﬃcer at Amoy’ in the presence of the missionaries had expressed a favourable attitude toward their doctrines.185 Later in May when the missionaries received a copy of Kiying’s proclamation of Protestant toleration, their ‘bargaining position’ before the local authorities was no doubt further enhanced. In order to maintain the good relations, the missionaries made house calls upon the top oﬃcials on the occasion of the Chinese new year in 1846186. In reciprocation a few weeks later, the ﬁve high Mandarins hosted them to a banquet where the foreigners were given seats of honour.187 General local friendliness was well sustained until 1856 and beyond. The putting out of the big ﬁre at Amoy in January 1856 which involved the foreign ﬁre-engines, the missionaries and the Chinese

180

Abeel of 31 October 1842. E.g. Doty and Pohlman, as cited in AR-AB (1846) pp. 170ﬀ; (1847) p. 165; Talmage, diary, 5 June 1848, in FYC, p. 85. Cf. FYA, p. 60. 182 See Smith, Narrative, pp. 382, 395. 183 See, e.g. the case of north Fujian in E.C. Carlson, The Foochow missionaries, 1847–1880 (1974). 184 Abeel of 31 October 1842. 185 Pohlman of 17 September 1845. 186 I.e. the tetok, chamhoo, ‘taou-tai’, haiquan and haihong. Smith, Narrative, pp. 420–428. 187 Smith, Narrative, pp. 472–479. Cf. Pohlman of [no day] February 1846, ARAB (1846) p. 171. 181

100

 

was a major public-relations success furthering the goodwill between the Westerners and the natives.188 Another area of activity in which the foreigners were able to win the gratitude of the locals was in the matter of dealing with the problem of piracy. In April 1857 when there was a serious rice shortage, some junks delivering the commodity to Amoy were intercepted by pirates. The news was immediately relayed to the British Consul189 at the treaty port who dispatched the brig of war Camilla which succeeded in retrieving two junks loaded with rice.190 Nor was this a unique incident, for there had been ‘several’ like occurrences in the past.191 For instance, during his trip to Tong-an 10 years earlier (17 April 1847), Pohlman met some pirates under escort going to Fuzhou, who had been captured by ‘an English man-of-war, near the mouth of [the] Min [river]’.192 These past cases of Western naval assistance explain why the British Consul was contacted when the rice junks were taken by the pirates in 1857. Within a space of one week during the ﬁrst half of April, the Camilla had taken in 25 pirates who were subsequently beheaded by the Chinese authorities. In appreciation, ‘a number of the merchants of the place made a very ﬁne present to the commander of the brig for his success with the pirates’.193 Noting how the missionaries were well received everywhere, Joralmon drew a quick comparison: . . . we could not but draw a contrast between our situation and that of the Canton brethren. They can scarcely go outside of Hong-Kong without a fear of losing their heads, while we go oft to places before unvisited by foreigners, and we are treated with the greatest kindness. There the most bitter feeling exists between the natives and the foreign community; here everything is pleasant. The people are led to look upon us as very kind to them.194 (italics original)

188

Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. Harry Smith Parkes (10 August 1854 – 14 January 1859); succeeding Dan Brooke Robertson (23 November 1852–10 August 1854); succeeded by Wm. R. Gingell. 190 Joralmon to Rev. James Scott, [from Amoy], 16 April 1857, CI (30 July 1857) p. 17 c. 3–4. 191 Ibid. 192 Pohlman from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. This was the second part of Pohlman’s semi-annual report. Part one appeared in CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6. 193 Joralmon of 16 April 1857. 194 Ibid. 189

 

101

Even when ‘the din of war is heard in the distance’, the Banlam missionaries were still ‘enjoy[ing the] most complete quiet and peace, [and] the people are as friendly as ever’ despite continuing objections about the coolie and opium traﬃcs and the behaviour of foreign sailors.195 With the mandarins anxious to remain on good terms with Western authorities, neither the foreign consuls nor the missionaries saw any cause for alarm, believing that even should a ‘general war’ ensue, ‘Amoy would very easily be kept in tranquillity.’196 Indeed this expectation suﬀered no disappointment. A comparative look at nearby Canton and Swatow should help bring home the point. Racial tensions increased dramatically at Canton during the SinoWestern conﬂict in the later half of the 1850s.197 Likewise at Swatow, anti-foreignism was strong even after the Arrow War had ended. Earlier a state of tension had existed in 1857 when the coolie mutiny aboard a French ship brought about the threat of bombardment by a French war steamer which however did not materialise on account of the intercession of ‘the Canton merchants here [in Swatow]’.198 Soon thereafter, Burns reported that the local people appeared ‘friendly’ although displaying ‘great indiﬀerence to the gospel message’.199 The positive disposition was no doubt substantially if not chieﬂy due to the medical work of Dr. De la Porte.200 Yet apart from the physician and Burns, the place was reckoned unsafe for other foreigners.201 Following ‘the new order of things at Canton’, the Swatow people became friendlier than usual.202 This did not last long, as after the Chinese new year season in 1860, anti-foreignism resurged.203 In contrast at Amoy, ‘everything is in perfect quiet’ and this ‘amid the disturbance and war at Canton’.204 Apart from the converts being 195

Douglas from Amoy, 3 December 1856. Ibid. 197 Mess ( June 1857) pp. 159–160; extracts from AR-SA (1857), as cited in Mess (1858) p. 17. 198 Burns from Swatow, 31 March 1857, Mess (1857) p. 226. 199 Burns from Swatow, 1 July 1857, Mess (1857) p. 346. 200 Burns from Swatow, 5 August 1857, Mess (1857) pp. 346ﬀ. 201 Ibid.; Burns from Swatow, 9 June 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 286–287. 202 Burns [from Swatow], 6 April 1858, Mess (1858) p. 225. 203 Smith from Swatow, [no day] September 1860, Mess (1860) pp. 378–379; Smith from Swatow, 13 November 1860, Mess (1861) p. 85; Burns from Swatow, 3 January 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 116–117. 204 Sandeman [from Amoy], 1 August 1857, Mess (1857) p. 348. 196

102

 

threatened by ‘some of the dissolute mob’, there was no real untoward incident.205 Consequently missionary opportunities were great both in and outside Amoy.206 Popular amiability was further paralleled by the disposition of the local community leadership. On 23 May 1857, the Committee of Public Safety hosted a dinner for ‘the consular authorities, the naval oﬃcers, and all the merchants and missionaries of the place’ at the Lam-po-to temple.207 The said Committee was a semi-oﬃcial body ‘consisting of the most inﬂuential people of the place’.208 Ulterior motives came to the fore when the Chinese chairman endeavoured unsuccessfully to obtain a promise of foreign military assistance in the event of any local insurrection. Two days later, the British Consulate hosted a dinner in reciprocation. Whatever the motives, the diplomatic exchange between the Chinese leaders and the foreigners had a reassuring eﬀect upon the missionaries who nevertheless were not totally free of unsuspicion toward these ‘mere outward civilities’209. In 1858, even as news of the ‘taking of Canton’ excited missionary optimism about the future of China’s evangelisation, the same ‘does not appear to have either much interested or much aﬀected the people in this neighbourhood.’210 The Amoy apathy toward the war must have sounded somewhat incredible to the missionaries from diverse mainland stations who were refuging in Hong Kong when Smith visited the colony in 1857211. There exist records of at least three occasions when the general Amoy friendliness seemed to have been less than consistent. The ﬁrst incident concerned Pohlman’s second visit to Chiangchiu in March 1847 during which he and his three companions were ‘under an escort of soldiers, who came to lead us around, and protect us from insult and injury’.212 Even though no untoward incidents were reported, we are at a loss to say whether the peace was attribut-

205 Sandeman from Amoy, 10 April 1857, Mess (1857) p. 226. Cf. Sandeman from Amoy, 2 June 1858, Mess (1858) p. 285. 206 Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 147; Smith to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 11 February 1858, Mess (1858) p. 147; cf. AR-FMC, Mess (1858) p. 148. 207 Douglas’ letter published in the Edinburgh Witness, as cited in Mess (1857) p. 321. 208 Ibid. 209 Sandeman of 1 August 1857. 210 Smith to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 11 February 1858, Mess (1858) p. 147. 211 Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) pp. 145–146. 212 Pohlman’s letter, as cited in AR-AB (1848) p. 221.

 

103

able to local friendliness or to the military presence. At any rate the missionary perception was of uninterrupted ‘exhibitions of friendliness, both of men in oﬃce of various grades and of the common people’.213 Such an impression had an encouraging eﬀect upon the continued application of the oral preaching method. The second incident was the three-day mob rally in November 1852 which culminated in an attack upon a foreign establishment. Deriving its cause from ‘some mercantile transactions, in which natives employed as agents were guilty of nefarious practices among the Chinese far and wide’214, the aﬀair did not directly involve the religious agents. Even though there was much anti-foreign feelings ‘in the region around us’, the missionaries were in ‘no danger’ in Amoy ‘where we are well known’. But to travel into the interior at that time presented a great risk unless the foreigner was ‘personally and favorably known’. In Amoy therefore the antagonism found its speciﬁc target at Western merchants. The same was said to apply in the interior but with the diﬀerence that there the missionaries were not as well known so that they risked being the object of mistargeted violence.215 Thus the most this generated was the temporary suspension of missionary visits to the interior. The preaching work in Amoy and that done by the Chinese in the interior (if any at all) did not seem to have been signiﬁcantly hindered. The last incident came when the Little Knife insurrection ﬁrst broke out near Amoy in 1853 and the missionaries ‘felt some anxiety’ as they were at one point uncertain how foreigners will be treated.216 However the whole aﬀair ended with the missionaries suﬀering no personal harm at the hands of the insurgents217 although the interior was closed oﬀ for some time on account of the ﬁghtings. At Chiangchiu the execution of evangelist U Teng-eng was not a case of anti-foreignism but of mistaken association218. Just like the second incident, there was at most the interruption of preaching in the interior. Thus despite the three incidents, the missionaries continued to believe in the general friendliness of all classes in Amoy toward them.

213

Pohlman’s letter, p. 222. Doty of 28 January 1853, MH (1853) pp. 161–162. 215 On the ﬁrst major anti-missionary movement in Banlam after 1842, see J.V.N. Talmage, The anti-missionary movement in south China (1871). 216 Talmage to Anderson, 3 & 10 June 1853, in FYC, pp. 139–140. 217 APGS (1854) p. 473. 218 Doty of 18 January 1854, MH (1854) pp. 168–171. 214

104

 

In sum, the Amoy situation was somewhat unique in that there was not the outward expression of anti-foreign or anti-missionary sentiments to the degree as was encountered, e.g., at Canton, Swatow or Fuzhou219. Even with regard to the common Chinese objection against Westerners, viz. the opium issue, the Amoy missionaries enjoyed an unusual fortune unheard of among their colleagues elsewhere in China. Douglas wrote in 1859, ‘In the country around Amoy the general idea up to this time still is that all the Missionaries are Americans, and that the English are wholly engaged with the opium traﬃc.’220 However the relative absence of oﬃcial restriction and popular non-opposition did not mean that the people as a matter of course were receptive to the evangelistic message.221 This distinction is important for it relates to the slow conversion rate encountered in the early period. In 1852 Burns noted that the Amoy residents were already ‘somewhat accustomed’ to Christian preaching but the masses were generally ‘very apathetic and unconcerned’.222 Perhaps the assessment of Johnston came closer to reality: ‘To say that we are respected or loved would be too much [for] they have their doubts about us, and entertain a considerable sense of superiority, mingled with an unwilling impression that the superiority has not been well sustained, either in the national or personal intercourse’.223 It remains to discuss the implication of the above for mission methodology. Whether as practitioners or theoreticians, the early Amoy missionaries never operated in a vacuum. Their existential predicament at diﬀerent times determined to a great extent their thinking, inclinations, behaviour and work methods. The general friendliness of Amoy toward foreigners had two important eﬀects upon RCA work methods. First, the relative openness of Amoy allowed Pohlman to ﬁrst try out the extensive preaching approach and then quickly discard it in favour of the intensive approach. With the intensive instruction method adopted at quite an early time, the

219 See G.A. Hood, Mission accomplished? (1986) ch. 2; E. Stock, The story of the Fuh-kien mission, 3rd ed. (1890); Carlson, The Foochow missionaries. 220 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Anhai, 26 November 1859. 221 E.g. Burns of 25 July 1851, in Burns, Memoir, p. 285; Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5; Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 222 Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. 223 Johnston of [no day] February 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 162–163.

 

105

dividends gradually paid oﬀ in the form of converts whose Christian character displayed a quality highly acceptable to the missionaries. Second, because of this Amoy peculiarity, the problem of mission work from the start was not the lack of native interest but the challenge of separating the sincere from the insincere seekers. The latter class was expected especially on account of the ‘endorsement’ eﬀect among the masses generated by the rather consistent bestowal of local governmental kindness and interest since the time of Abeel. Even though ulterior motives behind the 1846 banquet were suspected, the missionaries believed the event would nevertheless eﬀectively assure the populace that espousal of Christianity would not bring about oﬃcial persecution.224 As Talmage later put it: ‘The people will not fear to listen to us, attend our meetings, and visit us at our houses, as they would if the mandarins kept aloof from us.’225 Indeed the missionaries were proven right. Not only did they receive ‘the same polite attentions and friendly disposition everywhere[!]’, their bold anti-idolatry statements ‘did not appear to excite any ill-will’.226 The Chinese non-reaction to such verbal assaults upon their culturo-religious heritage suggests that the endorsement of oﬃcialdom had not only given the missionaries the freedom to preach at will but also had a restraining eﬀect upon potential popular hostility. It was in such an atmosphere that the strict admission policy was forged. This is understandable since strong local antagonism to the foreign missionaries would naturally discourage any Chinese from associating with them and thereby become itself a test of religious sincerity. But in its absence, the missionaries compensated with alternative screening criteria and in the process ended up with high baptism/admission standards. This is irregardless of whether the compensational character of this adjustment did or did not come to the conscious attention of the missionaries. In other words, we are talking not about intention but actual eﬀect.

224 Smith, Narrative, pp. 472–479. Cf. Pohlman of [no day] February 1846, ARAB (1846) p. 171. 225 Talmage, diary, 5 June 1848, in FYC, p. 85. 226 Smith, Narrative, pp. 392–395.

106

  3.5. Work methods and membership quality

Thus far we have examined two RCA methodological features, viz. strict admission and intensive oral instruction. Since the American missionaries did all of the work in the examination and admission of candidates, these methods reigned supreme at Amoy, Pechuia and Chiohbe. Both were consciously adopted as precautionary measures with the intention of creating and preserving a church membership with good Christian character or quality. The internal elements of both features made it extremely diﬃcult for any applicant to qualify for baptism. The rigour of the knowledge and sincerity tests acted as a deterrent to the undetermined and the feigning. The protracted length of the qualifying process screened oﬀ the impatient and the undurable. The scrutinising missionary interview of each applicant on an individual level put oﬀ the timid and the undecided. Yet despite missionary strictness and carefulness, the Chinese members were not entirely ‘free from faults’, so that it was believed they still require much pastoral care and instruction.227 Up to the end of 1853, there were no cases of church discipline.228 In February 1854, Johnston noted with interest the superior missionary success at Amoy: The Church here numbers more converts than in any of the other parts in China; and from what I have seen of them, they will bear comparison with the same class of converts in any heathen place that I have visited. . . . It says not a little for the stability of the Chinese character, as well as for the caution of the missionaries in admitting converts, that there has never been a suﬃcient ground for the exercise [of discipline] on any member of the Church since its formation: eight have passed from the Church below, we trust to the Church above, but none have been suspended or expelled.229

But by mid-1855 Chiohbe already had three disciplinary cases (including one excommunication) and one instance of a native helper being

227

Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (1855) p. 43. CAF, p. 86. The loss of eight members up to this time was by death and not due to disciplinary action. 229 Johnston of February 1854. At this writing, the RCA had twenty-ﬁve adult members while the LMS had twenty-one. The good impression about the Amoy work persisted beyond the 1850s. See e.g. John and Alexander Stronach, and William K. Lea, ‘Amoy’, The Missionary Magazine and Chronicle, N.S. 317 (1 October 1862) pp. 288, 290. Cf. These forty years, pp. 18–19. 228

 

107

de-posted.230 In early 1856, Douglas reported that in the past year there had been among the converts of the three Missions ‘some cases of backsliding and falling away’ including that of an evangelist being taken by opium smoking.231 Months later, Douglas corrected his original remark saying the fallen helper was not actually ‘a colporteur’ but rather a chapel-keeper who was only employed for a brief time.232 The mis-identiﬁcation had occurred because Douglas who did not know the man personally and ‘mistook his occupation’ while reading the salary records at a time when the missionary was not ‘suﬃciently at home in the language’.233 To put the record right, it was added that ‘[n]one of the Evangelists or colporteurs employed here have ever fallen back’234. In all probability, it seems the fallen worker was the Chiohbe helper we just mentioned. For the RCA, there were one excommunication and one suspension in 1855.235 By January the suspended Sabbath violator had been found repentant and was likely to be received back soon. A report from July 1856 told of a cumulative record of two cases of ‘backsliding’ at Amoy and one at Chiohbe.236 The latter was likely the young man who had been excommunicated ‘apparently without hope of recovery’.237 Unfortunately the existing records do not provide much details about these incidents other than to cite or enumerate them. Thus gone were the days when the only discipline exercised was ‘in the milder form of exhortation and counsel’.238 Church growth had brought in a new problem in the form of internal membership quality control, this in addition to admission quality control. Nevertheless by all indications, problematic cases were proportionately very few and seemed to have been customarily handled with seriousness and promptness. In early 1856, it was assured that disciplinary cases were ‘very rare’ and some had truly repented.239

230

Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (1855) pp. 354–356. Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120; cf. CAF, p. 112. 232 Douglas from Amoy, 21 July 1856, Mess (1856) p. 339. 233 Ibid. 234 Ibid. 235 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 236 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 237 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338. 238 AR-AB (1855) p. 112. 239 Douglas of 3 January 1856. 231

108

 

Although the mission-aﬃliation of the fallen ones was not disclosed, the given impression was that the missionaries were still quite happy about the general quality of the Banlam Christians. Moreover the number of disciplinary incidents in Amoy was indeed small, with only two or three cases (one ending in restoration) among a membership of over a hundred men. Comparatively at Chiohbe there were at least four cases among twenty-four members in 1855 alone. This distinction is signiﬁcant because the Sinkoe event was an Amoy aﬀair. Therefore in eﬀect the missionary idea of a generally good quality body of believers in Amoy can be sustained reasonably well. Toward the achievement of the intended end, i.e. the production of goodquality members, the RCA methodology can be said to be quite fruitful and on the whole the missionaries reckoned themselves rather successful. To conclude this Chapter, we note that the records show the missionaries were quite impressed with the general Christian quality of their baptised converts. As we have observed, the quality factor ties in to the strict baptism/admission standards and the intensive oral method of the RCA which had been upheld since 1846. To counter the obstacles to Chinese conversion—viz. ‘heathen’ background, insincerity and ignorance—the mission methodology was speciﬁcally designed to over-test baptismal candidates and to provide intensive oral instruction to a select few. The general atmosphere of outward non-antagonism to the missionaries on the part of the natives helped pave the way for the installation of other criteria for the discernment of applicant sincerity. The same also allowed for the early test-out of the extensive or itinerant preaching method and its quick replacement by the intensive method. Consequently the RCA methodology was substantially formed even before the EPM arrived at Amoy. But even with the EPM around, the matter of examination and baptism was orchestrated by the Americans using their methods. While it is true there were instances of quality failures beginning in 1855, these were few in Amoy and discipline was normally applied swiftly. Thus in April-May 1856 the missionaries were quite satisﬁed with the general quality of their baptised membership in Amoy and could ﬁnd no reason to adjudge the two Chinese congregations unﬁt an electorate. Comparatively the Banlam practice contrasted with the lax admission standards of the French Catholic mission in Guizhou during

 

109

the 1860s240. Likewise the consistent character of its application contrasted with certain Protestant practices in north Fujian. Coming after a decade of fruitless work in Fuzhou, the CMS’ ﬁrst baptisms (1861) conspicuously followed the ‘threat’ of closing the mission (1859).241 That three of the four baptised men eventually discarded Christianity while the fourth remained as a chapel-keeper easily lends to the accusation of the ﬁrst-fruits being composed of three phoneys and one rice-Christian. One wonders whether they were instances of panic admission on the part of a Mission greatly anxious about its very existence. Similarly the baptised converts of the Methodist Episcopal Mission in Fuzhou grew dramatically from one (1857) to ﬁfty-four (1860) after doubts were expressed by the home Board (1859) about the continuance of the mission.242 Even after CMS’ accelerated deployment of native helpers had brought about rapid conversion growth, the quality of both helpers and converts was subject to serious questioning by both internal and external parties.243 This casts doubt upon claims of generally good helper/convert quality made by CMS missionaries and Stock.244 Indeed admission was not always strict as evinced by cases of ‘hasty’ admission at diﬀerent times.245 In contrast the Banlam missionaries faced no similar pressure from the home Board and were able consequently to enforce their strict admission policy without compromise. Chieﬂy on this account, the RCA held a higher view of the character of Banlam converts and workers than missionaries elsewhere in China generally held of theirs.246 Relatedly the intensive instruction method as an approach in personal work corresponds to the concentration method as an approach in strategic geographical work. The latter stands in contrast to the extensive method of Gutzlaﬀ and societies like the ABCFM and China Inland Mission.247 Both the intensive instruction and the concentration methods were adopted by the RCA and EPM in Banlam and

240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247

Cohen, China, pp. 135–143. Stock, Story, pp. 29ﬀ. Carlson, Foochow, pp. 66–68. Carlson, pp. 79–80, 96–100. E.g. Story, pp. 31, 37–38, 291. E.g. Story, pp. 87, 100, 148–150. See Talmage, in Records 1877, pp. 322–323. See Latourette, pp. 366, 376.

 

110

contributed to the success of their missionary work. Likewise at Swatow the concentration method helped to make the EPM one of the more accomplished missions in China.248 On another note, our discussion on methodology bears a connection to Chapter 2. There we argued the RCA was ahead of the EPM in setting a church formation objective, in working toward it, in reaping results along that line and in having the Talmage ideal. This Chapter shows that the RCA was the ﬁrst to adopt the policy of strict admission and to apply the method of intensive oral instruction. These features were also characteristic of the EP methodology. In view of the intimacy of the two Missions249, the British were surely aware of the RCA practices even before they began to do the same. In this sense we ﬁnd another instance of RCA leadership.

248 249

See Hood, Mission. See Ch. 7.

CHAPTER FOUR

MISSIONARY LIMITATIONS 4.1. Introduction Previously we have shown that it was quite early on that the RCA began to have the Talmage ideal as its church formation vision. In the earlier Chapter, we noted that in order to inaugurate ecclesiastical self-government in 1856, it was indispensable that the missionaries believe in the existence of both a pool of potential oﬃce-bearers with the proper qualiﬁcations as well as an assembly of ‘mature’ electors. Then we went on to argue that the Chinese members did meet the missionary expectations with regards to the quality of their Christianity. This and the next two Chapters continue the argument by showing how the religious labours of the Chinese also helped to win the conﬁdence of the missionaries about Chinese maturity and readiness for self-government. More particularly the present Chapter attempts to show how certain situational factors created and multiplied the opportunities for Chinese participation in the Protestant work at Banlam. The aim is to present the various limitations upon the missionary workforce and then to show how these factors interacted in a complicated fashion so as to create a work space for Chinese labour in both paid and voluntary forms. The intent is not to discuss Chinese work in full detail, for that task is reserved for the upcoming Chapters. The main interest now is only to show the causative relationships between the various internal limitations of the American and British agents on the one hand and the Chinese work space on the other. It is needful at this time to clarify a term which shall be constantly appearing in our discussion from this point onward. By Chinese work space we mean opportunities for the Chinese to take part in evangelistic or church work which was undertaken either under missionary leadership or with the tacit consent of the missionaries. Such works embrace preaching, colportage/literature-distribution, religious conversation, Christian instruction, educational work and other forms of labour carried out by the Chinese whether in Amoy

112

 

or elsewhere.1 The Chinese we have in mind include converts/members (baptised), inquirers/professors of Protestantism (unbaptised) and paid/employed workers whom the missionaries believed to have already accepted the Christian faith. In other words, we are speaking of Chinese Christians in a broad sense (thus including those unbaptised) while excluding non-Christian school-teachers and other employees. This precision is important for it is diﬃcult to conceive how the good performance of a non-Christian teacher could be interpreted by the missionaries as constituting sincere commitment to the Christian faith. Relatedly even though our main concern is with the Sinkoe event which was primarily an RCA event, we shall nevertheless take time to look into the EP dimension of things. This we will do not only in this Chapter but in the later ones as well. There are two good reasons for doing so. First, the EPM availed of RCA Chinese labour on more than one occasion, thereby not only enlarging the Chinese work space but also helping to ‘test out’ the RCA converts. Second, although positive EPM impressions of the Chinese may not have the eﬀect of dramatically altering positive RCA impressions of the same, the existence of negative EPM experiences or impressions could substantially aﬀect positive RCA impressions. To discover whether the latter case was real, the EP side of the story requires an equal hearing. 4.2. Shortage of missionaries From the earliest days of Protestant work in Amoy, the shortage of missionary personnel had been a perennial problem. As our previous discussion of their comings and goings2 has shown the smallness of the total missionary number over the entirety of the 1842–56 period, we now look at the exact number of missionaries on the ground at speciﬁc times. Table One below oﬀers an overview of the combined foreign workforce of the two Missions over our period. It is followed by the more detailed discussion of each Mission.

1

Our period is too early for any talk about Chinese participation in direct medical work. 2 See 2.2 supra.

 

113

Table One: RCA and EPM missionaries, 1842–56 DATE Feb 1842–May 1844 Jun 1844–Dec 1844 Jan 1844–Nov 1845 Dec 1845–July 1847 Aug 1847–Jan 1849 Feb 1849–Mar 1849 Apr 1849–Apr 1850 May 1850–Jun 1850 July 1850–Jun 1851 July 1851–Nov 1853 Dec 1853 Jan–Aug 1854 Sep 1854–Jun 1855 July 1855–Mar 1856 Apr 1856

MONTHS3

MALE

FEMALE

28 7 23 20 30 2 13 2 12 29 1 8 10 9 1

1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 5 3 3 4

0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 3

RCA From February 1842 to April 1856 (197 months), the number of RCA missionaries was highest at three men and two women during a brief seven-month spread in 1844. For about 123 months there were four workers, at times including one woman (30 months) and at other times two (92 months). Negligible is the short and transitional time of two months with three persons as well as the one month with six agents upon the arrival of the Joralmons. During a span of ﬁfteen months, Doty was the only male missionary though accompanied by his second wife. Lastly there were four years with only one missionary in Banlam. Table Two: RCA missionaries, 1842–56 DATE Feb 1842–May 1844 Jun–Dec 1844

3

MONTHS

MALE

FEMALE

28

Abeel

—

Abeel, Doty, Pohlman

Mrs Doty, Mrs Pohlman

7

For convenience, portion of a month counts as one. So too in later Tables.

 

114 Table Two: (cont.) DATE

MONTHS

MALE

FEMALE

Jan 1844–Nov 1845

23

Doty, Pohlman

Mrs Doty, Mrs Pohlman

Dec 1845–July 1847

20

Pohlman

—

Aug 1847–Jan 1849

30

Doty, Pohlman, Talmage

(2nd) Mrs Doty

2

Doty, Talmage

Mrs Doty

Feb–Mar 1849 Apr 1849–Jun 1850

15

Doty

Mrs Doty

July 1850–Apr 1856

69

Doty, Talmage

Mrs Doty, Mrs Talmage

1

Doty, Talmage, Joralmon

Mrs Doty, Mrs Talmage, Mrs Joralmon

Apr 1856

Unlike the missionary records what we have listed is not years of service, a category often misleading with respect to actual time spent in the ﬁeld. Rather we give actual times of presence in Banlam though including short trips or extended breaks at Macao, Hong Kong and elsewhere in China but excluding trips to America and related transit points. What we observe then is that there were only two male missionaries for nearly twelve years and only one man for more than ﬁve years. For a brief three years, there were three men but this was during the 1840s. When it is recalled that church growth took oﬀ in the mid-1850s, then it is easy to see why the missionaries came to attribute good credit for it to Chinese labour. Compounding the long term problem of missionary shortage was the fact that calls made to the American home front for more reinforcements had almost always seemingly fallen on deaf ears. As the pioneer, Abeel was the ﬁrst to encounter the harsh reality. Immediately after arrival at Kolongsu, he called for the transfer of Doty and Pohlman from Borneo.4 The oﬃcial opening of Amoy and the perceived receptivity of the local inhabitants stirred Abeel up to further

4

Abeel to De Witt, ‘Kulangsu’, 4 March 1842, CI (27 August 1842), p. 22 c. 3.

 

115

the aggressive one-man campaign for additional workers for the China mission. On top of Doty and Pohlman, he added the name of William H. Steele arguing that the new Chinese openness to Christianity stood in great contrast to the situation in Borneo whose ‘barren’ and ‘uninviting’ character was the ‘very antipodes’ of the former.5 Although Steele was never sent to Amoy, the ABCFM in 1843 (September) permitted the removal of Doty and Pohlman to China.6 Nevertheless a third letter of request7 had to be sent before the two men ﬁnally arrived more than two years after the ﬁrst petition. The same frustration was to become also the experience of the other missionaries even in the 1850s. Though with Doty and Talmage on the ground, the Amoy Mission still needed ‘a speedy reinforcement of at least four missionaries’ if it was to ‘prosecute the plans of enlargement, to which Providence so clearly invites them’8. In separate letters, both men wrote to the home front for additional colleagues.9 Responding to Doty’s plea (and possibly also to those of other ABCFM China missions), the Prudential Committee explained that they can respond aﬃrmatively only if ‘warranted by the spirit of increased liberality in our churches’10. The fact was during the years 1844–51, the ABCFM’s average annual expenditures (US$258,575) had overtaken receipts (US$254,688) resulting in a total deﬁcit of US$30,974 over the eight-year period.11 Thus the lack of missionary candidates was nowhere mentioned in 1851 as an excuse for the denial of ﬁeld requests for reinforcements. On the part of the RCA at home, the spending for missions (both foreign and domestic)

5 Abeel to De Witt, ‘Kolongsoo’, 31 October 1842, CI (8 April 1843) p. 150 c. 2–3. At Abeel’s writing, Steele was already at Batavia where he was to spend a year on probation before he was to remove to Borneo. See Steele to DeWitt, 8 September 1842, aboard the Bazar and 19 November 1842, Batavia, CI (8 April 1843) p. 150 c. 3–4. 6 AR-AB (1843) pp. 255–256, cf. pp. 137, 138–139. Permission from the RCA General Synod came even earlier. See APGS (1843) p. 257, resolution no. 2. 7 I.e. Abeel to De Witt, ‘Kolongsu’, 1 February 1844, CI (6 July 1844) pp. 202 c. 6–203 c. 1. 8 AR-AB (1850) p. 163; see also p. 67. 9 E.g. Doty of 20 March 1851, AR-AB (1851) pp. 126–127; Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4; Talmage of 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–152; Doty of 16 September 1852, MH (March 1853) p. 67; Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5 = MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. Cf. Talmage of 12 September 1848, CI (18 January 1849) p. 109 c. 2. 10 AR-AB (1851) pp. 16, 17. 11 AR-AB (1852) pp. 212ﬀ.

116

 

as early as 1847 was already suﬀering ﬁnancial strains partly for having to subsidise some ﬁfty-ﬁve ‘feeble’ domestic churches.12 Thus in response to the Amoy request for a chapel construction budget not exceeding US$3,000, the General Synod commended the matter to the churches but without specifying a target amount.13 In the end the Sinkoe chapel was completed with the BFM (coursed through the ABCFM) contributing only US$167.01.14 Over the next two years the ABCFM ﬁnancial prospects improved with balances of US$5.35 (1852) and 4,320.64 (1853).15 Nevertheless the debt still amounted to US$12,000 in December 1854.16 At the same time the lack of missionary candidates was another factor preventing the sending of new workers. Thus in 1853 it was noted that while ‘wealth is accumulating in the hands of the friends of missions in our land with a rapidity surpassing all precedent’, it was at the cost of ‘progress in personal holiness’ as well as in the number of missionary candidates.17 By this time however the Amoy missionaries had grown tired of rehearsing their situation and the need such called for.18 Meanwhile the Pechuia converts had taken the initiative to forward a petition dated August 1854 addressed to the ABCFM asking for missionary reinforcement.19 In its 1854 and 1855 reports, the ABCFM, while expressing great hopes for the evangelisation of China, devoted special attention to the progress of the work at Amoy and granted the station ‘special claims’ over the other China missions in terms of deserved reinforcements.20 Finally in April 1856 Joralmon arrived21 with the scheduled installation of the newly elected Sinkoe church oﬃcers just some three weeks away. Thus during our period the inability of the home front to satisfy ﬁeld needs and requests was at ﬁrst due to the Borneo occupation, then ﬁnancial restraints and latterly the lack of missionary candidates. Of

12

APGS (1847) p. 195, cf. pp. 190–195. APGS (1847) pp. 189, 195–196. 14 APGS (1849) p. 501. 15 AR-AB (1852) p. 162; (1853) p. 176. 16 S.L. Pomroy (ABCFM Corresponding Secretary) from Boston, 12 December 1854, CI (28 December 1854) p. 101 c. 4. 17 AR-AB (1853) p. 13. 18 See AR-AB (1853) p. 130. 19 See enclosure in Talmage of 30 August 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 115–116. 20 AR-AB (1854) p. 21; (1855) pp. 16, 17. 21 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon of 30 July 1856. 13

 

117

the shortage of RCA missionaries up to 1906, this revealing remark was written: ‘It is not too much to say that it has never been adequately manned. It is not to-day.’22 EPM With the British, the situation was certainly worse. Over the entire seventy-two month period, the staﬀ was largest when there were three men and one woman in December 1853, a state of aﬀairs which lasted about twelve hours23. If we include Mrs. Young, there were three agents during some thirty-seven months; if not, we are reduced to three months with three men. For two months in 1851, the Youngs were the only ones at Amoy. Finally there was only one missionary in the ﬁeld for nearly half the time (32 months). But if we are to reckon the sub-period during which the EPM had a church formation goal, the staﬀ size at Banlam was three men over a four-month span followed by one man in a twenty-month stretch. Even so, the work during those times suﬀered from various limitations (infra). Table Three: EP missionaries in Amoy, 1850–56 DATE May 1850–Apr 1851 May–Jun 1851 July 1851–Nov 1853

MONTHS

MALE

FEMALE

12

Young

—

2

Young

Mrs. Young24

29

Young, Burns

Mrs. Young Mrs. Young

Dec 1853

1

Young, Burns, Johnston

Jan–Aug 1854

8

Young, Burns, Johnston

Sep 1854–Jun 1855

10

Johnston

—

July 1855–Apr 1856

10

Douglas

—

22 23 24

MacGillivray, Century, p. 372. Johnston from Amoy, 21 December 1853, Mess (1854) p. 82. On 28 May 1851 Young married Sarah Harvett of the Society for Promoting

118

 

Like the RCA, the FMC-EPM desired reinforcements from home but received little consolation. Unlike the American situation however ﬁnance was never really a problem although at times there was worry in that respect. The last remark requires some elaboration. The FMC fund had started out well but cause for ﬁnancial worry was not long in coming. During the time spent searching for the ﬁrst China missionary, the FMC collected some £1,000 giving it a strong ﬁnancial head start.25 Although the incomes for 1847–48 and 1851–52 were only £114, £89, £632 and £860 respectively26, the FMC was able to announce in 1852 that the resigned FMC cotreasurer James Nisbet had ably left behind a balance of £2,30027, an enviable heritage. That Burns had that same year given a whole year’s salary (£250) to the FMC was not altogether insigniﬁcant.28 With expenses for the China mission alone exceeding £1,10029 and the whole FMC income registering £79930, the year 1853 was a ﬁnancial disaster. Yet it would not have escaped the attention of the FMC that the woes had started even before then. This explains why in its annual report to the Synod in April 1853, the FMC had warned that poor collections in the current year may mean nothing less than bankruptcy.31 Consider in particular Burns’ donation of £250 in 1852. With incomes around that time at £632 (1851),

Female Education in the East. See the marriage document from the Amoy British Consulate (URCHS, EPMF/Young). Cf. AR-FMC, Mess (1852) pp. 150–153. Contra CAF (p. 77) which dated the marriage to 1852 and Pitcher (IA, p. 235) who reported that Mrs. Young was the ex-LMS missionary Miss Harritt. 25 CAF, pp. 192–193. The extant ﬁnancial records of the FMC in the SOAS collection (i.e. as of March 2000) do not oﬀer much help for our period. See PCE/FMC Series I, Box 77, Files 1–4. 26 CAF, pp. 192–193; Mess (March 1852) p. 89; Mess (1854) p. 156. Here and henceforth, monetary ﬁgures are rounded oﬀ to the lower £ amount (e.g. £114 was actually £114, 4s., 4d. and £89 was £89, 9s., 7d.) unless the full ﬁgure is of critical necessity (e.g. reporting currency exchange rates). 27 Mess (May 1852) pp. 151–152. 28 FMC accounts report dated 20 February 1852, Mess (March 1852) p. 89. We do not consider the donations of Burns oﬀ his 1849/50 salaries, for these beneﬁted not the FMC but EP domestic work. James Nisbet (FMC co-treasurer) to the Editor, 20 December 1851, Mess ( January 1852) p. 20. Note that the annual income reported in 1852 did not include the amount of more than £4,000 raised among the EP home churches for Mission buildings in Calcutta. See AR-FMC, Mess (1852) p. 153. 29 Mess (1854) p. 156. 30 Mess (1854) p. 197. 31 Mess (1853) pp. 142–144.

 

119

£860 (1852) and £799 (1853), it was no mean amount in any way. Reading between the ﬁgures however reveals a less happy fact. Deducting Burns’ major gift, we ﬁnd that the contributions of the PCE constituencies and external supporters amounted to only £610, or £22 less than the previous year (£632). Although the gift of Burns was promptly applied by the FMC as an inspiration for increased givings32, the 1853 contributions of the PCE still fell short of expenses. In the face of the ‘deﬁcit’ of 1853 life still went on smoothly nevertheless as the ﬁnancially-healthy Scottish Association (SA)33 was able to provide ready aid.34 Despite the great interest in China mission in 1854 when ‘[n]early all the Churches and Missionary Societies in this land’ have increased both eﬀorts and contributions—e.g. the LMS received £12,000 ‘additional’—there was within the PCE ‘little increased interest’ and ‘no special eﬀort’ during the ﬁrst half of that year, so that ‘[t]he expenditure of the year [thus far] for China alone has been 350l. [£350] in excess of the income’ and ‘church collections have but slightly increased, and individual contributions have been nearly as limited as before.’35 Nevertheless later in the year Johnston called for more missionaries in addition to Douglas while exhorting the FMC not to fear about ﬁnances but to ‘trust God’ for the means36. It did not help at all that at this time the Crimean Campaign37 brought about within the PCE a minor competition for funds between the war cause and foreign missions. For instance, in November 1854 a Sabbath collection at the Regent Square Church (London) was made for the Patriotic Fund, garnering £140 for the widows and orphans of fallen soldiers.38 A year

32

AR-FMC, Mess (1852) pp. 150–153. The total collection of the SA for 1855–56 and 1856–57 was £5458 and £6061. The SA ﬁscal year was 31 March to 15 September. The category of sources were as follows: Contributions from Associations, Church-door collections, Donations. Note that ‘Opening balance’ was not a category. ‘Foreign Missions—state of the fund’, The Home and Foreign Record of the Free Church of Scotland (1 October 1857) p. 72. 34 Mess (1854) p. 156. 35 Mess ( June 1854) pp. 161–162. 36 Johnston from Amoy, November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54. 37 Mess followed the news of the war with good interest. See e.g. ( June 1854) pp. 165–167, (1855) pp. 22–23, 65–68. The Crimean War lasted during 1854–56, or more exactly, October 1853 to February 1856. 38 Mess (December 1854) pp. 372–373. 33

120

 

later it was lamented that much money was given to war but little to mission work, ‘these two amounts [being] in the inverse ratio of the importance of their subjects’.39 But perhaps a greater reason for poor giving was ironically the publicisation of the Nisbet heritage and the public impression it generated. At that time, the FMC had suspected that the healthy ﬁnancial state helps explain why ‘[f]or the last two or three years several congregations have made no contributions to the fund’.40 The FMC therefore announced that the balance will quickly become a deﬁcit if a third missionary were sent and therefore appealed for revived and continued givings. Eventually the collections did increase somewhat but were nevertheless still overtaken by the expenditures. For 1853 the FMC account opened with a balance of £1,987; collected £799; expended £1,341; and closed with a balance of £1,446.41 For the following year the FMC opened with a balance of £1,446; collected £1,05742; expended £1,489; and closed with a balance of £1,013.43 For 1855 the FMC announced ‘a gratifying increase’ in its income for among other reasons the enthusiastic promotional eﬀorts of Johnston.44 Yet the closing balance was some £200 less than the previous. For 1856 the FMC opened with £813; collected £1,05745 plus £1,446 (for the Amoy building fund); expended £1,23946; and closed with £1,216.47 That expenditure was overtaking income is clearly seen in the diminishing closing balance over time from 1852 to 1855, i.e. from £1,987 to £1,446 to £1,013 to £813. The year 1856 was able to close with £1,216 mainly on account of the sizable amount donated into the Amoy building fund (£1,446)48 without which amount the

39

‘War and missions—their cost—contrasted’, Mess (December 1855) pp. 365–367. Mess (May 1852) pp. 151–152. James Hamilton and H.M. Matheson reported that the 1852 expenses of ‘this Mission’ will be at least £950, or £1,200 if a third missionary was sent. 41 Mess (1854) p. 197. 42 Excluding the £175 for the Corfu Mission and £166 for the Chinese ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ Fund. 43 Mess (May 1855) pp. 160–170. 44 AR-FMC, Mess (1856) pp. 153–154. 45 Excluding that for Corfu, i.e. £154. 46 Of this amount, £250 being the annual salary of Douglas came from the SA. 47 Mess (May 1857) pp. 161–170. 48 Ibid. During the ﬁrst quarter of 1856, the FMC meetings were all practically taken up with the Amoy Mission Buildings project. FMC Minutes (8 January 1856) pp. 145–147; (28 February 1856) p. 148; (24 March 1856) pp. 149–151. 40

 

121

year would have ended in deﬁcit. But not only was the balance diminishing it was doing so quite steadily. Yet there was no real deﬁcit, only suﬃcient reason to worry about the future. Meanwhile somewhat a booster to the conﬁdence of the FMC in spring 1856 was the proposed Juvenile scheme to support one China missionary.49 Therefore the FMC ﬁnance was not a real problem up till the Sinkoe event of 1856. But the opposite is true when it concerns missionary candidates. To begin with, the FMC did have a rather consistent idea of the exact number of agents to be stationed in China. After Young had settled at Amoy, the appeal was soon made for a third missionary who was expected to undertake Duﬀ-type educational work in China.50 During our period, the FMC believed a three-man team would render its China staﬀ ‘complete’.51 Contrary to Burns’ reckoning52, the FMC never considered Mrs. Young a full member of the Banlam team. Thus after being certain that Young could not return to China, the FMC looked for another man to ‘complete the original number’ 53. The slot was later ﬁlled by Sandeman54 which suggests Douglas was regarded as having taken the place of Johnston. Thus in reaction to the news in 1851 that there was ‘no immediate prospect of a colleague’ for Burns and Young, a public call was made for special prayer and intensiﬁed eﬀorts to seek ‘a ﬁt man’.55 Fruition came eventually in the sending of Johnston in 1853 but this was after a two-year wait. Later that year, the FMC happily announced that the Free Church of Scotland had held a special meeting at Edinburgh in October at which it was proposed that a missionary sponsored by them be sent to work with the EPM.56 Formed in November57, the SA objective was to send out and support missionaries from Scotland ‘to co-operate with’ FMC agents.58 49

FMC Minutes (24 March 1856) pp. 149–151. Mess (1851) pp. 120–121; AR-FMC, Mess (1851) p. 140. 51 AR-FMC, Mess (1851) p. 140; AR-FMC, Mess (1852) p. 150. 52 In his letter of 8 January 1852, Burns rejoiced that the EPM had now three missionaries, the unnamed third agent being the new bride of Young. AR-FMC, Mess (1852) p. 150. 53 AR-FMC, Mess (1855) p. 148. 54 Ibid. 55 Philo-Sinim to the Editor, Mess (December 1851) p. 379. 56 Mess (1853) pp. 379–381. Cf. AR-FMC, Mess (1854) pp. 149–150. 57 Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 16–17. 58 Second Annual Report of the China Mission at Amoy, with an outline map (Edinburgh, December 1856) p. 1. Hereon, AR-SA (1856). 50

122

 

In 1854 a promotional pamphlet was produced ‘with the view of exciting an enlarged interest in [EP] missionary work, and in the auxiliary eﬀort’ of the SA to seek another man to go to China.59 But it was not until March 1855 that the SA-supported Douglas sailed oﬀ the Challenger for Hong Kong en route to Amoy.60 In this case, the waiting time was reduced to about one and a half years. Meanwhile some months earlier, Johnston who had been looking forward to Douglas’ arrival61 and had fallen ill62 was calling for even more missionaries63. To the lone missionary voice was added that of the Chinese converts at Pechuia who wrote Burns almost immediately after he left China requesting his quick return to them.64 Despite the good results wrought by Chinese labours, Johnston emphasised that the Banlam work still needed ‘a large accession of devoted labourers’ from home.65 (Here we see a clear indication of how missionary shorthandedness succeeded in creating labour space for Chinese agents. But more on this later.) In July 1855 Douglas arrived at Amoy. Without Burns who had gone on to Shanghai, Douglas also did not ﬁnd Johnston who had left for England. Although Douglas was the only one who made it to Amoy, he was not the only candidate presented to the FMC. In May 1855 Johnston had received with gladness the news that two more men besides Burns and Douglas will soon be joining the Banlam work.66 During his time Douglas likewise looked forward to the coming of David Sandeman ‘and with the prospect of more’.67 In April 1856 the FMC proudly announced the names of its newest missionary recruits, viz. Sandeman and John Tait, both being licentiates of the Free Church of Scotland68 but to be sent by the FMC. However as Sandeman sailed for Amoy only on 3 October 185669,

59 Book notice of China, and the missions at Amoy; with letters of the Rev. W.C. Burns and other missionaries (Edinburgh/London, 1854), in Mess (1854) p. 377. 60 Mess (1855) p. 114. 61 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 19–21. 62 Johnston from Amoy, 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22. 63 Johnston from Amoy, November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54. 64 Pechuia converts to Burns [Britain], undated, Mess (1855) pp. 181–182. 65 Johnston from Amoy, 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84. 66 Johnston from Amoy, 1 May 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. Cf. Mess (April 1855) p. 114. 67 Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. 68 AR-FMC, Mess (1856) p. 153; cf. AR-FMC, Mess (1855) p. 148. 69 Mess (November 1856) p. 340; cf. FMC Minutes (September 1856) pp. 154–155.

 

123

he does not really count for our period. On his part, Tait suﬀered from ill health70 and never actually left for the ﬁeld71. For the whole of 1856, the SA waited in vain for another missionary from Scotland to join Douglas even though ‘[t]he Funds are ready . . .’72 In July 1855 the EP Messenger published a letter which explained in part the drought of missionary candidates. The letter-writer questioned whether ‘the urgent call for teachers that comes to us from China’ can be met at all when there were yet not enough men for EP domestic work alone.73 Thus on the English and Scottish side, the problem was not ﬁnance but the lack of volunteers for the mission ﬁeld. Therefore during our period the ideal of a missionary threesome desired by the FMC proved to be short-lived in practice, having lasted only for three quarters of a year. At the start of 1856, the EP missionary work force at Banlam remained at one person with Douglas who had taken the place of Johnston. This is not to mention that for a few weeks after the latter’s departure and before the former’s arrival the number was actually nil. If we are to reckon the sub-period during which the EPM had a church formation goal, the staﬀ size at Banlam was three men over a four-month span followed by one man in a twenty-month stretch. Even so the work during the four-month span was hindered by the non-pastoral concern of Burns and Young as well as by the linguistic handicap of Johnston. Likewise the work during the twenty-month stretch was hindered at the ﬁrst by Johnston’s health and language problems, and then latterly by Douglas’ dialect-acquisition eﬀorts. To these other limitations we now turn our attention. 4.3. Language, health and death The missionary shortage situation was further complicated by the delayed entry into full labour brought about by the language acquisition exercise and also by the problems of ill health and death. The

70

AR-SA (1856) pp. 4–5. There were actually two candidates interviewed in 1856 who failed to join the Amoy Mission, viz. Mr. Macintosh and Mr. Tait. See FMC Minutes (24 March 1856) pp. 149–151; (1 July 1856) pp. 151–153. 72 AR-SA (1856) pp. 4–5. The SA had ended the year with a balance of nearly £100. AR-SA (1856) p. 27; cf. p. 10. 73 G.B. to the Editor, from London, 12 July 1855, Mess (August 1855) p. 242. 71

124

 

combined eﬀect of all these limitations was the creation and expansion of a space for Chinese participation in the Protestant work. Before looking at the respective experiences of the Missions in the said areas, it is helpful to ﬁrst examine two health-related factors, viz. the sanitary conditions and the local climate of Amoy. It seems the ﬁrst Amoy missionary to write about the port’s unhealthiness for foreigners was Boone (AP)74 whose impression cannot be unrelated to the death of his wife at Banlam in August 184275. However there is no inkling that his letter which carried this piece of information was ever before the eyes of the BFM or its missionaries. But then the RCA and the EP missionaries had no need for such external testimony as they had their own experiences to go by. Regarding sanitation, Talmage observed about south China including Amoy that ‘the streets are so narrow and ﬁlthy . . . and the bodies and clothing, and habits of the multitudes are so uncleanly’76. On his part as a physician, the ﬁrst thing Young noticed about the Amoy people was that they were generally poor and physically in ‘ill-condition’ due to opium smoking as well as dirty and crowded living conditions.77 Likewise soon after arrival, Johnston noted that the streets of Amoy town were ‘rather dirtier, than most other Chinese towns . . .’78 In speaking of the typical dwelling of the average Chinese workman in Amoy, John Macgowan (LMS) wrote of ‘dirty walls and earthen ﬂoors, impossible to be kept clean’ and ‘[t]he dirty narrow street outside’79. Explaining the high health tolerance of the ‘Chinaman’, he described in this manner the native’s little straw hut sitting guard above his rice ﬁeld: ‘One night in that hut would be enough to give an Englishman such a dose of fever that it would take all his strength and all the skill of his doctor to bring him back to life again.’80 Even if this be an exaggeration, it cannot be doubted that there was some kernel of truth in it.

74 See Boone to Henry A. De Saussure, from Shanghai, 6 July 1845, in Boone, The seed, pp. 112–114. 75 Mrs. Boone was buried in Kolongsu where the RCA Mission later also laid to rest Mrs. Doty, Mrs. Pohlman and the two Pohlman children. Smith, Narrative, pp. 386–87. 76 Talmage to Middle Dutch Ref[ormed] Church (Brooklyn), from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (4 January 1849) p. 102 c. 2–4. 77 Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89–91. 78 Johnston to Matheson, from Amoy, 18 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 218–220. 79 Macgowan, Christ, p. 33. 80 Macgowan, Christ, pp. 45–46.

 

125

However we ﬁnd no evidence that the RCA and EP missionaries considered physical sanitation a major unmanageable problem. If it ever was at all at sometime, then it seems simple common-sense solutions were quickly applied and the matter thus put under eﬀective management. To illustrate that point we may perhaps oﬀer two instances. First, in 1849 when the FMC was in the process of selecting its China station, health conditions had been a major factor against the choice of Amoy.81 Almost certainly the FMC opinion must have been inﬂuenced by the account of the Rev. George Smith (CMS) who related that over a thirteen-month period ending with the winter of 1845–46, some eighteen out of twenty-ﬁve members of the various missionary households had been removed on account of health or death. In particular, three missionaries had left due to his own or his wife’s health, two wives had left (one died in voyage) and two others had died, two children had died and nine had been sent back to America or Britain.82 However in 1851 the FMC publicised that its negative impression about health conditions in Amoy had been eﬀectively refuted by Young’s personal experience of living there.83 Thus either there was no sanitation problem or it had been successfully put under control. The second instance concerns the malaria which the missionaries had learned to fear since the summer of 1844. The illness, Talmage explained, was more speciﬁcally ‘a kind of malaria that rose daily from the earth’ and to which the solution was to avoid exposure by living on the second storey.84 Thus the missionary did not normally use the ground ﬂoor ‘for sleeping or the more constant portions of family living’85. The early foreigners and so too the natives suﬀered from fever and ague because they normally lived on the ground ﬂoor of the house.86 With the declared containment of the malaria problem, it was implied that the healthiness of Amoy need not be a problem to the foreign missionary. This was made explicitly later by Joralmon when he wrote to refute the ‘old prejudice with reference to the health of this port’

81 See AR-FMC, Mess (1851) p. 140. Curiously in the FMC Minutes, the health consideration was nowhere mentioned. See 2.2 above. 82 Smith, Narrative, pp. 386–387. 83 AR-FMC, Mess (1851) p. 140; cf. Young of 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) p. 90. 84 723CM/Bx1, J.W. Schenck to Dr. Ferris, from Ithaca, 23 February 1858. 85 Ibid. 86 AR-AB (1850) pp. 160–161.

126

 

which had in fact been called ‘the Sanitarium of China’87. Later records however revealed not only that contrary opinions were held by others at other times88 but also that missionaries continued to leave the ﬁeld for health reasons89. The question arises therefore about the credibility of the Talmage-Joralmon diagnostic report. The suspicious eye may read it as a case of conscious self-promotion on behalf of a mission ﬁeld which then stood in great need of more missionaries. But there is also the explanation based on certain natural variants, viz. individual health-toleration level, overwork, ﬂuctuating health conditions and successful adaptation over time. For instance, the summer and fall seasons of 1845 (ﬁve deaths among the RCA missionary families) stood in great contrast to the year 1847 when such good health was enjoyed in the foreign community that the English physician noted ‘the want of practice in his profession at Amoy, owing to the healthiness of the place’90. The fact of temporal variation alone can reasonably accommodate the contrary opinions we referred to above which originated from outside our period. Moreover the argument that others later did leave Banlam for health reasons simply means that there were health problems but not necessarily that such were exclusively occasioned by the general sanitation situation. In any case there seems no reason to deny the possibility that both promotional and natural factors were in diverse levels of interplay at diﬀerent points in time. The point is that promotional concerns as such do not as a matter of course imply untruthful reportage on health conditions. More so when there is evidence supporting the existence of both, i.e. the manpower shortage made for a recruitment-promotional motivation and the good health enjoyed at various times made for the positive accounts of such a condition. Of the local climate Pohlman announced that prolonged living at the port had proven its healthiness91 and later Talmage claimed that the unanimous opinion of the Amoy missionaries was to the same eﬀect.92 From his recollection, Schenck a former foreign resi87

723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. See e.g. FYA, p. 28. 89 E.g. Joralmons (see Doty from Amoy, 29 May 1858), Ostroms (see Blauvelt from Amoy, 5 December 1863), Miss Adriance who intended to leave but died (see Blauvelt from Amoy, 4 March 1864). 90 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 91 Pohlman from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 c. 6. 92 AR-AB (1850) pp. 160–161. 88

 

127

dent in Banlam explained that the summer heat was ‘oppressive’ mainly due to ‘its continuousness’93. The changes of land breeze to sea breeze and vice versa (ca. 9 am and ca. 5 pm) were preceded by an hour of ‘great sultriness and oppressiveness’94. Although Schenck acknowledged dependence upon Talmage for his opinion on how to live healthily in Amoy, he claimed also to have ‘other sources’ which were not speciﬁed. However the information on the Amoy climate seemed to have been derived from his own experience at least in part if not in whole. That his letter dated from 1858 should constitute no validity problem as it can be assumed that the climate was no diﬀerent from that of our period. Still Schenck followed Talmage’s opinion that ‘all that was requisite to healthfulness in Amoy, was, to know how to live there’95. Presumably the heat (again by common sense) was dealt with by the avoidance of prolonged direct exposure. For instance, when the normally healthy Burns returned to Amoy from Pechuia on 26 June 1854, he immediately moved into the house of Johnston in order to escape the summer climate. At the same time he was planning to return to Pechuia in a few days since ‘more airy quarters’ had already been obtained there, thus allowing him to stay on during the summer months when he cannot do much outdoor preaching but can instruct those who had become interested in the Gospel.96 In his conclusion, Schenck expressed conﬁdence that the Amoy climate ‘need be no drawback to one not already diseased’ and that ‘it was the easiest things in the world to live and labor there’.97 The positive statement on Amoy’s climate found conﬁrmation from pre-Talmage days when it was believed that the deaths of Mrs. Pohlman and Mrs. Doty had no ‘apparent connection with the climate’98. Thus both sanitary and climatic conditions were no major problems as far as the two Missions were concerned. This is not to say however that these factors had no impact at all. For instance, it is but natural that when one’s physical state was already weakened by illness, the hot summer climate can further complicate things. Yet the basic problem in such a case is health and not climate. Likewise 93 94 95 96 97 98

Schenck of 23 February 1858. Ibid. Ibid. (italics original). Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315. Schenck of 23 February 1858. AR-AB (1846) p. 169.

128

 

when we say the general sanitation situation can be managed, this does not entirely rule out the possibility of illness (people got sick even then in Britain and America!). In other words, even if general sanitation and climate were no major obstacles, it is not to say there were no health problems at all. Pre-1847 The ﬁrst reduction of the RCA workforce was occasioned by the perennial failing health of its pioneer worker. In early 1842 when all the China missionaries were conﬁned at Macao on account of the First Sino-British War, it was reported that good health generally prevailed among them with Abeel’s condition being an exception.99 Thereafter the opening of Amoy, the perceived receptivity of the inhabitants, the cordiality of oﬃcialdom100 and the fast growth of his Kolongsu congregation101—altogether generated so much excitement in Abeel so as to make him willfully disregard what was needful for his physical well-being. Writing in mid-1843 Abeel confessed that even though his stay in Amoy ‘did endanger my life’ he was deﬁnitely unwilling to leave his post.102 Nevertheless the intense heat of the hot season and consequent ill health forced him to remove to Canton for a while.103 The last statement does not mean to suggest that it was the unfriendly climate which brought about the physical ailment, for as a matter of fact feeble health had always been Abeel’s lot even before his China career.104 In autumn, his physical illness continued and then worsened when it was attended by other complications. On 19 December 1844, the pioneer left the treaty port105 and after transit at Canton where he preached his last

99 The semi-annual circular letter of the missionaries at Macao (Canton), 1 January 1842, CI (21 May 1842) p. 174 c. 2. 100 E.g. Abeel to Dr. De Witt, ‘Kolongsoo’, 31 October 1842, CI (8 April 1843) p. 150 c. 2. 101 The average attendance was ﬁfty by June 1842. The circular letter of the missionaries, from Macao, 10 July 1842, CI (31 December 1842), p. 94 c. 5. See further Abeel to Dr. Washington, ‘Kolongsoo’, 4 August 1842, CI (7 January 1843) p. 98 c. 2; Abeel of 3 June 1843, CI (23 December 1843) p. 90 c. 4. 102 Abeel of 3 June 1843. 103 Abeel from Canton, 11 July 1843, CI (23 December 1843) p. 90 c. 4. At this writing Abeel’s health had improved and he was expecting to leave Canton in two or three days. 104 See especially Poppen (‘Abeel’) who dwells at length on Abeel’s physical state. 105 AR-AB (1847) p. 166.

 

129

sermon in China106 sailed for New York in January107. Thus on account of the health factor, the ﬁrst RCA missionary was forced oﬀ the Amoy ﬁeld against his wishes. Ironically the very same factor had previously worked in Amoy’s favour, i.e. toward the decision to transfer Doty and Pohlman from Borneo, one concern was the ‘considerably impaired’ health of Doty whose recuperation it was hoped the change of habitat would facilitate108. Although health was the major problem in Abeel’s case, it was somewhat a consolation that at least the language factor did not diminish his usefulness during his short Amoy stay. Deriving his inspiration from W.H. Medhurst and William Young (LMS) at Batavia, Abeel had begun his study of the Amoy dialect in the early 1830s.109 Consequently he was able to start preaching in the colloquial soon after his arrival in Banlam.110 This was corroborated by Pohlman who regarded it ‘a matter of rejoicing that the ﬁrst missionaries here [in Amoy] began at once (asking no questions) to preach the gospel’111. In this instance, the pioneers referred to must have been Abeel, Stronach and Young (LMS). Thus in Abeel’s case, no time was ‘lost’ in Banlam for the sake of dialect acquisition. But whether language or health, the matter of Abeel has little consequence for us since there was yet not one single Chinese Christian during his time, so that he was looking to foreign reinforcements alone for help. In such a situation any talk about a Chinese work space could not be truly meaningful. The ﬁrst Chinese work space (1847) It was not long after Pohlman and Doty landed at Amoy when they themselves had to face the twin problems of illness and death. During 1844–45, not only was health threatened but very life itself was 106 A copy of his last sermon of 23 December 1830 (Canton) is in SL/ MSS.XT8.Ab3, ‘Abeel papers and journals’, env. 2. 107 AR-AB (1845) p. 164. On 4 September 1846 the Amoy pioneer passed away quietly from this life in Albany, New York. See the obituary notices in CI (8 October 1846) p. 50 c. 1–3 and MH (October 1846) p. 354. 108 AR-AB (1843) p. 139. 109 AR-AB (1831) pp. 33–34; Abeel, journal, 20 January 1831 & ﬀg, in Williamson, Memoir, p. 85; Williamson, p. 253. 110 Smith, Narrative, pp. 381–382. Also Johnston of [no day] February 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 162–163. 111 Pohlman to First Reformed Dutch Church of Albany, from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (9 April 1846) p. 154 c. 1–2.

130

 

taken. The summer of 1844 saw malaria forcing the suspension of missionary operations until late September and dwindling the worship attendance to ﬁfty people. By autumn the missionaries were back in good health except for Abeel but the happy state was not to last long. During the summer and fall seasons of 1845, the death of six-year-old Ferris Doty in July was followed by those of two of Pohlman’s children and of both men’s wives.112 Mrs. Pohlman died of ‘probably a fever’ on 30 September (age 35) while Mrs. Doty of consumption on 5 October (age 39).113 On 12 November Doty left for America with his two daughters and Pohlman’s two orphans.114 Thus during this brief period health brought about the permanent removal of a missionary (Abeel) and death the loss of two missionary wives (not to mention the three children) which occasioned the twenty-month absence of one missionary (Doty). Within less than four months, the ﬁve-adult RCA missionary company had been reduced to a single man (Pohlman). The situation was further complicated when it turned out the fortune of Abeel in the matter of language was not to be the lot of his immediate successors. Upon ﬁrst arrival in Amoy, both Doty and Pohlman suﬀered some disheartenment upon knowing that the Amoy tongue was somewhat diﬀerent from the Chinese dialect they had learned in Borneo.115 This called for language acquisition as the immediate task, thus the postponement of direct work among the Chinese. Fortunately the acquisition of the vernacular was made somewhat easier on account of its close aﬃnity with the ‘Khek’ (Hakka) dialect which the two men had acquired at Borneo116. Even so, after the departure of Abeel, the RCA had to seek the aid of the LMS at various times on account of language limitations. For the most part of 1845, the American Mission was chieﬂy dependent on Stronach and Young (LMS) for the sustenance of the chapel ser-

112 See Pohlman of 17 September 1845, p. 154 c. 1–2; MF/Doty, ‘Journal, June 7, 1836 – October 6, 1845, by Elihu Doty’, entries of 4 & 5 & 6 October 1845. 113 See Pohlman of 17 September 1845, p. 154 c. 1–2; Doty of 1 October 1845, MH (April 1846) pp. 131–132; Pohlman of 8 October 1845, MH (April 1846) pp. 132–133; Pohlman to De Witt, Amoy, 6 November 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2; MH (1846) p. 104; AR-AB (1846) p. 169, cf. p. 84; APGS (1846) p. 84; RCC, p. 20. 114 AR-AB (1847) p. 166; cf. (1846) p. 170, cf. p. 84; APGS (1846) p. 84. 115 Pohlman lamented that ‘coming to Amoy made it necessary to change my former dialect’. Pohlman of 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. Cf. AR-AB (1845) pp. 163–164. 116 See De Jong, Borneo, ch. 4.

 

131

vices and the Bible class, because neither Doty nor Pohlman ‘had suﬃcient command of the dialect to preach intelligibly’.117 A later report tells us that for ‘sometime’ previous to 1846, the Bible class was ‘alternately oﬃciated’ by the members of the two Missions.118 Likewise the female meetings that year were conducted by Pohlman and Stronach alternately.119 While Pohlman was away at Canton and Macao for eye treatment, the AP missionary H.A. Brown ‘assumed my duties, as far as his knowledge of the language would allow—holding family worship, examination meeting, and receiving visitors daily at the chapel’.120 Meanwhile the pulpit duties were taken care of by the LMS missionaries. The monthly ecumenical ‘concert of prayer’ was continued121 presumably by the LMS and likely also the AP.122 Thus in pre-1847 times, a work space for nonRCA agency was generated by health and language problems. However this space was taken up by the LMS and AP missionaries. This should occasion no wonder since there were yet no suitable Chinese church members to ﬁll the gap. For both Ong Hokkui and Lau Unsia were new members (baptised April 1846) and would hardly be considered by Pohlman to be ready to take on serious religious work. Note that the said LMS and AP assistance overlapped the period after Pohlman had preached his ﬁrst sermon in the Amoy tongue (22 March 1845)123 which suggests it was with some eﬀort that the one-sermon-per-week output was kept up. This was indeed conﬁrmed in the markedly less triumphal sounding note from his private letter to an English friend: ‘Our imperfect knowledge of that diﬃcult dialect has prevented our doing as much as our hearts desire.’124

117 Pohlman of 17 September 1845, p. 150 c. 2–3; Doty of 9 July 1845, MH (1846) p. 17. 118 Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152. 119 Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. 120 Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4. Cf. Pohlman to De Witt, from Macao, 22 June 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1. Brown arrived in Amoy on 6 May 1845. AR-AB (1847) p. 166. 121 Pohlman of 17 September 1846, p. 168 (170) c. 2–4. 122 Cf. the role of the teacher of Lloyd (AP) at the concert of January 1847. Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. The ABCFM report for 1846 stated that Pohlman cooperated with AP and LMS agents. AR-AB (1847) p. 165. 123 Pohlman of 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. 124 Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4.

132

 

Thus at the baptismal Sabbath of 1846, Stronach preached the sermon at Pohlman’s chapel (9 am) after which the latter administered the ordinance at the dispensary chapel (10 am). At the afternoon service, Young (LMS) delivered the sermon and Stronach oﬃciated the holy communion.125 The eye problem of Pohlman and perhaps also the extended eﬀorts given to the examination of the very ﬁrst baptismal candidates had made the task of sermon preparation surpass the capability of the missionary. In any case, on account of the ophthalmic illness which had befallen him sometime after Doty left for America, it was not very long before Pohlman realised that he would never be able to continue any serious language studies. Along with ‘occasional attacks of the old malarial fever’126, the eye ailment threatened for a while to reduce the functional missionary force to nil. By February 1846, Pohlman was ordered to cease from all reading and allowed to write for only half an hour a day. For maintaining correspondence, he normally had to recourse to an amanuensis.127 In early spring, it was determined that his eyes could not be cured at Amoy and the advice was that he should return to America for treatment. In a letter to Abeel, Pohlman exposed his dread about the possibility of being taken out of the mission ﬁeld on account of his worsening eye condition.128 Refusing to leave his ﬁeld but desiring to ﬁrst exhaust all other measures, he went to Canton where the treatment of Dr. Peter Parker helped a bit but not enough for him to resume his language studies as he ‘can only use [his eyes] a little during the day’.129 In late October 1846 Pohlman sadly announced that he ‘must abandon all ideas of being a student’ of the Chinese language and that he had no choice but to let others carry on literary labours and ‘such work as requires good eyes’.130

125 Stronach from Amoy, 8 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1–2. Cf. Pohlman [from Amoy], 1 May 1846, MH (1846) pp. 321–322. 126 Talmage, ‘Reminiscences of missionaries and mission work’, as cited in FYC, p. 95. 127 Pohlman to De Witt, from Amoy, 15 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1. 128 Pohlman to Abeel [America], from Canton, 7 August 1846, in ‘Abeel papers and journals’, env.5. 129 Pohlman of Amoy, 17 September 1846. Cf. Pohlman to De Witt, from Canton, 15 May 1846 and from Macao, 22 June 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1; CRep (1846) p. 479. 130 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6. Note: Pencil marking says p. 134.

 

133

Eventually he was incapable even of reading. When Talmage arrived in 1847, he found that ‘[m]uch of [Pohlman’s] reading and writing had to be done for him by others’131. Talmage himself regularly read to Pohlman for an hour each morning at 6–7 am while another did the same at 12–1 pm. The said condition provided the proper context for appreciating this remark of Pohlman from mid-1847: ‘Men able to acquire the language must come forth in great numbers. I am pained to hear that none are ready to come’132. The coincidence of two factors, viz. missionary shortage and physical ailment, made for both reduced work output and lowered ﬁeld morale. The life-long linguistic deﬁciency means that throughout his China career Pohlman was never able to really do (as he put it) ‘as much as our hearts desire’. Here we see therefore how the health and language factors interacted in such a manner as to result in the employment in 1847 of Teacher U Teng-eng the ﬁrst RCA native agent.133 This event marks the beginning of Chinese Christian labour within the RCA experience and passes as the ﬁrst Chinese work space oﬀered by the American Mission. The emergence of Chinese voluntary labours (1849) The return of Doty with Talmage restored the male missionary number to that of June 1844. However although the ophthalmic aﬄiction was to be Pohlman’s lot for the rest of his life, the manner of his removal from the ﬁeld was entirely unexpected by himself or anyone else. On 19th December 1848 Pohlman left Amoy taking Julia Ann134, his sister ‘upon whom he fondly doated’, to Hong Kong on account of her health135. Just after new year day, Pohlman boarded the schooner Omega for Amoy presumably with the prized lamps for the new Sinkoe church building.136 Not readily appreciated by those accustomed to the omnipresence of electrical lighting is the

131

Talmage, ‘Reminiscences’, in FYC, p. 95. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4 (italics original). 133 More in ‘Paid Chinese agency’ in Ch. 5 infra. 134 RCC, p. 21. 135 A Sermon delivered May 6, 1849, p. 44. Julia came to Amoy in ca. March 1848. Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. 136 Pohlman went to Hong Kong ‘to procure lamps for the [Sinkoe] ediﬁce’. FYA, p. 73. 132

134

 

missionaries’ excessive preoccupation with church lamps. The fact is good lamps which made possible the opening of chapels in the evenings were hardly available in Amoy even in 1851. Thus in a letter to his brother Goyn (15 July 1851), Talmage described with gusto and pride his four home-made tumbler-lamps which allowed the opening of his chapel during evenings. However the Sinkoe chapel remained closed at such times since there were ‘no good lamps yet for the church’.137 Meanwhile on the 5th the Omega struck and Pohlman drowned when his lifeboat sunk after it capsized.138 In March, Julia already back at Amoy was ﬁnding her health turning worse. On the 25th, the duty fell upon Talmage to take her home to America.139 Thus death removed Pohlman permanently while health concerns ( Julia) forced another temporary missionary absence (Talmage) which lasted about a year and a half. The departure of Talmage left the Dotys as the only foreign workers of the RCA at Amoy until the former returned in July 1850. About the language acquisition experience of Doty, we have no selftestimony but only Pohlman’s annual report dated September 1845140. The said letter spoke of both men’s inability to preach in the Amoy dialect as something belonging to the past. However after Pohlman died and Talmage left, Doty found it necessary to have Young (LMS) preached once on alternate Sabbaths141 which suggests that (like Pohlman) Doty found it a bit burdensome to be producing one sermon a week. Again during the baptismal Sabbath of July 1849, the LMS suspended their services in order to lend needed assistance, with Young (LMS) doing the introductory exercises and Stronach the sermon.142 Because of extreme overwork, Doty’s health failed that summer and the Sabbath services were taken over by the LMS missionaries.143 By this time Teacher U already had other duties and was unable to ﬁll in for Doty.144 When the latter ﬁnally recovered 137 FYC, pp. 110ﬀ. Cf. also the note that Talmage’s ground-ﬂoor chapel had ‘not suﬃcient light’ in AR-BFM (1859) p. 7. 138 See CRep (1849) pp. 51–54; Talmage of 8 February 1849, in FYC, pp. 89ﬀ; AR-AB (1849) pp. 167–168. Cf. APGS (1849) p. 500. 139 AR-AB (1849) pp. 167–168; cf. APGS (1849) p. 500. The two reached New York in August. 140 Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3. 141 Doty, in AR-AB (1849) p. 170; also AR-AB (1850) p. 161. 142 Doty, in AR-AB (1850) pp. 161–162. 143 AR-AB (1850) p. 160. 144 See 5.2 infra.

 

135

health in October, there was no alternative but to lessen his duties.145 This course of action was deemed necessary not only because the physical breakdown last summer had been ‘to the imminent peril of his [Doty’s] life’146 but also because of the lack of employed Chinese workers to cover for him. Relatedly during mission year 1848–49, some work (not speciﬁed) had already been cut due to the lack of workers.147 From the above, we see that the work space produced by Doty’s limitations was more than enough for the existing employed Chinese agency to occupy. Whether Doty was ready to devolve upon Teacher U all the duties he had given up is another question altogether. Anyway the absence of more Chinese workers had the RCA going back to the LMS for assistance. In this case therefore the Chinese work space occupied by the employed native workforce was maintained but not enlarged. Note however it was in 1849 that voluntary Chinese work began to be done in signiﬁcant amount (infra). The same year saw the permanent removal of Pohlman by death, the temporary absence of Talmage for reasons of ( Julia’s) health and the bodily failings of Doty. Correlating these with the emergence of Chinese voluntary labour, we ﬁnd that missionary health limitations contributed to the making of a work space for Chinese volunteers. But this is not all. For after 1849, continuing health problems on the part of the missionaries further enlarged the Chinese work space.148 Sometime in 1850, the work of Doty was again interrupted by ‘broken health’.149 The return of Talmage did boost the labour force but it was not until 22nd December 1850 that he preached his ﬁrst ‘regular sermon’ during the Sabbath morning service at his newly opened chapel.150 For the afternoon service, he exchanged pulpit with Doty who had inherited Pohlman’s chapel at Sinkoe. By 1851 the growth of the work had become more than the healthweak team could handle151. Though seasons of good health were

145

MH (1851) pp. 10–11; AR-AB (1850) p. 160. AR-AB (1850) p. 163. 147 AR-AB (1849) p. 171. 148 In mid-March 1848 all missionaries were reportedly in a state of good health. Doty to Anderson, Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. 149 AR-AB (1850) p. 67. 150 Talmage of 23 December 1850, MH (1851) p. 154. 151 APGS (1852) pp. 277–278. 146

136

 

not totally lacking that year152, both men in their attempts to cope with ﬁeld demands did suﬀer some physical damage. During AprilMay, Doty found it needful to take a six-week a trip to Shanghai for recovery’s sake. Meanwhile his colleague was struck down by a fever ‘for a few weeks’ in autumn. Later in December, throat inﬂammation forced Talmage to cease from all public speech.153 While there was also some health-related work interruption during the following year154, it was delightfully reported that all were in very good health at the end of 1852.155 The same happy state prevailed in mid-1856 although the missionaries were ‘somewhat worn out by overwork’156. As the subject of Chinese labour in both paid and voluntary forms will be discussed in detail below, we presently summarise by saying that in addition to missionary shortage, the limitations brought about by language-acquisition and health/death were signiﬁcant factors in the creation and enlargement of a Chinese work space. As we shall see later, in addition to the Christian quality of the members, the performance of the employed and voluntary native workforce contributed to the earning of increased missionary conﬁdence in the readiness of the Amoy converts for devolution. With respect to limitations connected with language, health and death, the suﬀerings of the EPM were even more costly to its work. This was so not only because of its smaller staﬀ size, but also especially because serious troubles started at around the time when the church formation objective was adopted. As we shall see, just as in the RCA experience, similar limitations on the part of the EPM agents helped to create some work space for Chinese labours.

152 E.g. Talmage to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 153 Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152; AR-AB (1852) p. 122. 154 E.g. in January it was reported that the health of both Doty and Talmage was failing so that some plans had to be ‘neglected’. Talmage of 22 January 1852. Talmage’s letter of 26 January reported health improvement on the part of both men. 155 AR-AB (1853) pp. 129, 127. 156 Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856, CI (18 December 1856) p. 98 c. 4–5.

 

137

Mrs. Young Previous to the adoption of a church objective, the sailing had been quite smooth for both Burns and Young in terms of health. But the same could not be said of the latter’s wife. As the ﬁrst serious casualty on the EP camp, Mrs. Young did suﬀer from a severe illness during the spring of 1852 and was ‘for some time . . . in considerable danger’.157 In 1853 her health again failed, having revived brieﬂy for only about a week in August while living aboard the store ship of a Mr. Tait158. In the third week of December159, death ﬁnally came upon the 36-year old160 mother of two although not at all unexpectedly161. Looking at the relationship between her illness-death and the making of a Chinese work space, we note that aside from her domestic duties she was at one time responsible for the teaching of the English class (3–4 pm) at Young’s school162. But the nature of her educational work was such that it could not be taken over by the Chinese who did not know the Western language. Unless she became involved in the EP school only after her marriage, Young was certainly teaching the English class previously.163 But we do not know that for a fact. At any rate, her resignation from educational work was followed by the temporary cessation of Young’s direct involvement in the same work from July 1853 onwards. After this time, there is no further information on whether or not the English class was revived. Thus the illness and death of Mrs. Young cannot be said to have much impact upon the making of a Chinese work space.

157

Young from Amoy, 6 May 1852, Mess (1852) p. 283. Young from Amoy, 15 August 1853, Mess (1854) p. 51. 159 Contra Matheson, Narrative, p. 9 (Mrs. Young died on 3 December 1853); EPMF/Young, 1-page typescript (Mrs. Young died on 3 December 1854); Mess (1855) pp. 68–70 (Mrs. Young died in December 1853 during the imperial siege of Amoy. Note: the siege ended on 11 November. See 2.4). 160 EPMF/Young, 1-page typescript. 161 Mess (1854) p. 149. Cf. Johnston from Amoy, 21 December 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 82–83; Burns of 16 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 217–218; Section 2.3 on Young. 162 Young of 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371ﬀ. 163 See Young of 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 212–214. 158

138

 

Burns On his part, Burns had the good fortune of not having any serious health problem during his Amoy times as well as of having a talent with languages. There were at least three instances of minor illness. In 1849 Burns had meant to sail from Hong Kong to Amoy on the 5th of September but fell sick of a fever (on the 4th) from which he recovered after six days.164 Three years later, he had a fever again (8–12 September) on which account he relocated to Doty’s house (on 14 September) for recuperative purposes.165 Lastly during August-September 1856, Burns suﬀered from ‘an intermittent fever, with chills’ while in Guangdong province.166 Eventually it was in late December 1867 that an attack of ‘simple febricula’ resulted in serious health deterioration167 leading to his death in Manchuria on 4th April 1868. In the matter of language, the situation was even more cheering. Just a month after his arrival at Amoy, Burns was already able to understand ‘a great part of what I hear in preaching’ as well as to ‘generally make myself understood by those about me’ even though he did not expect to be preaching in the colloquial until ‘some time’.168 Four months later, Young remarked that Burns was already preaching two or three times a week at the chapel and also occasionally in the streets with a church member as his partner.169 Later at Shanghai in 1855, Medhurst expressed surprised at the ‘short time’ required for Burns to learn to preach to the Shanghai villagers.170 No doubt his acquaintance with the Cantonese dialect171 somehow helped to account for the short time he took to acquire the Amoy colloquial. But other than this was his natural ability with languages. All throughout his student career terminating with his divinity course at Glasgow University, Burns had always had an outstanding academic record especially excelling in language

164 Burns from Hong Kong, 28 September 1849, Mess (1850) pp. 206–207. The intended trip was never made. 165 Young of 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) p. 373, entry dated 15 September. 166 Burns from Canton, 10 October 1856, Mess (1857) pp. 20–23. 167 Bx119/F5, Burns to Douglas, from Newchwang, 22 January 1868; [Dr.] James Watson to Dr. Islay Burns, from Newchwang, 19 February 1868. 168 Burns from Amoy, 5 August 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 370–371. 169 Young from Amoy, 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116. 170 Dr. [ James] Legge from Hong Kong, 15 September 1855, in Douglas from Amoy, 15 September 1855, Mess (1856) p. 21. 171 Burns of 5 August 1851.

 

139

studies including Hebrew and Greek.172 In this light, Burns’ statement in March 1852 that for some months he had been able ‘to speak a little [italics added] in the Amoy [italics original] dialect’ within Young’s premises and outdoors173 may contain more modesty than it appears. Thus with the dialect quickly acquired and no serious health disturbances during his ﬁrst Banlam sojourn, Burns became the ﬁrst EP man to cooperate with Amoy Chinese Christians in evangelistic work. Already we have noted in the previous paragraph his street preachings in partnership with the unnamed Chinese Christian. From Talmage, we learn that the latter was actually an RCA convert.174 It is possible the same became the colporteur employed in 1852 who was jointly supported by Burns and the RCA.175 Even though this connection could not be ascertained, the fact of the said joint employment by itself shows that Burns did help to create a work space for a paid Chinese worker. Since the employment relationship of the latter with the missionaries ended in early May 1853176, the native agent served with Burns on a salaried basis for more than a year. Aside from these cooperative eﬀorts, Burns also visited Chiangchiu in April 1853 for nine days in company with two RCA Christians who a short while ago had preached there for some days and were then making a second tour.177 The following January another inland tour was undertaken with two RCA-related but Chinese-supported178 ‘colporteurs’ one of whom was also part of the Chiangchiu team the year before.179 In both instances however there was a role reversal, i.e. instead of the foreign agent (Burns) making room for Chinese involvement, it was the Chinese who requested for a missionary to go with them on their preaching expeditions.180 The second inland tour however had a twist to it. Sometime between 27 February and 3 March (1854), Burns took over the support of the two RCA

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

See Burns, Memoir, chh. 1–2. Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152. See AR-AB (1853) pp. 127, 129, cf. p. 28. See 5.2 and 6.1 infra. Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853. More in 6.1 infra. Bx119/F5, Burns to Mr. Matheson, from White Water Camp, 16 January

1854. 180

Cf. CAF, p. 88.

 

140

Chinese workers181 in order to have them dedicated to the work at Pechuia. However a closer look reveals that there was no real change in terms of size or nature as far as the Chinese work space is concerned, since both men continued to do the same work as before. The only thing which changed was the source of support for the two Chinese agents. True to his words, Burns was labouring ‘without any plan but that of co-operating generally in the work as I ﬁnd opportunity’182, by which he means the work of others. Since Burns was supporting the two agents out of his own means, the arrangement seems to have ended when the EP missionary left China some months later. In sum, Burns engaged in much cooperative work with the Chinese. However on account of the spontaneous or planless manner in which he worked, he was hardly playing a leading role in these joint eﬀorts. The only possible exceptions are two. First, the case of the street preaching work in 1851–52; but we cannot be certain whether Burns was taking the lead or joining an ongoing work. Second, the joint support with the RCA of a colporteur in 1852–53; the contribution of Burns in this case seems to be surer. In conclusion, Burns did help to create some work space for Chinese labour but this is far from saying he played the role of a major creator of such. Young For Young the main problem until June 1854 was not health but language. When the dispensary opened in 1851, it received more than thirty patients at 9:30 am-2 pm on Wednesdays and Saturdays.183 While the patients waited for medical attention, they had opportunities to listen to Christian preaching, converse with converts and receive religious literature. All these were made possible by the services of two Chinese Christians184 who almost certainly were connected with the RCA and were rendering free labour. This arrangement was later replaced by the deployment of a ‘colporteur’ who preached for an hour each day.185 With the simultaneous ongoing

181 182 183 184 185

Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. Ibid. Young from Amoy, 17 January 1851; Mess (1851) pp. 138–139. Ibid. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213.

 

141

of educational and medical works as well as the Romanised Amoy project, Young was soon saying ‘[m]y engagements leave me little leisure [even] for [letter] writing . . .’186 This overwork situation was the immediate cause for the decision to curtail medical work.187 However the preaching of the colporteur at the dispensary was sustained. If co-extensive with stated medical work (as it almost certainly was), this lasted until July 1853 at the latest. Thus during 1851–53, EP medical work created a Chinese work space in the form of evangelistic outreach to patients waiting at the dispensary. This work opportunity was ﬁrst taken by two Chinese converts who were most likely RCA volunteers and then afterward taken by a paid agent. On the part of Young, it was language limitations which necessitated these Chinese labours. But even were he able to preach in the colloquial, the demands of the medical work itself would have made it physically impossible for him to be doing such evangelistic labours during dispensary hours. On 18 May 1853, Amoy was taken by the local188 insurgents and for sometime classes ceased189. With the student population greatly reduced, the two EP schools united into one at Keklai when Young moved out of his house in July190 on account of the health of Mrs. Young. In February191 the Keklai school was returned to the RCA which took over its responsibility192. Meanwhile Young had rented some quarters nearby and started his own school which during AprilJune had an average attendance of twenty-six pupils193. During this phase of EP work (until his incapacitation), the preaching at Young’s ‘chapel’194 were done by Chinese converts195 on a voluntary basis. Likewise earlier in January during the visit to Chiangchiu which lasted a fortnight, Young seemed to have been almost fully dependent upon his several (RCA?) Christian companions for the work

186

Ibid. See Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371–373. 188 These were not Taipings. Burns from Amoy, 6 June 1853, Mess (1853) p. 291; cf. FMC, in Mess (1854) p. 51. 189 Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 288–290, entry dated 20 May. 190 Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. 191 See 4.4 infra. 192 Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. 193 Young of 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 194 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 268. 195 Young of 6 July 1854. 187

142

 

of preaching.196 Thus we see again that language limitations on Young’s part created a great deal of work space for Chinese volunteers in the sphere of evangelistic labour. It was about half a year after his wife passed away that Young started to have serious health problems. Even though during the time of her illness his work output did suﬀer some reduction197, Young was able to ‘[bear] the loss of Mrs. Young remarkably well’198 and was back at work almost immediately199. While he himself enjoyed ‘uninterrupted health’ until June 1854200, the illness which befell him at about that time led to his ﬁnal removal from China.201 On 21 July 1854 the diagnosis was given ‘with no prospect of his being better’ in China.202 As it was a condition ‘aﬀecting his mind’, Burns had to accompany him back to England.203 The party that left Amoy on 5th August also included Young’s 2.5-year-old girl Tessie204, her nurse and two Chinese ‘menservants’.205 Thus health and death brought about temporary work reduction on the part of Young, the permanent removal of the Youngs and in an indirect manner the extended absence of Burns. The departure of Burns and Young was especially damaging on account of its having taken place just when the pursuit of church formation had started. It was under such circumstances that Johnston began to employ Chinese assistants at his own ﬁnancial expense, thus enlarging the Chinese work space in Banlam.

196

See Bx119/F5, Burns to Mr. Matheson, from White Water Camp, 16 January

1854. 197

See 2.3 supra. PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 21 December 1853. 199 See Young of 11 January 1854, Mess (1854) p. 217; Burns from White Water Camp, 16 January 1854 and Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854. 200 Young of 6 July 1854. Cf. Young of 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89ﬀ. The only reported health disturbance was minor in character, viz. suﬀering from a cold. See Young of 5 September 1852, entry dated 15 September. 201 Young died at home on 11 February 1855. Mess (1855) pp. 68–70; Matheson, Narrative, p. 9. 202 Bx119/F5, Burns from Hong Kong, 10 August 1854. 203 Ibid. 204 I.e. ‘Jessie’ (born 15 March 1852) mentioned in EPMF/Young, 1-page typescript. The other daughter was Sarah Marion (born 21 September 1853). 205 Burns of 10 August 1854. Left in the care of Dr. and Mrs. Hirschberg was the ten-month old daughter. Contra Band who thought Young returned with both children (WHP, p. 13). 198

 

143

Johnston The most tragic case of health disturbance on the EP camp was that of Johnston. Not very long after having started the study of the written language206, he suﬀered some health problem207 which occasioned a visit to Shanghai208 during parts of April and May. The trip did some good and thereafter sound health prevailed209 but not for long as we shall see. Meanwhile having decided to settle in Amoy, Johnston quickly revised his language study plans. Before the giving up of the educational objective when the location of his missionary station was in a state of indecision, Johnston had limited his study to the written characters and postponed the learning of any colloquial dialect210. The delayed learning imposed a severe limitation upon his settled missionary work at Banlam. Thus in company with two evangelists and ‘ﬁve or six others as servants or boatmen’ during the three-day visit to the villages of the Aukoey district (ca. 20 miles north of Amoy) in September 1854, Johnston was able to do no more than attract crowds at diﬀerent localities by his presence as a Westerner while the preaching was done by the Chinese assistants.211 The resourceful Johnston however did not immediately reduce the EP labours formerly carried on by Burns and Young because he was able to employ Chinese agents to continue the operations. Furthermore the work actually expanded in September 1854 when Johnston started a school at Pechuia and hired a Chinese teacher ‘of good moral character, in whom all the [Pechuia] brethren present had conﬁdence . . .’212. However by all indications the employed man was not a Christian, much less a member of the Pechuia church so that we need not dwell on that matter. What interests us more though are the four Chinese assistants whom Johnston acquired in

206 PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 18 January 1854; Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Shanghai and Hong Kong, 6 May 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 268–271. 207 Johnston of 6 May 1854. 208 Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. Johnston had been wanting to visit Shanghai even before this writing. 209 E.g. Young from Amoy, 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 210 Johnston of 6 May 1854. 211 Johnston to the Juvenile Messenger, from Amoy, 22 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 110–114. Cf. Johnston, Glimpses, p. 7. 212 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) p. 21.

144

 

September for engagement in the work of preaching and colportage.213 Clearly in this instance, it was missionary shorthandedness and linguistic inability which created a work space for this little company of employed Chinese labourers. A month after Burns left Amoy Johnston wrote home for immediate reinforcement explaining that his work load was such that he could not continue long ‘without injury to my health’.214 After a few weeks, he was ‘completely’ downed by dysentery215 and for about three months was hindered from active work. The illness laid him aside from September/October216 until December when he recovered enough ‘as to resume my work’.217 During this period he was for some time ‘conﬁned to my sofa’218 and thus unable to supervise in person the work at Chiohbe which was started by some Pechuia believers and later reinforced by Chinese evangelists from Amoy219. In March 1855, Dr. Hirschberg in consultation with another doctor attempted a projected month-long treatment ‘the most severe they felt warranted in making in this climate’.220 When it became known a week later that not only had there been no improvement but in fact the applied blister ‘was rapidly reducing my strength’, the ﬁnal directive was given that Johnston should go home to ﬁnd cure. On his part, the EP agent resolved to wait for Burns and Douglas to arrive before taking leave while consenting to the medical speciﬁcation that the departure should be by June at the latest. As it turned out, Johnston had already left by the time Douglas arrived at Amoy in July. Even though Johnston nevertheless continued the language studies under his Chinese teacher221, he never did attain any real ﬂuency222 when he ﬁnally left Amoy in June223. Yet at that time 213

Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 146. Johnston of 5 September 1854. 215 Johnston from Amoy, 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22. 216 Johnston from Greenlaw, [ca. September 1855], Mess (1 October 1855) pp. 314–315. 217 Johnston of 16 October 1854; November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54; 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180. 218 Johnston of 16 October 1854. 219 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. 220 Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 199–200. 221 Ibid. 222 Matheson, Narrative, p. 18. Contra AR-FMC, Mess (1856) p. 153 (which reported that previous to leaving China Johnston ‘had already made great proﬁciency in the language, and had become fully initiated in the regular work of the Mission . . .’). 223 Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 1 May 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. 214

 

145

Johnston never expected the home visit to last longer than medical treatment requires.224 Thus after failing to get his language teacher to go home with him, Johnston had his baptised servant who was ‘a good scholar’ accompany him so he could continue to learn the Amoy dialect.225 On 23rd August he landed in London with good optimism about a future return to Amoy226, not least because he believed his ailment was ‘only local, and my general health is little impaired’227. Soon after landing, Johnston was working toward the shortening of the twelve-month home stay prescribed by his China doctors228. Unfortunately he failed not only to shorten that period but also to preserve its transient character. Toward the close of that year, medical advice prohibited him from going overseas and he consequently shifted his attention to promoting foreign mission work among the home churches.229 For the rest of his life, he never did return to the Amoy mission ﬁeld. Thus health failure on the part of Johnston resulted at ﬁrst in reduced work output (ca. September 1854 onward)230 and ﬁnally in permanent withdrawal from the ﬁeld ( June 1855). Therefore whereas in the earlier instance, it was language deﬁciency and missionary shorthandedness which created a work space for the Chinese evangelists of Johnston, in this case the additional motivation brought about by feeble health helped to sustain the created space. But there is another dimension to the matter. During the time of his illness, Johnston continued his administrative work although he was not always able to do on-site supervision of the ﬁeld work. At one time, he was forced into ‘superintending from his sick bed the labours of the native agents’231 at Pechuia, Chiohbe and Amoy. When health

224

See Mess (1855) p. 245. Johnston of 1 May 1855. Cf. Johnston from Greenlaw, [ca. September 1855]. 226 Mess (1855) pp. 281–282. 227 Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 199–200 (italics original). Cf. Mess (1855) p. 245. 228 Johnston from Greenlaw, [ca. September 1855]. 229 Mess (1855) pp. 376–377. As early as July, the FMC had been concerned with Johnston’s unlikelihood to return to Amoy and had expressed readiness to deploy him in other work at home. FMC Minutes (1 July 1856) pp. 151–153. 230 See Johnston from Greenlaw, [ca. September 1855]. Johnston said the threemonth voyage did more for his health than the nine-month medical treatment in China. 231 Matheson, Narrative, p. 18. Note that Matheson mistook ‘Baypay’ (Maping) for Chiohbe. 225

 

146

improved, he kept up communication with the stations via the Gospel Boat. Nevertheless the physical absence of the missionary from the ﬁeld made for the ﬁrst occasions of unsupervised labour on the part of the Chinese workers. Admittedly this ‘freedom’ may have been used to the better or the worse by the evangelist-colporteurs. Yet considering the positive results brought about at Pechuia and Chiohbe, there is good reason to think in the aﬃrmative. The implication is this: the Chinese work space took on a new dimension, beyond the mere quantitative or the increase of volume of the same kind, and into the qualitative, i.e. from supervised to unsupervised mode. Brought about by the health factor, this kind of ‘test’ along with its results certainly added to the merits of Chinese labour as far as the gaining of the high regard of the missionaries is concerned. Not least because all of the four men employed in 1854 were RCA converts.232 In the case of Johnston, therefore, we see how the interplay of the three factors—missionary shortage, language hindrance and health problems—brought about the creation and the sustenance of a quantitative Chinese work space as well as its ‘enlargement’ in a qualitative way. Douglas Concerning the health of Douglas, there is happier news to report. Writing in the month after his arrival, Douglas reported a current state of good health as well as a programme aimed at keeping that state. The latter consisted in walking for one-and-a-half to two hours every weekday evening, ‘a plan which seems excellent for keeping the system in good order’.233 As his brother John testiﬁed, the young Douglas was always ‘studiously careful of bodily health’, having regular daily exercise especially walking (besides rowing and swimming) so that ‘his health, like his good temper, was absolutely unbroken from childhood till he went to China’.234 Even into and throughout his China period the missionary continued to maintain the same health consciousness and discipline. To illustrate, John cited Douglas’ report of his daily exercise during a 2-week country visit in 1869:

232 233 234

Johnston, Review of 1854, p. 144. Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 13.

 

147

My long walks on this journey have been as follows: Friday 20 miles, Saturday 20 miles, Wednesday 27 miles, Thursday 17 miles, Friday 9 miles, Saturday 37 miles, Tuesday 20 miles. The 37 miles of Saturday were in two halves, with seven hours quiet [sic] sitting in the Chapel between [sic], and included of course about ﬁve hours of moonlight walk, distributed between the morning and the evening . . .235

Obviously this speciﬁc account was the reﬂection of a regular habit. The physical condition and stamina required for this two-week output could have been developed neither within that time nor shortly before it. One ‘brother missionary’ wrote how Douglas was ‘famous for the long journeys he used to perform on foot in his missionary tours’ while another noted how he ‘would rouse them [i.e. ‘younger labourers’] up to physical exercise when they were inclined to over [-]study’.236 For the entirety of his missionary career, his health ‘remained generally good’ until the last two years of his life. I.e. except the instances when he had ‘those diseases of climate which assail most Europeans under the sun of South China . . .’.237 His colleague Swanson recalled his ‘remarkable’ endurance and how ‘the Chinese used to say that while he could wear them all out it was impossible to wear him out’.238 Therefore as far as Douglas was concerned, there was no major health disturbances during our period.239 Nevertheless during 1855–56 the Chinese work space was maintained if not enlarged under him for another reason. That which hindered Douglas from commencing ‘the full work of a missionary’240 was none other than the ﬁrst obstacle common to all new religious agents from the West, viz. linguistic deﬁciency. Although Douglas claimed he had ﬁnished ‘my ﬁrst reading of the New Testament in Chinese’ even before he reached China241, yet 235

Douglas from Amoy, 22 December 1869, in Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 13n. Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 14. Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 24 September 1873, in Douglas, ‘Memorials’, pp. 38–39 (Coming back from Liongkhey, Douglas ‘reached the boat at Kwan-jim . . . after 6 1/2 hours’ continuous walking, with very brief occasional halts’). 237 Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 13. Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 29 June 1870, in Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 38 (‘I am still keeping in wonderful health for having been out six and a half years of my second week of years . . .’). 238 Swanson, ‘Career’, p. 65. 239 The ﬁrst allusion to failing health was in Douglas’ letter of 19 March 1876 (in Douglas, Memorials, p. 43). On 26 July 1877 Douglas died in Amoy after a twelve-hour bout with cholera (Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 18). 240 AR-SA (1856) p. 4. 241 Douglas to his mother, from [the] Straits of Sunda, 6 June 1855, in Douglas, ‘Memorials’, pp. 19–20. 236

148

 

after some weeks of attending Chinese worship at Amoy he admitted that ‘I am able to understand a little; though still but little’242. Thus during the day visit with Talmage to Pechuia not long after arrival in Amoy, he was unable to tell anything out of that encounter except that the people were happy to see a new ‘Teacher’ come to China.243 Even after about a month in Banlam, he was ‘as yet able to do nothing’ other than spend the bulk of his time in language study.244 Meanwhile the Amoy school went on as usual while the Chinese assistants preached at the chapel and also helped in the work at Pechuia and Chiohbe245. In late September, Douglas still could not understand spoken Amoy to any useful degree and did not expect to speak it ‘for a long time to come’.246 For the rest of that year, Douglas was often out with Chinese evangelists even if he was unable to assist them247. By January he could understand Amoy quite well248 and for the ﬁrst time ‘tried to explain a little of the Scriptures’ at the Pechuia services although he was still unready to speak in public249. The ﬁrst attempt at public preaching occurred the following month during the tour to Tong-an in company with three evangelists and others. Occasionally Douglas would utter a few sentences before the hearers ‘and they seemed to understand’250. By the time of the Sinkoe event however he was still unprepared for full scale public preaching. This held true also of the visit to Maping in mid-May when Douglas met with the applicants and inquirers in the inner room (Saturday the 17th) while leaving the chapel preaching to the evangelists.251 Note that not only was this an informal conversation situation (in contrast to formal public preaching), it was not mentioned whether Douglas had Chinese co-examiners with him. In fact it was not until a few more months afterward that the desired linguistic breakthrough took place. Until that time, the assistance of

242

Douglas from Amoy, 1 October 1855, in Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 20. Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. 244 Ibid. 245 E.g. in August a visit to Chiohbe was paid in company with Doty. Douglas from Amoy, 29 September 1855, Mess (1856) p. 21. 246 Douglas of 15 September 1855. 247 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 248 Ibid. 249 Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. 250 Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181. 251 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338. 243

 

149

the Chinese workers were invaluable. However unlike the times of the unhealthy Johnston, Douglas was in ﬁt condition to accompany his native agents into the ﬁeld. Thus the Chinese work space was maintained but the opportunities for unsupervised ﬁeld work were dramatically lessened if not totally removed. In late 1856 the Scottish Association exulted that their ﬁrst missionary had entered into ‘the full work of a missionary’252. It was declared that the latest letter of Douglas revealed he had began preaching in Amoy253. However the ﬁeld story contained some interesting details which may not have been known to the SA. Until August, the tasks of examining candidates for church membership and of administering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were all performed by the RCA.254 The ﬁrst Sabbath of the said month (3 August) was the scheduled morning for the baptism of ﬁve candidates (who had previously completed the ‘proper examinations’) as well as the stated afternoon for the administration of the Lord’s Supper.255 With a case of illness in the RCA ranks hindering the departure of its foreign workers from Amoy, the two tasks devolved upon Douglas who proceeded to Pechuia without any missionary companion. Even so, the indications were that the EP missionary was then merely a beginning public speaker and could not do without Chinese help. Thus referring to the Sabbath proceedings, he remarked that ‘[i]n the devotional parts of the service I had some help from one of our native evangelists . . .’256 Moreover for both baptismal and communion liturgy, Douglas simply read oﬀ pre-fabricated liturgical forms, i.e. making ‘free use of the admirable forms used by the [RCA]’ even though ‘the use to be made of them is optional’.257 What we see therefore is a situation wherein health hindrance (on the RCA side) and language limitation (Douglas) opened up a pulpit space for the Chinese. Had either restriction been absent, the entire proceedings (including the ‘devotional parts’) would have been ably managed by the presiding foreigner with little or no native input.

252

AR-SA (1856) p. 4. I.e. Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 5. 254 AER, Doty & Talmage & Joralmon to the General Synod, from Amoy, 17 September 1856, pp. 10–11. 255 Ibid. (p. 11). 256 Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 5. 257 Ibid. 253

150

 

Since Douglas had attained preaching ability by August (1856)258, the RCA in mid-September was expecting him to soon take full pastoral charge of Pechuia259. Yet the RCA statement of hope was not entirely unqualiﬁed, for it was followed immediately by this remark: ‘We shall however continue to assist in the examination of candidates for baptism so long as it seems advisable.’260 The earliest external testimony to ﬂuent Amoy preaching on Douglas’ part came from Sandeman in February 1857.261 However of this witness, we should perhaps not succumb to credulity considering that Sandeman had been in Amoy only about two months262, a fact which tells on his competence at dialect assessment. The RCA readiness to assist in candidate examination even after Douglas took full charge of Pechuia likely derived from more than one motivation, viz. EP missionary shortage (the limited work output of Douglas), RCA missionary shortage (the desire to be ‘relieved’ of inland Pechuia), the concern to maintain the strict admission policy for the sake of church quality control, and Douglas’ novitiate ability at vernacular preaching. In other words, the RCA regarded Douglas as ready to assume primary pastoral responsibility for Pechuia but also knew that the EPM at the time was in no state to provide the full pastoral attention needed at that station without assistance. Thus despite Douglas’ ‘unreadiness’, manpower limitations compelled the Americans to let the EP missionary take on as much as he could. At the same time, the recognition of EPM pre-maturity for full pastoral duties underlay the RCA pledge of continued assistance where and when needed. Within this complicated situation, the Chinese work space was maintained and enlarged along with the growing work, so that the value of Chinese work cannot be said to have depreciated on any count. Even with no more linguistic impediment, the singular membership of the existing EP missionary workforce by itself alone eliminated any thought of doing without Chinese help.

258

Ibid. Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, p. 11. 260 Ibid. 261 Cf. Sandeman’s letter of [no day] February 1857 claimed that Douglas was ‘now very well able to preach’ in Amoy ( Johnston, Glimpses, p. 21). 262 Sandeman reached Amoy on 9 December 1856. See A.A. Bonar, Memoir of the life and brief ministry of the Rev. David Sandeman (1861) pp. 255–313. Cf. Mess (November 1856) p. 340; CAF, p. 114. 259

 

151

In this Section we have seen that the Missions suﬀered ﬁrst of all from the shortage of missionary personnel. This limitation was further complicated by those brought about by the factors of language, health and death. Already suﬀering from numerical weakness, the RCA saw these factors bring about diverse results which compounded their predicament by further limiting the functional capability of the already-small American missionary outﬁt, viz. permanent removal (Abeel and Pohlman), extended absence (Doty and Talmage), reduced labour ability (Pohlman) and reduction or temporary cessation of work output (Doty and Talmage). During the pre-1847 period, a work space was created by health and language problems but not occupied by any Chinese party. In 1847 the ﬁrst Chinese agent was employed by Pohlman who was enduring a situation characterised by extreme missionary shortage, severe health limitations and stunted language ability. It was not however until two years later that voluntary Chinese work began in earnest. Thereafter perennial personnel shortage and occasional health failures helped to extend the Chinese work space. On the EP side, the illness and death of Mrs. Young did not substantially aﬀect the Chinese work space. Notwithstanding the planless character of his operational style, Burns did manage to help create a little of such space. From 1851 until July 1853, despite being hindered by language and medical work, Young arranged for his dispensary to provide an evangelistic work space for Chinese labour in both voluntary and paid forms. Furthermore in 1854 he joined forces with Chinese Christians during the trip to Chiangchiu and for some months his chapel featured regular preaching by converts on a voluntary basis. Although he was never sent as a missionary-evangelist, Young created more preaching space for the Chinese than Burns did. When physical incapacitation compelled the departure of Burns and Young, and Johnston subsequently found himself tongue-tied, we see three factors—health, language and shorthandedness—acting in concert to occasion the employment of the largest ever team of Chinese agents (four) in September 1854, thereby enlarging the Chinese work space in Banlam. The health breakdown of Johnston sustained this work space but also went further in extending it qualitatively into the unsupervised (i.e. without immediate missionary presence) kind of ﬁeld work even if only for a short while. For Douglas, it was linguistic impediment which helped to make for the continuing need for Chinese labour. However his excellent health eﬀectively put an end to the practice of unsupervised Chinese ﬁeld

152

 

work (until such time later when the work had expanded beyond the physical limits of immediate personal supervision). Yet until AprilMay 1856, he was still unable to preach and therefore Chinese assistance proved indispensable. Even when Douglas had gained preaching ability in summer 1856, there was not the slightest indication that he or the RCA thought that Chinese labour was no longer needed. The very shortage of EP missionaries by itself demanded opposition to the thought. On the whole the damages suﬀered by the EP were greater than those of the RCA. If we are to count only the men, the RCA lost Abeel and Pohlman permanently while the EP Young and Johnston. In eﬀect the Americans lost a third of its church formation team (Pohlman). Nevertheless the presence of that team was maintained continuously without break even if at times only one man was on the ground. Comparatively the EP absorbed a 100 per cent elimination ( Johnston) and this at a time when the church formation programme had just started. Under such conditions, Chinese labour was not only welcomed but actually much needed by both Missions. 4.4. Other work demands Already burdened with the problems of shorthandedness, health, death and language, the Missions also had to contend with other work demands. In particular we mean those labours which were not directly connected with convert-making and church-gathering and which therefore competed with these in terms of time-use on the part of the missionaries. Speciﬁcally there were the Bible translation project, the Romanised Amoy project, medical work and educational operations. Where the topic has been partly discussed earlier (Ch. 2), our comments are kept to a minimum. What we are especially concerned with presently is the time demands made upon the missionaries, a concern which relates to the making of a Chinese work space. Bible translation On 12 December 1844, the daily meeting for the revision of the Chinese Bible (later, the Delegates Version) was started.263 The par263 Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 2–3; AR-AB (1847) p. 166. Cf. the editorial note in MH (1846) p. 17.

 

153

ticipants in the literary project were Pohlman, Doty, Stronach, Young (LMS) and ‘our four teachers’264. In February 1846, Smith (CMS) the Amoy visitor noted that the Bible translation project took ‘a considerable share of attention’ daily.265 Consisting then of three missionaries and three Chinese teachers, the working group met at 11:30 am to 1 pm with a few regular attendants of older ages also present. The practice was to do twelve verses each day, going from the Greek text to their own translation, then consulting the versions of Medhurst, (then) Morrison and (occasionally) Gutzlaﬀ. By the start of 1847 when the allotted portion of the New Testament was nearly done, there were only the Stronachs doing the work since Doty had left and Pohlman was suﬀering from eye ailment.266 Thus the time demand upon the RCA included, ﬁrstly, attendance at the daily ninety-minute session from late 1844 to ca. February 1846267, and secondly, the unknown amount of ‘homework’ hours put in. However when it is noted that this work took place in the period before there was any baptised convert, then there is no basis to see any signiﬁcance in it for the much later making of a Chinese work space. The Romanised Amoy project Another area of work was the development of a written form of the Amoy dialect. In this the American Mission was able to build upon work already done and work being done by the other Missions. Launching the RCA battle against the illiteracy of Chinese converts shortly after his second arrival at Amoy, Talmage at the same time noted that both Dr. Young (EP) and Mr. Young (LMS) were devoting ‘considerable attention’ to the Romanisation project.268 Earlier John Lloyd (AP) had done ‘considerable work on a Romanised Colloquial Dictionary, which formed the basis of Dr. Douglas’ excellent

264

AR-AB (1846) p. 170. Smith, Narrative, pp. 470–472. 266 Pohlman from Amoy, 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. Cf. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. Eventually John Stronach became the Amoy representative to the Shanghai meeting in June 1847. 267 Pohlman to De Witt, from Amoy, 15 April 1846, CI (15 October 1846) p. 54 c. 1. 268 Talmage to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 265

154

 

book’.269 Talmage estimated that at most only every tenth man in ‘this region can read with intelligence’ whether among the general populace or church membership.270 Within the latter group, it was noted that ‘[o]nly a very few can read the word of God with any degree of intelligence’ and ‘[s]ome cannot read a simple verse’.271 The perpetuation of this widespread ignorance was believed to be guaranteed by the diﬃcult nature of the written language and its great diﬀerence from the spoken colloquial. Of course this does not mean the Amoy dialect by itself could be learned with ease. As one missionary explained, ‘. . . I consider it impossible to give even an approximate idea of their sound on paper. These tones must be learned from the living voice, and no possible amount of description of them will compensate for the loss of this.’272 This diﬃculty implies the investment of a substantial amount of time on the part of any missionary wishing to learn the dialect. To enable converts and other interested parties to read the Bible for themselves, concentrated eﬀorts were nevertheless exerted to develop a written form of the Amoy colloquial with the use of the Roman alphabet.273 In late 1850, Young reported the system of orthography of the Romanised colloquial had already been ‘decided some time ago by a majority of the missionaries here’.274 That same year he had started the teaching of this form in his school and soon opined that ‘boys who are apt in acquiring knowledge’ could be taught to read the Bible in the Romanised colloquial within ‘less than three months’.275 At Talmage’s class which met four times weekly, a few adults were likewise learning the same and after ‘some half dozen lessons’ were reported to be ‘making good progress’.276 Parallel with instructional work was that of producing reading materials for both immediate and future readers. The intention was to publish religious literature which ‘will not only serve to establish the Christian converts in the truths of religion, but will enable many of 269

IA, p. 237. The said volume was Douglas’ Chinese-English dictionary (1873). Never ﬁnishing his work, Lloyd died of typhus fever in Amoy on 6 December 1848 (Talmage, diary, 8 December 1844, in FYC, pp. 87–89). 270 Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (1850) pp. 152–154. 271 Ibid. 272 Macgowan, Dictionary (ca. 1883), ‘Introduction’. Cf. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. 273 Talmage of 17 December 1850. 274 Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850. 275 Talmage of 17 December 1850. 276 Talmage of 14 July 1851.

 

155

them to become public readers, and furnish them with the materials to communicate instruction to others’277. The last concern reminds us of the self-propagation aspect of the Talmage ideal. In 1851 Young with two other missionaries became involved in the project of publishing the Gospels in Romanised Amoy278 with the EP man giving a ‘certain portion’ of his time to transcribing the translated portions for printing purposes279. By July, Young’s pamphlet History of Joseph became the ﬁrst completed and published work in the Romanised colloquial280 while the Gospel of John was ready for printing.281 Completed with the ‘counsel and assistance’ of Talmage, the former work was produced out of the immediate need of a few boys who were already able to read but required some ‘printed pages for practice’.282 Likewise the ‘Gospel of John’ was prepared for the same intended use. However because its printing at Canton was delayed beyond expectation, the Romanised colloquial was not taught at both EP schools in 1852 (except for ‘some revisal by the English scholars’).283 That same year Talmage himself published a thirty-page primer on the Romanised Amoy script and in the following year an edition of the seventeen-page ﬁrst reader appeared.284 Also in the latter year the ‘Book of Ruth’ and the ﬁrst part of Pilgrim’s progress (by Burns) came oﬀ the press.285 In early 1854 Doty reported that Talmage ‘devotes a portion of his time to the preparation of books’ in the Romanised colloquial.286 By that time the ‘Gospel of Matthew’ had also been readied by Talmage for publication.287 The following year saw the publication of ‘the ﬁrst AngloChinese Manual of the Amoy dialect’ (Canton, 1855) compiled by Doty.288 277

Talmage of 17 December 1850. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. At this writing, translation work was being done on the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. 279 Young from Amoy, 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116. 280 Young of 17 December 1850; Young of 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213; CRep (1851) pp. 472–478; AR-AB (1852) p. 124; IA, p. 235. 281 Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152. Cf. Talmage of 14 July 1851; AR-AB (1852) p. 124; AR-AB (1853) p. 130. 282 Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850. 283 Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371–373. 284 FYA, pp. 77ﬀ. 285 Doty of 18 January 1854, MH (1854) pp. 168–171; AR-AB (1854) p. 143. 286 Doty of 18 January 1854. 287 Cf. AR-AB (1854) p. 143. 288 IA, p. 234. The work was still being used in the early 20th century as ‘the basis of the Manuals . . . used in this region and in Singapore and Formosa’. Cf. RCC, pp. 19–20. 278

 

156

In terms of the demand upon missionary work-hours, the Romanised Amoy project was a major consumer. The pioneer character of this linguistic work means that there were little ready-made materials to build upon or refer to. The diﬃculty with which the dialect could be learned implies the prolongation of the language-acquisition time, not to mention the time spent for the Romanisation exercise itself. The success of the experiment however brought about even more reduction in the amount of time given to other labours289 as both Doty and Talmage290 devoted a portion of their attention to the production of works in the newly developed script. Even so the literary work continued291 because of the lack of suitable tracts as well as ‘the diﬃculty of obtaining them from other places’292, this doubtless mainly due to the localised extent of the usage of the Amoy dialect. From the extant sources, any attempt at an estimate of the work hours consumed at this task is subject to futility unless one is ready to accept sheer speculation. But even if exact quantiﬁcation eludes us, it is evident the Romanisation project did partake substantially of missionary work-hours during this period. The consequent reduction in ﬁeld hours on their part made the missionaries welcome any Chinese contribution to evangelistic work, thus the enlargement of the Chinese work space. Medical and educational work While the RCA missionaries consistently upheld the work of oral preaching and instruction, medical and educational work were not totally rejected. However in the former area, the RCA did not really do anything in particular for the Mission had no medical missionary during this period and thus was totally reliant upon cooperative relations with non-RCA agents. Doty’s plea for a physician was never realised until the 1880s.293 The implication of this was that the RCA missionaries never encountered any real time demand arising from direct medical work during our period. 289 290

77ﬀ.

Cf. AR-AB (1854) p. 143. The magnum opus of Talmage was The Amoy Colloquial Dictionary. FYA, pp.

291 By the early 1890s, the number of publications was reportedly about ﬁfty. FYA, pp. 196–197. 292 In 1854, some 500 copies of Pilgrim’s were printed aside from tracts in the order of 1,042,000 pages. AR-AB (1855) pp. 113–114. 293 Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5; RCC, ch. 11.

 

157

As far as educational work is concerned, the RCA involvement during the pre-1854 period consisted only in two occasions, viz. operating an elementary school for a few months in 1845 and continuing the school of Peet from September 1847 to May 1850.294 In the 1845 instance, the undertaking was short-lived and happened before the occurrence of the ﬁrst Chinese baptisms. Without yet any church member much less Chinese worker, we are in no position to speak of a Chinese working space in a truly meaningful sense. In the 1847–50 instance, Doty did have full charge of a school but he was no more than a supervisor who devoted the most of his time to other labours geared toward church formation. This time demand was much less than it would have been if he were a classroom teacher. The supervisory role partly explains why the school could be so readily passed on to Young at a time when the latter had just been in Amoy for ten days and had barely began to learn the local tongue.295 Thus in the pre-1854 period, educational work was at most a minor competitor for the work hours of the RCA missionary force. But this is not yet the whole story on educational work. In February 1854 the RCA opened its ﬁrst parochial school in Amoy. This was in fact the former EP school at Keklai which by that time consisted ‘almost exclusively’ of RCA-related pupils and was superintended by Doty and Talmage.296 Fortunately the times were unlike the early years when the search for Chinese teachers suﬀered from the lack of Christian candidates and ‘morally acceptable’ non-Christians. At all times the issue of opium use had been a matter of great concern to the missionaries. Even before 1854, it had been noted that not only was opium ‘used to a fearful extent by all classes of the people’ but the habit was ‘so nearly universal among the educated, that it is diﬃcult for us to ﬁnd teachers who are not addicted to it’.297 In fact it was thought at one time that ‘more than one-half of the men of Amoy are more or less addicted to the practice!’298 However with the increase of converts came a corresponding growth in the number of available Christian teachers even while some professional qualiﬁcation was maintained. Relating

294 295 296 297 298

See 2.3 supra. See Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850. Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (1852) pp. 149–152. Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (1850) pp. 152–154.

158

 

the above to our main interest, we note that the educational enterprise created a work space for Christian teachers like the man baptised in Siam299, Gui Bunhoan (baptised January 1855)300 and others of whom no personal details were given. In the said educational enterprise, the missionaries mainly limited their involvement to general supervision, the holding of religious exercises301 and teacher training302. As the last activity was held but only once and for special reasons, the time-claims of educational work upon the missionaries on the whole were not substantial. But neither were they negligible. For given that work-hours were a limited quantitative commodity, the time expended on educational work, though not substantial on their own, did add up to take away precious man-hours which may be otherwise devoted to conversion and church formation ends. In other words, the educational demand should be situated among the other factors, viz. the shortage of missionaries, the health- and language-related reduction of work output, the pressures of the time-demanding Romanisation project and the expansion of educational work especially since 1854. Seen in this context, there could only be a lessening of eﬀorts on the part of the RCA missionaries toward convert-making and churchplanting. Thus one may say this particular aspect of RCA educational work contributed only in a minor way to the enlargement of the Chinese work space. In contrast, however, the needs of classroom teaching provided a larger space for Chinese educational labour. However the same cannot be said of ‘higher’ education work, i.e. theological training. Despite his many duties mentioned earlier, Talmage conceded more work-hours when he started the theological class in July 1855303. Other than the ﬁxed hours of the three ninetyminute meetings each week, we are told nothing about extra-class time spent. The known details however should oﬀer some lead. As the Tuesday subject was ‘systematic theology’, we may suppose much time was required to render the extensive technical terminology into

299

See Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (1854) pp. 280–282. See 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857); Talmage from Amoy, 16 January & 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 301 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January & 5 February 1856. Cf. Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 302 Talmage of 16 January & 5 February 1856. 303 Talmage of 16 January 1856, MH (1856) pp. 167–170. 300

 

159

the dialect. The Thursday textbook being in English means another round of pre-class translation work before meeting with the Englishilliterate students. At any rate, one may safely assume that considerable work-hours were dispensed in this training work, particularly from the time immediately preceding its commencement until the end of the ﬁrst year of running (i.e. when courses were being taught the ﬁrst time, thus requiring more preparation eﬀort and time). Thus the theological training project translates into more Chinese work space in the form of increased ﬁeld work opportunities for the natives. As for the EPM, it has already been discussed in detailed fashion how Young’s dispensary (1851–53) and chapel (1854) were the venues for the evangelistic labours rendered by some Chinese volunteers and at least one colporteur.304 Indeed medical work took some of Young’s time but not time otherwise devoted to convert-making or church-gathering. At most, it competed for time with educational work. But as seen earlier, the work space furnished by the school work could only accommodate two Chinese teachers or, later when the student population shrank, one teacher. Until 1853 the latter post was ﬁlled by Tekchoan. Of his successor (if there was any at all), we have no information. With the Chinese work space in educational work thus ﬁlled, the devotion of time to medical work by Young is really irrelevant to the matter of Chinese work space enlargement. In the area of educational work, the emergence of a work space for Tekchoan (baptised July 1850)305 requires some clariﬁcation. Hitherto how the early EP school work gave occasion for Tekchoan to engage in educational labours (1851–53) has only been passingly noted.306 When Young took over the Peet-Doty school on 27 May 1850, the nature of his involvement consisted of no more than general supervision.307 At the time there were only 30 boys but three withdrew at the end of August308. In October the services of ‘a more eﬃcient Chinese teacher’ was acquired.309 But since this man was later referred to as ‘the Heathen teacher’310, it is quite unlikely his predecessor was a Christian. After the Chinese new year holidays,

304 305 306 307 308 309 310

See 4.3 supra. See Talmage of 14 July 1851. See 2.3 supra. Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850, Mess (1851) pp. 89–91. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 212–214. Young of 17 December 1850. Young of 15 April 1851.

160

 

only nineteen out of the twenty-seven boys returned but they were joined by twenty newcomers. As more enrolments followed to yield a total of ﬁfty-ﬁve regular plus six or seven irregular pupils, the RCA convert Tekchoan volunteered to become a teacher. The latter was the man mentioned by Burns who upon arrival at Amoy moved into ‘a small room’ connected with the EP school311 which he later said was ‘conducted by an esteemed professing Christian Chinese’.312 With the suddenly enlarged student body, the school was divided in March between Young and the non-Christian teacher on one hand and Tekchoan on the other.313 Afterwards Young devoted himself mainly to the school beside his residence while paying only occasional visits to the one at Keklai.314 The reason was not only distance but also the fact that the Keklai teacher was a Christian whereas the other teacher was not. Later the supervision of the Keklai school was handed over to Burns.315 Meanwhile Young’s engagement with the Romanised colloquial project had added to his supervisory duties the work of producing literary materials in the new script. Writing in 1852, Young stated that he spent his mornings ‘engaged with my teacher, preparing the lessons which [the students] translate [into the colloquial]’.316 Then for one hour during mid-day he supervised the three classes at his school. Meanwhile Tekchoan remained faithfully at his educational post until May 1853 when his position was taken by a Siam-baptised returnee317. In the Tekchoan episode therefore we see how it was the expansion of the educational enterprise which created the work space for an RCA convert. But the case of Tekchoan is of particular interest to us in yet another way. His voluntary resignation from the teaching post was occasioned by his appointment as one of the colporteurs to Choanchiu.318 In other words, whether others regarded it as evidence of 311

Burns to his mother, from Amoy, 25 July 1851, in Burns, Memoir, p. 285. Bx118/F5, Burns from Amoy, 8 January 1852. Cf. Bx119/F5, Burns to H.M. Matheson, from Amoy, 8 June 1852. 313 Young of 15 April 1851. 314 Young from Amoy, 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116. 315 Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) p. 287. 316 Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 371–373. 317 Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 290–291. Cf. Young from Amoy, 6 May 1852, Mess (1852) p. 283; Burns from Amoy, 8 June 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 282–283. 318 See Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853, MH (1853) pp. 350ﬀ; Burns of 16 May 1853. 312

 

161

interest in full time ‘religious’ work or as testimony to potentially good performance in such work, his labours at the EP school became a sort of credentials supporting his candidacy to the new position. This therefore is one instance wherein involvement in one kind of work space (education) led to entry into another kind (colporteur). The former work allowed the ‘testing’ of the man, showing him to be ﬁt (or making others believe him to be ﬁt) for the latter work. If we may recall, the EPM started to have a church formation objective only in about the middle of 1854 during the term of Johnston. The sudden departure of his colleagues made for the devolution upon him of the educational work which he soon extended to Pechuia.319 However just like Young and the RCA men, Johnston played the role of a supervisor and therefore expended but a little work-time in the undertaking. In his case, the generation of a work space for Chinese evangelists was (as mentioned earlier) mainly on account of EP missionary shortage as well as his own language and health limitations. With Douglas, the language-acquisition task provided additional (though really unnecessary) motivation to maintain the Chinese workforce inherited from his predecessor which company was eventually enlarged as the demands of the work increased. There is no reason to think that the nature of Douglas’ involvement with the EP schools in 1855–56 was any diﬀerent from that of Johnston. Therefore as far as its church planting period (1854–56) is concerned, there was no other work demand which acted in any way as a major competitor for EP missionary man-hours. Now we may summarise our discussion on ‘other work demands’ in a few remarks. In that it occurred in the earliest years, the work of Bible translation was of no consequence in the making of a Chinese work space. In contrast the Romanised Amoy project was a major competitor for the work hours of Doty, Talmage and Young. In eﬀect this translated into an enlargement of the evangelistic work space for both converts and assistants. Whereas the RCA encountered no time demand originating from direct medical work, their educational work, although in itself only a minor competitor for missionary work hours, nevertheless did create an educational work space for Christian classroom teachers. For the EPM, Young provided opportunities for evangelistic work ﬁrst at his dispensary and later 319

See 2.3 supra.

162

 

at his chapel. In addition, not only did his school allow Tekchoan occasion to engage in some educational labour, the episode also helped the Chinese man to obtain the post of a colporteur. During the period with a church formation objective (1854–56), both Johnston and Douglas did undertake some educational work but such duty was never a major claimant for EP missionary work hours. Putting the matter in historical context however reminds us that the said EP period, even though relatively free of competing work demands, was one in which health and language factors alone were suﬃcient to render the British workforce operating at far below its optimal level. Therefore for both Missions, various work demands not directly connected with convert-making or church-gathering did contribute to the making or the enlargement of the Chinese work space. In this Chapter, we have seen that toward the end of our period, the great expansion of the work at Banlam had unfortunately not been matched by a corresponding increase in the size, much less the capability of the missionary workforce. Alongside the various internal limitations of the missionaries—viz. the shortage of foreign workers as well as the further reduction of man-hours occasioned by health failures, deaths, forced absences, language acquisition exercises and other work demands—, the relative absence of local hostility was an external non-limitation which made for increased work opportunities as well as the less-restricted expansion of the Protestant enterprise. Especially problematic was the inability of the missionaries to attend to the inland stations which were too physically distant from the Mission bases in Amoy. This inability was conﬁrmed by Doty in 1857. While speaking of the cessation of ‘open persecution’ at Chiohbe, it was mentioned in passing that the missionary intelligence was actually based on the ‘reports of the Evangelists and native brethren who assist in the work there’.320 From around mid-1856, Joralmon noted that it was impracticable for the missionaries ‘to give as much attention to outstations as they wish on account of the pressure of duties in Amoy’ and that it was in this matter ‘they most bitterly feel the want of more laborers’.321 With

320

723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 321 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856.

 

163

respect to this expressed want, Talmage had already known the realistic thing to expect since at least half a year earlier. In early 1856, he explained the missionary conviction about the chief role of the Chinese in the evangelisation of the empire: ‘Especially do we feel the importance of this in our mission. We are entirely too few for the work now forced upon us; and we must expect soon to wear out in it. The prospect of much increase of laborers from home is discouraging’.322 Thus not only did the various missionary limitations occasion over-exhaustion on the part of the existing personnel, they also provided a large work space for Chinese labour. To the latter subject we now turn our attention.

322

Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FIVE

CHINESE LABOURS (I) Having looked at how certain factors within the missionary situation contributed to the creation and expansion of the Chinese work space, we now investigate how the converts played their part in ﬁlling up the said space. It will be argued that the missionary satisfaction with the general Christian character of the Chinese Christians was further reinforced by native religious labours in both paid and voluntary forms. To begin with, we ﬁrst examine the missionary thinkings about the role of a native agency in the task of establishing the Protestant church in China. Thereafter we present an account of the origins of employed Chinese labour and its development until the ﬁrst half of 1856. This is followed by a survey of the voluntary labours oﬀered by the converts. Lastly we discuss the correlation of actual Chinese performance with the missionary evaluation of Chinese work in general. Before proceeding into our main subject, a brief word is in place. Even though the Sinkoe event was primarily an RCA occasion and it is the American story which constitutes our primary interest, the EP story is not completely left out and this for reasons already mentioned (see 4.1). In that the British materials tend to be scanty on certain subjects, we shall in such instances integrate these into the main discussion on the RCA. 5.1. Missionary attitudes toward a Chinese agency Not only did the missionaries believe in the need for a Chinese agency, they also aimed at or took steps toward the formal training of a native ministry. In our survey of RCA attitudes toward a Chinese agency, we study Pohlman and Talmage since nothing on the matter was found in Doty’s writings from our period. For the EPM, we focus on Johnston and Douglas.

166

 

Pohlman Shortly before Talmage arrived, Pohlman had passingly mentioned the need for a corps of native helpers.1 In the extant records of the Amoy Mission, this is the earliest reference to such a thing. The remark of Pohlman is best seen within his historical situation as well as within the context of his idea of the ‘centre’ approach to mission work. In considering the larger situational context in which Pohlman worked and thought, we ﬁnd various factors which tended to dispose him toward the use of native agency, viz. the closure of the interior to foreigners which necessitates Chinese mobilisation if the Empire is to be evangelised, the hugeness of the Banlam ﬁeld which required a large workforce especially since stated work was adopted, his being the singular RCA ﬁeld person at a time when he believed no reinforcement from home was forthcoming,2 the diﬃculty of the Amoy dialect which required extended time to learn thus further delaying a missionary’s actual work,3 the eye ailment which befell him at around the time of Doty’s departure, and lastly, the recognition that certain societal segments were not easily accessible to missionaries. Concerning the last, consider for instance the attitude with which Pohlman accepted the resignation of his employee, Teacher Tan, who left in order to enlist as a military mandarin: ‘. . . it is in the hope of one day hearing that the gospel has been carried by him “in all the palace” of “Caesar’s household,” that I now refer to his case. . . . Will not God yet make use of him to carry the gospel where we cannot go?’4 Aside from these situational factors, there is also the methodological dimension which consisted of the ‘centre’ strategy. During the time when itinerant preaching was held as the main strategy of evangelisation, Pohlman spoke of Amoy as ‘a center’ from which some four hundred villages may be reached.5 This Amoy-centre approach actually built upon the assumption of the missionary staying within the legal limits of travel beyond the treaty port. But even within

1 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. 2 Ibid. 3 Note that this was in the period before the RCA started their own experiment with the Romanised colloquial script. 4 Pohlman from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5. 5 Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1845, CI (2 April 1846) p. 150 c. 3.

  (  )

167

this geographical boundary, the massive size of accessible Banlam was evident especially after the exploration of the villages on Amoy Island and the mainland undertaken by Pohlman and Abeel during the latter half of 1844.6 By any stretch of the imagination, one is hard-pressed into saying Pohlman seriously entertained the idea that the scale of the work needing to be done was such as could be adequately covered by the foreign missionary workforce alone be it in the short term or long term. This being the case, sooner or later a Chinese workforce would have to be deployed. Thus even though the earliest extant written expression of the necessity of a native agency dated from mid-1847, it seems the need itself was already even before that time contained within the missionary situation. Despite the change in work strategy, the belief in the need for a native agency remained unaltered. As we have noted earlier, after a while in Banlam Pohlman saw little gains in itinerary eﬀorts and eventually in late 1845 opted for ﬁxity and concentration of work.7 As a result, the Amoy-centre approach gave way to that of the chapel-centre. Daily preaching was soon sustained during weekdays (except Thursdays)8 being held at 3–5 pm and including a period of Scriptural exposition which was followed by a time of free conversation.9 Itineration however never ceased completely. By the start of autumn 1846, nearly all the villages on Amoy Island had been to10 and over an eleven-month period (November 1846 to September 1847) Tong-an was visited once and Chiangchiu thrice.11 Nevertheless the main intent behind such itinerant visits was more of exploration rather than work proper; in other words, the dominant concern was to spot potentials for settled work and not to have an itinerant ministry substitute for a stated ministry. During 1846 there were three chapels in Amoy, viz. Pohlman’s on Boey-Koey-hang, the LMS chapel at Cho-po-bio and the AP

6

Ibid. See Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4; Pohlman of 1 May 1847. Or see 3.3 supra. 8 Pohlman of 17 September 1846. 9 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6. 10 Pohlman of 17 September 1846. Cf. Pohlman [from Amoy], 1 May 1846, MH (September 1846) pp. 321–322. 11 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6 and (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 7

168

 

house situated on a main street.12 Notices were given out and posted throughout the city inviting people to come to the chapels to hear the Jesus doctrines. It was observed that people from other parts often visited the chapels, making them an ideal place to disseminate tracts in the hope that the Gospel in print may reach those regions still without missionary presence. The repeated visits of many provided the basis of the optimistic expectations on the part of Pohlman. The initial success of the new approach led him to wish that there had been ‘scores of places open every day’ all over the ‘city’ and on Amoy Island instead of just three chapels.13 Before long, this expressed desire for a multitude of chapels was followed by the stated need for a corps of ‘eﬃcient’, ‘well-trained and faithful’ native helpers.14 Speaking of the many villages along the Chiang river valley, Pohlman remarked that ‘we can now either send natives or go ourselves in perfect security, to settle down, as Roman Catholic priests do, preaching the gospel, and teaching thousands and myriads of souls the way of everlasting life and glory’.15 The reference to the Roman Catholic missionaries built upon the mention in the same letter of a village near Chiangchiu wherein seventy per cent of the inhabitants were members of the local Roman Catholic church. The above implies not only a huge potential work space for Chinese workers but more importantly the need for native agency. More so if we regard the remark about the need for a plurality of Chinese workers and about settled work outside Amoy in the light of the RCA concern not to violate the regulations on the allowable movements of foreigners outside the treaty ports. Neither was there any deviation from this line of thinking when the project of constructing the ﬁrst Protestant church building in Amoy was launched. When the lot on which was to be built the Sinkoe chapel was obtained, one of the four houses on it was made a temporary chapel.16 By spring of 1848 the usual attendance at the Sabbath services consisted of ‘a crowd, as great as the place can

12

Pohlman of 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6. 14 Pohlman of 25 May 1847. 15 Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5 (italics added). 16 Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5; AR-AB (1848) p. 219. 13

  (  )

169

accommodate’ while at the other instruction meetings the show-up ‘within the last month or more’ was the greatest ever had.17 On 11 February 1849 the newly built chapel was dedicated with Young (LMS) delivering the sermon to an overﬂowing crowd.18 Soon the average attendance at the Sabbath morning service was ranging from 150 to 200 and the afternoon assembly was ‘about twice as large’.19 At the same time ‘a more frequent attendance of men of respectable standing in society’ was proudly reported.20 The recency of the structure especially the novelty of its steeple no doubt added to its initial attractiveness. It takes little imagination to see how this initial success was a big booster to the missionary conﬁdence in the chapel-centre approach. In a real sense though Pohlman was intent on building more than just an RCA chapel; he was actually building his chapel. Consider his very words: ‘My own rule would be— a chapel for each missionary. No man should be a day without a chapel he can call his own, just as soon as he can speak intelligibly [to the people].’21 Little wonder it was a matter of unusually great grief to his colleagues and the Chinese Christians that he never lived to see day of the chapel’s grand opening. But although Pohlman emphasised the principle of a chapel for every missionary, there is no hint of any sort that the chapel-centre approach as conceived by him negated the need for Chinese help. On the contrary, the experience of its success created a new optimism about the possible expansion of the work which if realised would require the increase of work hands whether foreign or native. For Pohlman, therefore, both situational and methodological considerations made native agency a must in evangelistic and church work. The concept of the ‘centre’ approach ﬁrst took form within the framework of the itinerant preaching strategy. The Amoy-centre

17 Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3; AR-AB (1848) p. 219. 18 Talmage, diary, 11 February 1849, in FYC, pp. 90–91; AR-AB (1849) pp. 168–169. 19 AR-AB (1849) p. 170; AR-AB (1850) p. 161. 20 AR-AB (1850) p. 161. 21 ‘Amoy: memoranda of the Protestant missions from their commencement, with notices of the city and island. Prepared by resident missionaries’, CRep ( July 1846) p. 356. Since the author of the ﬁrst of two papers included herein was he who baptised the two old men in April 1846 (p. 358), we are certain the man was Pohlman. Also Cf. AR-AB (1847) p. 166.

170

 

approach took the treaty port as the base from which missionaries may reach out to the vicinity but only within the limits of the SinoWestern treaties. However with the strategic shift to stated preaching and instruction, the chapel-centre model was adopted and later instituted. Against this methodological development as immediate background, the oldest existing RCA record of the idea that a native agency was needful appeared from the pen of Pohlman dating from mid-1847. Upon their arrival later, both Talmage and Doty exhibited no hesitation in following the same line. But it was the younger man who brought the idea out of incipiency and developed it into a comprehensive strategy. Talmage Writing a year after his arrival, Talmage called special attention to the only viable long term strategy of evangelising China, viz. via Chinese agency.22 As an important aspect of the Talmage ideal, this conviction stubbornly persisted into later times. For instance, in 1856 Talmage continued to insist that ‘China must be evangelized chieﬂy through the instrumentality of natives’.23 By also designating the foreign missionary as the layer of foundation and carer-helper in erecting the superstructure24, Talmage deﬁned clearly the respective roles of Westerners and natives as well as their temporal loci of function within a comprehensive long-term action plan. By so doing, the Talmage ideal actually went beyond the mere need for native agency. That Talmage should have thought in such broad terms so that missionary labour could not be assigned permanent central signiﬁcance was mainly due to the fact that he had in mind the evangelisation of the whole Chinese empire as well as of the whole world. Thus with reference to the necessity of native evangelism, he asserted: ‘It is thus that this empire and most other heathen countries must be evangelised. . . . The Church in Christian lands . . . can never furnish the heathen nations with missionaries of the Cross in suﬃcient numbers . . .’25. The later actions of the Mission proved that the missionaries did

22 Talmage to Middle Ref[ormed] Dutch Church (Brooklyn), from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (18 January 1849) p. 109 c. 1. 23 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6 (italics added). 24 See 2.5 supra. 25 Talmage of 12 September 1848 (italics added).

  (  )

171

not hesitate to apply the above conclusion to the Banlam context in which they ministered. Interestingly the same general conclusion was arrived at by Burns a few years later. That this happened apart from any RCA inﬂuence is evinced by a letter he wrote even before he had ever been in Amoy: As far as I can see, . . . in the end, if the masses are to be evangelized [sic], it must be through the medium of the native language. No doubt when able and eminently devoted native agents are raised up, the work may be expected to make more rapid progress; but in the meantime I think it is the duty of those foreign agents, to whom God has given the disposition, along with somewhat of the ability, to engage in this public proclamation of the truth, aided by such native agency, as has already been raised up, or may be, by their instrumentality called into the ﬁeld.26

The great diﬀerence between Burns and Talmage is that the latter conceived of native labour in broader terms and acted on his conviction that such a workforce must be trained up. Thus a few months before the Sinkoe event, Talmage wrote that it was ‘of great importance to prepare the native Christians as rapidly as possible, for the work of preaching the gospel to their countrymen’27. Even though the original literary context of this remark was speaking about the theological class started in 1855, it should be noted that Talmage never conceived of the native workforce exclusively in terms of employed labourers. As early as 1848, he had pointedly explained that ‘every true convert becomes in some measure a helper’.28 Irreplaceable were the example of the believer’s changed conduct and his various advantages over the missionary, viz. unrestricted travel, better cultural understanding, acquaintance with the obstacles to Chinese conversion and how to deal with these, and lastly, exemption from the anti-foreign prejudices of the people. Therefore it was no surprise the theological class was attended by ‘our colporteurs, when they are in Amoy, and by several other Christian converts, mostly young men of much promise’.29 Although it is almost

26 Burns from Canton, [unknown date], Mess (1851) p. 139. Whether this thinking of Burns bears any inﬂuence by that of Gutzlaﬀ should make an interesting study. 27 Talmage of 16 January 1856 (italics added). 28 Talmage of 12 September 1848 (italics added). 29 Talmage of 16 January 1856 (italics added).

172

 

certain that Talmage had entertained hope that some (if not all) from the latter group would someday become full-time agents, there is no reason to think that the commencement of the theological class implies the discarding of the idea of mobilising volunteers for religious work, much less the closure of the work space to such people. On the contrary, Talmage was everything but inconsistent in his high esteem for the evangelistic zeal of the Chinese Christians.30 Rather, the oﬀering of advanced studies was made necessary by the growth of the work which called for the deployment of a native workforce better trained than the average volunteer. Both optimism (about the growth potentials of the work) and pessimism (about the numerical enlargement of the missionary workforce) combined to motivate Talmage into taking action toward the soonest development of a company of qualiﬁed native workers to further the work of Chinese evangelisation. Likewise the idea of each missionary with his own chapel was quickly adopted by Talmage when he rented his own ‘chapel’ a few months after his second arrival at Amoy in October 185031. On 22 December, Talmage preached his ﬁrst regular sermon at the worship place in his house to an audience of more than a hundred people.32 Thereafter regular Sabbath preaching was sustained alongside that at Sinkoe although the attendance at the rented chapel was smaller and rather irregular33. A very similar idea was expressed after the visit to Chiangchiu in June 1851 when Talmage spoke of the possibility of either posting a missionary there or making the place an out-station with an appointed colporteur to be backed up by monthly missionary visits.34 The perceived value of chapel-based work was no doubt increased after health reasons put a stop to the exercise of street preaching which he had began to do in about August 1851.35 But

30 See e.g. Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4; Talmage of 16 January 1856. 31 Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (May 1851) pp. 152–154. 32 Talmage of 23 December 1850, MH (1851) p. 154; FYC, p. 107. 33 AR-AB (1852) p. 123; AR-AB (1853) p. 129. Contra AR-AB (1851) p. 124 (‘the average number of hearers at both [places] being from 150 to 200’). 34 Talmage to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. The contemplated plan was, however, obstructed by the lack of workers. 35 Talmage of 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–152. Cf. AR-AB (1852) p. 123; FYC, pp. 116ﬀ.

  (  )

173

even though Talmage was able to gain good command of the colloquial and thus take charge of the Sabbath sermon, it was physically impossible for him to cover in person every operational hour of the chapel throughout the whole week. Thus in continuing the chapel-centre approach of Pohlman, Talmage (and too Doty36) faced the same implications as his late colleague, viz. the need for a Chinese agency. Thus toward the close of his thirteenth month in Amoy, Talmage had already worked out a comprehensive strategy for evangelisation. The immediate and medium-term future called for not only the continuing presence but also the increase of foreign workers. However the long-term work of evangelisation and of the pastorate fell within the province of the Chinese Christian themselves. Even the decision to continue the chapel-centre approach of Pohlman did not essentially change the thought that a Chinese agency was needed. As a matter of fact, it was precisely in line with such thought that Talmage started the more formal training of native workers in the form of the theological class which held its ﬁrst meeting in July 1855. Johnston The attitude of Johnston toward a Chinese agency may be discerned via the correlation of a number of factors. First, it was the FMC designation from an early time that the China missionary team be composed of no more than three men.37 After Young had settled at Amoy, the appeal was soon made for a third missionary speciﬁcally for educational work38. During our period, the FMC believed a three-man team would render its China staﬀ ‘complete’.39 Thus being certain Young could not return to China, the FMC looked for another man to ‘complete the original number’40. The slot was later ﬁlled by Sandeman41 which suggests Douglas was regarded as having taken the place of Johnston. The numerical limit set upon the

36 For his part Doty had no need to rent or build his own chapel as the Sinkoe ediﬁce became his after Pohlman died in early 1849. 37 See 4.2 supra. 38 Mess (1851) pp. 120–121, 140. 39 Mess (1851) p. 140; (1852) p. 150. Contrary to Burns’ reckoning (p. 150), the FMC never considered Mrs. Young a full member of the Banlam team. 40 Mess (1855) p. 148. 41 Ibid.

174

 

EPM personnel size is better understood not as an underestimation of the magnitude and needs of the China mission ﬁeld. Rather it should be interpreted as a reﬂection of the existential restraints upon the PCE both in terms of ﬁnance and missionary candidates. To read out of the limited size of the EP team alone an implied intention to raise a Chinese church may be going a bit too far. But to say that it implied raising up a native agency is tenable, for this was certainly the direction it was pointing toward. The restricted size of the EP missionary team made it necessary that a place be reserved for Chinese labour if any substantial work is to be done. Neither would this Chinese labour space be by any means a small one. At any rate, the designated size of the EPM was conducive to the upholding of the belief in the need for Chinese agency on the part of Johnston. The second factor inﬂuencing the attitude of Johnston toward a Chinese agency was the ‘planetary’ method. Partly on account of the restricted size of the Mission, the ‘planetary’ method was devised at around the time when the EPM church objective was initially set in place. Perhaps it is helpful to ﬁrst review the development of the ‘centre’ idea within the EP ranks. The ‘centre’ idea was ﬁrst expressed by Burns less than a year after landing at Amoy.42 The concept then was of Amoy as a base for itinerant work. The occasion was when the thoroughgoing evangelist had been somewhat discouraged by the lack of satisfactory response in the town and been thinking for some time to go out into the region around. Indeed during February and March 1852, two tours were undertaken of Amoy Island. As is quickly seen, this was identical to the Amoy-centre model of the early Pohlman. In contrast, the FMC favoured the concentration method, arguing for mission buildings in Amoy, so that its missionaries will be enabled to recognise ‘the territorial principle’ and thus ‘unite in establishing one centre of usefulness, from which . . . they might hope the sooner to tell on the surrounding community’, i.e. the community within Amoy (so the original literary context)43. This stated-centre concept paralleled the chapel-centre approach of the later Pohlman. Thus what Young did in 1854 when he started the EP preaching station at A-kui-a (Amoy) was actually

42 43

Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. Mess (1853) pp. 142–144.

  (  )

175

no diﬀerent from the later RCA approach. The practice of Young was continued by Johnston when he took over the work44. The routine of having three evening services per week was maintained during the hot season and in winter replaced by daily morning services. The attendance ﬂuctuated wildly from full capacity to nil, with only half a dozen people or less classiﬁable as regular attendants. Reﬂecting on the early EP eﬀorts, Johnston explained the ‘planetary method’ in opposition to the ‘sporadic’ principle associated with Burns whose operational method did not change even after he had made Amoy his base: The plan on which the Mission was organised in 1854 was what may be called the centrifugal, as opposed to the sporadic, principle. . . . What we may call the planetary method is to choose a centre or centres from which the Word may radiate, but not beyond the reach of the inﬂuence of the central power. The radius may be long and reach far, provided that there be intermediate stations to support one another, and all should gravitate to the centre, as planets to the sun. In this way there is in the Mission, as in the solar system, both a centrifugal and a centripetal force, preserving the unity and vigour of the organisation. This principle has been consistently carried out from ﬁrst to last, . . . .45 (italics original)

Corroborating this were the writings of Johnston from the 1850s. In January 1854, the EP man with Doty for a companion visited Chiangchiu with the aim of determining whether Amoy would make a suitable ‘centre of a vigorous and extensive missionary organization’.46 Campaigning later for EP buildings in Amoy, Johnston said if the port be regarded ‘the ecclesiastical capital for evangelistic purposes’, there would be within an accessible ca. forty-mile radius a homolingual population of above two million.47 By themselves, these remarks may give the impression that Johnston was taking the Amoycentre itineration approach. Yet in that Johnston was aiming at the formation of local churches, the Amoy centre was actually conceived of as both an administrative and an evangelistic centre but more of the former than the latter. Thus faced with many country openings oﬀering themselves to mission work, the proper strategy was for the EPM to train

44 45 46 47

Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. CAF, pp. 197–198. Johnston from Greenlaw, [no day] October 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 373–375. Johnston from Greenlaw, 19 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 51–53.

176

 

more men to occupy them and to ‘be prepared to open preaching halls in every important town and village . . .’48 By such ‘judicious diﬀusion with centralization of eﬀort’49, Johnston clearly had in mind the chapel-centre variety of mission work coupled with the idea of Amoy as the administrative-supervisory centre of EP operations within Banlam. Also under the chapel-centre approach, itineration did not cease altogether. Out of the literature distribution and itinerant preaching done by the Chinese assistants during the last trimester of 1854, Johnston could guarantee little results explaining that both modes of operation were ‘necessarily uncertain, so far as we can judge by external observation’ and that there was no sure way of estimating their impact.50 Nevertheless as a result of the itinerary work, some have come to Amoy to hear more preaching from his Chinese agents. This was in fact (so he claimed) what he had planned and was also the reason for limiting visitations to places within easy reach of Amoy by public boat. Such itinerary work after all was intended to go along ‘with stated labours in a central station’.51 If the latter reference were indeed limited to EP operations, then the place meant was none other than the A-kui-a preaching station started earlier by Young.52 Therefore itineration was continued but only as an auxiliary or a feeder to the work of the chapel-centre. In relation to Chinese agency, the planetary method was designed in such a way that the legwork would be done mostly (if not entirely) by the Chinese. The continuation of itinerant work also implies the need for more Chinese workers. In short, it is plain that the planetary method eﬀectively reinforced Johnston’s belief in the necessity of a native agency. Third, there was the proposal of the Educational Institute. Writing much later about his own work in Banlam, Johnston claimed that though he disfavoured Duﬀ-type educational work in China, he ‘strongly advocated’ education in the native tongue for converts (both male and female) and their children as well as ‘the training of a

48

Ibid. (italics added). Ibid. 50 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 146. 51 Johnston of 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84. 52 Johnston, Review of 1854. Cf. Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 64. 49

  (  )

177

native ministry’.53 With regards to the last item, we ﬁnd some corroboration in a letter dating from early 1856 in which Johnston argued zealously for the necessity of having EP mission buildings in Amoy and the country.54 Aside from premises at multiple inland locations for prosecuting mission work, Johnston advised the FMC to also build in Amoy a preaching hall, missionary residences and, of most interest to us, an ‘Educational Institute’. The last was entirely diﬀerent from the schools already had in Amoy and Pechuia, for its design was to train colporteurs, evangelists and pastors. About such training, Johnston later elaborated, A knowledge of a few elementary truths was suﬃcient, and a personal experience of their truth in the preacher was enough in China, as it has been in all ages and all lands. The great work of the evangelist is to tell what God had done for his own salvation, . . . But to rest content with such an elementary teaching as this, or with such an imperfect teacher, is not only defective, it is destructive to both teacher and taught. The child of the kingdom must grow in knowledge, or he will never “grow in grace” or in the graces of the Spirit. To obviate this danger, and secure the development of each believer and of the whole Church, it was needful to educate these evangelists, or to train others for the “work of the ministry” . . .55

In speaking of such training which was to be undertaken under missionary superintendence, Johnston was already assuming not simply a Chinese work space but the actual need for a dedicated native agency working on a full-time employment basis. Then there was the adoption of the two young boys in 1854–55. During his Banlam period, Johnston had demonstrated interest in the theological training of natives but never actually got to doing it himself. The interest was exhibited in practical terms when he took under his roof the teenager Kow-a from the EP school in Amoy who after having been expelled by his parents had become the missionary’s ‘adopted son’56. This was followed in around the beginning of 1855 by the similar adoption of ﬁfteen-year-old Kwai-a from Pechuia.57 This was certainly not the ﬁrst instance of an EP missionary taking in a boarder. Earlier Young did take to live with him

53 54 55 56 57

CAF, p. 82. Johnston from Greenlaw, 19 January 1856. CAF, p. 212. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 146. Ibid. Note: not Kuvai-a.

178

 

as a boarder the pupil who was ‘the furthest advanced [in the EP school], and a very promising boy’58 being also the oldest among the boys59. But the adoption of Kow-a was deﬁnitely a ﬁrst. Likewise the case of Kwai-a may be in a way considered a ﬁrst. As his dilemma was the impending cessation of his schooling in order to help in the business of his father who was himself a convert, it is not diﬃcult to believe the primary motivation for providing boarding was Johnston’s refusal to risk ‘losing such a youth to the future service of the Church’.60 In a letter written some weeks afterwards, Johnston was unambiguous in expressing his hope that Kwai-a will someday ‘make an excellent evangelist or pastor . . .’61. Thus we have here the ﬁrst instance of taking in a boarder with a clear intention of rearing a future agent. In the case of Kow-a, the motivation may initially be mixed, i.e. both wanting to help a homeless boy and also desiring to rear a potential assistant. Nevertheless the facts of the case have it that from the ﬁrst the main concern of Johnston had been with the school attendance of Kow-a, or with what was hoped to be the latter’s continuing preparation to become an EP worker in some future time. Thus even though at an earlier time, Johnston already knew of the severe persecutions inﬂicted upon Kow-a by his family members, he ‘did not think it desirable to interfere, so long as he was permitted to attend school . . .’62 When intervention failed and the lad was ejected from his father’s house, Johnston took him in until the British Consul successfully secured a signed parental agreement to allow the boy to live according to his Christian conscience including the continuation of his attendance at the EP school. It seems this state came to a quick end after Kow-a received baptism in September and was again driven from home, but this time permanently. Whereupon Johnston immediately adopted him for good.63 A year later, the justiﬁcation given for the cases of adoption made it clear that the training of a native agency was nonetheless at the

58

Young from Amoy, 17 January 1851, Mess (1851) p. 121. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. Two weeks previous to this writing, the boy had on his own approached the missionaries to seek baptism. 60 Johnston, Review of 1854, p. 146. 61 Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 198–199. 62 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 19–20. 63 Johnston, Review of 1854, pp. 145, 146. 59

  (  )

179

back of Johnston’s mind since the beginning: ‘So important have I felt it to seize on promising youths of Christian character, that, rather than lose sight of two that came under my notice twelve months ago, I have kept them at my own expense.’64 As a matter of fact, Johnston announced he would unhesitantly take on twenty more boys should they come forward.65 That Johnston was ready to maintain the two boys indeﬁnitely at his own expense reveals how valuable he considered the task of training up a native agency to be. There is hardly any doubt that Johnston thought Chinese agency indispensable. Lastly, we call attention to Johnston’s acquisition of native assistants in 1854. Although due to personal hindrances Johnston was never able to commence the work of proper theological training, nothing deterred him from the enthusiastic deployment of four Chinese agents not long after Burns and Young left China.66 Part of the motivation for doing so no doubt derived from the fact of missionary shortage and from Johnston’s unpreparedness for direct ﬁeld engagement. Having suggested previously that the restricted size of the EPM partly accounted for the adoption of the planetary method, we may now complete the story by saying that the choice of methodology was also partly founded upon the peculiar situation of Johnston. Faced with language and health limitations, he could ﬁnd no directly active role for himself in the work except as a superintendent of colporteur-evangelists. That this role did not necessitate advanced language skills is illustrated when Johnston took on such work just a few weeks after he arrived in China.67 But then the superintending work started during his ﬁrst Chinese autumn was more demanding in that (a) Johnston was without the beneﬁt of having Amoy-speaking EP colleagues, (b) there was an increase in the number of personnel to be supervised, (c) the work area was not localised to Amoy alone and lastly, (d) the work was designed for long term duration. Furthermore the planetary method was designed in such a way that the legwork would be done mostly if

64

Johnston from Greenlaw, 19 January 1856. Johnston, Review of 1854. 66 See 4.3 supra. 67 With Burns inland and Young readying to go to Chiangchiu, the duty devolved upon Johnston to superintend the Amoy EP school where a Chinese Christian conducted the services. Young of 11 January 1854, Mess (1854) p. 217. Cf. Young of 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116. 65

180

 

not entirely by the Chinese. This brings us to the matter of missionary supervision, an issue on which Johnston held very clear and strong views. Just as fully as he was convinced of the need for a native agency, Johnston was persuaded against the unsupervised deployment of such. With strong conviction he held ‘Europeans [= missionaries] as highly important, and, in the way of superintendence and devotion, absolutely necessary’.68 Thus with regard to starting a church at promising Chiohbe, the main hindrance was not the shortage of Chinese hands but the lack of ‘men [missionaries] to superintend those [native agents] we have’69. Indeed the policy of Johnston was to employ assistants ‘in such a way as would at once enable me to superintend their labours’70. Thus even during his illness and indoor conﬁnement, he continued to direct the Chinese workers from his Amoy quarters.71 The doctrine of the ‘absolute necessity’ of having foreign missionary-superintendents was heartily accepted by the FMC who upon hearing of Johnston’s health breakdown had ardently hoped for his recovery so as to restore to the Chinese workers ‘the beneﬁt of his judicious superintendence’72. Because of the concern with missionary supervision, Johnston considered the distance of Pechuia to be the greatest of his problems (which however was solved by having a boat wherein he could sleep and travel at the same time).73 By December Johnston had recovered and was up again pursuing his plan of leading and then ‘sending’ colporteurs to the water-side villages from his boat.74 At times, the refusal to let the assistants ‘out of sight’ appears to be almost verging on distrust. Relating all the above to our investigation of Johnston’s attitude toward a native agency, we note that his very act of acquiring native evangelists indicates little resistance on his part to the use of such. His one reservation pertained to unsupervised use, i.e. improper or unwise use, but not to very use itself. In real experience, this resulted in a starting ratio of one foreigner ( Johnston)

68 Johnston from Amoy, 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180 (italics original). 69 Johnston from Amoy, 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22; cf. Johnston, Review of 1854. 70 Johnston from Amoy, November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54. 71 Ibid. 72 Mess (1855) p. 21. 73 Ibid. 74 Johnston of 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84.

  (  )

181

to four Chinese, a ratio which exhibits a good amount of wholeheartedness and enthusiasm in the deployment of native agency. Summing up, we note that in revealing his thoughts even as these were also vindicated by his conduct, Johnston was as convinced of the necessity of a Chinese agency as he was of the need for it to be a missionary-supervised labour force. Due to the FMC restriction upon the size of the EPM as well as the particular situation of Johnston, the ‘planetary’ method was formulated whose application gave an assured place to Chinese agents. Furthermore the continuation of itinerant work as an auxiliary to the chapel-centre strategy implied the need for more Chinese labour than would be the case were such work totally ceased. Conviction was expressed in concrete action when Johnston took the initiative to adopt two boys and to deploy Chinese evangelists. Even if the desire to train a native ministry was never realised during his missionary career, he ceased not to promote the idea even after he had left the China ﬁeld. This was demonstrated especially by the proposal of the Educational Institute. In totality, the arrangement of things was such as to allow for the facilitated expansion of the Chinese workforce. There is no doubt that Johnston felt strongly the need for a native agency. Douglas The attitude of Douglas toward a native agency should be seen within the context of the continuity of the ‘planetary’ method of Johnston. Picking up the work where the latter left oﬀ, Douglas supervised EPM operations along the same methodologic lines.75 During the ﬁrst half of 1856 Douglas visited various inland places with the seeming intent of seeking candidates for new mission centres.76 In 1857 when the EPM was in charge of Pechuia and Maping Douglas played the role of the missionary-superintendent being in the habit of visiting these two places ‘during the cool season about once a fortnight’.77 In time the planetary system became the common

75

Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, pp. 64–65. E.g. Tong-an (during February) and the Chhengchoan villages (March/April). See Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181; Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338. 77 Sandeman of February 1857, in Johnston, Glimpses, p. 21. 76

182

 

mission method of the EPM in China and later also in Formosa.78 With regards to his conviction about a Chinese agency, Douglas expressed himself more by way of action than word. For one, he took eﬀort to continue to maintain the four Chinese assistants originally recruited by Johnston. Although by the start of January 1856 Douglas had lost the services of his best evangelist Taulo who had been recalled by the RCA for assignment to Chiohbe79, the position was quickly reﬁlled so that later in the month the team of evangelists was restored to its original number80. Furthermore Douglas not only assumed the care of Johnston’s two ‘adopted’ sons but also took concrete steps to see an EP native agency trained up. Almost immediately upon arrival at Amoy, he made arrangements for Kwaia to join Talmage’s three-week-old ‘systematic doctrinal’ class81. As Douglas had just been in Amoy for a little over a month, this was understandably the best he could do at that time in terms of providing for the training of a native agency. By early 1856, a total of ﬁve older boys were staying with Douglas, of whom three or four were expected to be evangelists soon.82 During the course of their study, they also went out occasionally to participate in the work.83 Continuing the practice of Johnston, Douglas had provided for his ﬁve boarders from ‘various sources’ which included a grant of $20 from the Morrison Education Society84. Application was made to the said Society without consulting the FMC ‘as that would have lost a year’.85 Another source of income was the sale of opium pills which proﬁt was suﬃcient to allow the young Chekcheng ‘abundant leisure left for carrying on his study of the Scriptures’86. Swanson 78

See e.g. These forty years, pp. 6–7, 18; CAF, pp. 214–215. Douglas from Amoy, 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119. 80 Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. During this time Douglas was out a great deal with his evangelists in the streets of Amoy and sometimes also on the EP boat. 81 Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. 82 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 83 For instance, during the Chailau festival at Pechuia in the latter half of January 1856, Douglas took with him two students including Lamsan who was a native of the place. Along with the evangelists and another man, they stayed there for a total of ﬁve days. Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. 84 Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181. Another grant of $66 was for the day-scholars. 85 Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856. Douglas was expecting the grant to be reduced in the next year. 86 Douglas from Amoy, 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119. 79

  (  )

183

was deﬁnitely correct when he later testiﬁed: ‘From the very outset [Douglas] perceived the great importance of training up a native ministry and of educating native agents to carry on the work. When alone and single-handed in his own Mission, he did what he could in this department, and he never ceased his care about it until he saw a thoroughly equipped institution established in full working order.’87 The last reference was to later times when clear regulations were instituted for the selection, formal education and the strict examination of students/candidates for the fulltime ministry.88 Nevertheless the tenor of the quotation in its entirety accurately reﬂected the Douglas of our period. To sum up on missionary thoughts on a Chinese agency, we note that the ﬁrst explicit statement about the need for it came from Pohlman in 1847 being motivated by both situational and methodological considerations. By 1848 Talmage had developed the idea into a full evangelistic strategy while also allowing a place therein for volunteer native labours. Aside from this contribution, Talmage took the lead role in commencing the organised training of Chinese agents and a few selected volunteers in 1855. On the EP side, Johnston and Douglas also held very similar attitudes toward a Chinese agency. Aside from situational and methodological motivations at play, there was also the restricted size of the EP missionary team as speciﬁed by the FMC. In advocating a native agency, Johnston was particularly emphatic about the need for missionary supervision and did actually himself attempt to live up to this ideal as much as he could. Whereas there was actual deployment of native workers, circumstantial hindrances disallowed the EPM from undertaking the work of training during our period. Nevertheless Douglas took the initiative to meet this need by having Kwai-a (in August 1855, and later also others) join Talmage’s class. Considering the attitudes of Johnston and Douglas as well as the relevant historical facts, it is diﬃcult to say that Johnston was guilty of pure retrospection when he later wrote that one important (though not the only) reason for requiring ‘the highest type of men [i.e. missionaries]’ was for ‘the highest work’ of raising up and training a Chinese

87 88

Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, pp. 65–66. See MacGregor of 23 May 1870, in CAF, pp. 213–214.

184

 

agency.89 Therefore whether by word or deed, the RCA and EP missionaries were one in the belief about the need for a Chinese agency. 5.2. Paid Chinese agency The ﬁrst case of paid RCA Chinese agency was anything but motivated by pure theoretical considerations. On the ﬁrst day of March 1847, U Teng-eng became the ﬁrst ‘native helper’ to be employed by the American Mission. Converted and baptised at Siam in January 1844, he had left that country in company with the missionaries formerly at work there and had relocated to China. Though actually a native of ‘Ka-eng-chew’ (Canton), yet ‘being a young man of education and good mental powers, he had learned to speak the Amoy dialect with frequency’.90 By spring, Pohlman’s chapel became opened also in the morning (11 am), an operational expansion made possible by ‘Teacher U’ (as he was commonly addressed at Amoy). During this time however the morning session did not have a good attendance ‘as it is the time for doing business, and all classes are generally engaged’.91 Although he was referred to in the earliest instance as an ‘evangelist’92, the fact is that throughout his term of work he was also considered a colporteur.93 Even as late as the summer of 1856, RCA helpers were at once both colporteurs and evangelists.94 Among the various situational factors which favoured the use of an employed native agency, it was perhaps Pohlman’s personal predicament which was most forceful in realising the acquisition of the ﬁrst

89

CAF, pp. 359–362. Of course there is no doubt that during our period, solid formal education was required of EP missionaries. In later times this requirement became a bit relaxed in some instances. See CAF, pp. 349–351. 90 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5. 91 Ibid. 92 Pohlman of 1 May 1847. So too AR-AB (1848) p. 223; Doty of 28 January 1853, MH ( June 1853) pp. 161–162; Talmage to Anderson, 3 June 1853, MH (November 1853) p. 350, cf. FYC, pp. 136–138; 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 93 APGS (1854) p. 473. 94 Doty of 17 January 1855, MH ( June 1855) pp. 186–187; 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. Cf. Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6.

  (  )

185

paid Chinese worker, i.e. his eye ailment. By October 1846 Pohlman had given up all hope of language studies and had conceived his own role as that of ‘a sort of general agent, or overseer, engaging in active, outdoor labors, exploring, exhorting, preaching, from house to house’95. The proximity of this date to the acquisition of Teacher U is particularly noteworthy. That the Chinese agent was not employed any earlier is because he had just barely arrived at Amoy. That no assistant was recruited previously is explained by the absence of a suitable candidate (or, more precisely, by Pohlman’s inability to train any). That is, the acquisition of Teacher U represents Pohlman’s hurried and unhesitating seizure of the earliest opportunity to obtain a native helper. Therefore the ﬁrst Chinese space was aﬀorded by among other factors the partial disability of a lone foreign labourer. It was not long after the acquisition of Teacher U when Pohlman hinted that he had had a somewhat satisfactory experience working with the ﬁrst RCA evangelist. This was in the form of the statement about the need for a corps of native helpers which was penned in May96, i.e. barely three months after Teacher U assumed his post. Even considering the fact that Pohlman’s eye condition had not improved at that writing, there must be some positive motivation behind the implicit endorsement. Had there been any unpleasant encounter or observation of a serious nature, we would certainly expect the statement of May to be accompanied by some recommendation pertaining to the acquisition and/or management of Chinese assistants. In other words, we ﬁnd from the lone Pohlman years no indication of any sort that the missionary was at any point in any way unhappy about Teacher U or his labours. On the contrary, the statement from May 1847 suggested just the reverse. However not every RCA missionary was to destined to have such a smooth experience. The attitude of Doty toward native agency suﬀered a short-lived setback soon after his return to Amoy. In recounting his ﬁrst personal meeting with Teacher U in September 1847, Doty confessed to initial negative impressions about the zeal and character of the

95 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132 (134) c. 6. 96 I.e. Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4.

186

 

Chinese worker. After some six months, however, these had been ‘much modiﬁed and changed’ toward a more realistic appreciation of the ‘growing Christian’ and commendable remarks were made regarding the valuable assistance contributed by the evangelist.97 The change in attitude was greatly inﬂuenced by the work of the preceding three months. When the temporary chapel at Sinkoe opened for daily instruction and Sabbath preaching, the attendance at all meetings immediately increased dramatically. During these times, overﬂow crowds were known to have attended the morning meetings of Teacher U.98 With free conversation as a regular component of the daily routine, the language limitation of Doty and Talmage gave one more reason for needing and appreciating the input of Teacher U. Doty testiﬁed: ‘Indeed, but for his aid we could not have kept up the various and frequently recurring services of the two chapels or places of public resort and instruction under our care.’99 It was therefore the growth of labour demands upon a physically (Pohlman) and linguistically (Doty and Talmage) deﬁcient missionary workforce which allowed additional work space for the earliest employed Chinese labourer to further prove his worth. To this space, the death of Pohlman brought an enlargement. During 1850–51, Teacher U generally spent his time at the place of worship, conversing with inquirers, but also held ‘more formal meetings’ and undertook occasional tours to the surrounding region.100 In the ABCFM report of 1853, it was said ‘a good amount of less formal work, in the distribution of tracts, conversation and exhortation, has been done by the evangelist colporter [sic], and other native brethren’.101 The agent referred to was certainly Teacher U on whom (as noted earlier) was applied those two terms. Despite the absence of standardised terminological distinction at the time, the second native helper recruited in 1852 was always simply called a ‘colporteur’102, probably out of convenience in order to diﬀerentiate the man from Teacher U103. 97 Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. 98 AR-AB (1848) p. 222. 99 Doty of 16 March 1848, p. 6 c. 3–5. 100 AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 101 AR-AB (1853) p. 129. 102 See AR-AB (1853) pp. 127, 128, 129. 103 It is also possible the title ‘evangelist’ was reserved for Teacher U alone because of unequal valuation of the two Chinese workers. On the ground of work experience alone, Teacher U was no doubt considered a better qualiﬁed worker by the missionaries.

  (  )

187

The commencement in 1850 of a third Sabbath service which was conducted by the Chinese evangelist104 was not only occasioned by the perception of increased Chinese interest but also supported by added conﬁdence in Teacher U on the part of the missionaries. In an experiential manner, the value of Chinese agency became especially impressed upon Talmage in 1851 when for health reasons Doty sailed for Shanghai in April leaving him alone at Amoy. During the six-week span of solitude, it was because of Teacher U that ‘we were able to continue all our regular public services’105. This ﬁrst hand observation provided the background for Talmage’s conﬁdence in Chinese agency. Thus in ca. June 1851 after a visit to Chiangchiu, he would have proceeded with the posting of a colporteur there to be backed up by periodic missionary visitation, had not the ‘weak-handed’ state of the workforce hindered the execution of the intention.106 The missionary conﬁdence however was tested the following year by a ‘very serious case’ in which charges of ‘very great import’ were pressed against Teacher U by some church outsiders. For a time the evidence seemed ‘so conclusive’ that even the church members joined at condemning him. Eventually it was discovered that he simply committed ‘certain blameworthy imprudences, which were not really sinful’ at all. While confessing these, he continued to maintain his innocence until the ‘principal in the guilt, personally unknown to us . . . came forward and made a full confession, clearing away in a moment the cloud which for days had been hanging over the evangelist’.107 The impact of this episode upon missionary conﬁdence in Chinese agency was not explicitly stated. However a few things may be noted. First, while the missionaries acknowledged that some church members did condemn Teacher U at some point, there was no indication any missionary did the same. Moreover the aﬀair seemed to have lasted only for ‘days’ so that no prolonged time was given to the breeding of distrust or the creativity of rumours if any at all. Second, while Doty attributed the low church growth rate of 1852 to internal problems, he considered the main cause to be the ‘cases of private disagreement’ among certain members. If these

104

AR-AB (1850) p. 161. Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 106 Ibid. 107 Doty of 28 January 1853, MH ( June 1853) pp. 161–162. 105

188

 

related to the case of Teacher U, nothing was expressedly stated to that eﬀect. Third, there was no suggestion that Teacher U was relieved of his duties or that these were reduced. In other words, there is no evidence to show that the event created any large diminution of missionary conﬁdence in Teacher U. Furthermore the unquestioned acceptance of him by the Amoy church along with the tacit missionary endorsement for what turned out to be his ﬁnal mission (infra) demonstrated just the opposite. In fact the missionary conﬁdence in Teacher U was sustained until the very day he was removed from the work by death. In early May 1853, the Amoy church decided to send two men to open up Chiangchiu. Having volunteered for the mission, Teacher U and Lotia left Amoy on the 12th of the month.108 The latter man was the second native helper hired in the previous year as a ‘colporteur’ being salaried by both the RCA and Burns.109 Lotia should not be confused with Lo the young church member baptised in December 1851 whom Talmage said to be ‘generally in my employ since my return to Amoy’110. It is not only because it seems the young Lo was never really hired as a colporteur but also because he died in March 1853 and thus could not have been Lotia who was able to ﬂee death at the hands of the Chiangchiu mob a couple of months afterward. On the 17th, the insurrection broke out at Chiangchiu and the insurgents took over the inland city with little bloodshed as ‘most of the oﬃcers ﬂed’111. After the beheading of two captured oﬃcials, the people thought the same fate awaited two other oﬃcials (whom they held in high esteem) and therefore attacked the insurgents on the 19th. While taking leave of the city, Teacher U was taken by the mob. After escaping and hiding for a while he was again recaptured. Meanwhile Lotia had ﬂed to Amoy where he narrated the sad account to ready ears.112 But the details of the death of Teacher U came much later to the missionaries. At the trial of the mandarin-speaking oﬃcial by the dialect-speaking insurgent chief, Teacher U volunteered as interpreter. In the course of things, the kind108

Talmage of 3 June 1853, MH (November 1853) pp. 350–351. Burns of 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51; AR-AB (1853) pp. 127, 129, cf. p. 128. 110 Talmage [from Amoy], 22 April 1853, MH (November 1853) p. 349. 111 Talmage of 3 June 1853. 112 Ibid. 109

  (  )

189

hearted evangelist had asked for the sparing of the lives of ‘two or three small mandarins’ and this with success.113 When the populace recaptured the city, these acts were interpreted as proving Teacher U was one with the insurgents. Even though the acting magistrate found him innocent of the charge, none could stop the uncontrollable mob from beheading him.114 Inasmuch as these things happened while Teacher U was in the line of work, the martyr-like character of his suﬀering and death could do nothing other than to increase the respect for him on the part of the Christian community consisting of both Chinese and Westerners. Earlier we have said that the missionary conﬁdence in Teacher U lasted till his last day. But given the manner of his death, perhaps it is no overstatement to suggest that the feeling of respect for him actually outlived him. After the death of Teacher U and with the abortion of the Choanchiu mission, Tekchoan and Chhiengchoan became the only Chinese workers and were transferred to be stationed at Amoy.115 Another native helper was added later making a total of three in 1855.116 But that same year one died of consumption, i.e. the young man ‘of much promise’ who was given a sum for clothing and food so he could do some colportage and also study at same time.117 Also around that time, a helper was de-posted but the man was only a chapel-keeper and not a colporteur/evangelist.118 Despite this unpleasant experience, the positive character of the general missionary attitude toward the latter class of workers remained unmoved. By mid-1856, there were seven ‘evangelists or colporteurs wholly or in part engaged in preaching and distributing tracts, not in Amoy alone, but also in the surrounding villages and at Chioh-be’.119 When Joralmon and Doty visited Chiohbe in late June/early July, Taulo (not ‘Tan-Lo’) was the evangelist stationed there.120 Of the commitment of these agents to their work, the ﬁnancial test convinced the missionaries there was hardly any room for doubt. 113

Doty of 18 January 1854, MH ( June 1854) pp. 168–171. Ibid. Cf. Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. 115 Talmage of 3 June 1853. Cf. MH ( January 1854) pp. 9–10. 116 AR-AB (1855) p. 111. 117 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January & 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 118 See 3.5 supra. 119 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 120 Ibid. Pitcher said that in 1857 there were ﬁve ‘church catechists’ (FYA, p. 202). 114

190

  There is not one of our native assistants, who makes money by connection with us. Several of them renounced situations of considerably larger incomes, willingly receiving a small living allowance for the sake of usefulness among their perishing countrymen.121

The general satisfaction of the RCA missionaries with their Chinese agency was revealed not only in increased deployment but also in explicit remarks about the manner in which native workers proved their sincere dedication. Whereas increased deployment might be ‘explained away’ by the many missionary limitations discussed earlier, straightforward commendation argues for missionary satisfaction with the Chinese labourers. The sudden growth of the pool of Chinese agents indeed corresponded with the increase in the number of converts (1854 onward) albeit in delayed synchronisation. That the former began after the latter had started for sometime merely conﬁrms another point of ours, namely: church growth created more space for Chinese labour. But no matter the cause, missionary conﬁdence in paid Chinese work was quickly found. About a year and a half after the Sinkoe church elections, Doty proudly wrote of how ‘years of happy and comforting experience’ had proven the eﬀectiveness of native agency.122 Neither does the delayed commencement of the work of training the native workers disprove the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese agency. Of course it cannot be denied that despite the early date of his theory on Chinese agency, it was not until 31 July 1855 that Talmage actually started the ﬁrst ‘theological class’.123 Attended by the employed agents and other Christians, the class met three times a week with each session lasting about ninety minutes. In mid-1856, it was said that there were some eight to ten class members, of whom some ‘were frequently engaged in preaching and colporteur work’.124 But it cannot be denied that there was much informal and practical training going on even before the theological class was started. The main diﬀerence is that previously nothing to that degree of intensity was ever done. Furthermore there were practical reasons for the delay of training. First, one problem in the preceding

121

Doty, in AR-AB (1857) p. 122. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857. 123 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Cf. AR-AB (1856) p. 10. 124 Joralmon of 30 July 1856. Cf. AR-AB (1857) p. 123. 122

  (  )

191

years was the lack of suitable or available students for such a class. Consideration should be given to the fact that generally the candidates were rather young, and in earlier years many were probably too young in terms of biological, educational and Christian ages. Second, there was the matter of missionary ability and availability to carry out such work. A key factor is language proﬁciency especially since lectures in ‘systematic theology’ (Tuesdays) and on ‘Edward’s [sic] [A] History [of the Work] of Redemption’125 (Thursdays) could not avoid the meeting of unusual vocabulary. Lastly, the missionaries did not expect the accelerated church growth of 1854f and especially its inland dimension.126 As a result, they did not among other things ready a theologically trained Chinese workforce in order to cope with the suddenly enlarged work. Very likely, the new situation with its greater needs acted as an incentive for the missionaries to consider certain candidates for training who would not have been otherwise considered. Therefore the delay of theological training should not be taken as implying the lack of missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese agents. But the matter can actually be taken a step further. When it is recalled that in the RCA tradition, a full course of theological education was a prerequisite to the ordained ministry,127 then it becomes easier to appreciate the place of that education in the scheme of things. The matter of providing such training is of great signiﬁcance for the process of church devolution which requires the emergence of a native pastorate. The very act of undertaking the work on the part of the RCA attests to not only the sustenance but also the active growth of missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese agents. Therefore, not only does the delay of theological training not suggest the decrease of missionary conﬁdence, the commencement of the work actually points to the increase of that trust. Finally there is another important correlation which should not be missed. This pertains to the native agency and the training programme

125 Talmage of 16 January 1856. See Works of President [ Jonathan] Edwards (NY, 1843–44), volume 1. 126 See 6.4 infra. 127 Articles of Dort (1619) Article 8; Articles explanatory of the government and discipline of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States of America (1792) Articles II–IV; RCA Constitution (1833) ch. 1, Sections 4–5; RCA Constitution (1874) Article II, Sections 4–5. See E.T. Corwin, A digest of constitutional and synodical legislation of the Reformed Church in America (1906) pages xvi, x, xi.

192

 

on the one hand and ecclesiastical devolution or self-government on the other. Among the promising converts who attended the theological class in 1855 was the outstanding Gui Bun-hoan whom the missionaries hoped will become ‘one of the ﬁrst native pastors over some native church in Amoy or surrounding region’128. Baptised at age thirty on 28th January 1855, the former ‘practicing physician of a wide-spread reputation for skill’ was the teacher at the parochial school for one year and a half before his death on 9th July 1857.129 Very likely also a member of the class was Chhoa Giau who during 1856–57 was ‘wholly engaged as an assistant in our work, mostly in Amoy, on the small salary of $5 per month’130. Baptised on 25th March 1855, he spent the last year of his life in such engagement before passing away on 27th June 1857. Signiﬁcantly both men were among the ﬁrst batch of elders elected by the Amoy church in April 1856 and then ordained a month later. At the Sinkoe event, the formal or complete names of Gui Chiongjin and Chhoa Giau-siok were used.131 Therefore we see here how a space for employed labour allowed two Chinese to build up their credentials for church leadership by way of their work performance and in eﬀect how such labour contributed toward the winning of the conﬁdence of both the electorate and the missionaries. For the EP side, we simply enumerate the known cases of hired Chinese agency, keeping our comments to a minimum since much has been discussed in earlier Sections. Aside from Lotia the colporteur jointly employed by Burns and the RCA, there was the Christian assistant obtained by Young132 to serve as ‘colporteur’ and preacher at his dispensary133 during the pre-1854 period. The American records indicate that this must be the RCA church member engaged for some time as a colporteur at Amoy under the supervision of Young134. Then there was Tekchoan who served as teacher in the EP school at Keklai from about March 1851 to May 1853.135 In 128

723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 129 Ibid. Cf. Talmage of 16 January 1856, MH ( June 1856) pp. 167–170. 130 Doty of 15 September 1857. 131 See Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. Cf. 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon of 30 July 1856. 132 Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) p. 287. 133 Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. 134 AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 135 See 4.4 supra.

  (  )

193

the ﬁrst quarter of 1854, Burns assumed the support of the two RCA workers for the sake of the work at Pechuia.136 Later in September, Johnston acquired four assistants ‘of the kind I wished’.137 Consisting of two old men and two young men, the Chinese agents ‘partake of the twofold character of evangelists and colporteurs, and do not strictly sustain the full character of either’.138 It was in later times when the EP training of evangelists became more developed that these came to be more strictly distinguished from the colporteurs.139 Neither was the performance of the assistants disappointing to Johnston. During the visit to Aukoey in September 1854, the unending questions of the crowd on the last evening had the evangelists take turns eating supper and lasted ‘until near midnight, when they were obliged to give over through exhaustion, not from the people being tired of hearing’.140 From November/December during ‘the time of our greatest weakness’ (for ‘never were we weaker than now’, i.e. with only one EP man on the ground and sick too), Johnston was able to boast of three cases of conversion which derived ‘almost exclusively through the instrumentality of our native agents’.141 By early 1856, there were a total of ﬁfteen native agents working under the three Protestant Missions at Amoy142 among whom four were under the supervision of Douglas143. Likewise Burns reported in early 1856 that the Chinese Protestant workforce consisted of ﬁfteen colporteurs and evangelists, some young men under training and the lay volunteer preachers.144 In sum, we see that the practice of employing Chinese labour was started by Young and continued by Burns. Due to circumstantial obstacles, both however were unable to form any long lasting Chinese workforce. The commencement of that task was to fall upon Johnston but the establishment of things on surer footing was to be Douglas’ contribution. As far as the records go, there is no known case of unpleasant experiences with Chinese agents in the EP camp during our period. Speaking for 136

See 4.3 supra. Johnston of November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 52–54. 138 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 146. 139 See CAF, pp. 358–360. 140 Johnston from Amoy, 22 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 112–113. 141 Johnston from 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84. 142 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 143 Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. 144 Burns, Memoir, pp. 481–482. 137

194

 

both the EPM and the RCA, Douglas was emphatic in saying there was not a single case of disciplinary action administered among the colporteurs or evangelists from the beginning until 21st July 1856.145 Like their American colleagues, the EP missionaries had a high regard for the Chinese agency they had come to know. To conclude this Section, we may recall that paid Chinese labour began with the employment of Teacher U by Pohlman who was motivated by both situational and methodological factors. A mild disenchantment on the part of Doty dissolved quickly even as the work of Teacher U and its results won the satisfaction and conﬁdence of his foreign employers. The incident of 1852 failed to remove the missionary conﬁdence which was likely enhanced by the ‘martyrdom’ at Chiangchiu in the following year. Meanwhile the paid Chinese workforce grew to seven in number by mid-1856, an increase which reﬂected the continuity of the positive missionary attitude. The latter was further proven by straightforward statements of missionary approval, not least concerning the Chinese readiness to pass the ‘ﬁnancial test’. Far from showing the lack of missionary conﬁdence, the commencement of theological training even if somewhat late evinced the active growth of missionary faith in the Chinese agents. The case of Gui Bun-hoan and Chhoa Giau illustrates how satisfactory performance at employed labour could help one win election into church oﬃce, or how it could be useful in earning the trust of the missionaries and the Chinese church members. From the EP side, we could ﬁnd no record of any disappointing experience with Chinese agents during our period. On the contrary, the strong commendation oﬀered by Douglas aﬃrms the Chinese workers of both Missions. Indeed both the RCA and EP missionaries shared a similar conﬁdence and the same high regard for their employed Chinese workers. 5.3. Chinese voluntary work In speaking of the voluntary labours of the Chinese converts, we mean work oﬀered without any expectation much less a pre-agreed arrangement involving payment for performance in the form of money or goods. As a powerful expression of religious zeal, this type of labour

145

Douglas from Amoy, 21 July 1856, Mess (1856) p. 339.

  (  )

195

contributed to the winning of missionary high regard toward the Chinese Christians. In general, voluntary Chinese work may be divided into two kinds. There was ﬁrstly the native participation in the work administered within the missionary structure. Then there were the personal religious eﬀorts undertaken by the Chinese on their own. The ﬁrst kind of work consisted primarily in helping at the chapels, joining missionary-led/directed tours, and the likes. Up to mid-1856, the second kind of Chinese labour comprised (a) work done within Amoy, especially spontaneous preachings to relatives, friends and others, at homes or in the streets, (b) sporadic shortterm work done outside Amoy, at the initiative of the Chinese with or without the seeking of missionary approval, (c) the attempted occupation of Chiangchiu and Choanchiu, and (d) the stated work at Pechuia and Chiohbe. Presently our concern is with all the above except (c) and (d) which shall be treated in the next Chapter. Substantial voluntary work input seems to have started after the construction and opening of the Sinkoe church building. At the initiative of the Chinese converts, evening meetings for prayer and exhortation were held six times a week since the new chapel opened in 1849, the remaining evening being reserved for teaching and mutual encouragement. For ﬁve afternoons of the week, a service for tract dispensation and conversation was also held ‘principally by one of these brethren’.146 Nor was it unusual for recent converts to be found earnestly preaching their religion to others, sacriﬁcing time otherwise to be imputed to the pursuit of their livelihood.147 After the ﬁrst Sabbath morning service held at his house on 22 December 1850, Talmage noted with pleasure how ‘some of the converts continued a long time, exhorting and reasoning with the people’.148 Likewise when the afternoon service ended, one member continued speaking to his countrymen ‘till evening’.149 While the help of Teacher U was appreciated, credit was attributed also to the Chinese Christians for making it possible in 1851 to have both chapels open ‘also some part of almost every day and evening in the week’150. Writing in

146

AR-AB (1851) p. 125. Ibid. 148 Talmage of December 1850, in AR-AB (1851) p. 125. 149 Ibid. 150 Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. Cf. APGS (1852) p. 278. 147

196

 

March 1851, Talmage happily noted how the dedicated Chinese converts did this: ‘One, two, three, or more of the converts are always ready to hold forth almost every afternoon and evening.’151 During Doty’s six-week absence, Talmage was able to continue most of the regular meetings due to the assistance of Teacher U and ‘other native members of the church’.152 Chinese help in the daily ‘informal services’ made it possible for Talmage to commence another meeting for Chinese women held at his house in August.153 In early 1852, the ABCFM noted that the ‘[t]he week-day meetings . . . continue as heretofore [and that t]he native brethren are found very helpful in this department of labor’.154 Sometime after Talmage had ceased from street preaching in the latter half of 1851, the work was picked up by Burns who was ‘usually accompanied and assisted’ by one or more RCA members especially the one who habitually ‘spends the ﬁrst of the day in laboring to sustain himself and family, but devotes much of the afternoon to the work of the Lord’.155 On his part Burns conﬁrmed that in his indoor and outdoor preaching activities in Amoy, he had ‘co-operated with various members of the native Church here, and they have shown a ready forwardness and zeal in the work’.156 During February-March 1852, he toured Amoy Island along with two new RCA members and the school teacher Tekchoan who was on Chinese new year holiday.157 After Doty oﬀered the RCA chapel to Burns in ca. October 1853 because the latter had failed to ﬁnd a good indoor preaching venue, the work in the forenoons was assisted by Lotia as well as by RCA members.158 But even before the oﬀer, the chapel for ‘a great part of every week-day, is unoccupied, except by members of the native Church, who are frequently engaged from day to day, in collecting and addressing companies of the passers[-]by’.159 In its annual report of 1853, the ABCFM noted that a great deal of informal work in

151 Talmage to his brother Goyn, 18 March 1851, in FYC, p. 111. Goyn was Talmage’s brother and one of the four Talmage brothers in church ministry. The other two were Thomas DeWitt Talmage and James R. Talmage. See R.L. Gasero, Historical directory of the Reformed Church in America (1992). 152 Talmage of 14 July 1851. Cf. AR-AB (1852) p. 123. 153 Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–152. 154 MH ( January 1852) p. 9. 155 Talmage of 22 January 1852. 156 Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. 157 Ibid. 158 Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. 159 Ibid.

  (  )

197

the form of tract-distribution, conversation and exhortation had been done by Teacher U as well as by the native believers who helped in the work ‘from time to time, as volunteers’.160 As is easily observed, the evidence is abundant that throughout 1849–53 a signiﬁcant amount of voluntary work was being done. While at times it was some form of missionary limitation which created opportune moments for the converts to ﬁll in, such was not always the case. In 1851 Talmage noted that not only were the male converts ‘always ready, when opportunity oﬀers’ to preach the gospel to others but also that ‘most of them are zealous in seeking opportunities’ to do so.161 This distinction is very important, for the opportunity-seeking spirit demonstrated convert sincerity in a most convincing manner, thereby earning for the Chinese the increased conﬁdence of the missionaries. For instance, it was at the converts’ initiative that the daily evening meetings were begun in 1849. From Young we learn that these sessions were conducted ‘in turns’ by the Chinese converts who were ‘really most exemplary’ and exerted themselves ‘untiringly’.162 Besides helping with the work at the chapels, some of the converts also frequented the busier thoroughfares in order to proclaim the gospel as they could.163 Two of our members, although compelled to labor with their hands for the sustenance of themselves and their families, yet devote the afternoons and evenings of almost every day in the week, in making known the way of salvation to their countrymen. They spend the Sabbath also, only omitting their labors long enough to listen to the preaching of the missionary and to partake of their noonday meal, from early in the morning until bedtime, in the same way, publishing the Gospel to their countrymen.164

But the zeal of the converts was by no means limited to 1849–53 only. For likewise in later years, they were readily spending their leisure hours in evangelistic activities.165 Especially common were the eﬀorts in reaching out to relatives and friends as well as in tractdistribution work in the streets of Amoy or its surrounding villages.166 As a matter of fact, the missionaries observed an intensiﬁcation of 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

AR-AB (1853) p. 129; APGS (1854) p. 473. Talmage of 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. Talmage of 18 March 1851, in FYC, p. 111. Talmage of 14 April 1851, in FYC, p. 112. 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. Ibid.

198

 

the native fervour in 1854. Talmage gave an eye-witness account: ‘Almost every one seems to be impressed with the truth, that he or she is to improve every opportunity to speak a word for Christ’167. Adding to the interest which the last statement generates is the reference to the female dimension of the voluntary work. Regretfully the general remark precluded any detailed information on the contribution of the women converts. However we do know of some individual cases at least, e.g. widow Hong168 and the widow who brought her two sons and some neighbours to Amoy in 1854 so they too could hear the gospel169. But of female voluntary labour as a category we are in the dark. At any rate, by early 1856 it was reported that most converts ‘as formerly’ continued to be possessed by the zeal to share the gospel with their fellow-Chinese.170 Actually the same zeal among the converts persisted even beyond the Sinkoe event of 1856.171 A stand-out in voluntary evangelistic work was Ong Chhienghong who ‘was according to his ability, one of the most useful men among the converts’172. By occupation a bead-carver, he often would take a good position at a busy thoroughfare, simultaneously carrying on his handicraft and proclaiming the gospel to the public. He also did preach frequently at the chapels and undertake many preaching visits to the surrounding towns of Amoy. Although ‘a poor man, supporting himself entirely by the labor of his hands’, he neither received nor asked for any pecuniary reward for these voluntary labours.173 In addition to the reference to Ong Chhienghong’s itinerary preachings, other cases of short-term evangelistic activity undertaken outside Amoy can also be furnished. In 1853 just shortly after the Chinese new year’s day, two church members invited Talmage to 167 Talmage from Amoy, 18 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 5–6. Cf. FYC, p. 155; AR-AB (1855) p. 112. See also Doty of 18 January 1854, MH ( June 1854) pp. 168–171. 168 Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. Cf. Talmage, diary, 27 February & 1 March 1848, in FYC, p. 83. 169 Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (1855) pp. 41–46. 170 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January & 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 171 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty of 17 September 1857). 172 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 29 August 1856. This letter was sent with that of 30 July. ‘Chheng Hung’ who was one of the two sons of widow Hong died later on 1 August 1856. 173 Joralmon of 29 August 1856.

  (  )

199

join their tour to the villages on Amoy Island. After much preaching had been done Talmage returned to the treaty port that same day. The pair however stayed on for several days and were soon joined by other Amoy converts. The men returned home later with reports of good local reception.174 In August the following year, a man from Koajim (ca. 10 miles beyond Pechuia) came to Amoy bearing a letter written by the school teacher on behalf of several families. The petition was for the sending of someone to preach the gospel in their region. As the missionaries were unable to go, three Chinese Christians were sent instead on the 14th. Four days later, the small company returned to Amoy to relate the good reception they had and how the messenger-man had furnished them food and lodging but refused all remuneration.175 For the whole of 1854, ‘several preaching and colporter [sic] excursions’ had been undertaken.176 In mid-1855 Doty explained the situation: ‘Think too of partially awakened persons coming twenty, thirty, and even forty miles from diﬀerent quarters, and pleading for some one to go and preach to them and their villages the everlasting gospel! For want of ability, we have been compelled to refuse a compliance with their wishes.’177 The great demand upon the limited missionary workforce had more than once given occasion for Chinese exercises. Commenting on the very encouraging church growth of the three Missions for 1855, Douglas remarked prospectively with great optimism: . . . as to the future, our hopes rest, under the mercy and love of God, on various reasons, partly [on] the zeal and prayerfulness stirred up at home [italics original], partly on the singularly steady progress, and [the] continual proportional increase of the converting work, which is also peculiarly free from any excesses [sic] of enthusiasm or superstition—and very much [italics added] on the fact that the converts almost all are full of zeal to lead their relatives and friends to become partakers of the like precious faith, and to instruct in the Scriptures and the doctrine those who are younger in Christ. They seem, so far as I can see, to delight to tell those that are still without, [about] the grace and peace which they have found.178

174 175 176 177 178

Talmage of 3 June 1853, MH (November 1853) p. 350. Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 45–46. MH ( January 1855) pp. 9–10. Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. Douglas of 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) p. 119. Cf. CAF, p. 111.

200

 

In this Section, we have surveyed the voluntary labours of the Chinese converts up to 1856. Attention has been given to the Chinese participation in the work of the missionaries as well as to spontaneous native eﬀorts exerted in Amoy and short-term Chinese-initiated/led work of a sporadic nature done outside Amoy. The ﬁnding has been that throughout 1849–56 the voluntary evangelistic and preaching work of the converts had been consistently maintained. It is unfortunate that the result of this work cannot be quantiﬁed even in rough ﬁgures since there was in force a missionary monopoly on the administration of baptism and the granting of church admission. Easier it is to determine how many Chinese were baptised by Pohlman or for that matter all the missionaries together, but certainly not so when we attempt the task of specifying how many were converted by way of voluntary Chinese preaching or even by Teacher U and the other hired agents for that matter. Nevertheless there is compelling evidence to show that the amount of Chinese voluntary participation in the general work of the Mission as well as ‘extra-curricular’ personal evangelistic eﬀorts was in suﬃcient volume to gain not only the attention of the missionaries but also their pleasure and admiration. 5.4. Chinese eﬀectiveness An aspect of Chinese work common to both its paid and voluntary forms which greatly impressed the missionaries was perceived native evangelistic eﬀectiveness. The eﬀectivity of Chinese spokesmanship on behalf of the Christian faith was ﬁrst observed by Pohlman. When the week-day morning meetings (11 am) were started in ca. October 1847, it was conducted by Teacher U ‘in one of the vacant houses on the site selected for our church ediﬁce’.179 Although visited by the missionaries only ‘once or twice a week’, the room was sometimes ‘crowded to overﬂowing’. During the last Chinese monthly concert of prayer during that year, Pohlman after listening to Teacher U’s account of his recent tour to Canton observed that the Chinese were ‘generally more free to express themselves and state their objec-

179 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6.

  (  )

201

tions to a native than to us foreigners’.180 Correlating this with Pohlman’s impression of Chinese excellence at appearance-keeping181, it is not diﬃcult to see how native agency was believed to have bettered its foreign counterpart at detecting or even drawing out hidden thoughts and attitudes among Chinese audiences. Consider also how the missionary had earlier been impressed by the two early converts182 whose occasional addresses before their fellow-countrymen at the week-day afternoon services were followed ‘not infrequently’ by ‘interesting religious discussions’.183 Thus as early as December 1847, Pohlman had made explicit his appreciation for the eﬀectiveness of Teacher U as well as the converts.184 Talmage took the matter a step further when he verbalised the belief in the superior eﬃcacy of Chinese evangelism: Thus every true convert becomes in some measure a helper . . . His example is a “light shining in a dark place”. Especially is it true among the heathen, that every disciple of Christ is as “a city set on a hill which cannot be hid.” His neighbors and acquaintances must observe the change in his conduct . . . His example must tell. . . . Such converts, also, in some respects, may be more eﬃcient than the missionary. They can go where we cannot, and reach those who are entirely beyond our inﬂuence. They understand the customs of the people thoroughly. They remember what were the greatest diﬃculties and objections which proved the greatest obstacles to their reception of the Gospel, and they know how these diﬃculties were removed, and these objections answered. Besides, they have all the advantages which a native must be expected to possess over a foreigner, arising from the prejudices of the people.185

Thus it was not only cultural identicality which gave the Chinese the edge. More fundamentally it was the convert’s very identity as a Chinese Christian which was the more forceful unspoken testimony. Whereas a missionary may by some ability and means bridge

180

Ibid. See 3.2 supra. 182 I.e. Hokkui and Unsia. Pohlman to the First Reformed Dutch Church (Albany), from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168 (170) c. 2–4; Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 162 c. 5–6. 183 Pohlman of 18 December 1847, p. 162 c. 5–6. 184 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 185 Talmage to Middle Ref[ormed] Dutch Church (Brooklyn), from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (18 January 1849) p. 109 c. 1–2 (italics original). 181

202

 

the cultural gap to some reasonable extent, there was absolutely no way the foreign missioner could change his national identity in order to delete all the disadvantages it brought to the evangelistic task. But it was not only theoretical reﬂection that formed the basis of Talmage’s argumentation for the greater eﬀectivity of the convert or even the idea that every convert was a helper. The concrete example of widow Hong Sinsi and her sons186 were clearly at the back of his mind when he wrote in the same letter of 1848 that the conduct of some paralleled those of the Samaritan woman at the well and of Andrew and Philip the disciples of Christ187. Just as the Samaritan woman brought the people of her city to meet Jesus, so too Hong started a weekly meeting at her house so the neighbours could hear Christian preaching. Likewise just as Andrew upon ﬁnding the Messiah quickly went and told his brother Peter, as too Philip told Nathaniel, so the younger son of Hong having heard the gospel in 1846 at the LMS chapel soon got his brother to attend too. No doubt in his memory also was the illustration of Chinese eﬀectiveness aﬀorded by the case of widow Hong’s preaching to her neighbour just about half a year ago. On the Sabbath of 27th February 1848, Hong and her two sons presented two idols to Pohlman at the chapel. The latter was informed that the trio had earlier burned all their other idols and ancestral tablets. Beyond regular church attendance, a weekly meeting at their house was requested for. At the ﬁrst such meeting held in March, a female neighbour confessed to having burned all her idols after being convinced by Hong and right there surrendered her last (incombustible) idol to Pohlman.188 Talmage was deeply impressed by Hong’s preaching and especially her instant convert, saying she was ‘so successful’189. A few years later, the same conviction was still held by Talmage who continued to believe that ‘[f ]or much of the work[,] these converts are perhaps better adapted than ourselves’190. Along the same line, the missionary wrote later in 1854 that ‘many’ of the converts were ‘quite eﬀective speakers’.191 In this regard, the perceived response

186 Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (20 July 1848) p. 6 c. 3–5. 187 The Gospel of John 1:35–51; 4:1–42. 188 Doty of 16 March 1848, p. 6 c. 3–5. Cf. Talmage, diary, 27 February & 1 March 1848, in FYC, p. 83. 189 Talmage, diary, 1 March 1848, in FYC, p. 83. 190 Talmage of 18 March 1851, in FYC, p. 111. 191 Talmage of [no day and month] 1854, in FYC, p. 155.

  (  )

203

of those who heard the converts was an item of particular interest to the missionaries. The heathen are often astonished to hear men from the lower walks of life, who previously had not had the beneﬁt of any education, and are yet perhaps unable to read, speak with such ﬂuency, and reason with such power concerning the things of God, as to silence their adversaries, even though they be men of education.192

To the missionaries, the phenomenon of Chinese eﬀectivity was by itself a matter of great interest. At the same time, there was another dimension to that interest, i.e. the missionary concern with the task of long-term evangelisation at a time when the interior was closed to foreigners while a pessimism reigned over the prospect of reinforcements from the home churches in the West. In this connection, both the readiness of the natives to do the work and their eﬀectiveness at it could not but be a valuable source of encouragement and optimism to the missionaries. No less true is it to say that the same greatly increased the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese Christians. But as far as the missionaries are concerned, probably the most dramatic illustration of Chinese eﬀectiveness was the extension of the work into the interior in 1854. Since the interesting work of that year requires (and deserves) an extended discussion, it has been left to the upcoming Chapter. What this Section demonstrates is that the missionary belief in Chinese evangelistic eﬀectiveness pre-dated 1854 even if it was re-conﬁrmed at that time in a highly impressive manner. In this Chapter, we have shown that the missionaries had held the belief in the need for a Chinese agency since the late 1840s. However it was not until 1855 that the formal training of native workers began. Meanwhile the process of ﬁlling up the Chinese work space had began during Pohlman’s time and had continued on. In general, the American missionaries were quite satisﬁed with the local agents they hired during our period. On the EP side we found no evidence to suggest that the British experience with native agents was substantially diﬀerent in terms of quality. With regard to Chinese voluntary labours, the missionaries were quite impressed with native participation in the work headed or directed by them as well as

192

Ibid. Cf. AR-AB (1855) p. 112.

204

 

with the spontaneous eﬀorts exerted by the Chinese in or outside Amoy. Especially striking was Chinese evangelistic eﬀectiveness which the missionaries had observed since 1847. At the beginning of Chapter Four, we have asked whether there existed any EPM impression about the Chinese Christians which may aﬀect RCA impressions of the same in a negative way, thereby reducing RCA conﬁdence in the native converts, thus retarding the journey toward devolution. In reply, we say that until the Sinkoe event, we have discovered no signiﬁcant negative experience or impression on the part of the EP missionaries in their dealings with Chinese labour. Indeed there were several instances wherein the British Mission availed of the labours of RCA agents or converts. But these were generally positive in character and in eﬀect became additional opportunities for the Chinese to prove their reliability and worth. Consequently these contacts had the general impact of increasing the missionaries’ regard for the Christians. Thus by all the features of native labour thus far cited, the Chinese were able to win the high regard of the Westerners. Having had manifold opportunities to ‘test out’ native work ﬁrsthand, the missionaries soon became convinced believers in the readiness of Chinese church leadership. However as far as Chinese labour is concerned, the more powerful testimony of native ‘maturity’ came in the form of the inland initiatives from 1853 onward. To these, we now turn our attention.

CHAPTER SIX

CHINESE LABOURS (II) The main focus of this Chapter is the long-term operations outside of Amoy which were begun at Chinese initiative. By long-term we mean either intention or results but not necessarily both. The Chiangchiu and Choanchiu missions of 1853 were planned as longterm operations but both were soon cut short by extraneous forces. In contrast, the Chinese initiatives which culminated in the establishment of the churches at Pechuia and Chiohbe did not originally involve any plan to start permanent work but ended up as such. It will be argued that the Chinese initiatives in extending the work inland further boosted the conﬁdence of the missionaries in the natives, and more signiﬁcantly, did so in such a manner as to convince the missionaries that the next step in the church formation programme was self-government. 6.1. Chiangchiu and Choanchiu Being ‘in many respects a more eligible post than Amoy’1, the inland city of Chiangchiu had held the fancy of the missionaries since the 1840s. Early missionary visits were made in November 1846 (Pohlman), March 1847 (Pohlman) and September 1847 (Pohlman, Doty, Talmage and Lloyd).2 During and/or after the visit of 1851 in company with Stronach (LMS) and James Legge (LMS, Hong Kong), Talmage had entertained the thought of at least having an out-station in Chiangchiu. Inspired by their observation of the Roman Catholic priest who had obtained permission to reside ‘near there’ and had been engaged for sometime in preaching, the missionaries initially entertained the idea of assigning there a resident missionary. Further consideration revealed this to be less realistic than simply posting a colporteur in that region and then coupling the arrangement with

1

Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–152. CRep (1847) pp. 75–84; Pohlman of 18 December 1847, CI (20 April 1848) p. 162 c. 5–6; AR-AB (1848) pp. 221–222; FYC, pp. 81ﬀ. 2

206

 

monthly missionary visits.3 By early 1852, the reﬁned strategy was to have two colporteurs reside there and one missionary visit the out-station as often as possible.4 However local obstacles prevented the undertaking of any concrete action.5 The eventual realisation of the plan to occupy the city was a result of Chinese initiatives. In March 1853, Ong Chhiengchoan the son of widow Hong requested that he be sent to his hometown Chiangchiu along with Lotia in order to preach and dispense tracts there. His willingness ‘to give the time and bear his own expenses’ readily won an aﬃrmative response from the missionaries.6 The latter also asked the Chinese convert to check out whether the time was ripe to rent a house there and open an out-station. On his return in early April, Chhiengchoan reported that the city was yet unready for occupation. Several days later, another request for a visit was forwarded but this time asking also that a missionary join in the visit. As it was to be a trip of ‘several days’, the RCA missionaries were unable to go.7 In their stead went Burns who confessed that he did so ‘at the earnest desire especially of one of [the two RCA converts]’.8 A few days after the party left on 13th April, they were joined by Chhienghong the other son of widow Hong.9 Two weeks later on 26th April10, the party returned to announce that the place was ready to be an out-station.11 Local interest was conﬁrmed sometime afterwards when two (or three12) men from Chiangchiu came to Amoy to inquire deeper into ‘the way of the Lord’. On the 3rd of May, a meeting of all male church members was held to discuss the matter of sending a team of two men to occupy the inland city. The proposal was followed by another one

3 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 4 Talmage of 22 January 1852. 5 See AR-AB (1853) pp. 129–130. 6 Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853, MH (November 1853) pp. 350ﬀ. Cf. FYC, pp. 134–136. 7 Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853. 8 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853 (= Mess, 1853, pp. 290–291); Burns of 16 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 217–218. 9 Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853. 10 Burns of 16 May 1853. 11 Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853. 12 Burns of 16 May 1853. So too Burns of 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 50–51.

  (  )

207

stating that if two more men were ready, they will be sent to the northern region between Amoy and Choanchiu (Chinchew) with a view to starting operations in the latter city. Although the Choanchiu proposal was ‘new to us [i.e. the missionaries], and probably was new to most of the members’, it was accepted along with the ﬁrst.13 Consequently Teacher U and Lotia were assigned to Chiangchiu while Tekchoan (the teacher at Young’s school) and Chhiengchoan became the colporteurs to Choanchiu. These men eﬀectively became the ﬁrst Chinese-supported14 domestic missionaries in the history of Banlam. The episode demonstrated the evangelistic/missionary initiative of Chhiengchoan as an individual and of the Amoy converts as a collective body. After May 1853, Chinese work had taken on a life of its own so that it had gone beyond the missionary-given Chinese work space and ventured into a state of self-extension. At this point though, it should be remembered that the missionaries on their own took the ﬁrst step of devolving the decision-making responsibility upon the Chinese. While some credit should be given that act, yet by the missionaries’ own confession, the converts by way of their Choanchiu proposal actually outran and took the lead over the foreigners in the matter of extending the work beyond Amoy. That the work was cut short at both places by the insurrection and related political unrest15 did not lessen what positive impression was created on the part of the missionaries. The sentiments of the latter were eﬀectively transmitted back to America, as shown by the editorial comment of the Missionary Herald: ‘The missionary spirit seems to pervade this little band of disciples in an unusual degree. They are ready, not only to proclaim the love of Christ in Amoy, but to go to other places having at present no permanent laborers, as they have shown by their conduct.’16 Therefore even though the Chiangchiu and Choanchiu missions failed to realise their objectives in 1853, the very act of attempting them succeeded in winning the further admiration of the missionaries for the Chinese converts.

13

Talmage of 3 & 10 June 1853. See Talmage to Anderson, 3 June 1853, in FYC, pp. 136–138. 15 On Chiangchiu, see 5.2 supra. On Choanchiu, see Doty of 18 January 1854, MH ( June 1854) p. 169. Cf. AR-AB (1854) pp. 142–143. 16 MH ( January 1854) pp. 9–10. 14

208

  6.2. Pechuia

In the summer of 1854, Talmage wrote: ‘Were it not for the Christian activity of our members, so many of them abounding in good works, our operations here would necessarily be conﬁned within much narrower limits.’17 The wider limits which Talmage had in mind when composing the last line referred to the extension of the work to the inland town of Pechuia. Before we take up the latter subject in this Section, we have deliberately taken care to ﬁrst discuss the local (5.3 supra) as well as the short-term non-local work done by the converts on their own (6.1 supra). The discussions are not only useful but necessary, for they show that the missionaries had no reason to believe that the Chinese initiatives in extending the work to Pechuia and Chiohbe were born of mere adventurism. On the contrary, there was every reason to be convinced that such eﬀorts were but the natural outgrowth of a pre-existent and consistent spirit of evangelism. Origins On 9 January 1854, Chhiengchoan induced Burns and Tekchoan (‘Tiek-choan’) to undertake with him a preaching trip to ‘some region where [the Gospel] had not been heard’.18 The ﬁrst stop was at a somewhat lively inland town which held twelve market days each month. With a population believed to be of ca. 5,000–6,000, Pechuia lies about half-way between Amoy and Chiangchiu (with Chiohbe 10–12 miles away), thus occupying a very good ‘central position’.19 That it was the ex-fortune teller (Chhiengchoan) who initiated this venture, which led to the eventual ‘occupation’ of the market town located some twenty miles southwest from Amoy, was attested by no less than Burns’ own confession.20 Likewise Doty attributed the preaching tour to the ‘urgent importunity’ of Chhiengchoan.21

17 Talmage from Amoy, 18 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 5–6 (italics added). Cf. FYC, p. 155; AR-AB (1855) p. 112. 18 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282; cf. Mess (1854) pp. 345–346. See also Burns of 16 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 217–218. 19 Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) p. 45. Cf. Mess (1855) p. 115. In 1857 Sandeman put the population at 8,000 (Mess, 1857, p. 227). 20 Bx119/F5, Burns from White Water Camp, 16 January 1854. Cf. Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266; Matheson, Narrative, p. 10; CAF, p. 88. 21 Doty of 20 April 1854.

  (  )

209

Therefore both RCA and EP sources were one in conﬁrming that the work at Pechuia originated out of an evangelistic initiative which was distinctively Chinese in character. This is of course historically speaking, rather than intentionally speaking, for the ‘only deﬁnite plan’ on the 9th of January was to preach at some new region22 so that Talmage could justly say later that Pechuia ‘was not selected by ourselves, but by our Master, who has thrust us unto it’23. At any rate, there was no diversity of views between both Missions that the Pechuia work was initiated by the Chinese. The early Burns phase (January-March) Originally planned to last only a few days, the Pechuia visit was unexpectedly extended to two months. The unusually bright prospect encouraged Burns to rent a house there as ‘our headquarters’24 with the lower storey for a preaching hall and the upper for living quarters25. It was not long before the Sabbath services and the nightly meetings were attended by ‘a goodly number of apparently interested listeners’.26 The destruction of idols and renunciation of their worship were taken as signs of a true spiritual awakening. In early February, the two RCA agents returned to Amoy for ‘a few days’ leaving Burns and his ‘servant’ to man the station.27 Later at the invitation of some men they had met at Pechuia28, Burns and the two RCA agents29 proceeded further into the interior30. While the trio was away for ‘some weeks’ in March, two other Chinese from Amoy31 carried on nightly preaching in the rented hall32. When Burns returned to Pechuia later in the month, he found that the work had progressed much under the Amoy converts whose preaching was attracting a fair crowd with some forty to sixty people staying up ‘every

22

Ibid. Talmage of 18 August 1854, Mess (1855) p. 115. 24 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854. 25 Doty of 20 April 1854. 26 Ibid. 27 Burns of 3 March 1854. When Burns returned to Amoy on 27 February, he had been away for ‘exactly 49 days’ (i.e. from 9 January to 26 February). 28 AR-AB (1854) p. 144. 29 Doty of 20 April 1854. 30 Burns of 3 March 1854, in WHP, p. 18 and CAF, pp. 89–91. 31 Doty of 20 April 1854. 32 Burns of 3 March 1854. 23

210

 

night to a late hour’ and that the interested ones ‘had evidently advanced in knowledge and earnestness of spirit, and resolved to obey the Gospel at the risk of much reproach and opposition’.33 At the same time, there were already twenty persons who professed the faith, including twenty-year-old Lamsan and his family as well as the entire household of Nui34 the cloth-dealer.35 During the rest of Burns’ stay in Pechuia which lasted till the end of April, ‘several members of the native Church at Amoy [had] successively come out of their own account to aid in the work’.36 Although Doty did come to Pechuia while Burns was away in March, his visit was short lasting only a few days at most, so that there is no compelling reason to think he was instrumental in attracting the listening crowd nor in advancing the Christian knowledge and spirit of the interested ones. Moreover as we have seen, Burns himself implicitly attributed the results to the Chinese converts from Amoy. This he did by way of his implication that there was nothing like twenty professions before he left Pechuia. While it is not known to us how many professions there were before he left, it is clear some progress was deﬁnitely made during his absence. But even for the work done during his presence, one can never at all disclaim the credit of Chinese labour as we have already shown. Going beyond Burns, the attribution of the Pechuia results to Chinese eﬀorts was also reiterated on the American side. In reporting later about the work at Chiohbe, Doty highlighted its outstanding similarity with that at Pechuia: ‘The instrumentality has been native brethren almost entirely.’37 Thus the Pechuia work was initiated by Chhiengchoan and sustained almost always by RCA Chinese agents, with or without Burns around, even if seemingly presided over by the foreigner. To his credit, Burns it was who rented the house at Pechuia thus making possible the extended work at the town. Yet his presence was all the time in company with the two RCA Chinese. This Doty conﬁrmed when he said that ‘[t]wo of our native brethren are constantly employed

33 34 35 36 37

Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266. Burns, Memoir, p. 592 n. 9. Burns of 3 March 1854. Ibid. Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181.

  (  )

211

in connection with Mr. Burns’.38 Even during Burns’ absence in March, the work was sustained by another pair of RCA converts from Amoy. It is all too evident that the American missionaries had ample reason to regard the local work at Pechuia up to this point in time as partaking of a dominant input of Chinese labour and hence Chinese credit. The later Burns phase (March-July) and the ﬁrst RCA interval (August-September) After settling down again at Pechuia in March, Burns continued to work alongside the RCA Chinese. As Burns desired to remain strictly an evangelist, the tasks of applicant examination and baptism were turned over to the RCA. Consequently in April or May, the RCA assumed the charge of Pechuia. Previously the responsibility for it was not very clearly deﬁned although the Americans reckoned it an EP work. When Doty and Talmage took over Pechuia from Burns, they did so with great reluctance while at the same time were decided to return it to the EPM at the soonest possibility.39 The inner conﬂict which lay behind the RCA reluctance is best learned via Doty’s own words: With our hearts and hands full as they are here in Amoy, we scarcely know what we are to do. Although those converts might be gathered into the church here perhaps, yet for their own spiritual interests and usefulness, the proper place is doubtless their native town. In this case, pastoral oversight will be needful. This would be exercised by Mr. Burns so long as he remains in the place. But his desire and purpose are not to be tied down to any locality longer than he feels he has evidence of a special call. While this is the case, the most we could do would be only an occasional short visit. The burden of the work would devolve of necessity on native brethren.40

A number of things is worth noting. The impracticality of connecting the converts with the Amoy church was accepted without question. Quite obviously, physical distance was a (if not the) major consideration. Along with RCA personnel shortage, this ruled out the chance of any realistic pastoral care on the part of the Amoy-based

38 39 40

Doty of 20 April 1854 (italics added). AR-AB (1855) pp. 112–113. Doty of 20 April 1854.

212

 

missionaries. Even with its uncertain duration,41 the presently available Burns ‘pastorate’ could keep things going at least in the meantime. As it turned out, Burns stayed on practically almost until the day he left China in August. However given his repulsion to pastoral work and attraction by itineration, there is strong likelihood he was away from Pechuia at some points in time during the months of May to July. For comparison we may note that from January to May, he took trips to Amoy, Maping, Poolamkio42, Huihau43 and possibly also other places. But there is no way we can ascertain the absence(s) if any in the later part of his Pechuia period. Of more certainty is that Pechuia was probably his operational base up to late July. Until that time, the credit for the local work may not be totally attributed only to the Chinese. But this is not to say that the natives did not continue to do much of the work. Meanwhile the work was making progress to the satisfaction of both Chinese and missionaries. After the RCA agreed to take charge of Pechuia, a group of eight interested Chinese were sent to ‘our American brethren’ in Amoy for baptismal examination44 sometime in April or May45. After the interviews, the RCA missionaries decided that ‘[o]n the whole, it seemed advisable to organize a congregation and administer the sacraments in their own town’46. On the 10th of May, Doty and Talmage went to Pechuia and examined the baptismal applicants until the following day, deciding in the end to receive ﬁve from among the many. On Saturday the 13th, they returned to Pechuia ‘accompanied by several of our church members’ and on the Sabbath baptised ﬁve men with ages ranging from sixteen to ﬁfty-ﬁve.47 They were the cloth-dealer, his two eldest sons, the furnace god burner (Lamsan) and the ex-image maker (the second son of the divided family).48 Except for the ﬁrst man, all were

41 One wonders whether Doty, in pondering over the said uncertainty, was implicitly thoughtful of Burns’ unreliability, that is, the latter’s unpredictable spontaneity and readiness to leave one place for another at the spur of a moment. 42 Bx119/F5, Burns of 3 March 1854; Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266. Note: Contra ‘Poo-lam kid’ (south bank bridge) as in Mess (1854) p. 266. ‘Bridge’ in Amoy is correctly ‘kio’. 43 Pechuia converts to Burns [Britain], ca. August 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 181–182. 44 Burns of 3 March 1854, in CAF, pp. 91–92. 45 See Doty of 20 April 1854. 46 Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46. 47 Ibid. 48 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 268, entry dated 11 May.

  (  )

213

considered young men at the time49. On the same day (14th May)50, the Pechuia members were organised into an RCA church.51 Less than two months later on the 2nd of July, four other people were baptised by Doty.52 Thus by 5 August 1854 when Burns left Amoy for Britain with the ill-stricken Young, there were already nine members at Pechuia, viz. Kongbiau, Tek-iam, Teklian, Uju, Sibu (Siboo), Jit-som, Ki-an, Lamsan and Kimkoa.53 In addition to church members, there were of course those who attended the meetings either regularly or occasionally. With the rented house soon found to be too small, an adjoining house plus the upper ﬂoor of the next house were rented and ﬁtted up for use.54 The above tells us that there was much preaching and informal work being done. But as we have noted, the honour is unclearly divided between Burns and the Chinese. After Burns left, the work remained under RCA supervision for a time. This ﬁrst RCA interval covered August and a part of September, that is, the time span after Burns left and before Johnston acquired Chinese assistants or before he reclaimed Pechuia. In late August, Talmage with Johnston went to Pechuia55 and there were probably also RCA visits at other times. However distance and pressing duties at Amoy rendered such visits short and sparse.56 As a matter of fact, the visit of late August was out of the ordinary. The trip was actually initiated by Johnston (not Talmage) as a rescue mission in response to the news that enemy villages were planning to ‘plunder and burn the whole place’ on a Friday night.57 Thus during the ﬁrst RCA Contra the confused Matheson who wrote that four months after the Pechuia work started, some twenty people ‘old and young’ were baptised (Narrative, p. 14). 49 Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315. 50 AR-AB (1855) p. 112. Contra 17 May 1854 (misprint?) as in Talmage of 18 August 1854 (cf. Mess, 1855, p. 115), which was echoed in RCC, pp. 58–59. 51 See Bx119/F5, Burns from Shanghai, 24 August 1855. 52 Talmage of 18 August 1854. 53 Pechuia letter of 21 August 1854 (the Chinese date being the 28th day of the 7th month), addressed to the ‘Public Society’ [= ABCFM], enclosed with Talmage of 30 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 6 or MH (February 1855) pp. 46–47. It was reproduced in FYC, pp. 164–167 and Miller, ‘Greatheart’, pp. 147–148. Another copy was sent via Burns to the EP church (see Bx119/F5; Mess, 1855, p. 116). 54 Talmage of 18 August 1854. 55 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) p. 20. 56 See Pechuia letter of 21 August 1854, Mess (1855) p. 116. Cf. Doty of 20 April 1854. 57 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854.

 

214

interval, the Chinese sustained their part in the local work and practically held the fort for a stretch of many weeks. Therefore during the later Burns phase (March-July), the credit for the local work was shared by both Burns and the Chinese. For their part, the Amoy-based RCA missionaries visited the station whenever they could or when they needed to undertake the examination and admission of applicants. However the magnitude of the Chinese input could not be ascertained as clearly as in the early Burns phase. In contrast, there is clarity when it comes to the ﬁrst RCA interval (August-September) during which the bulk of the local work was done by employed Chinese agents and by native volunteers. In both sub-periods, the Chinese were responsible to diﬀerent degrees for sustaining the local work. The Johnston phase During the Johnston period, it was deﬁnitely Chinese labour in both employed and voluntary forms which kept the local work going. After the departure of Burns and Young, Johnston quickly took to the establishment of an EP station at Pechuia. Not only did the RCA take no oﬀense at the reclamation of the inland station, they generously assisted in the work58 of the still linguistically incompetent Johnston59. A reference to Johnston’s personal language ability was possibly contained in this line taken from a letter to Mr. Matheson: ‘Within four months I have personally, or by our agents, conveyed the Gospel message in an imperfect way, to more than ﬁfty towns and villages . . .’60 On the 5th of November, the father and brother (Lamchun) of Lamsan along with the young Kanglo were baptised by Doty.61 Consequently the year ended with a total membership of twelve people at Pechuia.62 However the truth is that the help oﬀered by the RCA missionaries was (as before) practically limited only to the examination and admission of candidates, something which Johnston could not do and which the Chinese agents were not allowed to do. In other words, the American assistance was minimalist, being conﬁned to essential work which only they could do.

58 59 60 61 62

CAF, p. 92. See 4.3. Also CAF, pp. 101, 103–104. CAF, p. 99 (italics added). Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. AR-AB (1855) p. 112.

  (  )

215

But that which they were unable to do, the Chinese themselves took up. Thus while the RCA missionaries were all tied up with increasing work at Amoy, ‘these young converts not only kept their ground, but made rapid advances’ so that ‘the little handful of seven or eight [Note: nine, to be correct] who were left by their spiritual father when they were but babes in Christ, grew and spread, so that within a year they had multiplied four or ﬁvefold in their own village, and in villages around’.63 By or after winter 1854–55, Johnston was speaking of fourteen communicants and a community of forty people apart from the inquirers.64 At the start of May, Johnston could say that he had been recently spending ‘nearly all my Sabbaths’ at Pechuia, leaving Amoy on Saturday night and returning during daylight on Monday.65 At the EP station, Johnston spent most of the time leading the study of the Holy Scriptures at the morning and evening assemblies, holding informal discussions with those who had questions related to the Bible, and hearing pupils memorise Scriptural passages. Yet his visits in the previous year were only as regular as his unsteady health condition. Even in the weeks (or months) leading up to May when such visits became more consistent, the eﬀorts of the missionary constituted only part of the work. Meanwhile the Chinese carried on their part during the rest of the week. Expecting to leave China in June, Johnston enlarged the Pechuia accommodations for the sake of the increased membership, improved the living quarters for whoever should be labouring there, and built a separate section in the worship place for women.66 That the work continued to grow despite his health and language deﬁciencies speaks no little for the contribution of the native Christians. As Johnston put it, ‘I cannot speak too highly of the spirit of order and brotherly love manifested by that infant Church’ in which ‘each member seems to feel that the work of an evangelist is laid upon him; and, although not one has as yet been appointed to any oﬃce, or oﬀered any reward for his work, they labour, out of love to the Saviour, as much, or perhaps more, than most paid agents would do.’67 With great admiration for

63 64 65 66 67

Johnston, Glimpses, p. 7. CAF, p. 97. Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 1 May 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. Ibid. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. Cf. CAF, pp. 97–98.

 

216

their ‘independence, stability, common sense, consistency, zeal’ and ‘aggressive character of religion’68, the EP missionary also commended the sincerity of the faith of the Pechuia converts who despite their many suﬀerings and material losses never asked for help from the missionaries69. Of course, the converts did help each other and the missionaries did give to the ‘poor fund’ of the church, a practice not unknown in their home churches in the West.70 Therefore it was by Pechuia volunteer eﬀorts ‘aided’ by EP native agents from Amoy that the district about Pechuia came to hear the Gospel with the result that several villages became favourably disposed toward it. Indeed it was basically Chinese input which kept the Pechuia operations running during the Johnston period. The second RCA interval During this sub-period which counted from June 1855 and overlapped the ﬁrst year of Douglas ( July 1855 to July 1856), the charge of Pechuia reverted back to the RCA missionaries but the local work was still sustained by the Chinese. The transfer of charge occurred when Johnston was forced by ill health to leave Amoy just a few weeks before Burns and Douglas reached Hong Kong. Even though Johnston said the EP work was left to ‘the other two Societies’71, there is not the slightest indication that the LMS was ever involved at Pechuia. As for the EP school in Amoy, it is unclear whether the work was entrusted to another Mission or stopped altogether. In fact Chinese labour continued to dominate even after the arrival of Douglas. Eventually the year 1855 yielded a total of thirteen new members.72 Conﬁrmation of this came from Burns who in early 1856 reported that the Pechuia membership was twenty-ﬁve.73 Likewise Douglas’ report for end-1855 was twenty-ﬁve converts at Pechuia.74 In view of the above, the account of Swanson that the EP had eighteen persons ‘in full communion’ in 185575 should refer to some-

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

CAF, p. 102. Cf. pp. 101–105. CAF, pp. 97–98. CAF, pp. 104–105. CAF, pp. 105–106. Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Burns, Memoir, pp. 481–482. WHP, p. 24. Swanson, Sketch (1870) p. 8.

  (  )

217

time before the end of the year. In the Douglas phase, the sources of native output consisted mainly of the EP assistants (employed), the Pechuia converts (voluntary) and possibly also at some points RCA native agents. By July 1856, the RCA still had charge of Pechuia although Douglas was ‘beginning [to be] more ﬁtted to assist’ in the work.76 At that time, some twelve people had been admitted since the year started.77 Later ten more were added and the end of the year saw the total membership at forty-seven.78 With the RCA missionaries still based at Amoy and kept quite busy by the work there all the time, the ‘burden of the work’ (as Doty had anticipated) had devolved upon the native Christians.79 Thus the dominance of Chinese labour since the earliest days of settled operations at Pechuia was maintained. About this episode of native work, the missionaries had no reason to feel either embarrassment or disappointment. Work methodology Beyond the Chinese input to the local work at Pechuia, the missionary attitude toward the work at Pechuia should also be seen in the light of how the Chinese operated rather faithfully along the lines of the RCA mission methodology. Firstly, there was the upholding of the intensive oral instruction based on the Bible. In this connection, especially impressive was the appetite of the Pechuia Christians for the study of the Christian Scriptures and how they were ‘continually coming to us for explanation of passages which they cannot understand’.80 Though ‘but babes in Christ’, the converts there had attained a ‘remarkable’ level of Bible knowledge.81 As far as the knowledge test in the admission process is concerned, they could easily be perceived as quite promising applicants. But since the bulk of the instructional work had been done by the Chinese agents, the missionaries could not but naturally regard the state of things as creditable to native labour.

76

723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. Cf. AR-AB (1857) p. 123. Joralmon of 30 July 1856. 78 AR-AB (1857) p. 123. 79 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282. 80 Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46. Cf. FYC, pp. 156–157. 81 Talmage of 18 August 1854. 77

218

 

Secondly, there was the maintenance of the strict baptism/admission policy. In February a man from Pechuia arrived at Amoy to seek church membership. Doty recounted, One of these has already been with us at Amoy, and was examined as to his Christian experience and knowledge. Never, in any instance, have we met with a case among the Chinese indicating more clearly the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. He was not however then received into the church fellowship, it being thought more prudent that there should be some delay.82

As a matter of fact, the American missionaries were all set to accept the man after the interview, had not the two RCA agents having returned just ‘the day before’ from Pechuia to Amoy ‘urged the expediency of delay’.83 Although the reason for delay in this case was not divulged in detail, it was clearly not an instance of missionary perception of applicant disqualiﬁcation. This observation is important, for it means the missionaries did not question the quality of the inquirer instructed by the native agents and Burns. Two points may be noted here which demonstrate increased missionary conﬁdence in Chinese labour. One, the applicant from Pechuia had passed the strict admission standards of the RCA. This said much about the quality of the work put in by the Chinese agents and Burns. Nor was his by any means a unique case as the RCA was able to determine later by ﬁrst-hand observation. When Doty took a short visit in March while Burns was away from Pechuia, he was delightfully amazed at what was happening there. I found such an awakened interest and spirit of inquiry as I had never before met with among Chinese . . . The most marked cases are of young men of some education, and endowed with considerable zeal and energy. These are very active in eﬀorts to awaken the attention of others.84

Indeed the work at Pechuia was not at all found wanting in authenticity. However it would seem our argument that the RCA missionary conﬁdence in Chinese work was reinforced by these results is somewhat diluted by the participation of Burns in the work.

82

Doty of 20 April 1854. Burns in an unspeciﬁed letter, as quoted in WHP, p. 18. 84 Doty of 20 April 1854. Cf. Doty, in Burns, Memoir, p. 404; Burns of 3 March 1854, in CAF, p. 90. 83

  (  )

219

Wherefore this cannot be said to be an unambiguous ground for added missionary conﬁdence in unsupervised Chinese work, i.e. work done independently in the absence of a foreign agent. But to say that it added to missionary conﬁdence in Chinese work is a diﬀerent matter. Moreover the matter becomes unambiguous when we hear Doty himself aﬃrming that at Pechuia the ‘instrumentality has been the native brethren almost entirely’85. In other words, the RCA missionaries were convinced that the chief credit and honour belonged to the Chinese and not to Burns. The second point is that the counsel of delay on the part of the Chinese agents demonstrated that they were very careful, in fact stricter than the foreigners in this particular instance, about the matter of baptism/admission. Such native temperance and restraint from laxful haste could not have failed to have made an impression on Doty and Talmage and especially upon their faith in the judgment of the Chinese agents. Along with our ﬁrst point, this adds force and validity to the argument that the Pechuia work did increase missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese. Zeal, eﬀectiveness and steadfastness The zeal and eﬀectiveness of the Pechuia believers and their steadfastness amidst persecutions helped to conﬁrm missionary conﬁdence in the ability of native labour to produce genuine converts. During his short visit in March, Doty already noted how some young men were zealously spreading the Christian message about.86 In early 1855 when the work had made much more progress, Johnston did not hesitate to commend the voluntary eﬀorts of the converts.87 Probably the best known among the Pechuia volunteers during his time was Sibu (or Siboo) whom Burns met on his ﬁrst visit to Pechuia. At that time about eighteen to twenty years of age, he had attained an education ‘rather good for his position’.88 Upon conversion, he gave up his job as an idol-carver (‘his only means of support’) without hesitation and ‘neither asked nor received any assistance from the missionary’ but became instead a ‘carver of beads

85 Doty [Amoy] to Burns [Scotland], 1854, in Burns, Memoir, pp. 423–425. Cf. FYC, pp. 163–164. 86 Doty of 20 April 1854. 87 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. 88 Johnston, Glimpses, p. 44.

220

 

for bracelets and other ornaments’ thereby supporting himself and his mother.89 Since his trade was portable, Sibu often joined the EP Good News Boat, carving while sailing, then colporteuring and preaching without pay at the places where the boat stopped. Having trained in Amoy to do the work of an evangelist, Sibu was later sent to Singapore in 1857 to work among Chinese emigrants.90 This means that he was around during the early part of Douglas’ term. Aside from the employed agents and the young men under training, the successor of Johnston also had several volunteers who from time to time participated in the evangelistic labours carried out under his direction.91 Thus during the Chailau festival in mid-January 1856, the EP team which visited Pechuia included Douglas, the four evangelists, Lamsan and a fellow-student of his, and lastly a volunteer who was identiﬁed as the wood-carver ‘who gives much of his time towards spreading the Gospel’.92 By all indications, the last is possibly Sibu. Or maybe not, for he was not at all a unique instance. As Johnston revealed, ‘In this way our Church had the beneﬁt of many a useful evangelist, free of all charge on her funds; for [Sibu] was far from being the only one who gave hours and often days of gratuitous service. Some [others] of the same occupation as himself employed their time in the same way.’93 Another manner in which the Pechuia believers displayed their zeal was in the initiating of new work. Three instances may be cited in this connection. First, after ‘active opposition’ had stopped at Pechuia, the Chinese took the initiative to open a free evening school for boys, using mainly Christian books and with instruction provided by ‘the more advanced converts’.94 Being in addition to ‘the regular day-school’, this educational undertaking was unknown to Douglas ‘till after it had been in operation several days’.95 Inasmuch as both texts and teachers were Christian in character, a religious motivation in launching the educational work should not only be considered possible, but should be regarded as playing a major role.

89

Page 45. Pages 53, 44. 91 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 92 Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148 93 Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 45–46 (italics added). 94 Douglas from Amoy, 29 March 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 14. 95 Ibid. 90

  (  )

221

The second case of Chinese initiative was the beginning of the work at a market-town eight miles southeastward from Pechuia, i.e. Maping which Burns had before visited ‘but with no fruit’.96 Following the baptism of two Maping persons at Pechuia, many visits were made by both evangelists and converts with the result that by late March 1856 ‘a considerable number’ had become interested.97 When the request for a chapel was forwarded, it was ‘suggested’ that ‘they might try to do so themselves’.98 Immediately those at Pechuia and Maping joined forces and ‘rented a small room for a place of worship at their own expense’, paying the annual amount of three dollars while the EPM supplied the furnitures and ‘an evangelist or member each week to go and spend the Sabbath, and usually, as yet, the most of the week, for twenty or thirty people are said to come every evening, staying long to hear’.99 Lastly, and most impressively, is the beginning of the work at Chiohbe which we will separately discussed a bit later. In sum, the zeal of the Pechuia Chinese was quite commendable as far as the missionaries are concerned. On top of zeal there was also the evangelistic eﬀectiveness of the converts which was demonstrated in the overnight conversion of one entire household. When Burns left Pechuia on the 1st of May, there were about twenty adults and children ‘who have declared themselves on the side of the Gospel’ including ‘two whole families of six members each’.100 One family was that of twenty-year old Lamsan101 who burned ‘the furnace god’ on the latter’s birthday and was beaten ‘severely’ by his parents102. Having heard of this matter, ‘some of the Pechuia inquirers’ went to comfort him and also to talk to the parents, with the result that ‘in a day or two afterwards they, with their sons, brought out all their idols and ancestral tablets and publicly destroyed them in the view of the people’.103 After meeting the father for ‘two or three times’, Burns reported that both he and his

96

Ibid. Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 267. 101 Matheson, Narrative, p. 12. Lamsan later became a medical student at the Amoy hospital and was ‘sent forth as a native medical missionary by Dr. Carnegie in 1863’. 102 Burns of 8 May 1854. 103 Ibid. 97

222

 

four sons were all ‘in a promising state of mind’.104 By late 1854, the parents were among the ‘applicants for baptism’105. But native eﬀectiveness did not apply only to conversion success. It was also observed in the phenomenon of the accurate repetition of Christian instruction on the part of the Chinese. The case of Un Hese the ﬁrst female baptised at Pechuia helps to illustrate this point. The most interesting circumstance in the conversion of He-se is that she has never had any instruction, except from the members of her own family; and as soon as they apprehended the truth themselves, they began to communicate it to her . . . From an early period she manifested a lively interest in the Saviour, and encouraged her children to obey the new doctrine. She, by the tyranny of Chinese custom [being a woman], dare not come to hear for herself, but her sons were in the habit of repeating to her as much of the sermons they heard as they could carry home; and when, at any time, they heard any exposition of Scripture, during their intercourse with their teachers, they would set oﬀ to tell their mother, and return for more to convey. And so well had she proﬁted by their instruction, that all who heard her examination were surprised at the extent and accuracy of her information . . .106

Although among the earliest people to confess the Gospel at Pechuia, ‘two or three are women whom we have not seen—mothers who have received the truth from their sons or husbands’107, the case of Un Hese was outstanding in that she passed the stringent examination standards. The doctrinal mastery of the lady owes as much to her memory and learning ability as to the accuracy of the oral transmission of her sons. In addition to zeal and eﬀectiveness, there was also the steadfastness of the believers which included endurance under suﬀering and faithful observance of the Sabbath at the cost of ﬁnancial or material loss. Since its early months, the work at Pechuia had encountered opposition and ‘a disposition to annoy and disturb the public worship’.108 Even so, the nightly and Sabbath attendances had been satisfying to both the Chinese agents and the missionaries. By May,

104

Ibid. Johnston of 22 December 1854, Mess (April 1855) pp. 113–114. 106 Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess ( July 1855) pp. 198–199. By this writing, the husband of Un Hese and her three sons were also already members of the Pechuia church. 107 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (September 1854) p. 267. 108 Doty of 20 April 1854, MH (1854) pp. 280–282. 105

  (  )

223

a number of individuals had ‘resolved’ to live the Christian life and to do so at the risk of persecution and opposition.109 For instance, the cloth-dealer suﬀered much for his faith and refusal to contribute to ‘idolatrous celebrations’.110 As one of the ﬁrst two families to be converted wholesale, the man, his wife and three sons111 had ‘twice lost all their property [to] robbers’.112 During the second robbery, their house was burned by the retreating criminals and ‘the whole family were obliged to leap from an upper story, and yet escaped unhurt!’113 Having accepted the Christian message ‘on its ﬁrst announcement’, they had consistently closed the family shop on Sabbaths even if these be at times market-days.114 The missionaries were especially impressed by the zero resistance of the cloth-dealer to an oﬃcer of the mandarin intending plunder, which eﬀectively disarmed the latter who then left without doing any harm115. Another instance of readiness to suﬀer loss of income as well as the opposition of family members was the case of the family which was divided, with the mother and two sons being receptive while the eldest son and his wife were hostile, not least because the family business consisted of ‘making paper images used in idolatrous processions, for burning to the dead, &c.’116 To dissociate from this, the second son ‘has begun a general business in one half of the shop which they have in common’ so that the shop was one-half closed on Sabbaths.117 Likewise the other converts faced reproach and persecution but were said to be enduring such well.118 The local anti-Christianism119 partly explains why for a time after the ﬁrst baptisms (May), there were ‘almost no accessions to the number of awakened inquirers’120. It was not until November that Doty could say ‘[t]he disposition to

109

Burns of 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266. Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 44–45. 111 Matheson, Narrative, pp. 12–13. 112 Burns of 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 267. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 Douglas of 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 116 Burns of 8 May 1854. 117 Ibid. 118 Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315. 119 The Banlam situation was rather unusual in that anti-Christianism was weak in Amoy and stronger in the inland stations. More on p. 365. 120 Burns of 1 July 1854. 110

224

 

annoy has very much subsided, if not entirely ceased’.121 As this referred to the public worship context, one should not assume that all other forms of opposition had also ended. In fact, making matters worse was the unintended negative eﬀect brought about by the ﬁrst female baptism at Pechuia which occurred during the ﬁrst quarter of 1855. All those who had the opportunity to examine Un Hese were impressed ‘at the courage she manifested in coming openly forward, with no other woman to bear her company, and that in a place where she was the ﬁrst, as well as the solitary professor of her sex’, especially since by temperament she was ‘naturally timid and retiring’.122 No doubt her courage included the readiness to face the trying course which others before her had endured and/or were still enduring. The unwanted result of her courageous action was the generating of ‘so great’ a persecution ‘that no one [female] can come publicly out to the worship of God’.123 By the beginning of May, Pechuia had only one baptised woman and one female applicant. Meanwhile opposition and persecution lasted into 1856.124 By late February some of the baptismal candidates who were intimated by the opposition had returned to regular worship.125 Since the referent in the last remark were non-members, there is no necessity to think the observation suggests a signiﬁcant diminishing of missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese church members. What it was more likely to generate is a reminder to the missionaries about the value of the test of persecution in the examination process. As Johnston noted in early 1855, the persecutions at Pechuia (and Chiohbe) had failed to do any real damage.126 Likewise a year later, Douglas conﬁrmed that the trying events actually resulted in ‘the increased zeal of the infant Churches [at Pechuia and Chiohbe]’ and in the revelation of their continued readiness to suﬀer for their faith.127 As far as the missionaries are concerned, the perseverance of the converts amidst such adverse circumstances only proved the genuine character of their faith. Therefore whether zeal, eﬀectiveness or steadfastness, the Christian character of the Pechuia believers certainly appeared to be of good

121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess ( July 1855) pp. 198–199. Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 1 May 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. AR-SA (1856) p. 3. Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 180–181. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. Douglas of 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120.

  (  )

225

quality in missionary eyes. Since the matter of suﬀering religious persecution and of Sabbath-keeping pertains to the sincerity test in the admission process, convert steadfastness evinced the capability of Chinese work to make genuine converts. With religious zeal constituting another proof of that valued sincerity, the case is made even more convincing to the missionaries that Chinese labour working along the proper methodological lines could be relied upon to produce good quality believers. The signiﬁcance of the Pechuia work derives from its various features. In terms of origin, both the RCA and EPM acknowledged that it was born of Chinese initiative. In terms of its sustenance, the missionaries were favourably impressed with the growth of the work and believed the results to be mainly creditable to Chinese labour. That is to say, the Chinese agents and volunteers were thought to be doing the bulk of the local work, i.e. preaching whether in the rented house or elsewhere, and carrying on the informal conversations with inquirers. Indeed Pechuia basically thrived upon native labours. This was especially true of the early Burns phase, the ﬁrst RCA interval, the Johnston phase and the second RCA interval. But even in the case of the later Burns phase (March to July 1854), the fact of Chinese contribution was undisputed even if its volume relative to Burns’ input was uncertain. By their rather faithful application of the RCA mission methods, the Chinese gave the missionaries no cause for worry in terms of proper methodology. Finally the zeal and eﬀectiveness of the Pechuia believers as well as their steadfastness under persecutions proved the authenticity of their faith, thereby providing to the missionaries solid grounds for believing in the native competence to produce genuine Christians. By all the above, signiﬁcant progress was made toward missionary readiness to grant Chinese autonomy. 6.3. Chiohbe What was true of Pechuia applies also to the very ﬁrst extension of the work beyond that town. However the work at Chiohbe did not merely duplicate the general features of that at Pechuia. The truth is that Chiohbe represents an accomplishment which was not only qualitatively diﬀerent from Pechuia, but was also qualitatively in advance of anything hitherto done by the Chinese Christians in Banlam.

 

226 Origins and sustenance

Situated some eight to ten from Pechuia and about twenty miles from Amoy on the way to Chiangchiu, the large village of Chiohbe had a population of about 60,000128 inhabitants.129 In June or July130 1854, two Pechuia converts—Uju and Tek-iam131—went over to sell opium pills and to preach132 to the people with the result that ‘several’ seemed to have been awakened.133 Meeting with good interest and invitations to return, the two men made more visits.134 After the second or third visit, the Pechuia men took the initiative and rented a house for a preaching place135 with the upper storey for use as living quarters136. Receiving the call for reinforcement, the RCA sent two colporteur/evangelists137 who preached to nightly crowds for a month and then returned to Amoy with drained voices seeking for substitutes while they take a rest. Doty narrated with excitement about the extreme degree of local interest: From this time the desire to hear the Word and for instruction became so intense, that time was scarcely allowed to take food or rest. Again and again, both from Amoy and Peh-chui-ia, have brethren gone to assist, and have been constrained by the waiting multitude to speak the Word until voice and strength failed, and so would break down, and be compelled to retire for rest.138

Among the evangelists sent ‘one after the other’ by the two Missions, some returned not only ‘quite hoarse and worn-out with speaking’ but had to be ‘fairly laid aside for awhile [sic] from exhaustion’, saying they were obliged to talk ‘till long after midnight’ and could

128 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145; Douglas of 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) p. 118; AR-BFM (1867) p. 7 and (1868) p. 7; IA, p. 12. Contra CRep (1847) p. 78 (300,000!), AR-AB (1855) p. 113 (ca. 5,000–8,000) and CAF, pp. 93ﬀ. (20,000). 129 AR-AB (1855) p. 113. 130 Contra Johnston who dated it November (Review of 1854, p. 145). 131 Pechuia letter of 21 August 1854, CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 6. Other forms of the names were Iju (Doty of November 1854; Burns, Memoir, p. 592 n. 5) or Eju (FYC, p. 163) and Tickjam (Doty of November 1854; FYC, p. 163). 132 Johnston, Review of 1854. 133 Doty of 17 January 1855, MH (1855) pp. 186–187. Cf. MH (1855) p. 46. 134 Johnston, Review of 1854. 135 Ibid. 136 WHP, pp. 19–20. Cf. Doty of 17 January 1855. 137 Doty of 17 January 1855. 138 Ibid. Cf. Doty of November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181; FYC, p. 163.

  (  )

227

hardly ﬁnd time to take their meals during the day.139 The last expression was no exaggeration since the preaching at the rented place was sustained ‘daily and almost hourly’140. By mid-October, there were already ﬁfteen ‘earnest’ applicants and many more serious inquirers.141 After the Chinese preachers consistently came back in the same state and with similar good news, the missionaries proceeded there in October/November.142 Finding several already qualiﬁed for baptism, Doty felt the necessity to admit them soon but hesitated at the thought of forming a new congregation whose pastoral care was beyond the capability of the existing missionary workforce.143 Among those who exhibited ‘pleasing evidence of regeneration’ was the man saved from death during the recapture of Amoy who had been praying for months that there be a church at Chiohbe.144 During the four-day massacre of both insurgents and inhabitants which followed the recapture of Amoy by the imperialists on the 15th of October 1853 and which resulted in more than 600 deaths, the wounded man’s head was ‘nearly severed from the body’ but he later had a remarkable recovery.145 While under medical care, he came to know Young146 and eventually ‘began to pray to Jesus in secret’.147 Returning to his home in Chiohbe, he continued to worship the Christian God and to keep the Sabbath148 as well as to pray for some teacher of Christianity to come149. Not long afterwards, Uju the Chiohbe cook heard the preaching at Pechuia, converted to the faith and then carried the Gospel to his home town. On the 6th of December, Doty and Talmage examined more than twenty applicants and found seven or eight of them highly satisfactory.150 Consequently on the 7th of January 1855, seven persons out of twenty-ﬁve applicants were received as the ﬁrst members

139 Johnston, Review of 1854. Cf. Johnston of 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22. 140 Doty to Burns, November 1854. 141 Johnston of 16 October 1854. Cf. Doty of November 1854. 142 Doty of November 1854. Cf. Burns, Memoir, pp. 423–425. 143 Doty of November 1854. 144 Ibid. 145 Matheson, Narrative, pp. 6–9. Cf. CAF, pp. 28–29. 146 Johnston of 16 October 1854. 147 Matheson, Narrative, pp. 8–9. 148 Johnston of 16 October 1854. 149 Matheson, Narrative, pp. 8–9. 150 Johnston from Amoy, 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84.

228

 

at Chiohbe.151 Even so, the missionaries believed that ‘several’ of those turned down were ‘truly the subjects of the Holy Spirit’s work’.152 Despite these rejections, the RCA missionaries were ‘satisﬁed that several of the others only require a little further instruction to qualify them for [baptism]’.153 Johnston recalled that another ‘twenty or thirty’ also expressed desire for baptism but the near-midnight hour hindered the administration of more examinations.154 By midJanuary, there was ‘less excitement’ among the public, but within the Christian community ‘the same desire for the Word continues’.155 On March the 4th, another seven were admitted into the church.156 During the May communion, there were no admissions not because of a lack of ‘hopeful candidates’ but due to the ‘want of time for a full and thorough examination’.157 The year eventually closed with a total of twenty-four admissions.158 On the 3rd of February the following year, ﬁve more people were received.159 During the whole of 1856, there were ten admissions, the year ending with a total active membership of thirty-one.160 Although the work was started by Pechuia Christians, the EPM turned Chiohbe over to the RCA.161 Johnston viewed this act as his liberal way of ‘repaying’ the American kindness in returning Pechuia to him after Burns left.162 Exactly when this turn-over took place we do not know. However relevant talks seem to have started as early as November 1854 when Doty told Burns about the RCA hesitation to take on the pastoral oversight of Chiohbe. At any rate the matter was already settled by the time Johnston left. When 1856 started, Taulo the ‘best’ of Douglas’ evangelists had been re-transferred to the RCA who appointed him to Chiohbe.163 To his credit, the EP missionary took this personnel

151

Doty of 17 January 1855, MH ( June 1855) pp. 186–187; AR-AB (1855) p. 113. 152 Doty of 17 January 1855. 153 Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145. 154 CAF, pp. 93–96. 155 Doty of 17 January 1855. 156 Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. 157 Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5. 158 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Cf. Douglas’ report for end-1855 was twenty-two members at Chiohbe (WHP, p. 24). 159 Talmage from Amoy, 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 6. Cf. APGS (1856) p. 114. 160 AR-AB (1857) p. 123. The all-time total was thirty-two. 161 WHP, pp. 19–20. 162 CAF, p. 92. 163 Douglas of 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119.

  (  )

229

transfer readily, acknowledging Chiohbe was more important than Pechuia in terms of population size and location (being on the direct route to Chiangchiu some twelve miles away). Never at any point did the missionaries express doubt that the Chiohbe work was initiated by the Chinese. Likewise with uniformity, the RCA and EP missionaries attributed the main credit to native agency for the work done up to January 1855 (when the ﬁrst admissions took place) and beyond. On his part, Johnston consistently attempted to give honour to the Chinese even though he presented two versions of the story. In one, he handed the credit to the employed agency, i.e. the Chinese evangelists. Thus in December 1854, he wrote that the work at Chiohbe over the last three or four months was ‘so far as human agency is concerned, entirely the work of native agents, with a very small degree of foreign help in the way of direction and encouragement’.164 The truth is during the last quarter of 1854, Johnston was for sometime ‘conﬁned to my room, and unable to take any part in the work, save in sending men to assist, receiving their reports when they returned, and encouraging them in their labours’.165 Before he ‘was able to go about’, more than a score had been enrolled as baptismal applicants.166 It is understandable therefore when he confessed that though he ‘ha[d] given what little aid I could, I would be ashamed to take to myself the smallest share of credit’.167 Yet this does not mean he never visited Chiohbe in company with his evangelists before his bed-ridden period.168 However at other times, Johnston gave a diﬀerent version wherein he appeared to be crediting the Pechuia converts exclusively. Thus in mid-October 1854, he wrote that the work ‘was begun, and is still chieﬂy carried on, by the native converts from that ﬁrst fruit of our Church’s Mission’.169 Again in penning the annual review the following January, it was stated that at Chiohbe ‘all that has been done, in so far as man has been instrumental, is due to the Peh-chu-ian [sic] converts’.170 In fact, each of the two

164

Johnston from Amoy, 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145. 166 Ibid. 167 Johnston of 7 December 1854. 168 See Johnston of 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) p. 22. 169 Ibid. 170 Johnston, Review of 1854. Cf. the oﬃcial EP version from the 20th century: ‘From the human side this remarkable movement was entirely due to the devotion and diligence of comparatively uneducated Chinese Christians.’ (WHP, p. 20). 165

 

230

versions is incomplete by itself. From our earlier narrative, we know that both the Pechuia believers and the Chinese evangelists contributed their shares, and none could therefore justly claim a monopoly of the deserved honour. Doty explicitly noted that the pioneering eﬀorts of Uju and Tek-iam were followed by the ‘repeated visits’ of others from both Pechuia and Amoy.171 However one thing was held above any dispute. In conﬁrmation of our position, the RCA missionary delightfully reported to Burns that ‘[t]he instrumentality has been native brethren almost entirely’.172 Writing a bit later to the American home front, Doty was no less consistent, The agency blessed in this work is entirely native. The most which we have been able to do, was an occasional visit, taking a general supervision, and meeting with the inquiring, and examining those applying to be received among God’s people.173

The evidence is therefore clear and convincing on two matters. First, both the RCA and EP missionaries acknowledged the opening of Chiohbe was brought about by Chinese initiative. Second, the foreigners also believed that the main credit should go to native agency for the local work carried out at the town. Convert quality Aside from giving credit to the Chinese for their evangelistic initiative and work, the missionaries were also quite impressed with the Christian quality and commitment of the Chiohbe converts as a group. The last emphasis indicates that we do not suggest that every individual believer was able to display model behaviour. In fact by June 1855, there had been one case of excommunication.174 About a year later (ca. May 1856), there was another instance of discipline involving the expulsion of a young lad who had committed ‘several acts of impurity’ and was thought to be ‘without hope of recovery’.175 However the missionary awareness of their inability to exercise pas-

171

Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. Ibid (italics added). 173 Doty of 17 January 1855, MH ( June 1855) pp. 186–187. Cf. AR-AB (1855) p. 113; FYC, pp. 163–164. 174 Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. This explains Talmage’s claim that there were until 16 January 1856 only thirteen admissions at Chiohbe. See Talmage of 16 January 1856, MH ( June 1856) pp. 167–170. 175 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, AR-SA (1856) pp. 14–16. 172

  (  )

231

toral oversight to this distant congregation may have been coupled with a readiness to hold expectations laxer than those upheld at Amoy. Furthermore the second disciplinary case seems to have come a bit late to aﬀect the decision behind the Sinkoe event. If so, that leaves just one singular instance of excommunication which would naturally be reckoned by the missionaries as exceptional in nature. Wherefore this exceptional occurrence does not negate the argument that the missionaries had good reasons to believe the Chiohbe converts as a group were of satisfactory Christian quality. Having dealt with the negative evidence, let us now look at the positive in order to complete the argument. Already we have mentioned the early ‘desire to hear the Word and for instruction’ which was ‘so intense’176 that the visiting Chinese preachers could hardly eat or rest and how the missionaries in their ﬁrst visit discovered many already qualiﬁed for baptism. Likewise we have seen that the admission of many more was delayed mainly on account of the lack of time to give the ‘little further instruction’177 needed to qualify them and that it was the same reason which hindered the examination of applicants at other times178. In June, Doty revealed that there was ‘still a number concerning whom we have much encouragement, some of these, it is probable, will be soon received’.179 The said desires to hear the preaching, to grow in Christian knowledge and to seek baptism were readily interpreted by the missionaries as indications of religious sincerity. But beyond these, the believers also manifested their Christian quality and commitment by way of their evangelistic zeal and perseverance under persecution. Of zeal, we may cite for instance one of those admitted in March 1855, i.e. the sixty-ﬁve-year-old widow who had been visited by widow Hong and led to attend the chapel. As by ‘her marriage, and by the marriage of her only daughter’ she had become ‘connected with Mandarin families of considerable note’, she did not hesitate to use ‘her inﬂuence to induce others to join her in hearing the Word’ even though she suﬀered much opposition especially from her own daughter.180 Mainly on account of her ‘eﬀorts

176 177 178 179 180

Doty of 17 January 1855, MH (1855) pp. 186–187. Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145. CAF, pp. 93–96; Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5. Doty of 25 June 1855. Ibid.

232

 

and example’, there was ‘quite a number’ of women who became regular hearers ‘some of whom are professed (if not hopeful) inquirers’.181 The other way in which the converts proved their worth was via steadfastness amidst persecution. Actually it was the dramatic staying power of the converts during an extended period of sustained opposition which most impressed the missionaries. The severe intensity of the experience is best appreciated by a detailed account of the series of events which commenced in July 1855. Two months after the new chapel opened on 1st May 1855, Doty was at Chiohbe to baptise ‘several persons’ and to conduct the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath of the ﬁrst of July.182 On the previous evening, a hostile mob had gathered ‘around and within the chapel’ so that the police had to be called in to restore order.183 On account of the police presence at the chapel provided by the Chiohbe magistrate at Doty’s request, the baptism of the four men and one woman proceeded peacefully.184 However on Sabbath evening, the people were stirred up by a literary man and the citizens’ police chief whose family business was ‘the manufacture and sale of idolatrous paper’.185 Realising that both these men had more ‘inﬂuence in the place than himself ’, the pro-Christian civil magistrate sent for the district magistrate from Chiangchiu.186 But when the latter visited the place, he sided with the anti-Christian party. Soon an oﬃcial proclamation was posted warning the populace against accepting the Christian faith, hearing the preaching and even going to the foreigners’ chapel. After being reprimanded by the higher oﬃcial, the Chiohbe magistrate immediately ‘threw up his appointment’ and went several times to hear at the chapel.187 The police oﬃcer of the ward was arrested and beaten for allowing foreigners to obtain a house in his area without reporting the matter.188 The house seller was arrested and imprisoned at Chiangchiu for letting foreigners buy his property. A Chiohbe inhabitant was ‘arrested for entering the chapel’,

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

Ibid. Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Ibid. Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 370–372. Talmage of 16 January 1856. Ibid. Douglas of 21 August 1855. Talmage of 16 January 1856.

  (  )

233

imprisoned, ‘severely beaten’, then released.189 Meanwhile an oﬃcial notice was forwarded to the British Consulate at Amoy, protesting that Englishman [!] Doty had violated treaty terms by living in Chiohbe and demanding that he be immediately ‘recalled’.190 As for the house-chapel, the mandarins asked that it be returned oﬀering to refund the full purchase amount. The persecution worsened when the ‘Mandarins of three districts’, while on oﬃcial business at Pechuia, also issued a similar proclamation.191 Thus the chapels at both places remained closed for some time. Fortunately the one at Pechuia was reopened after a few weeks. At Chiohbe the persecution was diminishing by late September, at which time the imprisoned hearer had already been set free but not so the house seller.192 Before the year ended, the chief man of the opposition at Chiohbe died.193 Consequently the new year found the persecution at both Pechuia and Chiohbe to have subsided.194 On the Sabbath of 6th January, the ‘front doors’ of the Chiohbe chapel reopened with Doty present to oﬃciate baptism and holy communion before a large audience.195 When the police oﬃcer of the ward reported the matter to Chiangchiu, orders were sent to the Chiohbe authorities to arrest anyone who dares to enter the chapel. On the following Sabbath, an oﬃcial was stationed in the shop across the street, professedly with the intention to arrest anyone who dares to enter the chapel. Consequently the large street doors of the chapel remained close. Yet ‘the Christians and a few inquirers’ continued to meet at the chapel every evening for Biblereading and worship but all the time using only the side-doors.196 As it was believed that Sabbath-keeping was the sign of the true convert, word was passed around by the anti-Christians ‘that any

189

Ibid. Ibid. 191 Ibid. 192 Douglas from Amoy, 29 September 1855, Mess (1856) p. 21. At this writing Douglas and Doty were thinking about making an appeal to the Chiangchiu oﬃcials via the foreign Consuls. In late January Douglas was almost certain the houseseller would soon be released by the ‘To-tai’ (Tautai) of Chiangchiu. Douglas of 29 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 146–148. 193 Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120; Douglas of 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119. 194 Douglas of 3 January 1856. 195 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. 196 Ibid. 190

234

 

shop which might be shut on the Sabbath should be given over to plunder’.197 Knowing that the mob ‘would be sustained by some men of inﬂuence and by the civil authorities’, the male converts at the usual Saturday evening meeting discussed whether to leave their shops open just once. The unanimous decision was to obey God by closing shop and going to church. Faith and courage were well rewarded when the Sabbath passed peacefully without any plunder. Except for one member who had absented himself since the mandarin prohibitions, ‘[t]he others have all stood ﬁrm’ and ‘several’ had been received at both Chiohbe and Pechuia.198 Up till the 5th of February (1856), the front doors remained closed with the side doors still being used by church members and ‘a few inquirers’.199 About that time, Douglas paid two visits to Chiohbe where ‘we tried a little street-preaching, and found the people quite willing to hear’ and thus concluded ‘it is plainly just the fear of the mandarins that keeps them from entering the chapel’.200 In late June or early July 1856, it was reported that for ‘the last few months’ the believers had suﬀered no molestation although the large street doors of the chapel were still unopened.201 Despite the somewhat still-tense situation, some eight people had been added to the church since the beginning of the year.202 By September 1857, ‘all open persecution’ had stopped and the attendance at the chapel was ‘encouraging, both as regards members and also as to the interest manifested in hearing the Word and receiving gospel instruction’.203 However there was not ‘that marked evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power which we formerly enjoyed’.204 Throughout the trying episode, the faithfulness of the Chiohbe converts did not fail to convince the missionaries of their high Christian worth. The length of the distress, the unanimous refusal to close shops for even one Sabbath, the continuing attendance despite

197

Ibid. Ibid. 199 Talmage from Amoy, 5 February 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 6. 200 Douglas from Amoy, 28 February 1856, AR-SA (1856) pp. 13–14. 201 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 202 Ibid. 203 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 21 July 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 339–340. 204 Doty of 15 September 1857. 198

  (  )

235

the watch upon the unopened front door, the fact that there were even additions to the church under such circumstances—all these added up to make a powerful statement not only about convert character, but also about the productivity of Chinese labour undertaken under extremely stressful conditions. Looking at the Chiohbe work as a whole, one cannot help noticing how parallel features with the Pechuia case are immediately obvious. The missionaries had no doubt that the work at both places was initiated by the Chinese. Likewise the credit for the local work at Chiohbe went mainly to the Chinese from Pechuia and Amoy. Furthermore the Westerners were very impressed by the Christian quality of the converts as a group. The sincerity of the latter was manifested by the Chinese desire to hear the preaching, to grow in religious knowledge and to seek baptism. Their commitment was demonstrated by evangelistic zeal and steadfastness under the most trying circumstances. At the same time, the persecution which began in 1855 revealed the eﬀectiveness of Chinese labour undertaken in severely distressful times. Even though we ﬁnd no speciﬁc reference to evangelistic or instructional eﬀectiveness in the case of the Chiohbe group, the missionary narratives did not fail to exude the implication of such. When Doty told Burns that the ﬁrst RCA missionary visit (made some four or ﬁve months after the work began) found several applicants already qualiﬁed for baptism, one can see without diﬃculty an implicit statement of Chinese eﬀectiveness. In the light of this, the same may well be true in the case of those admitted in 1855–56 whose pre-baptismal instruction were virtually done in total by the Chinese. When the missionaries expressed that several of those denied baptism in early 1855 actually needed only ‘a little further instruction’205, the underlying thought was probably less of instructor ineﬀectiveness than of premature application on the part of the hearers. In sum, the eﬀect of the Chiohbe work was to further increase the missionaries’ respect and high regard for the Chinese converts in Banlam. But how Chiohbe represents an accomplishment qualitatively ‘superior’ to Pechuia makes another interesting discussion. To this subject we now turn our attention.

205

Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145.

 

236

6.4. Pechuia and Chiohbe in historical context During the years 1853–54, there were various attempts to extend the work inland. Except for the Chiangchiu mission, all the others were initiated by the Chinese. Although the attempts of 1853 were aborted on account of the insurgency in Banlam, those of 1854 proceeded despite strong local opposition and eventually became permanent work. On the part of the missionaries, all the above created even more favourable impressions of the Chinese converts. But the matter does not end there. For the Pechuia and Chiohbe initiatives are qualitatively diﬀerent from the mere ﬁlling up of some work space intentionally or otherwise ‘created’ by the missionaries. The Pechuia-Chiohbe initiatives actually culminated in an impressive demonstration of self-propagation on the part of the Banlam Christians. To see the fuller picture of the impact of Pechuia and Chiohbe, it is essential to locate them in their original context. Expectation of slow results During the pre-1854 period, the American missionaries expected the ingathering of converts to be a slow and gradual process. Writing in mid-1847 while he was the only representative of the DutchAmerican Church at Amoy, Pohlman became the ﬁrst RCA missionary to voice this expectation. It is not to be expected that a permanent interest will be awakened in behalf of China, till true believers are multiplied, and native helpers, well-trained and faithful shall cause the highest hopes of the Church to be realized. . . . The conversion of China will be slow work.206 (italics original)

Along the same line, Pohlman argued that the ingathering of Chinese believers will occur ‘very gradually’. It was believed that converts may reasonably not be expected immediately since it was ‘but recently that regular preaching has been maintained, and missionaries have had full and free intercourse with the people’.207 But other than the factor of recency, the belief in slow ingathering was reinforced by the RCA work methodology which tended

206

Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 25 May 1847, CI (16 December 1847) p. 90 c. 3–4. 207 Ibid.

  (  )

237

to lengthen the process of member-making. Our reference here is of course to the policy of strict admission and the intensive oral instruction method. Whereas the relationship between delayed admission and slow results is rather clear, the one involving the oral method requires some comments. Unlike the printed page, the verbal method depended totally on the personal presence and capability of the preacher or instructor, so that the opportunity and pace of information dissemination were somewhat restricted. In signiﬁcant relation to this during our period is the fact of the various forms of missionary limitation which we have discussed in an earlier Chapter. By the fall season of 1846, Pohlman on account of a serious long-term eye ailment had resigned from all attempts to learn the written language208 and had subsequently confessed his ‘imperfect knowledge of that diﬃcult dialect’209. This virtually put to rest any hope of literary work on his part. In the post-Pohlman period, there was for most of the time only two and for a while only one missionary on the ground. The limitation this posed for oral work undertaken personally by the foreign religious workers is not hard to imagine. Furthermore in relation to the element of doctrinal knowledge in the baptismal examination process, the oral method relied basically upon the memory capability of the typically illiterate hearerapplicant. Unlike possessed literature which could be re-read or reviewed at any time at all, what was heard could not always be re-heard or recalled as easily. The non-schooled background of most applicants conceivably did not make the memorisation task any less diﬃcult. This explains in part the lengthy character of the examination process as far as doctrinal knowledge is concerned. By late 1850 (quite possibly earlier), the disadvantage of full dependence upon the oral method had became an obvious thing to the RCA. During the time, the assessment of applicants was made severely diﬃcult by ‘the ignorance of the people’.210 Yet on the same account, it was argued later that the intensive oral Bible classes were more needed at Amoy than elsewhere in China. For even with the Bible already translated into the Chinese language, it was nevertheless ‘not

208 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 24 October 1846, CI (4 March 1847) p. 132(134) c. 6. 209 Pohlman [from Amoy], 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. 210 Talmage of 17 December 1850, MH (May 1851) pp. 152–154

238

 

into the language spoken by our people’.211 Talmage lamented, ‘The written language is entirely unintelligible to the great majority of the Chinese of this region; and by a comparatively small part of the remainder it is only imperfectly understood’212. In response to the problem of mass ignorance and also because of the diﬃculty of learning the traditional character system, Talmage resorted to the experiment of the Romanised colloquial script. But after about eighteen months into it, it was announced that the promising project ‘necessarily advances very slowly’ for practical reasons, viz. there was no printing press at Amoy, there was no competent proof-reader of the Romanised Amoy script at Canton and Hong Kong, and the Amoy workers already had much work to occupy themselves.213 Thus the fall-back was upon the oral method again. In sum, the overall tendency of the oral method was toward a slow-down of the journey toward baptism and church admission. Indeed such actual results or experiences tended to conﬁrm the already-held expectation of slow work fruition. When this is correlated with the strict admission policy, it is not diﬃcult to appreciate how the expectation of slow increase in membership was justiﬁed. The Pohlman dictum that slow results were to be expected was adhered to as well by his colleagues after his death. In accounting for the ‘slow’ fruition of the work up to 1851, the conﬁdent assurance given by Talmage was that the progress was nevertheless ‘steady and sure’214. In the later records, the idea was not mentioned again until three years afterwards. After a presentation of the recent conversion results garnered at Pechuia from May to July in 1854, Talmage announced with a mixture of joy, surprise and relief, This remarkable work may well ﬁll our hearts with gratitude and encouragement. Heretofore, we have always been obliged to wait a long time before we were permitted to see much fruit of our labor; and we were almost led to the conclusion that such must always be the case, in carrying the gospel to a heathen people. Now we see that such need not be the course of events. We should preach the gospel with larger expectations, and in the hope of more immediate fruit. He

211

Talmage [from Amoy], 22 January 1852, MH (May 1852) pp. 149–153. Ibid. 213 Ibid. 214 Talmage to Anderson and DeWitt, from Amoy, 14 July 1851, CI (1 January 1852) p. 101 c. 1–4. 212

  (  )

239

‘who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,’ can shine into the darkest minds, ‘to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus’ on the ﬁrst announcement of the truth as it is in Jesus. When the proper time comes, and his church is made ready for the great accession, it will be an easy thing for him to accomplish the expectation that a nation shall be born at once.215 (italics added)

From the above, it is obvious that within the ranks of the RCA, the idea of slow results ﬁrst uttered by Pohlman was subsequently maintained both diachronically and synchronically until the Pechuia ingathering. That is to say, from practically the beginning of the church-planting project of the Dutch-American Mission, the expectation of slow results was held with continuity and uniformity, and quickly assumed something of a dogmatic status among the missionaries. The justiﬁcation was given that the ‘heathen’ background of the Chinese people had produced ‘the darkest minds’ which was thought to make conversion an extremely tedious and slow process. At the same time, the anticipation of retarded results was conﬁrmed by actual ﬁeld experience. This is clearly the force of the line, ‘Heretofore, we have always been obliged to wait a long time before we were permitted to see much fruit of our labor . . .’ At any rate, the Pechuia experience not only broke up the hegemony of the old expectation but also modiﬁed the strict admission policy by relaxing the time factor216 which in eﬀect accelerated church growth from 1854 onward. On the EP side, the earliest impression derives from Young who after about a year in Amoy commented with regard to the state of the work that ‘ﬁrst steps require caution and thought . . .’217. Toward the end of 1851, he reported that the public worship sessions were ‘thinly attended’ and there was as yet no ‘direct results from our incipient eﬀorts’ although several had a good understanding of the gospel message.218 From these remarks, the most we can say is that the ﬁrst EP agent in Amoy anticipated at least a slow beginning for the work and regarded the labours of 1850–51 as partaking of a preliminary (‘incipient’) nature. The latter point is not at all diﬃcult

215 216 217 218

Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) p. 44. See 3.2 supra. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. Young of 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116.

240

 

to understand since there was not at that point in time any concrete church planting objective on the part of the EP workers. In spring of 1852, Burns likewise could speak only of ‘openings for labour’ but not ‘special evidences of success’ while holding on ﬁrmly to the belief that ‘the fruit will in due time appear’.219 But when Johnston arrived in late 1853, Burns confessed tearfully, ‘I have laboured in China for seven years, and I do not know of a single soul brought to Christ by me’.220 Thus whatever Burns meant when he said earlier that the China work ‘is making real progress’,221 he certainly did not mean the accelerated ingathering of converts in Banlam. It can be safely deduced that by the time real experience had taught Young and Burns that the ingathering of converts will be slow in coming. On his part, Johnston followed his predecessors in holding the same conviction. Thus with reference to the work of the three Missions done up to winter 1853–54, Johnston later approvingly remarked, ‘The work had been slow, but a solid and stable foundation had been laid . . .’222 In the same spirit, he compensated for the small number of the converts by pointing out that their ‘zeal and ﬁdelity . . . have been very remarkable’.223 It should be noted however that these remarks dated from a later period, i.e. a few years after Johnston had left China for good. Whether this was a matter of recollection (with accuracy being a separate question) or retrospective evaluation, there is no solid basis for us to argue from. The evidence only permits us to state that sometime after leaving the mission ﬁeld, Johnston expressedly justiﬁed the quantitative results on qualitative grounds.224 But this is not all, for fortunately from the period of his China residency we ﬁnd one instance when the matter of non-results was taken up. In early 1854 when the EP Amoy work had been on-going for more than three years, Johnston wrote home to report on the subject of fruition of labour. After a long

219

Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. CAF, p. 84. 221 Burns of [no day/month] 1851, Mess (1853) p. 380 (italics original). 222 CAF, p. 5. 223 CAF, p. 19. 224 Similarly Burns later emphasised that the ﬁve Pechuia members (quantitatively few) were making progress in knowledge and enduring religious persecutions ‘with patience [and] . . . joy’ (qualitatively good). Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315. 220

  (  )

241

discussion about the locality and its conditions, he asked rhetorically on behalf of his reader: ‘have you nothing to say about our Mission?’225 To this Johnston remarked with regret that no real gathering had yet been had although some work had been done in the form of medical service, educational work, preaching, assisting in instructing the converts of other Missions and the production of the Pilgrim’s progress. Then he wrote on: And all this is well: we know not that the Church has a right to expect more, however much she may desire more; and it is well that the Church should know what the state of the matter is, that she may humble herself, as we humble ourselves, before God, and that she may unite with us in a more importunate supplication for the promised grace of the Spirit? What are we in such a ﬁeld as this? How can we go against this great host, if we are not supported and encouraged by the prayers and warm sympathies of the Church? Arise, O Lord, and plead thine own cause!226 (italics original)

In his failure to report any ingathering of converts, Johnston shifted the attention to the helplessness of the missionaries in the face of their formidable task as well as the dual duty of prayer and sympathy on the part of the home Church. In other words, he spoke under the assumption that slow results are but natural and to be expected. Relatedly we should bear in mind that almost all of EP eﬀorts in Amoy up till mid-1854 had always taken the form of cooperation with the other Missions. Without a church-planting agenda, the EP naturally could claim no converts of its own even if it did exert eﬀorts aimed at individual conversions (e.g. Burns’ preachings). Thus in concluding his letter, Johnston could only extend the weak consolation that he intends in his next letter to speak of ‘what God had wrought here by the instrumentality of other Churches, that you may in that rejoice, as we do’227. Picking up the tune of Johnston, the FMC in its annual report of 1854 conﬁrmed that ‘we would pursue the same course of forbearance and caution which has been adopted by our excellent missionaries [for w]e believe that the work is one of extraordinary diﬃculty . . .’228 In an attempt to provide some consolation to the 225 Johnston to Matheson, from Amoy, 18 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 218–220 (italics original). 226 Ibid. (p. 220). 227 Ibid. 228 AR-FMC, Mess (1854) pp. 148–150.

242

 

PCE constituencies, the FMC pointed to the conversions registered by the ‘older missions’, the movement toward Christianity among the insurgents, the many opportunities of Burns for preaching and colportage as well as some form of receptivity he met with, and lastly, the successful cure by Young of many opium-smokers, one of whom had already been baptised by the LMS. There was neither any EP ingathering to celebrate nor any FMC complaint over the non-existence of such. The FMC had accepted the missionary theory about slow conversion results and made it its own in the absence of any better explanation or justiﬁcation of non-results. Although the missionary belief in slow results was eﬀectively communicated to the home front which came to share it, it was not until news of the Pechuia ingathering was received that the FMC had the courage to publicise its long-held expectations with regard to its China work: But no one acquainted with the nature of missionary labour, especially in China, expected to hear of speedy results from a soil so unpromising—surrounded by so many diﬃculties, which could be overcome only by patience, and persevering industry. Nor even after the ﬁrst diﬃculties were surmounted, and our brethren were enabled to declare to the people in their own tongue “the wonderful works of God,” were we prepared to look for an early harvest. “Paul may plant and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase;” and pre-eminently so must this be the case where the Gospel is oﬀered to a people blinded and debased by the grossest idolatries. Frequently we have been informed of the willingness of many to listen to the preaching of the Word,—and we know how faithfully and earnestly it has been declared to them;—but few have been prepared to forsake their sins and turn to the living and true God.229

A two-point parallel can at once be drawn with the case of the RCA discussed earlier. First, the slowness of results again found its rationale in Chinese culturo-religious obstacles. Second, the turning point in the expectation of slow conversion results was likewise the year 1854.230 Beyond any doubt, it is clear that with regard to the expectation of slow results as well as the termination of that expectation, both the RCA and EPM shared the same experience. The turning point was Pechuia. 229

‘Good news from China’, Mess (September 1854) p. 265. The case of Douglas has not been discussed in this Section for the reason that he arrived in China after 1854. On the same account we should not be surprised that we ﬁnd in his letters no talk about expecting slow results. 230

  (  )

243

On account of its place and status in the history of the RCAEPM work in Banlam, Pechuia proved to be quite signiﬁcant in reinforcing the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese. Already we have seen earlier that the main credit for the local work went to the native Christians as far as the missionaries are concerned. The formal establishment of a church after just four months of work— it was believed that Burns was the ﬁrst missionary ever to have been in Pechuia231—was the event that made Talmage declare the end of the long-held expectation of protracted results emanating out of the religious work.232 On this count alone, the impact of the Pechuia work upon the RCA missionaries can hardly be over-estimated. Moreover the growth of the Pechuia church over three years stands in great relief to that of Amoy over twelve years; consider, fortyseven (47) admissions (1854–56) as against thirty-one (31) admissions including Teacher U (1842–53). It takes little eﬀort to decipher that Chinese-led work had produced results which equaled one hundred ﬁfty per cent of what missionary-led work had produced over a period four times as long (!). As the ﬁrst major breakthrough in the Banlam work and recognised as well as celebrated for what it was, Pechuia was a heavy-weight reinforcement of the missionary conﬁdence in the capability and eﬀectiveness of the Chinese converts. In this Section we have shown that in the period leading up to 1854 the foreign workers of both Missions believed that the ingathering of converts will be a protracted process. Methodologically speaking, both the admission policy and the instructional method required an extended time with the eﬀect that each individual admission was delayed and over-all church membership growth retarded. Thus actual work experience inclined to conﬁrm that results slow in coming were but naturally to be expected. Against this background, the signiﬁcance of the Pechuia ingathering of 1854 shines with clarity. Not only did the inland awakening demolish the missionary expectation of slow conversion results, it also modiﬁed the admission policy in such a way as to accelerate church growth, thereby hastening the advent of the Sinkoe event.

231 232

AR-AB (1855) p. 112. Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46.

 

244 Self-propagation

Aside from Pechuia, the work at Chiohbe also contributed its share to making the year 1854 a watershed in the history of Banlam Protestantism. Whereas Pechuia enjoys the distinction of chronological priority and of bringing about the termination of the missionary expectation of slow results, the Chiohbe work presented even more convincing evidence of the capability of native labour. The results achieved at Chiohbe were more powerful than those at Pechuia in increasing the missionary conﬁdence in Chinese work on a number of counts. First, unlike the case of Pechuia, the work at Chiohbe was initiated by volunteers who were also quite young Christians, having been baptised only about a year ago ( July 1854). In contrast, the pioneers at Pechuia were two Chinese colporteur/evangelists who were paid to preach the Gospel, and had been believers since 1849 or 1850. Furthermore at Pechuia, it was Burns who at his own expense rented a house for public preaching and for preacher’s quarters. On the other hand, at Chiohbe it was the two Chinese men themselves who hired a small house at ca. 3 shillings a month for the same purposes.233 Thus on account of their lesser ‘Christian credentials’ and (presumably) poorer ﬁnancial resources, Uju and Tek-iam were certainly more impressive as models of religious zeal and eﬀectiveness. Second, the work of preaching and instruction was done substantially if not fully by Chinese volunteers and evangelists. Unlike Pechuia, no foreign missionary was ever resident at Chiohbe. Neither was there prolonged on-site missionary supervision of Chinese labour. Thus there was no foreigner (like Burns in the case of Pechuia) to share the honour for the local work done or the accomplishments obtained. In contrast, Swanson could assert (though erroneously) that ‘[i]n 1854 there was a remarkable work of grace at Pechuia, in which Mr. Burns was the great agent’.234 A somewhat similar impression is communicated to the reader by the later accounts of Johnston (1897)235 and of the FMC secretary (1907)236. However the latter could not say the same for the extension of the work from Pechuia

233 234 235 236

Johnston, Review of 1854, Mess (1855) p. 145. Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 57; cf. p. 64. CAF, p. 201. See Dale, Missions, pp. 3–4.

  (  )

245

to Chiohbe which he acknowledged to have happened ‘mainly through the labours of the Pechuia Christians’ who were ‘unpaid evangelists’237. Indeed the work was started by the ‘peripatetic pastrycook’ Uju (‘one of the most successful volunteer evangelists’238) and Tek-iam (another early Pechuia convert) and then followed up by other Chinese from Pechuia and Amoy. When the missionaries arrived, it was not to instruct but to examine the inquirers. In others words, the work of qualifying the applicants for admission was already done so that only the task of examination and admission remained. Had the Chinese been authorised to examine candidates and administer the sacraments, there would be no need for any missionary presence at all. This point could not have been missed by the missionaries. That the foreign agents postponed going over until the time for examination was ripe should not be surprising when we recall the shortage of missionaries and the demanding work in Amoy. As a matter of fact, Doty candidly let it out that the Chiohbe work was at once an encouragement as well as ‘a source of increased care and labo[u]r’ to them.239 What can be said is that the planting of the Chiohbe church and its fast growth, both being the products of mainly Chinese labour, indeed added to the missionary conﬁdence in the Banlam Christians. Third, although there had been previous missionary visits, it was the preaching of Uju and Tek-iam, and the other Chinese who went after them, which triggered the sort of impact in the latter half of 1854 that amazed the missionaries.240 Although Chiohbe ‘has generally shown a curiosity to hear’, Johnston wrote in mid-October 1854 that ‘the interest now is very diﬀerent’ from before when the crowd followed the preaching party only to see the foreigner; the diﬀerence being ‘a real desire to hear the Word’.241 That this remark was based upon observations taken during a recent visit suggests an intimate correlation with the series of events that happened within the last two months or so. In late August, Johnston and Talmage visited Pechuia with the intention to protect the believers from the

237

Page 4. CAF, pp. 93–96. Uju or ‘I-ju’ was later an elder at Chiohbe in 1868. Burns, Memoir, p. 592 n. 5. 239 Doty of 25 June 1855, CI (25 November 1855) p. 86 c. 4–5. 240 See Johnston of 16 October 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 21–22. 241 Ibid. 238

246

 

neighbouring villages which were threatening to attack the town. To carry out their plan, the would-be attackers ‘had called in to their aid, in hope of plunder, a large number of bad characters from the surrounding districts, which are so infested by bands of thieves and robbers . . .’242 As the presence of the foreigners succeeded in deterring the planned oﬀensive, they attacked Chiohbe whose mandarins quickly ﬂed. Shortly afterwards, the missionaries heard the news that peace talks with Pechuia were in progress. One cannot help but note that immediately previous to this event, Johnston had been successful in getting the British Consul (‘although he had no laws to support him . . .’) to secure from Chinese parents ‘full religious toleration’ for two students, and that the news of this had quickly spread around in Amoy.243 The said background events raise the question as to whether the new local receptiveness was not unrelated to some Chinese perception of political advantages which derive from associating with the foreign missionaries. Of course, one cannot discount the possibility of such thought on the part of (at least) some of the locals. But the key issue is whether the missionaries actually did think there was a correlation of the two factors on the part of the Chinese. The sources certainly do not give any sort of indication that the Westerners did. Furthermore the severe persecution of 1855–56 and the non-appeal to foreign political authorities on the part of both missionaries and converts were suﬃcient to disappoint any advantage-seeking native. At the same time, the ordeal acted as a puriﬁer within the believing community, weeding out the insincere and the weak while preserving those with genuine commitment and stability. In sum, the missionaries had compelling reasons to believe that the results brought about by Chinese labour were authentic in character. The last and most important point builds on those preceding it. As the fruit of Pechuia zeal, the success at Chiohbe amounted to what constituted self-propagation on the part of the Chinese converts. Albeit this instance of self-propagation took place on a personal rather than an ecclesial level. This is to say that what happened as a matter of fact was a case of individuals preaching the Christian message spontaneously to others at a diﬀerent locality, rather than a

242 243

Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 19–20. Ibid.

  (  )

247

case of oﬃcial corporate action undertaken after formal deliberation and organisational planning. Understandably it was only after church communities were organised that ecclesial self-propagation could actually proceed. Nonetheless Chiohbe can truly be considered a case of native self-propagation, for it actually resulted in the eventual formation of a new congregation. At ﬁrst regarded the third RCA church (after Amoy and Pechuia)244, Chiohbe later became the second RCA church when Pechuia was returned to the EPM. In the light of this, when Johnston later described the development of the Chinese Church under the EP as starting with self-government and ending with self-support and self-propagation245, he was either speaking in terms of ecclesial (in contrast to personal) self-propagation or referring to later instances to the exclusion of the Pechuia eﬀorts at Chiohbe during 1854–55. But were it the case that neither of these two possibilities applies, then either Johnston was mistaken or his exercise was no more than an attempt to force the facts to ﬁt a formula which had become ‘conventional wisdom’ in the latter half of the nineteenth century246. As an instance of native self-propagation, the Chiohbe case was unique in its time. It diﬀers from Pechuia, for the latter included missionary participation in the local work. It is dissimilar to the Chiangchiu and Choanchiu missions in that the latter were properly congregational actions and did not give birth to new congregations. For the last reason, it is also to be set apart from the common forms of Chinese labour discussed in the last Chapter. Thus over against Pechuia and all preceding Chinese work, Chiohbe demonstrated a qualitative ‘superiority’ when it emerged as the ﬁrst uncontested case of successful Chinese self-propagation. It was Pechuia and Chiohbe which made the year 1854 crucial. With the local work done mainly by the natives (even though with some assistance from Burns), the Pechuia work and its ingathering terminated the missionary expectation in slow results. Where the local work was done practically by the Chinese alone, Chiohbe demonstrated the lively spirit of self-propagation of the Banlam converts. In both instances, geographical expansion into the mainland put the work beyond the convenient reach and oversight of the

244 245 246

AR-AB (1855) p. 17. CAF, pp. 363ﬀ. See Williams, Ideal.

248

 

Amoy-based missionaries; more so in the case of Chiohbe. So captivating was the Pechuia-Chiohbe spectacle that it easily overshadowed everything else. As a watershed year, 1854 actually had its share of other stories of success and failure. The year actually also witnessed a sudden rise in admissions at Amoy. Aware that there were many interested to become applicants, the RCA called a special meeting for such people in January, at which appeared about thirty men and women, with ages ranging from twenty to seventy. Although many were reckoned as yet unready for ‘church membership’, the missionaries were pleased to see such great interest.247 After more examination meetings were held, a total of eighteen men and ten women were admitted by the end of July.248 Yet 1854 was not without some unfruitful eﬀorts. The same trio who brought about much local interest at Pechuia failed to do a repeat performance at Maping (February/March) where despite a generally favourable reception ‘there were no cases, as at Pechuia, of persons coming out and declaring themselves on the side of the Gospel’.249 In other words, not all Chinese inland eﬀorts were successful. However, such failures were overshadowed by Pechuia-Chiohbe into which the other successes were also drowned. The putting to an end of the belief in slow results and the demonstration of Chinese self-propagation created such an impact that all other events were miniaturised and marginalised. Even if one were to say that the lack of immediate success at Maping was something expected or thought to be normal by the missionaries (since the visit took place when the latter still believed in protracted results), the distinction of PechuiaChiohbe would not be diminished any, but would only be put in greater relief. Even into 1856 both Chiohbe and Pechuia continued to be without resident missionaries. Speaking against the background of the persecution of 1855, Talmage wrote, We know not what language to use to express the wonderful peace of God towards these feeble churches [at Chiohbe and Pechuia]. They are as sheep among ravening wolves, without any under-shepherd to lead, and comfort, and protect them. We can only occasionally visit them. “This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.”250 (italics added)

247 248 249 250

Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282. Talmage [from Amoy], 18 August 1854, MH (February 1855) pp. 41–46. Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266. Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6.

  (  )

249

In missionary language, one may say: Humanly speaking, it was the doing of the Chinese at Pechuia and Chiohbe which enabled the congregations to live on and even grow in the absence of sustained missionary labour or sustained on-site supervision. Thus by early 1856, missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese converts had reached a very respectable and enviable level. With the demonstration of native self-propagation at Chiohbe, the matter brings us back to the Talmage ideal, in which the native church is to attain ﬁrstly, freedom from foreign leadership, and latterly, independence of foreign assistance.251 By demonstrating selfpropagation, the Chinese had convincingly showed readiness for the next step in Talmagean devolution, i.e. self-government. Though most likely without Chinese intentionality and knowledge, self-propagation had provided the critical credentials for ecclesiastical autonomy. In the previous Chapters, we have seen how various missionary limitations created some Chinese work space which the natives did not hesitate to ﬁll up. The present Chapter takes the matter further by showing how the converts ‘out-ran’ the missionaries by way of their initiatives in extending the work inland. Going beyond the mere ﬁlling up of some missionary-provided work space, the Chinese initiatives were a new kind of labour, being qualitatively diﬀerent from the former. Not only because they were geographically ambitious, but also because they exhibited a powerful religious self-motivation, thus a persuasive proof of greater ‘maturity’. Such instances did not fail to further boost the missionary conﬁdence in the natives. Moreover as the terminator of the missionary belief in slow results, Pechuia may justly be said to have brought about a ‘paradigm shift’ in missionary thinking. After this ground shaking but before the aftershocks had all passed, Chiohbe as the ﬁrst unambiguous case of native self-propagation switched the RCA church formation programme into ‘turbo’ mode. Following the blueprint provided by the Talmage ideal, the step forward was none other than self-government. With the way forward paved by self-propagation, ecclesiastical devolution was transacted at the Sinkoe event of 1856. However the latter was never regarded as an isolated incident, spatially independent and temporally terminal; that is, it was thought of neither as having nothing to do with realities outside of Amoy nor as sustaining

251

See 2.5 supra.

250

 

no relation to the future. Rather the Sinkoe event was reckoned as the beginning of a series which extend beyond Amoy and into the future. Thus immediately after the installation of the Sinkoe church oﬃce-bearers, Talmage expressed the hope that the inland work grows quickly, so that soon Consistories may also be appointed at Chiohbe and Pechuia.252 When the RCA reported later to America that the ‘public and formal beginning’ of the Chiohbe church dated to 7 January 1855253, it was made clear that the Sinkoe event was regarded in a real sense as a preliminary to the projected formation of the Chiohbe Consistory254. Therefore it is only proper to say that triggered by the demonstration of Chinese self-propagation, the process of devolution was but inaugurated at the Sinkoe event. Concerning the nature and limits of the Banlam devolution, we shall have more to say later. But that we can do meaningfully only after ﬁrst taking up the subject matter of our next Chapter. To recapitulate our extended investigation into the origins of the Sinkoe event, we have shown that in the pursuit of a church formation objective, the RCA lead the EPM not only chronologically but also ideologically in the form of the Talmage ideal (Chapter 2); by way of their Christian quality, the Chinese church members were able to qualify themselves as an electorate in the eyes of the missionaries (Chapter 3); on account of various limitations, the missionaries created much work space for the natives, and in taking up the missionary-given work space, the Chinese labourers whether employed or voluntary were able to meet or exceed missionary expectations (Chapters 4–5); in taking the work inland, Chinese initiatives brought about a ‘paradigm shift’ in missionary thinking and reached a high point when self-propagation was actually demonstrated (Chapter 6). Therefore by their Christian character and labours, the Banlam Christians were able to win the high regard of the missionaries who came to believe in their readiness to elect their own leaders. At the same time, from among the converts the missionaries were also able to identify a suﬃcient number of individuals whom they thought of as having met all the qualiﬁcations of

252

Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. Doty of 15 September 1857. Cf. AR-BFM (1867) pp. 47–48; (1858) pp. 10, 21–22. 254 In contrast the Americans regarded Pechuia an EP station and thought that its oﬃce-bearers should be appointed by the EPM. Talmage of 30 May 1856. 253

  (  )

251

oﬃce-bearers within the Presbyterian tradition of church polity. Thus practically all the basic preconditions for a Consistory were met, viz. a devolution plan, a qualiﬁed electorate and a plurality of candidates for church oﬃce-bearers. It was not long before the last needed thing materialised, i.e. the attainment of an appropriate membership size (Chapter 2). With both qualitative and quantitative requirements simultaneously met by spring 1856, the Sinkoe event secured its place in the history of Banlam Protestantism.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SEVEN

ECCLESIASTICAL UNION 7.1. Introduction The Taihoey event On Wednesday the 2nd of April 1862, the ﬁrst meeting of the Amoy Classis (Presbytery) was held consisting of three sederunts (forenoon, afternoon, evening). In attendance were ﬁve RCA and two EP missionaries along with fourteen Chinese elders from the ﬁve organised congregations (Sinkoe, Tekchhiukha, Chiohbe, Pechuia, Maping).1 After the moderator was chosen and a clerk appointed, the lengthy discussion on the proper Chinese name was undertaken. Since the EP Sessions were called ‘tiong lo hoey’ (assembly of elders),2 it was agreed to adopt the name ‘toa tiong lo hoey’ (great assembly of elders); or, in short, Taihoey. Thus was formed the union ‘Classis’, another advancement in ecclesiastical devolution in China, and more signiﬁcantly the ﬁrst instance of church ‘union’ in the modern Protestant missionary movement.3 The ﬁrst pastors At the second Taihoey meeting in December, the Chinese raised the matter of pastoral ordination.4 During the special meeting held in January (1863), the pastoral calls were approved and examinations set in February.5 The examination results being satisfactory to all,6 Lo Tau and Iap Hanchiong were ordained on the 29th of March7

1 AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 7 April 1862. To allow for equal representation, it was later decided at the meeting that each church may have only one elder sitting in the Classis. 2 Swanson from Amoy, 7 April 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 216–217. 3 W.J.R. Taylor, ‘Union and co-operation in foreign missions’ in J. Johnston (ed), Report of the Centenary Conference on the Protestant missions of the world (1888) II: pp. 465–466; MacGillivray, Century, p. 368. 4 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 6 January 1863. 5 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 2 February 1863. 6 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 20 February 1863. 7 723CM/Bx1, Blauvelt from Amoy, 10 April 1863.

254

 

as the pastors of the Sinkoe and Tekchhiukha churches, respectively. Thus by the RCA deﬁnition of the time, two ‘self-supporting churches’ were thereby constituted.8 When the missionaries immediately relinquished ‘the old relation of a Missionary pastor’9 devolving the duty upon the new pastors,10 full self-government at the local church level was attained. With Chinese domestic missions on-going, self-propagation was likewise in place. Therefore in the reckoning of the missionaries, after two decades of work the Talmage ideal had become reality. The present Chapter is concerned with two questions. The ﬁrst is: why organise a Classis? To answer this question, we shall ﬁrst look into the connection between the organisation of the Taihoey and the phenomenon of quantitative and qualitative growth on the part of the Chinese churches. But this alone does not yield a complete answer to our query, for what it presents is simply the fact of the possibility of forming a Classis in 1862. What is required is an explanation of why that possibility became a reality. Wherefore an analysis of the immediate and long-term causes of the Taihoey is in order. It will be seen that though the Taihoey was regarded as a devolutionary necessity, the timing of its genesis was governed by unexpected circumstances which explains why there was no decision to ordain pastors at the inaugural meeting. The other question is: why a union Classis? While ecclesiastical devolution is essentially contained in the Talmage ideal, the same cannot be said of the element of union. To explain this, it is necessary that our investigation takes on a multi-dimensional character. By examining the phenomenon of organic union in its historical, idealist, denominational and methodological dimensions, we strive to present an account of the chief motivation and the facilitating factors behind the momentous ecumenical event which took place in the spring of 1862. 7.2. Church growth and quality The formation of the Taihoey was made possible by the quantitative and qualitative growth of the churches. More speciﬁcally the 8

Ostrom of 20 February 1863. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 26 March 1863. 10 723CM/Bx1, Annual report of the Amoy Mission for 1863, from Amoy, 31 December 1863. 9

 

255

critical factor was not (a) the mere increase of individual members but rather (b) the growth in the number of organised congregations. Nevertheless in a real sense, (b) built upon (a) even though the latter by itself could not justify the having of a Classis. For this reason we will present the data for both categories in order to make the picture complete. Going beyond this quantitative growth, we shall also see how in qualitative terms the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese during 1856–62 was not only sustained but improved by the progress made toward the realisation of the Talmage ideal. By November 1857 the two missions could boast of more than two hundred members, with the RCA having one hundred and seventytwo (172) and the EP ﬁfty-three (53). In comparison the LMS Amoy church had one hundred and ninety members.11 Cumulatively the Amoy membership matched that of the region from Canton to Hong Kong and surpassed those of Ningbo, Shanghai and Fuzhou.12 Until 1862 the annual growth of the membership among the RCA churches was fairly constant. RCA communicants, 1857–6213 Sinkoe & Tekchhiukha

Chiohbe

TOTAL

137 146 162 182

35 38 44 47

172 184 206 229

End-1857 End-1858 End-1859 End-1860

End-1861 End-1862

Sinkoe

Tekchhiukha

Chiohbe

TOTAL

122 139

89 10014

51 70

262 309

11 Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 146. Cf. AR-FMC, Mess (1858) p. 149. 12 Smith of ca. November 1857; Smith to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 11 February 1858, Mess (1858) p. 148. By 1860 the Amoy ﬁgure had topped the 600 mark. AR-SA (1861) p. 3, Mess (1862) pp. 49–51. 13 AER, Talmage, ‘Annual tabular view for the year 1857’; AR-BFM (1858–1865); MacGillivray, Century, p. 371. 14 Contra RCC (p. 91) which states that the membership of one hundred and sixty-ﬁve (165) in the year 1900 was ‘more than double’ that of 1863.

256

 

On the EP side, 1857 ended with ﬁfty-two members.15 At Pechuia, internal ‘discord’,16 certain ‘spiritual evils’ and ‘external chastisements’17 as well as ‘active opposition’18 stunted growth until March 1860 (one adult admission)19 or, by missionary reckoning, until June 1861 when it was hoped that the three adult and two child admissions would turn out to be the ‘ﬁrst-fruits’ of a long-awaited revival.20 At Maping the ﬁrst baptisms were of four adults plus three women from another village (April 1857).21 By December 1861 Maping already had two out-stations, viz. Kangkhau (about twelve members) and Soatau (ten to eleven members, and twenty to thirty inquirers).22 At Anhai it was more than three years after the ﬁrst missionary visit23 that the ﬁrst baptisms were administered (September 1860).24 At the end of 1861 the cumulative EP membership was ninety-three.25 Aside from the above, labour was also in progress in two other places. The Chiangchiu work commenced in 185826 but the ﬁrst admissions dated from January 1862.27 As an RCA-EPM joint venture, its membership was subsumed under Chiohbe.28 In 1860, EP work started at Emungkang with a view of forming a church out of the RCA members residing there.29 The two adults baptised in June-July 186130 were given membership in the Amoy churches. For this reason Douglas wrote that the Sinkoe-Tekchhiukha membership was correctly two hundred and thirteen (213), not two hundred

15

Talmage, ‘Annual tabular view for the year 1857’. Burns from Swatow (Double Island), 10 September 1857, Mess (1857) pp. 380–381; AR-FMC, Mess (1858) p. 149. 17 Douglas from Amoy, 4 September 1858, Mess (1858) p. 386. 18 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Pechuia, 15 June 1860. 19 Grant from ‘Bay Pay’ [Maping], 9 March 1860, Mess (1860) pp. 184–185. 20 Swanson to Dr. Hamilton, from Amoy, 3 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 281–282. 21 Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 251. 22 Swanson to Dr. Hamilton, from Amoy, 9 December 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 86–87. 23 Douglas from Amoy, 2 July 1857, Mess (1857) p. 347. 24 Swanson from Amoy, 21 September 1860, Mess (1860) p. 381. 25 AR-BFM (1862) p. 13. 26 Douglas to Mr. M[atheson], from Amoy, 7 April 1858, Mess (1858) p. 223; Douglas to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 17 December 1858, Mess (1859) pp. 87–88. 27 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 23 January 1862. 28 Douglas from Amoy, 6 February 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 211–212. 29 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 24 November 1860. 30 Swanson from Amoy, 3 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 281–282; Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 2 August 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 350–351. 16

 

257

and eleven (211).31 Therefore until the Taihoey genesis, Chiangchiu and Emungkang did not appear independently in the statistical reports. Alongside communicant growth was the numerical increase in Consistories over a four-year span. At Chiohbe, three elders and three deacons were ordained in May 1859.32 Inspired by this,33 Pechuia installed four oﬃce-bearers in October.34 After the completion of its chapel (1859), Tekchhiukha became the third organised RCA church with eight oﬃce-bearers (1860).35 At Maping, two elders and three deacons took oﬃce in August 1860.36 Formal organisation was postponed at Anhai due to the plunder of the chapel (November 1861).37 By year-end the existing state of aﬀairs was as follows:38

Sinkoe Tekchhiukha Chiohbe Pechuia Maping Anhai TOTAL

Elders

Deacons

Members

4 4 4 2 2 – 16

4 4 4 – 3 – 15

122 89 51 27 37 29 355

Therefore by April 1862 the RCA had three organised churches, the minimum number required in order to form a Classis.39 By the same standard the EP was lacking one. However by way of union, the deﬁcit was handily overcome, and with the RCA again taking the lead, the union ‘Classis’ was organised.

31

EPMF/Douglas, 1861 statistics, in Douglas [from Amoy, February 1862]. Douglas from Amoy, 16 June 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 285ﬀ; 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 1 June 1860. 33 Douglas of 16 June 1859. 34 Grant to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 8 October 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 19–20. Not October 1860 (contra WHP, p. 48). 35 AR-BFM (1860) p. 20; (1861) pp. 13, 15. 36 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 20 April 1860; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 August 1860. 37 Swanson from Amoy, 9 December 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 86–87. 38 AR-FMC, Mess (1862) p. 187. On the basis of these statistics, Amoy was adjudged the most fruitful ﬁeld in China. 39 Constitution (1840), 2.3.1. 32

258

 

Beside quantitative growth, there is also the qualitative dimension. Here our discussion includes the EP also because of the ‘confusion of ownership’ between the two Missions (see 6.3 infra).40 During the 1856–62 period, missionary satisfaction over convert quality was expressed not infrequently. In 1857 Doty reported that most of the Amoy and Chiohbe converts were not only ‘manifesting much of the spirit of Christianity’ but had also gained ‘decided growth in knowledge and grace . . .’41 There was also optimism that some young members could make ‘future pastors and teachers’. Smith noted ‘there is every reason to believe that by far the greater proportion of these are genuine disciples of Christ’.42 Although the reference was to the converts connected with all three Missions, the assessment was based primarily on RCA-EP realities.43 The missionaries were also struck by the sincerity of the Pechuia and Maping believers who painstakingly walked distances of from twelve to twenty miles in order to attend the communion service at Chiohbe.44 For 1859 the RCA was comforted by ‘many evidences of progress’ among the natives and especially development in Christian character.45 When Doty returned in 1861, he found that the converts ‘as a body have been growing in Bible knowledge, and [have] become more grounded in the faith, and more stable in Christian character and conduct’ while still retaining the ‘spirit of prayer which from the beginning has been a marked feature in the piety of these Chinese Christians’.46 Aside from general Christian quality, the evangelistic zeal of the Chinese did not escape the watchful eyes of the missionaries. Both Missions observed that the ‘brethren in general’ found it ‘a privilege according to ability and opportunity to witness publicly for Christ’47 and ‘seemed quite untrammelled by the false shame and formalities that restrain many at home from making known the gospel to others’.48 In early 1859 there was expressed joy over ‘the

40

This is in addition to the rationale given in 4.1. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 2 May 1857. 42 Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 146. 43 See 6.7 infra on the LMS admission policy. 44 Sandeman from Amoy, 2 June 1858, Mess (1858) p. 285. 45 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860. 46 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 9 December 1861. 47 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 48 Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 147. 41

 

259

growing missionary spirit’ among the RCA church members.49 Commenting on both quality and zeal, ﬁeld reports from the years 1860–61 revealed great missionary satisfaction over ‘the order and piety of the Chinese Christians, and their zeal as “fellow-helpers to the truth.”’50 Beside the general membership, the missionaries also found quite pleasing the personal conduct and work performance of the native workers. Apart from outright praise,51 the progressive nature of the missionary assessment was subtly displayed in their evolving nomination from ‘colporteurs’ (1857) to ‘helpers’ (1859–61) to ‘evangelists’ (1862).52 Especially commended was the native labours which ‘planted’ the church at Chiohbe and did the local work amidst ‘persecutions and threatenings’ while the over-worked RCA missionaries were limited to occasional visits.53 Noting the outstanding performance of ‘[o]ur excellent Evangelist there’, Doty jestingly suggested that the Chinese worker ‘be ordained, as the bishop of the street Church’.54 Possible reasons for setback in missionary conﬁdence were two EP disciplinary cases in 1859. The ﬁrst consisted of the suspension of young Kang who had been chapel-keeper and then assistant55 before being de-posted for opium-smoking. The other case was the dismissal of Tek-iam the Anhai assistant who admitted to the medicinal use of opium.56 However there is no evidence that these actually did serious damage to the missionaries’ general respect for the workers as a class. In continuity with pre-1856 times, self-propagation was one item which contributed greatly to missionary conﬁdence in the converts. Expectedly it became a matter for pride and was among the ﬁrst things to be told newcomers (like Smith who immediately wrote home that the progress in Banlam ‘has mainly been through native

49

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 7 January 1859. APGS (1861) p. 85. 51 Doty of 15 September 1857. 52 AER, Talmage, ‘Annual tabular view for the year 1857’; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860, 23 February 1861 and 24 February 1862; AR-BFM (1859) p. 4; CI (16 June 1859) p. 202 c. 2. 53 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 2 May 1857; Ostrom from Amoy, 8 December 1859. 54 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 22 March 1858. 55 Douglas from Amoy, 16 June 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 285ﬀ; Douglas from Pechuia, 14 July 1860, Mess (1860) p. 347. 56 Burns from Amoy, 31 August 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 381ﬀ. 50

260

 

agency’57). Indeed in the geographical expansion of the work, the Chinese were actually leading the missionaries. From Pechuia onward, the foreigner ‘was the means of ﬁrst imparting the knowledge of the Saviour, but it was the converts who spread the glad tidings from village to village and from town to town’.58 Speaking of the nineteenth century EP converts collectively—i.e. including those outside Banlam—Johnston said that ‘[a]lmost every member strives to bring in those “that are without”’ and the ‘aggressive’ evangelistic spirit resulted in ‘[t]he large proportion of members in the Church hav[ing] been brought in by the personal inﬂuence of the former converts’.59 Even the ‘long journeys’ often taken by the missionaries to open ‘new regions’ were ‘suggested by the advice or prayerful desires of the native Christians’.60 Furthermore as missionaries would open a preaching hall only if there was ‘a prepared people’,61 the work done by the Chinese before the missionaries ﬁrst arrived and during the latter’s absence was critical in determining whether stated work should begin. Concrete instances from our period are certainly in no short supply. Aside from the opening of Chiohbe by Pechuia natives, the local work at Maping was done by the Chinese. Previously Burns and some RCA converts had visited the place but only once.62 Thus visiting in May 1856 Douglas was greatly ‘refreshed . . . to see such a work done entirely by native Christians’.63 In like fashion, the message was carried from there to Kangkhau (RCA)64 and also Liongbunsi (EPM) where inquirers started to attend the Maping meetings in early 1862. Even before the ‘ﬁrst’65 missionary visit to Liongbunsi in November, Chinese eﬀorts had already generated a mass conversion with practically the entire village observing the Sabbath and rid of ‘idols’ and ancestral tablets.66 Native initiative was again shown when the Anhai work was started by the ‘repeated

57

Smith [from Amoy], ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 147. CAF, pp. 194–195. 59 CAF, p. 357. 60 CAF, p. 195. 61 Ibid. 62 Burns from Amoy, 8 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 266. 63 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, AR-SA (1856) pp. 14ﬀ (italics added). 64 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 April 1860. 65 I.e. after Burns’ visit of 1854 which seemed to have created no lasting impact. See Dale, Missions, p. 5. 66 CAF, pp. 125ﬀ; Dale, Missions, p. 5. 58

 

261

urgings’ of a preacher.67 Also it seems the Chinese were ahead of the missionaries in desiring to open Tong-an (EPM).68 Finally the successful opening of Chiangchiu was entirely by the eﬀorts of the Chiohbe church and its local work at least up to the Taihoey event was to ‘a very large extent’ done by natives.69 In view of the evidence, Swanson was not wrong in his perception that the work in all EP stations partook of a very large element of self-propagation on the part of both native workers and convert/members.70 Not wrong but incomplete, for it would be more accurate to include all RCA stations outside Amoy (viz. Chiohbe, Kangkhau and Chiangchiu). Little wonder then that the missionaries highly regarded the natives for their self-propagation eﬀorts and accomplishments. Thus as far as the missionary perceptions are concerned, there was evident continuity with pre-1856 times in terms of Christian quality, zeal and self-propagation on the part of the converts. But beyond these, there were also new developments in the post-1856 period which had the eﬀect of assuring the missionaries that there was neither any reason to alter the devolutionary course of things nor any necessity to reduce its pace. The said developments embraced the two other aspects of the Talmage ideal which we have thus far not yet really discussed, viz. self-government and self-support. In terms of self-government, the focus of attention was on the group of church oﬃce-bearers who were inducted into their respective posts at the Sinkoe chapel in May 1856. Adding to the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese were three things related to the native church leaders, viz. their demonstrated ability in self-government, adherence to the strict admission policy and continuing personal growth. After more than a year of ‘self-government’, the RCA missionaries found the Sinkoe oﬃcers ‘very faithful and eﬃcient’.71 Doty was particularly satisﬁed that the eight men had not only won ‘the conﬁdence and regard’ of the members but had also discharged their duties ‘with such care, wisdom, faithfulness and eﬃciency which

67

Douglas from Amoy, 2 July 1857, Mess (1857) p. 347. Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 7. 69 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 3 June 1861; Doty from Amoy, 11 March 1862. 70 Swanson, Sketch, pp. 13–15. 71 Talmage from Amoy, 10 July 1857, CI (5 November 1857) p. 74 c. 3–4. 68

262

 

no other system of means within our power could have reached’.72 With such conﬁdence in the Chinese, the missionaries looked forward to appointing an inland Consistory.73 In this manner therefore the able performance of the Sinkoe Consistory gave the missionaries the conﬁdence required to organise Chiohbe in 1859, in eﬀect moving another step toward formation of the Taihoey. Aside from church government in general, the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese was also boosted by observing how the strict admission policy was maintained by the elders at Amoy and inland.74 Likewise in the matter of membership quality control, the elders won the commendation of both the missionaries and the BFM who interpreted the recordbreaking number of disciplinary cases in 1859 as proving Chinese reliability in ‘the oversight and discipline of the Churches’.75 Lastly, the continuing personal growth of the oﬃcers was a consolation to the missionaries that the possession of ‘power’ did not lead to stagnation or abuse. After a two-year absence, Doty returned to ﬁnd the oﬃcers at Amoy and Chiohbe much improved in ‘knowledge and ability’, being able to make judgments with ‘[m]uch enlightened and reliable discretion and prudence’.76 It is signiﬁcant to note that this observation pertained to the state of aﬀairs prevailing just a few months before the Taihoey event. Beside self-government, the other breakthrough in the post-1856 period which further enhanced the missionaries’ high regard for the Chinese was in the area of self-support. In May 1859 the Amoy church decided to support two men to evangelise Amoy Island.77 For thinking this a novelty,78 Douglas exposed his ignorance of the shortlived Chinese domestic missions in 1853. Beside supporting two ‘evangelists’, the church also took the initiative to build a boat for them.79 Later as part of the separate ﬁnancial accounting arrangement of Sinkoe and Tekchhiukha ( June 1861 onward), each church

72

723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 73 Talmage of 10 July 1857. 74 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 16 August 1858; Swanson from Amoy, 7 April 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 216ﬀ. 75 AR-BFM (1860) pp. 19, 20, 21. 76 Doty of 9 December 1861. 77 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 30 June 1860. 78 Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) p. 20. 79 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 18 July 1859.

 

263

took on the support of one worker.80 Meanwhile inspired by Amoy, Chiohbe led by its new Consistory resolved to half-support a worker. While the missionaries were fully cognizant of the limited character of the support, the latter was more than compensated for by the knowledge that the church was small and ‘composed of the poor of this world’.81 Nevertheless in 1860 Chiohbe took on the full support of its worker.82 The net result therefore was that all the organised churches of the RCA had attained a certain degree of self-support by 1862. Furthermore the church-supported workers quickly won the admiration of the missionaries by way of their faithfulness in the discharging of their appointed duties.83 More signiﬁcantly, their successes both surprised and impressed the missionaries. Regarded as the fruit of the Amoy domestic mission was Kangthau84 whose ﬁrst baptism occurred in August 1860.85 Its quick establishment into an oﬃcial RCA out-station86 constituted oﬃcial missionary aﬃrmation of the Chinese evangelistic project. Likewise the opening of Chiangchiu was credited largely to the Chiohbe-supported worker who took up residence there in April/May 1861.87 In fulﬁlling the long-held missionary desire to occupy Chiangchiu, this achievement helped much to increase the Westerners’ high regard for the Chinese. To no small degree therefore was the missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese boosted by the new breakthroughs in demonstrated selfgovernmental ability and proven readiness to undertake self-support so far as their ability allowed. But there is another aspect to the Chinese performance which cannot be extricated from the missionary ideal of the native church. In the person of the Amoy and Chiohbe domestic missionaries, we see the synchronisation of self-support and self-propagation. But since the decision to launch such work was made by the Chinese churches in a context of independent though

80

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 4 July 1861. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 15 June 1859. 82 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 1 June 1860; Talmage from Amoy, 23 February 1861 and 24 February 1862; cf. Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860. 83 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 April 1860. 84 Doty of 9 December 1861. 85 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 August 1860. 86 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 23 November 1860; Talmage of 23 February 1861. 87 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 3 June 1861. 81

264

 

not unguided determination, neither was the aspect of self-government missing. In this sense, the undertaking of the domestic missions contained all the basic elements of the Talmage ideal. To sum up this Section, we see that the quantitative and qualitative requirements for organising the Taihoey were met by 1862. The increase in the number of organised churches made possible the move toward a higher level of ecclesiastical organisation. Qualitywise, there was no major setbacks in the build-up of missionary conﬁdence in the Chinese converts and workers. On the contrary there was real progress in self-government, self-propagation and selfsupport, or, signiﬁcant advancement toward the Talmage ideal. 7.3. Devolutionary necessity Although it was numerical growth and qualitative advancement which constituted the bare external requirements for the formation of the Taihoey, the immediate cause was in fact the practical requirement for a higher juridical body in order to decide disciplinary cases. But this is not to say that the Taihoey was motivated purely by incidental considerations. For alongside the immediate was the long-term cause which consisted of the need to ordain native pastors. Nevertheless the exact timing of the genesis of the Taihoey was not governed by choice but by extraordinary circumstances. This explains why no resolution was passed in 1862 to ordain pastors. The cause of the Taihoey relates to two devolutionary needs. The ﬁrst was so the churches ‘may receive the beneﬁt of higher judicatories than the consistories of single churches.’88 As it happened, the disciplinary cases of the father and son from Sinkoe was one cause of the Taihoey. Two reasons sustain this. One, although giving little details about the cases, Doty connected them to ‘a move further towards a Classis’89 suggesting they were unusually serious or complicated enough to require settlement in a higher court. Two, in the same letter Doty mentioned only the disciplinary need without any reference to pastoral ordination, thereby exposing it as an independent cause of the Taihoey. Aside from the Sinkoe cases, Pechuia

88 89

Talmage of 30 April 1860. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 11 March 1862.

 

265

and Chiohbe also sought advice on disciplinary matters.90 But they were not on the agenda beforehand and therefore could not have constituted part of the cause. At any rate, the disciplinary action on the Sinkoe cases was the only exercise of ecclesiastical authority at the meeting.91 Aside from disciplinary needs, the Taihoey was also motivated by the missionary belief that the church is ‘fully organized’ only when native pastors are set over them.92 The devolutionary need for the Taihoey derived from the RCA Constitution which provided that the authority to conduct pastoral ordinations resides properly in a Classis.93 As to the rationale for wanting Chinese pastors, the missionaries gave two related reasons. First, missionaries were unﬁt to be ‘permanent pastors’ among the Chinese and could continue in China only as evangelists and foundation-layers.94 The pastorate properly belongs to the Chinese ‘who are themselves one with the people to whose spiritual wants they are called to minister.’95 The ideal of self-reliance explains why a church was not reckoned ‘fully’ organised until she had her own pastor, that is, her own native pastor. Second, the missionaries wanted pastors because they intended to devote ‘more entirely’ to evangelistic work in new ﬁelds and to the training of native workers.96 In sum, until there be native ministers, foreigners were compelled to function as interim pastors;97 but the missionaries wanted to get back to doing what they considered to be their proper work, thus Chinese pastors were needed to free them for such. Actually it was pastoral ordination which was the long-term motivation of the Taihoey. The juridical need was merely the immediate cause. The reason is that the missionary desire for pastors was much older than Doty’s recent connection of the Sinkoe disciplinary cases

90

AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 7 April 1862. Doty of 11 March 1862; Talmage, History and ecclesiastical relations (1863) pp. 26–27. 92 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 August 1860 and 23 February 1861. 93 Corwin, A manual of the RCA, 3rd ed. (1879) p. 67. 94 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, pp. 28–29, 30–31; Talmage of 30 August 1860; Ostrom of 23 November 1860. 95 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 18 May 1861. 96 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom of 23 November 1860; Ostrom from Amoy, 18 July 1861; Kip from Amoy, 25 March 1862. Cf. AR-BFM (1873) p. 9, as cited in RCC, p. 113. 97 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 April 1860. 91

266

 

with a higher court. The desire revealed itself quite clearly in the events leading up to 1862. First, the matter of calling a pastor was laid before the Chinese in 1860,98 two candidates being elected the following year.99 In contrast it was in 1862 that a connection was made between the forthcoming Taihoey and the disciplinary cases.100 Second, the Theological Class, which had been meeting quite irregularly since Doty left, quickly resumed regularity in May 1861, no doubt to hasten the preparation of potential pastoral candidates.101 Third, the refusal of the overworked102 Talmage to take a long-overdue furlough was largely traceable to the said work of preparation. To the suggestion that he leaves after Doty and Kip arrive, Talmage was unamenable103 because the training work was practically dependent on him alone.104 Even after consultation with colleagues convinced him that certain duties justify a furlough, he persisted in staying105 until forced to leave by domestic circumstances (see infra). Lastly, the pre-Classis meeting of 1861 (itself clearly a deliberate move toward the Taihoey) was assembled to hear work reports and, more signiﬁcantly, to discuss the possibility of Chiohbe calling a pastor. Attended by the missionaries and representative elders from both Missions, the ‘informal’ meeting which exercised no ecclesiastical authority was ‘the nearest approach to a Classis, that we have yet had’.106 Later Talmage called this the ‘ﬁrst formal meeting of all the churches’.107 All these pointed to the long-term determination to ordain native pastors. Since the missionary desire to ordain Chinese pastors had long pre-existed 1862, the natural question to pose is why no resolution to ordain was in fact passed at the Taihoey meeting of 1862. The explanation for this relates to the timing of the said meeting. As it happened, the Taihoey was organised in haste because the sudden

98 99 100 101 102

Ostrom of 23 November 1860. AER, Peltz from New York, 5 March 1862; Doty of 9 December 1861. Doty of 11 March 1862. Rapalje of 18 May 1861. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 8 December 1859; Talmage of 30 April

1860. 103 104 105 106 107

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 4 July 1861. Doty of 11 March 1862. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 14 August 1861. Talmage of 4 July 1861. Talmage, History (1863) p. 26.

 

267

death of Mrs. Talmage (10 February)108 made the departure for America of Talmage and his four children ‘an immediate necessity’.109 Even though Doty would still be remaining at Amoy, the imminent absence of Talmage was a cause of extraordinary concern. Not only were the missionaries at a loss about how to continue the theological training and preparation of the pastoral candidates,110 the impending removal of the RCA’s visionary leader threatened to retard if not arrest the devolutionary process. Later when the impact of his absence was actually felt, Doty blurted out that ‘Talmage on the ground would be worth ten present [sic] young men and new recruits.’111 As a result of his imminent departure, the ﬁrst Taihoey meeting was hastily scheduled so as to allow Talmage to be present, that is, before he was to sail in mid-April.112 Adding to the urgency was the uncertainty of the date of his return to China. All these forced the meeting to cover more ground than it would have under normal circumstances. Because the missionaries well knew the pastoral examinations to be premature at that point in time, their aim was declared to be diagnostic113 not deﬁnitive. In view of the above, the Taihoey’s non-decision on pastoral ordination should not be interpreted as an instance of renegading on the devolutionary objective. The missionaries tried what they could but the pastorselect were simply unready.114 And all because the Taihoey was forced to be held sooner than expected. To recapitulate, we have argued that the Taihoey was immediately caused by the need for a higher church court but found its long-term cause in the missionary desire to have Chinese pastors in order to achieve the ‘full’ organisation of the church and free the foreigners for proper missionary work. We have also argued that the hurried birth of the Taihoey hindered any decision to ordain pastors so that such non-decision did not imply the giving up of the Talmage ideal. Here only two things need to be added. First, since the long-term cause related to pastoral ordination, it may appear the main mover was only the RCA missionaries. In fact it was both

108 109 110 111 112 113 114

723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 10 February 1862. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 11 March 1862. Ibid.; 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 24 March 1862. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Hong Kong, 4 December 1864. AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 7 April 1862. Ibid. Swanson from Amoy, 7 April 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 216ﬀ.

268

 

the RCA missionaries and their Chinese churches as we shall see later. Second, the pastoral matter relates to the Talmage ideal in another fundamental way. The linking factor was self-support which in the contemporary missionary deﬁnition consisted in the ﬁnancial sustenance of the ministry of the church including the pastor’s salary. This deﬁnition applied even after our period.115 Thus having native ministers in 1863 was equated with having ‘self supporting churches’.116 Because the Taihoey was needed to have pastors, it became the preparatory step to self-support. Therefore the devolutionary function of the Taihoey relates to both the having of native pastors and the attainment of self-support. Its formation was nothing other than devolutionary necessity. Having explained the motivation of the Taihoey, we proceed to the other question: why was a union ‘Classis’ formed? The relevant point is that whereas it is easy to understand why a ‘Classis’ was properly the next step forward in church organisation, it is not as easy to think of ecclesiastical union as essential to devolution. And even if we were to take for granted that union was regarded by the missionaries as essential to devolution, there is still the diﬃculty of having to explain why union was mentioned neither in 1848 when the Talmage ideal was ﬁrst expressed in writing nor in the years preceding 1856. In fact, one wonders whether union was actually even thought of before the Sinkoe event. In response to the above, two preliminary remarks are helpful. First, strictly speaking, there is nothing to be said for union as an essential feature of the native church. That is, the Church of Christ in China (formed 1927) would not be less an indigenous church if it consisted of only one Protestant denomination. The transfer of ecclesiastical authority from Mission to Church is by itself a complete transaction, apart from any preceding or simultaneous merger between pre-existing groups within the latter party. The task therefore is to explain why there was union when such was not required by the devolutionary process. Second, while the ideal expressed in 1848 did not include the feature of union, neither did it disallow union. This is important for it implies that union did not alter the nature of devolution, that both could actually co-exist.

115 116

See, e.g., AR-BFM (1898) pp. 4–5; Dale, Missions, p. 21. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 20 February 1863.

 

269

As to whether Talmage thought of union in 1848, one can only speculate although the extant evidence certainly points toward the negative. But what motivated union? As we shall see, it was the result of a network of factors which together exhibit a broad multi-dimensional embrace. Included herein are the historical, idealist, the denominational and the methodological dimensions. Below we shall argue that the union was chieﬂy motivated by the actual experience of cooperation (7.4) and facilitated by a convergence of three major factors, viz. common vision (7.5), a shared denominational heritage (7.6) and methodological similarity (7.7). Here we make an important distinction. The chief motivation is that which initiates motion or movement while a facilitating factor is that which allows the movement to continue. Now we proceed to explain how historical cooperation (chief motivation) triggered the movement toward organic union and how the three major facilitating factors made possible the smooth progress of that movement. 7.4. Historical cooperation The chief motivation for union was the peculiarities of the RCAEPM relationship during 1850–62 period. In the pre-Pechuia period, cooperative activities between the two Missions played only an indirect role in the matter of organic union. Subsequently matters progressed from the confusion of ownership to the sense of oneness and the missionary perception of the fact of union. The major events from 1854 and beyond which collect our interest are the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement, the Sinkoe event and the Chiangchiu-Emungkang entanglement. Pre-Pechuia In pre-1854 times, both Young and Burns did on various occasions engage in cooperative activities with the Americans. However the RCA-EPM collaborative experiences during the period cannot be said to have contributed to the cause of ecclesiastical union in any direct manner. This is not to say that these episodes of mutual help were entirely deprived of any contributive value at all. In reality these ecumenical experiences did their part in preparing the way for similar activities in the later period. Any attempt to understand and

270

 

appreciate the nature of the RCA-EPM cooperation during the prePechuia period would not be possible without a historical and analytical survey of the course of that cooperation. Inter-Mission cooperation started with Young who took over Doty’s school and in mid-October 1850 moved into Talmage’s house.117 Clearly the advantage of connecting medical and educational work with his own preaching labours was not lost to Talmage. For Young an extra beneﬁt of the liaison was the availability of the medicinal supply left with the RCA by Cumming.118 Other than this, collaboration also extended into the realm of literary work.119 However since Young did not personally have a church formation objective, he cooperated with the RCA only in medical, educational and literary work. For preaching needs, he was as ready to avail of LMS help.120 More signiﬁcantly, in his last China year, his employees were baptised into LMS churches.121 Thus for endeavours more directly connected with church formation, Young was in closer cooperation with the British Congregationalists than with the American Presbyterians. From the perspective of union, this means that (discounting other factors) as far as the work of Young is concerned, the likelihood of an EPM-LMS combination was greater than an RCA-EPM one. However this likelihood was oﬀset by later events (see infra). For his part Burns had ever since been always cooperating with non-EP agents whether in Amoy or elsewhere.122 Peculiarly he was quite reluctant to cooperate with his EP colleagues. Douglas recalled how Burns often said, ‘Do not let anyone be sent to co-operate with me: I co-operate with others.’123 After expressing joy about the

117

Young from Amoy, 17 December 1850. Cf. Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) p. 373; Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 287–288. 119 E.g. Young of 17 December 1850; Young of 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) p. 372. Cf. Young from Amoy, 15 April 1851, Mess (1851) p. 213. See also Doty’s use of Burns’ Pilgrim’s Progress. Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 290–291. 120 E.g. Young from Amoy, 6 May 1852, Mess (1852) p. 283; Young of 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 287–288. Cf. the use of LMS buildings, in Mess (1853) pp. 142–144. 121 Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218; Young from Amoy, 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 122 E.g. Bx118/F5, Burns from Amoy, 8 January 1852; Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221; Bx119/F5, Burns from ‘Shanghae’, 24 August 1855 and 13 December 1855. 123 Douglas, in Burns, Memoir, pp. 586–587. 118

 

271

prospect of another missionary coming in 1854, Burns quickly followed with a warning against any expectation of him working with the new agent or vice-versa.124 Note that this was during the Pechuia breakthrough when any help would supposedly be most welcome. The reservation about working with EP agents likely explains why after the 1854 break-away,125 Burns still remained at the RCA place.126 Again in 1855 he not only refused to immediately accompany Douglas to Amoy but later looked to Sandeman to provide the assistance much coveted by Douglas.127 In fact his second extended stay in Banlam (1858–59) materialised not on account of his personal initiative but because of extreme circumstances.128 In like manner was his sojourn of 1862–63 motivated.129 The complaint of Johnston about Burns’ ‘inability’130 to cooperate with his EPM colleagues was not unknown to Burns. The latter simply refused to change his ways. Riding upon the original stipulation that he be allowed full liberty, Burns further warned that ‘were I to be forced into any ﬁxed system of co-operation with your other missionaries, I am sure I should be a trouble to them rather than a help.’131 Swanson summarised it all by saying Burns’ labours at Amoy were ‘pretty equally divided’ between the RCA and LMS missionaries.132 In retrospect, however, both Young and Burns aided the cause of union in ways less immediately obvious. In that Young’s objective (non-church formation) complemented that of the RCA (church formation), he was able to work harmoniously with the Americans without any conﬂict of interests. Moreover there was no indication of any loss of cordiality before or after 1854 when he began having his converts receive LMS baptism. In Burns’ case, the scantiness of cooperation with EPM agents allowed more opportunities to work with the RCA. With both Young and Burns leaving behind

124

Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. I.e. when the Keklai school was returned to the RCA, the EPM having obtained its own quarters. 126 Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. 127 Burns from Shanghai, 3 October 1855, Mess (1856) pp. 21–22. 128 I.e. due to Sandeman’s death and the Pechuia troubles. 129 The third extended visit (22 April 1862 to August 1863) was made after the birth of the Taihoey, and thus falls outside our present concern. See Burns, Memoir, ch. 19. 130 CAF, p. 92. Cf. WHP, p. 19. 131 Burns from Amoy, 9 May 1854, Mess (1854) p. 267. 132 Swanson, Sketch, p. 6. 125

 

272

a record of rather pleasant cooperation between the two Missions, the liaisons helped pave the way for later cooperation and union. In this sense, the inter-Mission relations during the pre-Pechuia period helped the cause of union in an indirect manner. Pechuia-Chiohbe The opening of Pechuia started a series of cooperative eﬀorts which eventually proved to be of no little consequence to the union of 1862. The signiﬁcance of Pechuia is that the work transferred hands more than once, thereby resulting, albeit unintentionally on the part of both the missionaries and the Chinese, in the confusion of ownership. For the RCA the ﬁrst transfer of ‘ownership’ was the Burnsto-RCA turnover. This matter requires some clariﬁcation. While Pechuia was an instance of RCA-Burns cooperation, the initiation of that inland venture as we have noted earlier was not the doing of the British missionary. Thus even though Burns assumed the house rent and later also supported the two RCA native agents,133 he never regarded the aﬀair as an instance of the RCA assisting him but rather the reverse. Attesting to this is his early expectation of more RCA reinforcements134 and the eventual turnover of Pechuia wholly to the Americans. This is hardly unexpected since he himself had never seriously entertained any engagement with church-planting or pastoral work in China. But the signiﬁcance of Pechuia was that Burns did participate in the work and was the ﬁrst foreign missionary associated directly with the work. Both points in the last statement are crucial for understanding why the RCA considered Pechuia as originally an EPM work. This RCA reckoning was made explicit sometime after Burns had left China. Before Johnston could begin ‘active labour’,135 the oversight of Pechuia had been transferred by Burns to the RCA. When Johnston managed to get it back, the Americans did not see any impropriety in the act, one given reason being that Burns’ participation at the beginning made it an EPM work.136 Note that in terms of ownership, the decisive factor was neither the initiator of the work nor the partner who furnished

133 134 135 136

Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. Ibid. Burns from Amoy, 1 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 314–315. See under ‘Johnston’ in 2.3 supra.

 

273

more labour (which in both cases would be the RCA Chinese). Rather it was the ﬁrst Westerner to personally supervise the work. In that period of mission history, the missionaries were simply unready to consider any form of native leadership over themselves. After the Burns-to-RCA transfer, there was the RCA-to-Johnston transfer. As mentioned much earlier, Johnston’s reason for wanting Pechuia was his desire for an EPM ‘trophy’ which the home Church could boast of.137 The third transfer occurred shortly before Johnston left China when the ‘missionary brethren’ kindly ‘oﬀered to take all my work oﬀ my hands’.138 The last was when the RCA returned Pechuia to Douglas in autumn 1856.139 Relatedly sometime after getting Pechuia back from the Dutch-American missionaries, Johnston handed Chiohbe over to them, an act which he claimed to have been done in reciprocation to the American magnanimity.140 But since the Chiohbe work was started by Pechuia (itself an EP unit), this only compounded the confusion of ownership. Note that we do not speak of ‘confusion over ownership’ which connotes that the ownership was unclear at a given point in time. In contrast, confusion of ownership means the admixture of ownership over time as occasioned by the many transfers of hand which have just been discussed. As an illustration of this confusion, Douglas reported that the cumulative number of EP adult converts in 1855 was forty-seven (47), with twenty-ﬁve (25) at Pechuia and twenty-two (22) at Chiohbe.141 Since the latter was then an RCA station, we see as early as this time the blurring of ownership.142 In later years, the confusion of ownership

137

Ibid. PFS1/Bx17/F5, Johnston to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 1 May 1855. 139 See under ‘Douglas’ in 2.3 supra. 140 It has been suggested that the Pechuia-Chiohbe division at this time constituted the ‘ﬁrst marking oﬀ of spheres of responsibility’ (i.e. comity) among the three Missions. So PFS1/Bx84/F3, Rev. T.W.D. James, ‘Missionaries of the Amoy Mission. English Presbyterian Church. 1850–1942’ (13–page typescript) p. 2. This is indeed a possibility although lacking solid evidence. See the geographical division of Banlam by the three Missions in Rev. L.W. Kip, ‘E-mng si-ui e te-to [Map of Amoy and vicinity]’ (n.d.) in JAH, W88–315, Box 1, ‘Maps, Amoy, China, n.d.’ (folder). See also F.P. Joseland, ‘Our missionary districts. Amoy and Chiang-chiu’, ChronLMS (1899) p. 53; MacGillivray, Century, p. 367; RCC, pp. 63, 91. Thus while we know the comity pre-dated 1890 (WHP, p. 252), its exact date of origin is unknown. 141 CAF, pp. 111ﬀ. 142 Cf. Mess (1864) p. 210 where Chiohbe was again included among the list of EP stations. But being at that point in time (i.e. 1864), this reckoning is to be regarded as an error of fact rather than a result of the confusion of ownership. 138

274

 

was further complicated by the common practice on the part of EP converts from Pechuia and Maping of joining the communion services at Chiohbe.143 As this was believed to be the main reason why the three congregations ‘feel very much as one church’, it was once considered whether to just simply organise them into ‘one church’ under one single Consistory.144 Whether Johnston anticipated it or not, the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement led to a major and permanent shift in EPM ecumenical relations. This is to say that the turning point in RCAEPM relations actually took place during the time of Johnston and not Burns, though both were involved with the Pechuia work. It was Johnston who made the RCA the main ecumenical partner of the EPM and this ‘policy’ soon became permanent. Unlike Young, Johnston had had his Amoy contacts join the RCA church. From autumn-winter 1854, we may cite the case of To-a (an EP student) and at least two or three adults in whose conversion Johnston’s assistants had played some part.145 In his ﬁrst annual report, Johnston was most generous in giving credit to Doty and Talmage. Although acknowledging also the LMS agents, it was politely explained that the latter ‘have had fewer opportunities of assisting’ the EP work.146 In fact, aside from wanting Pechuia to show as an EP ‘trophy’ from China, Johnston had other practical reasons for desiring RCA partnership. For one, he needed the RCA missionaries to execute the baptismal procedures and other pastoral duties. But more fundamentally, the four assistants he acquired in 1854 were RCA converts.147 Or, his very legwork derived from RCA muscles, without which even general (non-Pechuia) EP work could hardly be done. In summary the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement established the RCA-EPM relationship in a unique manner. The resultant confusion of ownership permanently animated the church formation work of both Missions. This cooperation soon became one chief consideration behind the EPM participation at the Sinkoe event which as we shall see was itself an important moment for union. By no means

143

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 16 July 1858 and 10 March 1859. Talmage of 16 July 1858. 145 Johnston from Amoy, 5 September 1854; Johnston from Amoy, 7 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 82–84. 146 Mess (1855) pp. 143–146. 147 See 4.3. ( Johnston portion). 144

 

275

is it an over-statement when it is said that the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement contributed to the cause of union in a foundational manner. Sinkoe event One can hardly over-emphasise the signiﬁcance of the Sinkoe event for union. As the only EPM agent at the time, the wholehearted participation of Douglas eﬀectively constituted wholesale EPM endorsement of the RCA action. The subsequent FMC approval148 further assured the British Mission that the direction it had taken required no change of any kind. Even more signiﬁcantly Douglas was not a mere guest at the occasion, for he actually took part in the voting process.149 Consequently virtual union had already taken place albeit involving only one single individual from the EP side. But since the EP converts were inland and the helpers were in a sense an extension of his personality, the symbolic status of Douglas took on another dimension. That is, he also embodied the EP converts at Pechuia. In other words, Douglas was the embodiment of both the EP Mission and its native converts. Furthermore it would be a mistake to think that the Sinkoe event stood independently, sustaining no direct connection of any sort with the inland happenings of the preceding years. For the correlation of the Pechuia-Chiohbe episode and the Sinkoe event yields an interesting picture with more subtle intricacies than a superﬁcial perusal would reveal. About his motivation in joining the Sinkoe event, Douglas boldly cited Pechuia, noting that ‘our relations are so intimate that all our members at [Pechuia]’ were baptised by RCA missionaries.150 In truth, even until that time, Douglas was critically dependent upon the assistance of the Dutch-Americans. Like Johnston he was routinely reliant upon hired RCA converts. That these men were on loan status had just been recently illustrated by the RCA retrieval of his ‘best’ evangelist for assignment to Chiohbe.151 The picture therefore that emerges is this: The ﬁrst EP church (Pechuia), the RCA’s ﬁrst inland church (Chiohbe) and the ﬁrst organised RCA

148 149 150 151

Mess (1856) pp. 336–337. Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, pp. 32–33. Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338 (italics original). Douglas from Amoy, 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118–119.

276

 

church (Sinkoe) were all the result of some form of RCA-EPM cooperative eﬀort. But the signiﬁcance of the Sinkoe event does not end in itself. For afterwards, Douglas was invited to all the Consistory meetings.152 This in turn led to the regular participation of EP missionaries in other important sessions such as the annual meeting of the Amoy congregations in 1860153 and 1861.154 But the relationship was no less than reciprocal. Talmage was also invited to EP church disciplinary meetings as well as to the occasion of the organisation of the Pechuia church.155 On the 28th of March 1860, he and Ostrom were not only present but also ‘took part’ in the church meeting at Maping which resulted in the election of three elders and two deacons.156 Earlier while reﬂecting on the smooth-going cooperation just after the Sinkoe event, Talmage had revealingly written that ‘it may be expedient hereafter for the Churches under our care and those under the care of the English Presbyterian Mission, to become united in one body, as there seems to be no serious diﬀerence of views between us.’157 Between the two Missions, this is the earliest recorded expression of such a thought on ecclesiastical union. The Sinkoe event therefore was not only in itself an important development in the journey toward church union. It also served to trigger other events—viz. Douglas’ involvement with the Sinkoe Consistory and the ﬁrst appearance of the idea of union—which contributed to the making of the Taihoey event. Just like the Sinkoe event, the RCA idea of an RCA-EP union was not unrelated to the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement and the resultant confusion of ownership. Four months after the constitution of the Consistory of the First (Reformed) Church of Amoy (as it was sometimes called, though not among the Chinese), the oldest full-length discussion of a union Classis appeared in the extraordinarily long letter (thirty-six pages!) of the Dutch-American Mission to the General Synod in the United States.158 At the time the RCA

152

Douglas of 23 May 1856. 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 30 June 1860. 154 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 4 July 1861. Note: Douglas and Swanson ‘took part as usual on such occasions’ (italics added). 155 Grant from Amoy, 8 October 1859, AR-SA (1859) pp. 19–20; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage of 30 April 1860. 156 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 6 April 1860. 157 Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. 158 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856. 153

 

277

was lacking two organised churches in order to form a Classis. Although there was optimism that the number of organised churches would increase in due time,159 the missionaries were fully conscious that union could hasten the formation of a Classis.160 Nevertheless they were not given to taking the quicker course, being more concerned with letting the Church at home know and understand the problems they were facing with regard to Classis formation.161 Far from implying any lack of interest in union on the part of the missionaries, this only means that they thought things were unready for an organic merger at that time. For they were attentive to one problem which would arise in regard to any Classis formation in the future, viz. whether the RCA and EP churches should then be separated despite the long-standing RCA-EP intimacy and despite the ‘oneness’ of their churches.162 Because of this sense of oneness, the RCA missionaries saw ‘no suﬃcient reason’ for separation and believed the same view to be held by the Chinese and the home Churches in America and Britain.163 It is very signiﬁcant that the problem was phrased in such a way that the fact of union was assumed with separation as the contingent rather than vice-versa. This proves that as early as this time the Americans were already inﬂuenced by the confusion of ownership generated by the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement. In later writings, the said manner of casting the problem was sustained.164 The Sinkoe event is signiﬁcant for union not only because it revealed the remarkable RCA-EPM unity of mind and action. Given its standing as the ﬁrst step in ecclesiastical devolution, it may be said that no one Mission was more a midwife than the other. In other words, both were in a sense parents to the ﬁrst organised Chinese church even if the RCA credit was vastly greater. In addition, the Sinkoe event provided the possibility for the continued cooperation of both Missions in the life of the new Consistory. This pleasant experience of working together in turn stimulated the ﬁrst

159

Ibid., i.e. pp. 20–21. Pages 24–25. 161 Pages 24–35. 162 Pages 31–34, cf. pp. 3–4. 163 Pages 33–34. 164 E.g. AER, Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 23 December 1857; Talmage of 30 April 1860; Talmage, History, pp. 12, 14, 20, 23–24, 26. Also AER, Doty from Amoy, 10 September 1863, pp. 9–10; Kip from Amoy, 7 October 1863; Rapalje from Amoy, 7 October 1863; Blauvelt from Amoy, 7 October 1863, p. 8. 160

278

 

thought of an RCA-EP union. Building upon the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement, the Sinkoe event shifted the missionary mind from the confusion of ownership to a sense of oneness and a conviction in the fact of union. In this manner, the contribution of the Sinkoe event to the realisation of union in 1862 cannot but be said to be truly immense. A lesser description would ﬁnd no justiﬁcation. Chiangchiu-Emungkang For the cause of union, the signiﬁcance of the work at Chiangchiu and Emungkang derives not only from the fact that they rehearsed some of the basic features of the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement. From the perspective of intentionality and work objectives, Chiangchiu and Emungkang actually represented an advanced level of cooperation which had the eﬀect of furthering the confusion of ownership and the sense of oneness as well as of increasing the material substance of the fact of union. It was in 1861 that Chiangchiu was successfully opened by Chiohbe.165 Knowing that the poverty-stricken Chiohbe converts could not conceivably sustain any additional expense should the work prosper, and aware also of the decreasing income of the BFM, the Americans looked to the EPM who happened to be ready to provide ﬁnancial assistance. There was virtually no uneasiness in taking this option because the work of both Missions ‘continues very much united, so that it makes indeed very little diﬀerence who furnishes the funds for a chapel . . .’166 After mutual consultation, it was decided each Mission should bear half the expense of the ‘jointstation’ and endeavour to share the work equally.167 In order ‘[t]o simplify the work’, the primary responsibility for the station was given to the RCA. In eﬀect this placed the congregation under the jurisdiction of the Chiohbe Consistory.168 The long-term plan was for the Missions to labour together until there be two congregations whereupon each Mission could take full charge of one. Originally to be tried for a year,169 this cooperative venture extended itself to

165

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 24 February 1862. Talmage of 4 July 1861. 167 Douglas from Amoy, 21 November 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 81ﬀ. Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 9 October 1861, Mess (1862) p. 17. 168 Talmage of 24 February 1862. 169 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 25 December 1861. 166

 

279

1865.170 At least until November 1861, the EP missionaries were doing more of the work than their RCA counterparts. However, there was assistance from the Chiohbe elders, beside whom ‘the rest of the native agency has been very much mixed.’171 Later during ca. 1862–63, the Americans took on a greater role until the British assumed it again in 1864.172 With respect to union, the Chiangchiu endeavour allowed both Missions to ‘work as one’173 thereby furthering the confusion of ownership. Similar yet a bit diﬀerent, Emungkang started as a joint eﬀort but was expected to end up as an EP church. At the Amoy suburb, the work started with the aim ‘to form the nucleus of a new congregation’.174 All the while the EPM was paying for the physical quarters, viz. the ﬁrst rented house, the site leased in 1860, and the larger site obtained later for the chapel.175 On the other hand, the several Christians who comprised the nucleus were RCA converts or contacts.176 Even the boatman (a key contact person) was an inquirer at Sinkoe before the preaching station was opened.177 When the new chapel opened in 1862, RCA members still comprised a good part of the congregation. While the EPM covered the expenses and had operational oversight, the congregation was ‘a limb of [Sinkoe] and ecclesiastically under the care of its Consistory.’178 Although the Americans were not ‘the immediate agents’ in the work,179 the elders of the RCA-connected church in Amoy did no little work.180 Thus in the 1861 statistical report, the four baptised 170 Swanson from Amoy, 10 October 1865, WR (16 December 1865) pp. 994– 995 = PFS1/Bx94/F1/I53. 171 Douglas from Amoy, 21 November 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 81ﬀ. 172 Douglas from Amoy, 6 February 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 211–212. 173 Talmage of 24 February 1862. 174 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 24 November 1860. 175 Swanson from Amoy, 7 April 1862, AR-SA (1862) pp. 15ﬀ; Swanson from Amoy, 19 May 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 285ﬀ. 176 Mess (1861) p. 143. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 February 1861 and 24 February 1862; Doty from Amoy, 17 May 1862. 177 Ostrom of 3 June 1861; Swanson from Amoy, 3 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 281ﬀ. 178 Doty of 17 May 1862. 179 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 5 November 1862. 180 EPMF/Douglas, 1861 statistics in Douglas [from Amoy, February 1862]. Cf. ‘The movement was greatly needed. But your Mission has never had men and money to meet that need. But connected with our church were native brethren who were proved men and whom the Lord had owned and blessed working on to deposit the gospel leaven. Our Scotch brethren have the means to meet the demands.

280

 

members were included in the RCA membership roll.181 When Emungkang was ﬁnally organised in 1863, it was Doty who ordained the four oﬃce-bearers182 even as the RCA sacriﬁcially allowed its own members to help constitute it. From the above we see that the EPM provided the ﬁnancial capital while the RCA a good part of the human capital (i.e. converts, contacts and native leaders). Speaking of Emungkang, Doty asked the BFM, ‘Is this Dutch or is it Scotch? Or is it neither? . . . Should you leave us here to slice up piece meal the body of Christ for the sake of a cherished theory?’183 The confusion of ownership (or in this particular case, the confusion over ownership) could not be any more obvious. By early 1861 the confusion of ownership had reached such a state that the sense of oneness justiﬁed the presentation of the combined statistics of both Missions. Thus drawing upon the ChiangchiuEmungkang entanglement, Douglas ended the 1861 report remarking, ‘The two Missions being so closely connected in their operations, it is considered best to give the statistics of the two missions in this connected form.’184 With this the FMC concorded, saying that ‘from the outset the co-operation between [the RCA] and our own missionaries has been so close and intimate that in the case of some of the stations it is diﬃcult to give statistics which shall distinguish the separate agencies’.185 With this justiﬁcation, the FMC for the ﬁrst time (1862) published joint RCA-EP statistics (for 1860–1861). Meanwhile like Douglas, the RCA report for 1861 also gave combined statistics and on the same rationale (‘Our work is so interwoven . . .’).186 Here we see the Missions displaying unity in action (combining the statistics) and thought ( justifying such combination). Preceding the said RCA report was Doty’s letter of December which discussed EP work in rather extensive details and commented with pride that ‘[w]e are all of one, and in all matters relating to church organization, growth, extension, &c.—we are one, and without violence it

The house of God is established and the pure gospel of God’s free grace is preached . . .’ (italics added). Doty of 17 May 1862. 181 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 24 December 1860; 1861 statistics in Douglas [of February 1862]. 182 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 2 February 1863. 183 Doty of 17 May 1862. 184 1861 statistics in Douglas [of February 1862]. 185 Mess (1862) p. 187 (italics added). 186 Talmage of 24 February 1862.

 

281

is just impossible to be otherwise.’187 Indeed things had progressed from the confusion of ownership to a sense of oneness with the fact of union symbolised by the combined statistics. However our research has uncovered another possible motivation behind the combination of RCA-EP statistics. The question arises whether this invalidates the ‘close cooperation’ argument. The matter originated in 1859 when the EPM received a request for ﬁeld statistics from home but was unable to furnish any in response. Douglas explained there was . . . none to send, at least none worth sending. The fact is that all our work is in such a transition state that any statistics would exhibit no cheering view: [sic] e.g. the class of young men in my house has almost quite dried up, mainly from the young men ﬁnding suitable employment; then at Pechuia and Maping the work has been cleansing and strengthening not at all extension; indeed by discipline and death I believe the numbers of the visible church at these stations are much smaller than last year; but now there are more hopeful signs but not such as could even be hinted at in a Statistical table.188

For his disinterest in statistics, Douglas may have found some justiﬁcation in Hamilton’s 1857 report to Synod. The FMC convener put the Amoy church membership at 360 adults although he confessed ‘only a small portion of these who can be reckoned as the immediate results of our own agency, either directly or more remotely . . .’189 In counting the converts of all three Missions, Hamilton rationalised by saying that the ‘state of the Mission brotherhood’ was such that ‘they have all such things in common’ and that the right attitude is to attribute the increase of converts to ‘[God’s] doing, rather than to discriminate the instrumentality, and “number the people.”’190 The ﬁnal phrase was an allusion to the episode from the period of the united kingdom in the history of ancient Israel as recorded in the Old Testament wherein King David’s act of counting of his ﬁghting men brought divine punishment upon the Israelite nation.191

187

723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 9 December 1861. EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 20 September 1859 (underscorings original). 189 Mess (1857) p. 149. 190 Ibid. 191 See 2 Samuel 24:1–25 and 1 Chronicles 21:1–30. 188

282

 

Nevertheless the fact that the combined statistics of the 1862 FMC report included also the year (1860) immediately after the home request for ﬁeld statistics suggests some connection between the two. Doubtlessly the ‘inﬂated’ numbers looked good to home, thus helping to relieve the pressure brought upon the EPM by the request. However as far as union is concerned, the ‘pressure’ motivation (if any) does not negate the fact of ‘close cooperation’. In other words, the ‘pressure’ motivation can seriously damage the argument from ‘close cooperation’ only if the latter was based on fabricated reports. But that deﬁnitely was not the case, for the evidence of RCA-EP cooperative labours is, as we have seen, neither scanty nor sporadic but voluminous and quite continuous. Unlike the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement, the ChiangchiuEmungkang entanglement involved deliberate and pre-planned attempts at church planting. In actually taking things a step beyond PechuiaChiohbe, the Chiangchiu-Emungkang cooperation eﬀectively furthered the confusion of ownership to such a state that both Missions took to reporting their work statistics in combination. Such reportage was no less than a testimony to their sense of oneness and a bold declaration of what each held to be the fact of union. Our historical survey shows how the RCA-EP cooperation moved from complementarity to parity, and then to singularity. Because the EPM started out at Amoy with no church formation objective, Young and Burns were able to assist the Dutch-Americans in a complementary manner. This was followed by the period of parity or of mutual help between equals. Just like the previous period, there was no real competition, much less conﬂict of interests. For when EP church work began with Johnston, it was based inland at a time before there was any work at Chiohbe. After there was Chiohbe, the Americans did the Pechuia work on behalf of the EPM until Douglas took over. Meanwhile in Amoy, Douglas’ labours ‘have mostly been identiﬁed with those of the American missionaries’,192 a pattern of collaboration true also of other EP agents.193 Finally came the period of singularity or of the two acting as one. Both at Amoy (Emungkang) and inland (Chiangchiu), pre-planned pioneer-

192

Smith of ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 146. Cf. Douglas of 20 September

1859. 193

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 April 1860.

 

283

ing work was undertaken on a joint basis. Amassing all these events, we ﬁnd that from 1850 onward and especially since 1854, the historical experiences of RCA-EP cooperation formed a chain of developmental moments, which together appear much like a steady crescendo toward a climax constituted by the organic union of 1862. In this Section we have seen that by providing a record of pleasant cooperation, the RCA-EP relationship in the pre-Pechuia period played a preparatory or indirect role in the matter of union. Beyond this, the cause of union beneﬁted from three major episodes. By eﬀecting the confusion of ownership, the Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement founded a new and permanent RCA-EP relationship paving the way for joint action at the Sinkoe event. Along with the Pechuia-Chiohbe episode, the cooperation at the Sinkoe event and within the new Consistory gave rise to a sense of oneness which led to the thought of an organic union based on the fact of union. The Chiangchiu-Emungkang entanglement furthered the confusion of ownership and the sense of oneness which started the practice of reporting combined statistics, a symbolic testimony to the fact of union. The confusion of ownership is signiﬁcant, for it gave rise to the sense of oneness and supplied the basis of the common missionary conviction about the fact of union194 which was the key rationale for union not only in the ‘Memorial’ of the RCA Amoy Mission from 1856195 but also throughout the 1856–64 controversy with the home Church in America.196 The gist was: As we have worked as one, union was already there and 1862 was merely a formalisation of the pre-existing union. Cited as an indicator of the fact of union was the impression on the part of the Chinese that the RCA and EP missionaries were ‘members of one Church’.197 Actual cooperation had resulted in de facto union before it became also de jure. In this light, the historical cooperation of the two Missions and their converts was the chief motivation behind the 1862 union.

194 E.g. Talmage of 24 February 1862 (the RCA and EP churches ‘are really one . . .’); Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, pp. 272–273. 195 Talmage, History, p. 17. 196 Talmage, History, pp. 14, 17, 18; cf. pp. 20, 24, 37, 57. 197 Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 64.

284

  7.5. Common vision

The ﬁrst factor facilitating the movement toward union was the common vision of the Chinese church held by both Missions. As the likemindedness of Talmage and Douglas has been discussed earlier (2.5), we now show that the Talmage ideal remained the standard in the post-1856 period, being held by both the Dutch-Americans and the British. To provide a full background, we ﬁrst survey the physical movements of the missionaries after the Sinkoe event, with a view to introducing those who were present during the time of the formation of the Taihoey and the ordination of the ﬁrst Chinese pastors. RCA On the 22nd of May 1858 Joralmon left Amoy198 for health reasons and never returned to China. Rev. and Mrs Alvin Ostrom along with Rev. Daniel Rapalje reached Amoy on the 26th of March 1859.199 In March 1864 Ostrom and his family arrived in America ‘greatly shattered in health.’200 In contrast Rapalje ‘made the China trip six times’201 staying on to become an ‘old China hand’. After his second wife died, Doty left Amoy for Hong Kong with his four children202 and ﬁnally sailed for America on the 5th of November 1859.203 In June 1861 he set out for Amoy with Rev. Leonard W. Kip arriving in September.204 J.E. Watkins and his wife sailed in August 1860 but were believed to have died at sea.205 Therefore the RCA men present at the Taihoey genesis were Doty, Talmage, Ostrom, Rapalje and Kip. Shortly thereafter, Talmage and his four motherless children left for Hong Kong in transit to New York.206 In late February,

198 723CM/Bx1, Doty of 29 May 1858; Douglas from ‘Shanghae’, 14 June 1858, Mess (1858) p. 286. 199 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 6 April 1859. Contra RCC, p. 39. 200 Sower ( January 1865) p. 2 c. 1. 201 RCC, p. 22. 202 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 8 November 1859; ECMin, 4 January 1860. 203 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 8 November 1859. 204 ECMin, 5 June 1861; 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 19 September 1861. 205 ECMin, 3 July 1861; cf. 3 July 1860. 206 Swanson from Amoy, 7 April 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 216–217. It was early 1865 when he sailed for China. Sower (February 1865) p. 10 c. 3; cf. ( January 1865) p. 2 c. 1.

 

285

Rev. August Blauvelt landed207 just in time to attend the pastoral ordinations with his four colleagues. EPM Rev. David Sandeman arrived at Amoy in early December 1856 but died of cholera in July 1858.208 His demise occasioned Burns’ second extended stay in Amoy from mid-October 1858 to October 1859. Rev. George Smith reached Amoy in November 1857 but eventually stationed in Swatow.209 Rev. Alexander Grant landed in April 1858210 but went to Singapore in May 1861211 where he later left the PCE on doctrinal grounds.212 In November 1859 Dr. John Carnegie arrived but took some time to ﬁnally decide to settle in Amoy.213 Mainly a medical professional, he was little involved with the internal life of the Chinese churches. Revs. William S. Swanson and Hur L. Mackenzie came on the 2nd of July 1860214 but the latter joined the Swatow work beginning in February the following year.215 Thus of the six new EP men who arrived over a ﬁve-year period, only Swanson was involved in the church work at Banlam by 1862. At the Taihoey genesis, only Douglas and Swanson were present. With Douglas leaving afterwards216 and Rev. Hugh Cowie arriving in January 1863,217 the EPM contingent at the pastoral ordinations were Swanson and Cowie.

207

723CM/Bx1, Blauvelt of 12 February 1863, p. 7, entry dated 4 March. Mess (1858) pp. 350–351; AR-SA (1861) p. 3 = Mess (1862) p. 51. 209 AR-FMC, Mess (1858) p. 148; (1862) p. 51; Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 25 November 1858; Douglas from Amoy, 17 December 1858, Mess (1859) p. 87. 210 Grant from Amoy, 17 April 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 225ﬀ. 211 AR-SA of 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 49–51; cf. Grant from Singapore, 22 August 1861, Mess (1861) p. 350. 212 AR-FMC, Mess (1862) pp. 188–189; WHP, p. 47. 213 AR-SA of 1861, in Mess (1862) p. 51; EPMF/Douglas, Douglas to Mr. Barbour, from Amoy, 21 November 1859; Mackenzie to Dr. Hamilton, Amoy, 16 July 1860, Mess (1860) p. 317. 214 Swanson to Dr. Hamilton, Amoy, 16 July 1860, Mess (1860) p. 315; Mackenzie of 16 July 1860, Mess (1860) p. 316. 215 WHP, pp. 259–260, cf. pp. 55–56. 216 Mess (1862) p. 285; cf. Burns from Amoy, 18 August 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 352–353. He returned to Amoy in December 1863. Douglas from Amoy, 21 December 1863, Mess (1864) p. 87. 217 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 2 February 1863. 208

286

 

Talmage and Douglas Any discussion of the subject of the vision of the native church cannot dispense with an understanding of the role and impact of Talmage and Douglas. Their likemindedness alone does not constitute the whole story. To tell the latter, it is essential that the status of each man in his own Mission be explained in detail. Within the RCA, Talmage occupied a unique and outstanding position. In terms of status, he was senior to everyone else except Doty. The other three missionaries who were at the Taihoey genesis came to Amoy more than a decade after Talmage had made his ﬁrst landing. However in terms of inﬂuence and leadership, Talmage was clearly ahead of Doty as evinced by his being elected moderator at the Sinkoe event218 as well as at the ﬁrst Taihoey meeting.219 For his part at the Sinkoe event, Doty chaired the morning prayer meeting which was neither a business nor an administrative session.220 Indeed Talmage was ‘a born organizer’ who took ‘the ﬁrst steps’ in the formal organisation of the congregations.221 To his junior contemporaries Talmage’s natural leadership was no less than impressive and admirable even though he was not perceived to be free of personal defect.222 Even in his youth, that quality was already exhibited, as tacitly conﬁrmed by his brother Thomas.223 Not only was his leadership conﬁned to the administrative aspect, it also extended into the realm of ministry skills. As Swanson later testiﬁed, Talmage was the model ‘preacher to the Chinese’ among the younger missionaries.224 No doubt this ability may be attributed to both his innate scholastic ability (exhibited from the village school at Boundbrook to Rutgers College and to the Theological Seminary)225 and to his extensive endeavours in developing the Romanised colloquial. In short, Talmage had practically everything working to make him the natural moral leader

218

Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. Swanson to Mr. Matheson, from Amoy, 7 April 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 216–217. 220 Talmage of 30 May 1856. 221 Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, p. 272. 222 See e.g. Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, pp. 261, 262, 264, 270, 275. 223 FYC, p. 44. It was Thomas who wrote the ‘Introduction’ to the biographical volume by Fagg. 224 Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, p. 271. 225 FYC, pp. 43ﬀ; FYA, p. 75. A Seminary professorship would have easily been his, were it not that it was openly acknowledged the Amoy mission would suﬀer tremendously if he were removed from China. 219

 

287

among the RCA missionaries. It was but little eﬀort for him to maintain the visionary leadership of the Mission. On account of his seniority, Douglas easily became the head of the EPM.226 Burns the only man who could compete for the position on the basis of status was disinterested and away most of the time during the years 1856 to 1862. In April 1861 Swanson was still struggling with the task of acquiring the local language227 and thus could not yet commence full missionary labour. But aside from his seniority, Douglas was able to win the respect of his colleagues by way of his personal concern for them, his humility and diligence as well as his ‘self-denial and deference to the opinions of others [so] that they can work lovingly together’.228 Furthermore like Talmage, leadership qualities were not lacking in Douglas who during his student years had organised ‘a strong [temperance] society’ at the Free Church College (Edinburgh, 1851–55) and then later another such society in ‘the University’.229 Thus at the 1862 event Douglas was the virtual embodiment of the soul and mind of the EPM, just as Talmage was for the RCA. What gave direction to the Talmage-Douglas leadership was the common vision of the independent native church as contained in the Talmage ideal. Each man being the spiritual leader of his Mission, both Talmage and Douglas not only shared the said ideal as the theoretical motivation for forming the Taihoey but also succeeded in winning the unanimous consent and enthusiastic following of their colleagues. In this regard the unity of thought was so strong that between the two Missions, it is ‘diﬃcult to say who were foremost in pressing the idea . . . [for a]ll were equally convinced and strove together for the one great end’.230 The best evidence for this is the enthusiastic participation of all the missionaries at the Taihoey event. Furthermore there was the absence of opposing views or some alternative church vision coming from any member of either Mission. In this light, when Swanson later wrote that the aim of foreign missions was ‘to raise up a native Church, self-governing, selfsupporting, and self-propagating’,231 he was merely re-stating the

226

723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 29 September 1858. Swanson from Amoy, 9 April 1861, Mess (1861) p. 228. 228 Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, pp. 66–67. 229 Douglas, ‘Memorials’, p. 7. 230 Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, p. 272. 231 Swanson in Johnston, Report (1888) I: pp. 229–231. The three-self formula was also used later by Pitcher of the aim of all three Missions (IA, pp. 238ﬀ ). 227

288

 

Talmage ideal. Nothing substantially new was being presented even if the terminology appeared more developed than if he were to express it in 1862 or than he did in 1877.232 Inasmuch as the Taihoey was the next organisational stage after the Consistory and a necessity for pastoral ordination, its formation was a devolutionary move, being the progressive out-working of the Talmage ideal within the context of Presbyterian polity. For both Missions therefore the Talmage ideal constituted the common theoretical motivation behind the formation of the Taihoey. Although this common element is valuable for not disrupting the journey towards union, its mere existence did not historically initiate that journey. That was achieved by the historical cooperation of the Missions. But for union, the commonness of church vision was indeed a signiﬁcant facilitating factor. 7.6. Denominational compatibility The second major facilitating factor was denominational compatibility. Both Missions were adherents of Reformed/Calvinist theology and Presbyterian polity. Reporting about the Sinkoe event, Douglas took care to stress that the RCA was ‘almost absolutely identical both in doctrine and government with ourselves’.233 Based on this claim, the transaction was interpreted as the building up of ‘an ecclesiastical body, holding the grand doctrines enunciated at Westminster and Dort, and the principles of Presbyterian polity embraced at the Reformation by the purest Churches on the continent and in Britain’. On the basis of this shared heritage and Douglas’ personal participation at the occasion, the human credit for the ‘infant Church’ was given to the missionaries of ‘two diﬀerent (though not diﬀering) Churches’ from Britain and America.234 In the FMC report of 1862, it was again emphasised that the two Churches shared ‘almost identical’ theology and church polity.235

232 Swanson, ‘The Presbytery of Amoy, China. An historical sketch’, Mess (1877) pp. 83–84. 233 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. 234 Ibid. (italics added). 235 AR-FMC, Mess (1862) p. 187.

 

289

For both Missions, the fact of denominational compatibility also eliminated the likelihood of any objection from home on the basis of doctrine, sacrament, liturgy or ecclesiastical organisation. Among the reasons for the dissolution of the working relationship with the ABCFM in 1857 was the RCA desire to reproduce among the mission churches the ‘substantive elements of our polity’.236 For the EP, the commonness of form was especially valuable on account of the importance attached to Presbyterian liturgy at home.237 The concern of the Church in Britain to preserve Presbyterianism explains the repeated emphasis by Douglas (supra) and the Americans238 on the RCA-EP aﬃnity in theology, polity and order. The shared tradition also accounts for the ease with which the two Missions were able to share liturgical forms. Thus in using the RCA forms for baptism, communion and excommunication at Pechuia,239 Douglas was not acting from mere convenience at the expense of preference or principle. Also when it was noted the election and ordination of the Pechuia oﬃce-bearers followed RCA forms and order,240 one may recall the EP observation made earlier that the Sinkoe ordination ceremony was ‘exactly like our own’.241 Furthermore the denominational factor also reinforced the RCAEP intimacy. Even though Johnston was cordial toward all the other missionaries in Amoy, he nevertheless felt a greater aﬃnity with Doty and Talmage remarking that ‘it would be diﬃcult for my colleagues and myself to ﬁnd a ground of dispute with them, or the Synod of Dort, by whose decrees they are bound.’242 Not that the denominational factor implied the alienation of the LMS. For even

236 Harris, Nothing but Christ, pp. 151–152. Cf. RCAA, 709 BFM, Papers 1832–1913, ‘Separation from the ABCFM. Papers, 1857–58’ (folder); AR-BFM (1857) pp. 8–15; Talmage, History, pp. 33–34. 237 See Mess (1852) p. 282; ‘Presbyterian and Episcopal worship’, Mess (1851) p. 283. 238 E.g. Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, pp. 30–31; Talmage of 15 June 1859; Ostrom of 18 July 1859; Talmage of 8 November 1859; Ostrom of 8 December 1859; Talmage of 30 April 1860; Talmage of 30 August 1860. All of the letters are from 723CM/Bx1. 239 Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 5; Douglas from Amoy, 16 June 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 285–287. 240 Ostrom of 18 July 1859; 723CM/Bx1, Doty of 20 September 1859; Talmage of 8 November 1859. 241 Douglas of 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. 242 Johnston of [no day] February 1854, Mess (1854) p. 163.

290

 

after the Sinkoe event, relationships among the three Missions remained cordial.243 All still joined the weekly missionary prayermeeting,244 the monthly prayer concert245 and the annual united prayer week246 as well as in holding the English service for the foreign community.247 In 1861, the three Missions also cooperated in the joint-support of Dr. Carnegie.248 Also as far as the later records go, the comity of mission was rarely transgressed.249 Even though we could not determine the date of origin of the three-Mission comity and thus can make no claims regarding its applicability to our period, the general absence of transgression itself corroborates that interrelationship among the three Missions was generally good even after the early 1860s. Comparatively in north Fujian, inter-Mission relations were not always pleasant and more so after the CMS withdrew from the comity of mission.250 However although the EP continued to have occasional cooperation with the LMS,251 the relationship with the RCA was much closer.252 Perhaps the most telling instance was how the LMS chapel at Chiangchiu253 symbolised an independence in contrast to the RCA-EP cooperation within the same city. Here we see two factors, viz. denominational compatibility and historical cooperation, working together to enhance the intimate links between the Dutch-American and the British missionaries.

243 Sandeman of 1 August 1857, Mess (1857) p. 348. At the Taihoey meeting in spring 1878, two LMS delegates were present. Swanson of ca. March 1878, in CAF, p. 227. 244 E.g. Smith of ca. November 1857, Mess (1858) p. 146; Ostrom of 8 December 1859. 245 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 February 1861. 246 E.g. 723CM/Bx1, Doty of 5 April 1860 citing Talmage from Amoy, 7 January 1859; EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 23 January 1862; Maxwell of ca. 4 January 1864, Mess (1864) p. 123. 247 Joralmon of 30 July 1856; Ostrom of 8 December 1859. 248 Ostrom of 23 November 1860; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 1 May 1861. 249 MacGillivray, Century, p. 367. 250 Carlson, Foochow, pp. 96ﬀ. Cf. Stock’s apology in Story, pp. 239–241. 251 E.g. Sandeman of 1 August 1857, Mess (1857) p. 348; Douglas from Amoy, 7 April 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 223ﬀ; EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Anhai, 26 November 1859. 252 E.g. Grant from Amoy, 17 May 1858, Mess (1858) p. 254. 253 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 13 January 1862 (The said chapel had just ‘recently’ open). Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 6 February 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 211ﬀ.

 

291

In the matter of inter-Mission relations, the denominational factor also explains why the LMS did not join the 1862 union. Even before the Sinkoe event, the American missionaries had found ‘some important (though not essential) diﬀerences . . . [relating] chieﬂy to ecclesiastical polity’ and therefore thought it practically better to form a distinct organisation from the LMS.254 Douglas was more speciﬁc in saying it was because ‘[the LMS] is Congregational in its constitution, and has no elders except the European missionaries’.255 Although the LMS had ecumenical beginnings256 as well as a policy not to promote any particular form of church order and government,257 its Banlam churches during our period did not have lay or ‘ruling’ elders.258 During the controversy with the home Church in 1857, the RCA missionaries expressed their ‘Bible-based’ conviction in Presbyterianism and gave the assurance that no party ‘can turn us over to Congregationalism’.259 Even so, RCA polity was not perfectly identical with that of the EP. Unlike the usual PCE Session, RCA deacons were present at Consistory meetings and allowed to speak but could vote only on pecuniary matters.260 However this singular ‘compromise’ on the part of the EPM met no objection from home. Perhaps a brief account of the concurrent PCE interest in church union is helpful. Even before the Sinkoe event, the subject of church union was already being broadly discussed as well as widely promoted within the PCE constituencies. In his well-received speech at the 1854 Synod, Dr. M’Crie stressed the necessity to recover the early Reformation model of inter-church union.261 Shortly afterwards a write-up appeared in the Messenger protesting the ‘guilt of a sectarian spirit’ and ‘praying’ that the union of Christians being ‘the brightest feature, the distinguishing glory of our age’ be extended worldwide.262 However the EP vision of ecclesiastical union in the nineteenth century was exclusive and circumscribed only parties belonging to the Presbyterian tradition. 254

Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, pp. 16–17. Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338 (italics original). 256 See W. Ellis, The history of the LMS (London, 1844) I: chs. 1–2; C.S. Horne, The story of the LMS (London, 1908) ch. 1. 257 Ellis, pp. 14, 26n, 30ﬀ, 35ﬀ, 38ﬀ; Horne, pp. 16ﬀ. 258 Macgowan, Christ, pp. 149–151. Cf. Mess (1863) p. 189. 259 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857. 260 Douglas of 23 May 1856. 261 Mess (1854) p. 148. 262 Mess (1854) p. 216. 255

292

 

Because of this staunch presupposition, the Synod speech of Dr. M’Crie did not fail to also emphasise strongly that Presbyterianism was the right form of church polity.263 In the same spirit, the joint Conference of the PCE and the United Presbyterian Church held at Manchester in 1855 expressed delight at the prospect of ‘an eventful union without any surrender of principle’,264 i.e. without any compromise of their much-treasured Presbyterian principles. During the 1850s–1860s the Messenger was quite attentive to other Presbyterian union eﬀorts in Scotland, Canada, England and Australia.265 The 1864 Synod discussed the matter of ‘union with other Presbyterian churches’ and concluded in a positive consensus.266 The narrow Presbyterian ideal also revealed itself in 1862 when the justiﬁcation given for soliciting the help of the Free Church Assembly and the Irish Assembly was no less than ‘the extension of our common Presbyterianism in England’.267 The implication of the Presbyterian exclusivity of the PCE union vision is that the Taihoey, being in itself a Presbyterian union, posed no grounds for objection from a denominational standpoint. The crucial point was that both Missions were Presbyterian and together agreed that there should not be two Presbyterian Churches in Banlam.268 The single point of diﬀerence in polity was not regarded an essential compromise of the Presbyterian heritage. In other words, the one minor diﬀerence did not negate denominational compatibility. From the perspective of ecclesiastical union, the facilitation provided by the phenomenon of denominational compatibility is unambiguous. The ‘almost identical’ theology, polity and liturgy of the two Missions made organic union both possible and desirable. But alongside this inclusive eﬀect was the excluding function which automatically eliminated the Congregationalist churches in Banlam from the union of 1862. In addition the denominational factor also enhanced the already-existing intimate relations of the Dutch-American and British missionaries. In the light of the above, it is not hard to understand how a minor case of imperfect identicality in polity did

263

Mess (1854) p. 148. Mess (1860) pp. 199–201. 265 E.g. Mess (1854) pp. 241ﬀ; (1855) pp. 60ﬀ; (1857) pp. 255ﬀ, 295ﬀ; (1860) pp. 314ﬀ; (1864) pp. 160ﬀ. 266 Mess (1864) pp. 214–215 (italics added). 267 Mess (1862) p. 376. 268 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon of 17 September 1856, pp. 15–16; Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 64. 264

 

293

not hinder the realisation of union on the part of the British whose chief concerns were Presbyterianism and missions. To close this Section, we add just one more point on the denominational factor. Because the common church polity designated the Classis as the next stage in church organisation, a procedural synchronisation was made possible which eﬀectively collapsed together structural advancement and ecclesiastical union. 7.7. Methodological similarity The last major factor facilitating union was methodological similarity. The aspects of our investigation concern ﬁrstly (a) the intensive oral method and secondly (b) the policy of strict admission and membership quality control. Since the pre-1856 RCA practices have already been discussed (Ch. 3), we shall devote the bulk of our time to the discussion of the EP dimension and the comparison of it with the RCA way of doing things. In the case of (b), some space is given to a discussion of methodological continuity during the 1856–62 period, especially to ascertain whether there were changes in the admission criteria or in the level of quality control. Intensive oral method In terms of preaching and instructional methodology, the EP missionaries generally held an attitude similar to those of their DutchAmerican counterparts. This was more true of the missionaries from the period after the Sinkoe event rather than of those from the preceding period. For among the latter group, not everyone shared the RCA conviction about the intensive mode of the oral instruction method. In examining this variation, our survey begins with Burns Having stipulated that he should come to China only as a pure evangelist, Burns needed none to instruct him that oral preaching should be his main work method. As a matter of fact, this type of labour constituted his most consistent singular activity even after he returned to China in 1855. During his last few months at Canton in 1851, Burns found great delight in encountering many preaching opportunities even though no converts were made.269 Even when the

269 Burns from Canton, 19 June 1851, Mess (1851) pp. 281–283; AR-FMC, Mess (1851) p. 139.

294

 

relocation to Amoy necessitated the learning of a new dialect, it took not many months before he was again found preaching in the vernacular both in the chapel and outdoors.270 Although he also did some preaching at Young’s reading hall, what Burns preferred was open-air preaching. This he claimed was the method ‘to which I am partial’271 not least on account of the larger audience.272 Even the taking up of literary work in 1852273 was chieﬂy occasioned by the wet weather which prevented the continuation of street preaching.274 When Burns described the visit to Chiangchiu of April 1853 as his best preaching stint in China thus far,275 one cannot help noting the underlying interest of a man obsessed with the oral proclamation of the Gospel. The advent of the hot season however limited his preaching activities to the morning and evening services commonly held in the school room.276 Dissatisﬁed with the audience turn-out, Burns sought to obtain another place for public preaching but failed. Afterwards Doty oﬀered the nearby RCA chapel where Burns started immediately to do daily preaching in the forenoons being assisted by RCA members. Therefore as a self-conscious thoroughgoing evangelist, Burns regarded oral preaching as his main work in China. However the constant preoccupation with pioneering or groundbreaking hindered the British missionary-evangelist from identifying with the intensive aspect of the Dutch-American method of oral instruction. This is most prominently illustrated by the ‘occupation’ of the ﬁrst inland station in 1854. During the Pechuia ingathering that year, Burns looked forward to Amoy Christians to take up the work there so that he may proceed on to other places to preach.277 In turning down the request for him to return to Pechuia in 1855, he reiterated his desire to continue ‘preaching the Gospel at large’278

270

Young from Amoy, 19 December 1851, Mess (1852) pp. 115–116. Burns from Amoy, 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221. 272 See Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. 273 See AR-FMC, Mess (1853) pp. 142–144. Cf. Matheson, Narrative, p. 6. 274 Burns from Amoy, 8 June 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 282–283. Burns saw little preaching opportunities in Amoy where the regular services were already taken up by others. 275 Bx119/F5, Burns from Amoy, 16 May 1853. Note: There is a typed copy in Bx118/F4. 276 Burns from Amoy, 13 October 1853, Mess (1854) pp. 49–51. 277 Burns from Amoy, 3 March 1854, Mess (1854) p. 218. 278 Burns from Shanghai, 24 August 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 372–373. 271

 

295

and particularly that he may take advantage of the many opportunities for itinerant preaching and colportage in Shanghai.279 The work method of Burns is easily understood when we recall his disinterest in any church formation objective. Thus his strategy was identical to that of the early Pohlman whose extensive method consisted in itinerant oral preaching on the largest geographical scale possible or available. In the case of Young, it was around the start of 1854 that he (if at all) gained the ability to preach in Amoy. Even so, his own accounts seemed to suggest that if he indeed can preach in the vernacular, he can do so only to a very limited extent and only with some Chinese help.280 But inasmuch as he reckoned himself as primarily given to an educational objective (and at one time secondarily to medical work), it should be no surprise that he never devoted much time himself directly to the work of preaching. Nevertheless that he believed in preaching is amply attested by his consistent eﬀorts to create preaching opportunities within his work spheres for those who can do so.281 Therefore similar with Burns, the absence of a church formation objective on Young’s part is the main factor which explains the lack of interest in methods related to the making of (not mere converts but) church members. Unlike Burns, however, Young would not have been able to engage in the work of intensive oral instruction even were it his desire, for the reason that he never really possessed the required degree of linguistic ﬂuency. Both Johnston and Douglas wholeheartedly adopted the RCA position on oral preaching and instruction. According to Johnston one factor of the missionary success at Amoy as compared to other places was the immediate commencement of the work of preaching by the earliest missionaries.282 Having learned the local dialect at the Straits of Malacca, they were able to ‘preach the Gospel fully from the ﬁrst, and being men of experience[,] no time was lost in

279 Burns from Shanghai, 5 October 1855, Mess (1856) pp. 21–22. Cf. Burns from Shanghai, 13 December 1855, Mess (1856) pp. 120–122; Burns from ‘Tsing Poo’, 25 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 145–146. 280 See Young of 11 January 1854, Mess (1854) p. 217. Cf. also Young of 6 July 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 315–316. 281 See 2.3 supra. 282 Johnston of February 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 162–163. The other factors were the general friendliness of the natives and the cooperative spirit among the three Missions.

296

 

tentative eﬀorts [as] they set to work on a tried system, and went steadily on with it’.283 Although it is fairly obvious we are here being fed with faulty historical information (recall Pohlman’s shift away from itinerant preaching), yet it should be as obvious that Johnston was oﬀering us his methodologic persuasion, i.e. he was convinced that preaching is the superior mode of mission work. On account of the conviction about the immediate need for oral preaching, Johnston in the month following the departure of Burns and Young had taken to the maintaining of Chinese assistants ‘without waiting for the opinions of friends at home’.284 One cannot help but notice the sense of urgency motivating this action. Nor was it a matter of unstudied strategy devised in a moment of panic following the removal of all his fellow EP agents. This was evinced in the Edinburgh Bible Society aﬀair which concerned an oﬀer of ‘liberal aid’ made ‘in the cause of pure Bible circulation’.285 In response to that oﬀer, Johnston expressed appreciation but declined to accept it explicating his actions primarily286 on principial grounds. Not that he did not see any value at all in the printed page, for by then he had been employing Chinese colporteurs both in and outside Amoy for a few months already. But as a matter of principle, the distribution of tracts and of the Bible should be done ‘in connexion with the preaching of the Gospel’ which was why Johnston ‘regard[ed] the employment of CHRISTIAN agents as essential ’.287 At the same time, after communicating to the said Bible Society his non-need for more print materials, Johnston mentioned his need for at least £100 per annum to maintain the Chinese workers (even though the existing native agency under him required a higher cost than that).288 Whether or not this was at all an oblique attempt to ask for ﬁnancial donation for his own object, it certainly revealed Johnston’s high valuation of the work of oral preaching and instruction.

283

Ibid. Johnston to the Secretary of the Edinburgh Bible Society, from Amoy, 20 December 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 178–180. 285 Johnston of 20 December 1854. 286 A secondary reason for declining the oﬀer was the ready availability of ample supply. The LMS had placed at Johnston’s disposal ‘an unlimited supply’ while the PCE had collected a sum to print 5,000 complete Bibles. 287 Johnston of 20 December 1854 (all-capitals and italics original). 288 Ibid. 284

 

297

While it was very clear Johnston believed in the oral method, we can only say that it is evident he had some inclination toward the intensive approach. In line with the emphasis on oral instruction, the work of the out-of-town literature distribution under his direction covered a radius limited only to twenty to thirty miles. Of the two reasons given for this spatial restriction, the second should be of primary interest to us. Firstly, the distances are manageably traveled at ‘almost all seasons of the year, without much risk to a European constitution’. Secondly, Amoy is accessible by regular public water transportation to those within this vicinity who wished to be further instructed. Evidently colportage was considered worthwhile within this radius only because the recipients of print materials can practically come under the inﬂuence of oral teaching at Amoy where stated work already existed. But as the EP missionary never attained language proﬁciency, he was never in a position to undertake intensive instruction much less to discharge full pastoral duties. Thus we lack the proof of concrete action on his part to argue that he did such work and can only settle our case at the level of inclination. But there are two other considerations to note. First, his favourable stance on the strict admission policy made it clear that he valued good quality church members, thus rendering it the greater likelihood that he was for intensive instruction. Second, we do not ﬁnd from him any statement to the contrary in relation to the RCA manner of instruction. This negative proof is valuable in the present case because a contrary statement can easily refute our circumstantial evidence. In conclusion we may say Johnston was at least inclined toward, if not in real agreement with, the intensive oral instruction method of the RCA. While the case for Johnston’s adherence to the intensive method was not very strong, that of Douglas is deﬁnitely more promising. When Swanson later pointed out that one of the things Douglas ‘set himself ’ to do was ‘the earnest, faithful, and loving preaching of the Gospel’,289 it is not at all impossible that the informational source of the former was the latter himself. With reference to the two things Douglas determined to do, the ﬁrst being the task of preaching (the other being the organisation of a truly Chinese church), Swanson

289

Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, p. 63.

298

 

commented that the former followed the lead of the other missionaries ‘already in the ﬁeld’ and later became more and more convinced that these were the proper courses to pursue. 290 More signiﬁcantly, Douglas virtually confessed in 1859 that his view on oral preaching as the foremost mission method in Amoy actually derived from Talmage.291 As we have already seen that the RCA had shifted from the extensive (itinerant) to the intensive method even before the EPM came to Amoy, there is no question that Douglas meant the intensive oral method. Also in that the quotation given by Douglas came from a letter Talmage had written in early 1856,292 there is ground for saying the former was upholding the RCA method even before the Sinkoe event. When Douglas drew support for the position from English Presbyterian standards and from the Alexander Duﬀ so highly respected in EP circles, one is assured that he was no mindless parrot. The citation from the Westminster Shorter Catechism was to the point: ‘. . . it is especially the preaching of the Word, which the spirit of God employs as the agency for adding to the Church such as shall be saved.’293 No less pointed was Duﬀ ’s reminder that the means of evangelising the heathen is not ‘the distribution of the Scriptures in the ﬁrst instance’ but ‘the voice, the living voice, pouring forth God’s truth, in articulate utterance from a glowing regenerate heart . . .’294 Thus it can be stated with good conﬁdence that among all the EP missionaries of the period, Douglas surely was an adherent of the intensive oral method pursued by the RCA since 1846. Relatedly it should be pointed out that in light of the man’s great inﬂuence within his Mission, the adoption of the method by Douglas carried great implications for the future of the EP work in Banlam. Our survey above reveals that while all of the four earliest EP missionaries uniformly upheld the oral method of Gospel proclamation, yet dis-uniformity sets in when it comes to attitude toward the intensive mode of the oral instruction method. Both Burns and Young were disinterested in any church formation objective and therefore in the extant sources expressed no explicit opinion about the intensive method. Johnston had a high valuation of the work of

290 291 292 293 294

Pages 63–64. Douglas of December 1859, in Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 62–63. See Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Johnston, Glimpses, pp. 62–63 (italics original). Ibid. (italics original).

 

299

oral preaching but we are not absolutely certain that his attitude toward the intensive approach was equally strong. However there is reason to think that at the very least he was inclined towards the RCA method. With Douglas we have the strength of his own confession to aﬃrm that his position on the intensive oral method duplicated that of Talmage. But even though it cannot be claimed that the EP missionaries were every one in full agreement with the intensive method of the RCA, yet the diﬀerences were inconsequential because when things really mattered, there was consensus. That is to say, in the end it does not really matter that Burns and Young did not express any opinion on the intensive method. Nor that the position of Johnston is possibly open to question. What matters is that Douglas accepted the RCA methodology. His endorsement is the crux of the matter for two reasons. One, it was he alone among the EP men who was at the Sinkoe event of 1856. His approval and acceptance of both the organised Consistory and the underlying RCA methodology which helped to make that act of organisation possible comprised the entire EP dimension at that signiﬁcant occasion. Therefore the diﬀerences among the EP missionaries over the intensive method which existed before 1856 were inconsequential, for when things mattered the most, there happened to be full agreement between the RCA and the EPM. The other reason is this: It was under Douglas that the church work of the EPM attained a sure footing, enabling it to consolidate and expand. Since in the post-1856 period we ﬁnd no alternative view within the British Mission to that held by Douglas and his RCA colleagues, the obvious implication is that the other EP missionaries who came afterwards followed in the methodological footsteps of their senior colleagues. This means the EP churches which joined with the RCA churches in forming the Taihoey in 1862 were all formed and informed by the same methodology. Admission and quality control In the post-1856 period the RCA continued to uphold its strict baptismal and admission standards. Still in operation were the requirements of knowledge, heart-change,295 opium-abstinence and Sabbath-

295 E.g. Talmage of 16 July 1858; Doty of 4 September 1858; Doty of 17 May 1859; Ostrom of 8 December 1859; Talmage of 23 February 1861; cf. Rapalje from Amoy, 6 February 1862. All of the letters are from 723CM/Bx1.

300

 

keeping.296 Other criteria appeared in the form of the ground for disciplinary action which included ‘unholy living’,297 taking a wife without a proper marriage,298 gambling,299 usury,300 suicide attempt,301 ‘idolatry/Mariolatry’,302 ‘uncleanness’,303 etc. As before, the practice of delaying admission remained at work.304 For instance, Talmage wrote in spring of 1860 that ‘[w]e still have a large number of inquirers, many of whom we trust may be received in due time.’305 More than a year later when the missionaries were hoping to soon admit ﬁve or six into the Chiohbe church, they also knew that ‘several more [inquirers] are well spoken of, but we must of necessity use a great deal of caution.’306 Likewise to maintain membership quality control, disciplinary actions were frequently taken. In the 1856–57 there were four excommunications at Amoy and one at Chiohbe.307 Four more cases were registered at Amoy in 1858–59308 and thirteen to fourteen suspensions during 1857–59.309 From 1860 to 1863 there were ﬁve excommunications including one at Chiohbe310 as well as twenty suspensions including eight at Chiohbe.311 However on a few occasions, we ﬁnd the missionaries ready to entertain exceptional cases. In May 1861, Tho and his wife from Kangthau were baptised at Sinkoe despite their greatly limited knowledge about the Christian faith. With consideration for their illiteracy, both the missionaries and the Consistory allowed personal sincerity to satisfactorily compensate for knowledge deﬁciency.312 In like fashion, the

296

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 14 August 1861. 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 6 April 1860. 298 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 8 April 1861; Talmage of 14 August 1861. 299 Ostrom of 8 April 1861. 300 Talmage of 14 August 1861. 301 Ibid. The same lady was mentioned in Ostrom of 18 July 1861. 302 Talmage of 14 August 1861. 303 Rapalje of 6 February 1862. 304 E.g. Doty of 16 August 1858; 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 5 November 1858; Talmage of 30 April 1860; Rapalje of 18 May 1861. 305 Talmage of 30 April 1860 (italics added). 306 Kip of 25 December 1861 (italics added). 307 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty of 17 September 1857); AR-BFM (1858) p. 11. 308 AR-BFM (1859) p. 4; (1860) p. 19, cf. (1859) p. 11. 309 Doty of 15 September 1857; AR-BFM (1858) p. 11; (1859) p. 4; (1860) p. 19. 310 AR-BFM (1862) p. 11; (1864) p. 13. 311 AR-BFM (1861) pp. 13–14; (1862) p. 11; (1864) p. 13. Four members were restored at Amoy in 1860. 312 Rapalje of 18 May 1861. 297

 

301

mother of the barber at Kangthau was admitted at Sinkoe on the basis of her ‘change of heart’. Her irregular attendance313 makes the non-mention of the element of doctrinal knowledge somewhat conspicuous. Another form of exception relates to the policy of not giving monetary assistance to inquirers, as it was not applied in 1859 to Hong Khi (not the EP worker).314 But such instances do not negate the fact that the RCA normally maintained its stringent policy. To begin with, cases like the above were not many in number and all were perceived as exceptional in character. The dispensation of doctrinal knowledge was applied because of illiteracy on the part of the candidates (including presumably the barber’s mother). Furthermore there was no indication the other admission criteria were relaxed. In the case of Hong Khi, ﬁnancial assistance was given on account of illness caused by extreme poverty and the lack of winter clothings. Aside from the fact that the amount given was just for acquiring warm clothes, it seems that by the time the missionaries already had a good idea of his sincerity, so that the risk of making a ‘rice-Christian’ was probably thought to be somewhat remote. Speaking in general terms, there was therefore good continuity within the ranks of the RCA from the times of Pohlman until the Taihoey event as far as the policy of strict admission and membership quality control is concerned. On the EP side, we begin our discussion with Johnston under whom EP church work was ﬁrst attempted. As the sickly missionary was also linguistically incompetent during his Amoy times,315 the task of admission was wholly done by his RCA colleagues according to the Dutch-American admission standards. Yet Johnston expressed no dissatisfaction about the RCA procedure of doing things. Thus in commenting on the converts baptised during the ﬁrst quarter of 1855, he implied that ‘the proofs of progressive knowledge and experience manifested’316 were weighty considerations for admission. Likewise counting as merits on the part of Chinese Christians were ardent Sabbath-keeping (Hey Sew and Tan Bu-siat) and resolute dissociation with ‘idolatry’ to the extent of ‘leaving the paternal roof, to which every Chinaman clings so fondly’ (Tan Khey).317 Also 313 314 315 316 317

Ostrom of 3 June 1861. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 20 April 1859. See 4.3 supra. Johnston of ca. March 1855, Mess (1855) p. 198. See pp. 197–198.

302

 

the young Kang-lo was baptised by Doty in November 1854 only after he had reformed from opium addiction.318 Of his anti-opium position, Johnston never tried to keep a secret even after he had left Amoy.319 Furthermore if his later writings mean anything at all, Johnston did seem to have shared the RCA policy with sincere conviction. Thus later looking back over ﬁfty years of EP work, he declared approvingly that the strict admission policy implied the likelihood to be greater that fewer converts had been admitted than should have been320 and that even the impressive church growth of 1872–96 had not been at the expense of that policy.321 Along the same line, he commented with reference to the early work of the Canadian Presbyterian mission at Tam-sui that their ‘chief danger is in trusting to the mere profession of faith . . . without requiring the evidence of works’.322 That Johnston aﬃrmed the strict baptism and admission policy is therefore quite an unequivocal matter. On his part Douglas was able to converse in the Amoy tongue only in early 1856 at the earliest.323 The ﬁrst baptisms which were oﬃciated by him at Pechuia actually occurred a bit later in August.324 Until that time, the examination and admission of applicants were done by the Americans. As in the case of Johnston, the records revealed a Douglas who was in full agreement with the RCA admission policy. The ﬁrst time we get the impression325 that he was examining baptismal applicants on his own is during the visit to Maping in mid-May 1856. After interviewing the thirteen inquirers, Douglas maintained that it was ‘necessary to delay their admission till they are more fully instructed and more tried in their adherence to the gospel’.326 The following month Douglas was with Talmage at Pechuia where ﬁve male adults were baptised including one exopium smoker who gained admission only ‘after long trial of his conversion and of his stedfastness’.327 That same day twelve appli-

318

See Doty to Burns [Britain], November 1854, Mess (1855) pp. 180–181. [ Johnston], The opium trade in China (1858) = PFS1/Bx94/F2/I1. 320 CAF, pp. 345–346. 321 CAF, p. 374, cf. pp. 372–374. 322 CAF, p. 379 (italics original). 323 See Douglas to the New College Missionary Society (Edinburgh), from Amoy, 3 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 119–120. 324 See Douglas from Amoy, 21 August 1856, AR-SA (1856) p. 5. 325 We can only speak of our impression, for Douglas did not mention having any RCA missionary or Chinese companion with him in the interview room. 326 Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 337–338. 327 Douglas from Amoy, 19 June 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 338–339. 319

 

303

cants from Maping and another four from Pechuia were denied baptism and made to wait until such time when ‘they have been more fully tried and examined’.328 Highlighting the strictness was the fact that among those from Maping were three (presumably aged) men who came on hired chairs because they could not walk the seven to eight mile journey. In both cases we see some reference to the dual test of knowledge and sincerity. On an earlier occasion, Douglas also exhibited an attitude toward religious suﬀerings which appeared identical to that of the RCA missionaries. Positive value was seen in the religious persecution at Chiohbe and Pechuia (lasting from July 1855) which he believed to have revealed the converts’ readiness to suﬀer for their faith and to have resulted in ‘the increased zeal of the infant Churches’.329 Douglas was especially impressed with the Pechuia cloth-merchant whose zero resistance to an oﬃcer of the mandarin intending plunder eﬀectively disarmed the latter who left without doing any harm. Therefore whether alone or in company with some RCA missionary, Douglas clearly and heartily operated with the American policy. Even after August 1856, the same strictness was upheld by the EP missionaries themselves at all their stations, viz. Pechuia,330 Maping,331 Anhai,332 Kangkhau,333 Chiangchiu334 and Emungkang.335 The need for some proof of a real ‘heart-work’ was still required, as illustrated by the case of Lampeng from Pechuia. Though he was for long a candidate with exemplary knowledge and conduct, ‘yet from some reason which we could hardly express, neither we nor the elders felt warranted to admit him’. It was only after a quarrel incident showed him ‘the sinfulness of his heart’ and ‘his need of salvation’ that he was baptised.336 Likewise the delayed admission of the ‘self-righteous’ man of Anhai337 reminds us of the rich tea merchant whose ‘self-righteousness’ was condemned during Pohlman’s time. Also Sabbath-keeping continued to be ‘the great outward sign’ 328

Ibid. Douglas of 3 January 1856. 330 E.g. Douglas from Amoy, 16 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 253; Swanson from Amoy, 3 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 281ﬀ. 331 Douglas from Amoy, 4 September 1858, Mess (1858) p. 386. 332 E.g. Douglas from Amoy, 21 November 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 81ﬀ. 333 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 20 April 1860. 334 Douglas from Amoy, 9 October 1861, Mess (1862) p. 17. 335 E.g. Swanson from Amoy, 31 July 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 377ﬀ. 336 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Pechuia, 15 June 1860. 337 Douglas [from Chiangchiu], 17 July 1861, Mess (1861) p. 321. 329

304

 

of the true convert.338 Breaking with ancestral worship and all forms of ‘idolatry’339 including the refusal to contribute to such related festivals340 was the norm among EP members, just as was the prohibition of ‘making articles for idolatrous use’.341 As ‘a stringent rule’, opium-users were not admitted into any EP church.342 Thus although his sincerity was ‘very soon’ conﬁrmed, the ‘very old man’ who ‘was one of the earliest candidates’ at Maping died without being admitted, for the singular reason that he was unable to cease the medicinal use of opium.343 Although Douglas knew of his several ‘strong’ attempts to stop and had ‘reason to believe that it was a similar eﬀort which hastened his death’, the EP policy was never compromised throughout the long and dramatic trial. The policy of delayed admission was similarly observed. For instance, it was after a ‘long probation’ that Wat of Pechuia ﬁnally gained admission in 1856.344 The time-test was also applied to the father and son from Chiangchiu who in early 1858 came to Amoy ‘chieﬂy, if not solely’ to learn about Christianity.345 By May the father looked hopeful, his religious knowledge ‘having advanced considerably’ but still it was deemed ‘time alone can test the reality of the work in his soul.’346 In the case of the son, the missionaries were also hesitant in proclaiming him a true convert even though he continued to observe the Sabbath after returning inland. When Douglas expressed the suspicion that such ‘may be only ﬁlial obedience’,347 we see again the Pohlman principle of guilty-or-insincere-unlessproven-otherwise. Again, in 1861 Douglas found several ‘very decided cases of real heart-work’ but nevertheless delayed admission for the sake of caution, especially as these were to be ‘the ﬁrst stones’ laid in Chiangchiu.348 Eventually it was in the following January that the 338

Douglas from Amoy, 9 October 1861, Mess (1862) p. 17 (italics original). Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 251; Burns from ‘CheohBey’ [= Chiohbe], 19 April 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 221ﬀ. 340 Swanson from Amoy, 21 September 1860, Mess (1860) pp. 380ﬀ 341 Douglas from Amoy, 16 June 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 285ﬀ. 342 Douglas of 4 September 1858, Mess (1858) p. 386. 343 Ibid. 344 Douglas of 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. 345 Smith from Amoy, 11 February 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 147ﬀ. 346 Sandeman from Amoy, 2 June 1858, Mess (1858) p. 285; cf. 723CM/Bx1, Doty of 22 March 1858. 347 Douglas from Amoy, 20 October 1858, Mess (1859) p. 22. 348 Douglas from Amoy, 9 October 1861, Mess (1862) p. 17. Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 21 November 1861, Mess (1862) pp. 81ﬀ. 339

 

305

ﬁrst baptisms took place.349 For the same reason, the admission of the ﬁrst Kangkhau members was postponed.350 The policy of delay was similarly applied at Maping.351 Likewise operant was the principle of delay-if-in-doubt, as happened to the Maping middle-ager who though ‘fully approved of by the Church’ had to wait about a year until his ‘secondary wife’ had been disposed of. The case was in fact ‘put oﬀ ’ because ‘we could not absolutely command him to put her away without due regard to the placing of her in circumstances free from temptation’ but neither are ‘we’ unaware of ‘the diﬃculties attending the admission of such a person into the Church’ although ‘we could ﬁnd no scriptural authority for excluding him . . .’352 Even if the doubt here was not about candidate sincerity or knowledge but rather missionary uncertainty about the proper course of action, the principle was the same: Delay if in doubt, any doubt at all. Like the RCA the concern of the EPM was by no means limited to the pre-admission condition of the candidates but included also their post-baptismal quality.353 Perseverance amidst persecution was still regarded an evidence of faith. For example, on account of their faithful church attendance despite suﬀering from theft and other forms of persecution, the Maping converts were able to win missionary commendation.354 In contrast, the failure of the Chiohbe house-seller to attend church after being released from a two-year imprisonment was interpreted as proving the man lacked ‘the love of Jesus’.355 Active preaching was deemed another sign of true faith, as in the case of the Soatau woman baptised in 1857.356 The concern for membership quality control occasioned many disciplinary actions which include those at Pechuia (1859),357 Maping (1860)358

349

EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 23 January 1862. EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 20 April 1860. 351 Swanson from Amoy, 9 April 1861, Mess (1861) p. 228. 352 Douglas from Amoy, 7 April 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 223ﬀ. 353 E.g. Mess (1858) p. 149. 354 Sandeman from Amoy, 10 April 1857, Mess (1857) p. 227. Cf. Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 251. 355 Sandeman [from Amoy], 1 August 1857, Mess (1857) p. 348. 356 Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 251. 357 Douglas from Amoy, 16 June 1859, Mess (1859) pp. 285ﬀ; Grant from Amoy, 8 October 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 19ﬀ. 358 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas of 20 April 1860; Talmage of 30 April 1860; Grant from Amoy, 8 December 1860, Mess (1861) pp. 84ﬀ. 350

306

 

and especially later at Anhai (1862–64).359 In 1861 there were three suspensions and one excommunication at Maping while Pechuia had one suspension.360 Possible evidence to the contrary came from Swanson who mildly criticised Douglas for being ‘sometimes less suspicious of [Chinese] than perhaps he should have been’.361 However one is left uninformed whether the speciﬁc referent was to his dealings with church members or outsiders or baptismal applicants. It is not at all unimaginable that a paternal ﬁgure should exhibit leniency or laxity toward his ‘children in the faith’. Nor that the plea of a needy outsider should pull the cords of humanly compassion. At any rate, since Swanson was unclear about his referent, the proper course is to conclude on the strength of positive evidence that it was unlikely Douglas would lower his guard in the matter of church admission. The most which can be said is that Douglas was occasionally inconsistent. But even this claim lacks solid evidence to support it. Like the denominational factor, methodology was a reason both Missions felt less aﬃnity with the LMS. Because the Americans highly valued their strict admission policy, they were quite critical of the lax standards of Gutzlaﬀ, the RCA mission at Arcot (India) and the LMS missions at Shanghai, Canton and Amoy.362 As illustrated by the case of the 1848 baptisms about which the RCA missionaries expressed cautious reservation,363 the Amoy LMS on the whole were not as austere as the Dutch-Americans thought they should properly be. Consider also the tea-dealer who after hearing the preachings of LMS missionaries at Young’s house for just ‘a few weeks’ applied for baptism and was admitted.364 Although by 1861 the LMS had become ‘more careful’,365 the denominational gap remained in existence and persisted to counter any thought of organic

359 Douglas from the Gospel Boat, 2 June 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 287ﬀ; Douglas from Amoy, 21 December 1863, Mess (1864) p. 87; Douglas from Amoy, 6 February 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 211–212; Douglas from Amoy, 7 July 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 346ﬀ. 360 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 24 February 1862. 361 Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, pp. 62–63. 362 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 5 July 1861; Doty from Amoy, 5 April 1862. Cf. the EP’s critical attitude toward the lax policy of the Canadian Mission in Formosa (CAF, pp. 378ﬀ ). 363 See 3.2 supra. 364 Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) pp. 287–288. 365 Talmage of 5 July 1861.

 

307

union with the churches connected with the British Congregationalist mission. Thus the EPM maintained practically the same standards of admission and quality control as the RCA. Moreover cases of some RCAexamined candidate being baptised by the EPM366 implies a pre-existing consensus on methodology. In fact the same policy was maintained even beyond 1862 including at the new stations such as Anhai,367 Khiboey368 and Liongbunsi.369 Certainly methodological similarity facilitated intimate cooperation. At the same time, sustained cooperation helped ensure methodological continuity. Inasmuch as methodology hindered close cooperation with the LMS in church work but fostered intimacy with the EPM, it was a facilitating factor of union. The major likenesses between the two Missions which we have been discussing above should be seen as part of a larger picture of commonality. The missionary ranks were characterised by an unusual degree of mental agreement and social harmony. For instance, there was solid agreement over the ‘term’ question370 on which a consensus among China missionaries was achieved neither in 1877 nor afterwards.371 In addition, the three senior missionaries had long China careers—Doty (1844–64), Talmage (1847–89) and Douglas (1855–77)— which enabled them to see things through, that is, both to see through the work as well as to see through the Banlam context in which they worked. Coupled with likemindedness, this allowed for visionary, methodological and executive continuity. Aside from the mental, there was the social harmony which existed within each Mission372 making possible not only concerted unilateral action but also bilateralisms. There was no disrupter of uniﬁed teamwork like Shandong’s Crawford373 or Fuzhou’s Peet.374 By their own grateful confession, 366 E.g. the nephew of Deacon Chukak at Pechuia. Grant from ‘Bay Pay’ [= Maping], 9 March 1860, Mess (1860) p. 185. 367 E.g. Swanson from Amoy, 31 July 1862, Mess (1862) pp. 377ﬀ. 368 E.g. Swanson from Amoy, 28 March 1864, Mess (1864) p. 208. 369 E.g. Douglas from Amoy, 4 August 1864, Mess (1864) p. 376; Maxwell from ‘Baypay’ [= Maping], 20 September 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 410ﬀ. 370 Talmage, ‘Should the native Churches in China be united’, in Records 1877, p. 437. The thorny ‘term’ question mainly pertains to the proper Chinese rendering for the word ‘God’. 371 Records 1877, p. 471. The issue still plagues present-day Chinese Churches. 372 E.g. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857; Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, pp. 66–67. 373 See Hyatt, Our ordered lives confess (1976) pp. 3–62. 374 Carlson, Foochow, p. 66.

308

 

both Missions believed a key factor contributing to Banlam’s success to be the smooth interpersonal relations which existed among the missionaries.375 More signiﬁcantly, both Talmage and Douglas were as united in the matter of union as they were about the ideal church. Swanson did not hesitate to proclaim that ‘to them more than to any others do we owe almost all that is distinctive there [Amoy] in union and in methods of work.’376 Writing after the Taihoey event, Ostrom revealed how his views were changed after arriving in China and that ‘the views of the mission’ were those which Talmage ‘[had] so frequently expressed during the last few years . . .’377 This RCA missionary consensus was especially valuable in the face of the strong opposition from the home Church in America.378 In other words, the union project was spearheaded by the leading member of each Mission and received unanimous missionary support. In this Chapter we have seen that the formation of the Taihoey was preliminary to the objective of ordaining Chinese pastors. With the latter regarded the ﬁnal step in devolution on the local church level, both the Taihoey event and the ordinations of 1863 were properly the last stages in the realisation of the Talmage ideal among the RCA Amoy churches. For union, historical cooperation was the chief motivator while the major facilitating factors included a common church vision, denominational compatibility and methodological similarity. In the phenomenon of the Taihoey, we see therefore the interaction of pre-intention (devolution) and circumstance (union). The latter provided an extra developmental dynamic to the former, modifying it without altering its essence, thereby enhancing the progressive quality of the ﬁnal outcome.

375 Doty of 7 October 1857; Swanson, ‘His missionary career’, in Douglas, Memorials, pp. 66–67. 376 Swanson, ‘Talmage’, in FYC, p. 274. 377 AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 22 November 1862. 378 E.g. 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 22 April 1862; Doty from Amoy, 17 May 1862.

CHAPTER EIGHT

AN ASSESSMENT Our study of ecclesiastical devolution and union in South Fujian would not be complete without an assessment of the accomplishment taken as a whole as well as taken by its parts. The present intention is to undertake this task of evaluation by way of specifying the merits and limits of the Banlam achievement, by comparing it with some selected south China Protestant missions from the nineteenth century as well as with twentieth century ideals, and lastly, by assessing the respective contributions of the Dutch-American missionaries, the English Presbyterian missionaries and the Chinese Christians. Comprising the foci of our analysis are self-propagation, self-government, self-support and union. The ﬁnal section of the Chapter contains also some suggested areas for future research. 8.1. Self-propagation Since extended discussion has previously been had about Banlam self-propagation, we therefore restrict ourselves to a few comments of a general nature. In terms of merits, a few points may be made. First, we have seen the extensive amount of self-propagation work done by the Chinese as well as the successes of both their personal and their ecclesial eﬀorts. Second, self-propagation can hardly be said to be an episodic phenomenon peculiar to our period. In fact, it became a persistent feature of the union Church even into the twentieth century. In 1864 when it was believed Banlam constituted almost a third of the total Protestant population of China, the growth was attributed largely to native self-propagation.1 In 1882, ‘crosscultural’ or (perhaps better) cross-linguistic work begun when the Hakka mission was launched with a subscription of $2002. However on account of linguistic diﬃculties, the work was later turned over

1 2

Mess (1864) pp. 122, 121. Talmage, Sketch, pp. 10, 11; WHP, p. 240; MacGillivray, Century, pp. 369–370.

310

 

to the RCA Mission and then eventually to the EP Swatow Mission. Nevertheless the Banlam sustenance of the Hakka outreach for eighteen years3 exhibited no small degree of great self-propagation zeal. Another instance was the Amoy Island station jointly maintained by the Amoy churches (since 1893) and still ongoing in 1905. By that year, work among the coastal islands had yielded six stations which included Quemoy and Tangsoan among others. Meanwhile the receipts for the home mission fund for 1904 registered $1,314.63 and the year ended with a balance of $760.64.4 Third, Banlam domestic missionary endeavours also became the model of self-propagation for other EP Missions. In particular, the Hakka mission inspired Swatow’s Namoa mission (1891) and possibly also the work of the South Formosa Presbytery (1886).5 Therefore Banlam self-propagation deserves no mean merits. For prevailing throughout our period and beyond as well as for its inspirational eﬀect, it became a lasting feature of Protestantism in south China at least until 1949. With reference to the limits of Banlam self-propagation, the ﬁrst and obvious aspect is geographico-linguistic in nature. Self-propagation eﬀorts were mainly exercised within the region of South Fujian where a local lingua franca prevailed. In terms of geographical conﬁnement, one is reminded of two possible exceptions. However the sending of Siboo (from Pechuia) to Singapore was at the request of the Free Church already there.6 Likewise the extension of the work into Formosa was actually an initiative of the EP Amoy Mission.7 Thus neither was properly to be regarded as an instance of Chinese selfpropagation. In connection with language limitation, it should also be mentioned that the Hakka mission was given away mainly because of linguistic diﬃculties. Aside from the geographico-linguistic dimension, the other limit was ﬁnancial in character. This we shall detail later. Suﬃce it to say for now that self-propagation eﬀorts undertaken on an organised self-support basis suﬀered retrenchment more than once for economic reasons.

3 4 5 6 7

Mess (1900) pp. 270ﬀ. MacGillivray, Century, p. 370. WHP, p. 249. More in Dale, Missions, pp. 59ﬀ; WHP, pp. 529ﬀ. WHP, ch. 5.

 

311

8.2. Self-government There is much to be said about the Banlam achievement in terms of ecclesiastical self-government. First of all, the installation of ‘elders’ in 1856 is signiﬁcant, for it was the ﬁrst instance of devolution at the highest level of non-clerical individual oﬃce and authority within Presbyterian polity. The practice of government by elders was easily received by the Chinese whose ‘sense of propriety’ preferred the entrusting of the rule to those advanced in age.8 Upholding the native tradition which assigned pre-eminence to the aged, the group of church elders resembled ‘the Assembly of village elders, which was a long-established system in Chinese social life’9. But this is not to say that every one of the four elders was considered aged by native standards. Gui was only about thirty-one years old while Chhoa was about ﬁfty-ﬁve.10 This explains why both the missionaries and the church members thought the limited term of oﬃce (following the RCA order) ‘seems admirably adapted to the condition of the Church here’11. Whereas the LMS preceded in having deacons12, the RCA ‘ruling elders’13 were the ﬁrst of its kind in Banlam. Even if there were no pastors until 186314, the lay elder was an equal of the ordained minister as far as ecclesiastical standing is concerned. For this reason, the installation of elders was considered a real attainment in self-government15. With this, another dimension was added to the requirements for baptism and church admission, viz. the ‘unanimous consent’ of the elders.16 Previously the Chinese did occasionally have a say in matters pertaining to the acceptance of applicants. For instance, the Pechuia inquirer was turned down by the missionaries in February 1854 at the advice of the Amoy converts who were previously preaching there (see supra). Likewise the ﬁrst baptisms at Chiohbe had to gain not only the consensus of the missionaries but

8

AR-BFM (1861) p. 15. WHP, p. 49. Cf. Dale, Opened, p. 21. 10 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty of 17 September 1857). 11 Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. 12 Douglas of 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. 13 AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 22 November 1862. Cf. Mess (1863) p. 189. 14 I.e. 29 March 1863. 723CM/Bx1, Blauvelt from Amoy, 10 April 1863. 15 Mess (1862) p. 188. 16 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 9

312

 

also that of the evangelists.17 However there were two important distinctions requiring notice. One, the said cases involved the inland where the missionaries were unable to supervise well, so that they had to rely on locally-stationed workers for more accurate personal assessment. Two, the most signiﬁcant diﬀerence is that in the preConsistory period, Chinese opinion was for missionary reference only and not of formal determinative value. In contradistinction, the elders were considering cases of applicants in Amoy and their judgment were binding in eﬀect.18 The same reality applied at Chiohbe.19 Beside admission, the elders exercised authority also in matters of discipline.20 Therefore in ordaining elders in 1856, the RCA missionaries were consciously creating a real power-sharing situation. Not only was the situation ‘something altogether new as regards those chosen to rule and those to be ruled’21 it was novel as well to those who had opted to henceforth co-rule. Second, it is to the credit of the missionaries that they did not condition self-government upon any form of self-support in 1856. This is what made possible the inauguration of political devolution at a time when there was yet no native minister; that is to say, at a time when no Chinese had yet qualiﬁed to assume the pastoral oﬃce. By 1862–63 when the elements of self-government and selfsupport were linked, the Chinese already had suﬃcient ability and training in ﬁnancial giving in order to make the next devolutionary move. Third, the Taihoey was a progressive devolutionary move toward self-government on another level. Its formation was the legal requirement for ordaining pastors, or, for the ‘full’ organisation of the local church. Even if the missionaries were still the only ones qualiﬁed to perform the ordination rites22, they sat in the Taihoey as equals with the elders. At its next meetings, the Taihoey assumed the authority to examine and ordain pastoral candidates as well as to organise a new church.23 As a statement of ecclesiastical independence and sovereignty, these authority-claims carried a political 17

See CAF, pp. 93–96. E.g. Doty of 29 May 1858; Talmage of 16 July 1858; 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 22 November 1858. 19 E.g. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom of 13 January 1862. 20 E.g. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 20 February 1862. 21 723CM/Bx1, Doty to Anderson, from Amoy, 15 September 1857 (enclosed in Doty from Amoy, 17 September 1857). 22 AER, Kip from Amoy, 7 October 1863, p. 3. 23 Talmage, History, pp. 27–28; 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 2 February 1863. 18

 

313

signiﬁcance that can hardly be overstated. Fourth, conﬁrming the ecclesiastical authority of the Taihoey, the missionaries recognised the full ministerial parity of the native pastors24. Thereafter the latter took ‘full charge’ of their churches, presiding at Consistorial meetings where decisions on admission and discipline were made with or without consulting the missionaries.25 Thus was completed the process of devolution at the local church level.26 Lastly, the missionary leadership thrived more on positive rather than negative motivation. Acting independently of the BFM, Talmage and Doty set out to realise their shared ideal of the native church. Afterwards Doty explained that the Sinkoe event was not only ‘in accordance with the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures’ but also ‘[g]uided by the necessities of the case’.27 For the missionaries, the exceptional character of the ﬁrst Consistory in Banlam justiﬁed a situational suspension of certain procedural norms. For sure it was not the case that there was no known precedent in RCA history. As a matter of fact, the organisation of the ﬁrst Dutch Reformed congregation in North America at a mill loft in New Amsterdam (1628) by Jonas Michaelius departed from the normal procedure whereby a committee from the sponsoring Classis28 was to examine the candidates, supervise the election of oﬃcers and then oﬃcially declare the church organised.29 The episode was no doubt familiar to Doty and Talmage both of whom graduated from the denominational Theological Seminary at New Brunswick (New Jersey). Likewise surely known to them was the book published by Abeel in 1838. In it, he used the ex-Brahmin as his mouthpiece to argue, ‘Even the grosser forms of church government, as they exist in Christian lands, cannot at ﬁrst be introduced under all circumstances among the heathen. The missionary is at times obliged . . . to model his materials, not according to prescribed rules, but to existing exigencies.’30 For Abeel the mission theorist, the matter of church government 24 Talmage, ‘Ecclesiastical relations’, in FYC, p. 296; AER, Doty from Amoy, 10 September 1863 (entitled ‘Thoughts and Conclusions’), p. 4; 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 28 March 1864. 25 723CM/Bx1, Annual report of the Amoy Mission, from Amoy, 31 December 1863. 26 AR-BFM (1862) p. 12. 27 Doty of 15 September 1857. 28 In this case, the Classis of Enkhuizen in Holland. 29 G.F. De Jong, The Dutch Reformed Church in the American Colonies (1978) pp. 17ﬀ. 30 Missionary Convention, p. 90.

314

 

belongs to the category of the situational and contingent. Therefore the assertion of exigential prerogative by the Banlam missionaries with regard to church organisation was an incarnation of Abeel’s principle and a recapitulation of the spirit which gave birth to the Dutch-American Church in the New World more than two hundred years earlier. In contrast to the Banlam devolution of the mid-nineteenth century, the indigenous church movement of the 1920s thrived more on negative rather than positive motivation. Pertaining to the latter, some inspiration derived from the China missionary conferences (1877, 1890, 1907), the Edinburgh world conference (1910) and its subsequent Continuation activities, the National Christian Conference (1922) and the various pre-1927 union movements31. However following the Guomindang-Gongchandang split in 1927, it was the cessation of the anti-Christian movement which brought the indigenisation movement to an end.32 Even the formation of the Church of Christ in China gained some impetus from the Boxer uprising, the weakening of Western optimism following the First World War and the anti-foreignism and anti-Christianism of the May Fourth movement. Similarly Chinese autonomy from the missionaries during the Japanese occupation came about not by aﬃrmative Protestant action.33 But in mid-nineteenth century Amoy, anti-foreignism/Christianism was somewhat weak (unlike the 1920s) and no politically-motivated foreign occupational forces existed (unlike the Japanese period). In a sense, it may be argued that the closed interior and the fact of missionary shortage constituted negative motivation; but the reality was that these did not bring about like devolutionary progress in the case of other missions. Thus the occurrence of ecclesiastical devolution in Banlam cannot be explained other than by some form of signiﬁcant positive motivation on the part of the missionaries and the Chinese. As we have previously explained, the positive motivation of devolution was the Talmage ideal. Yet the primary genius of Banlam was not the invention of that ideal. By the mid-1840s, the Threeself idea (in contrast to the full terminological formula of later times) was already known to Rufus Anderson.34 Shenk ventures further by 31 See, e.g. Latourette (1929) pp. 662ﬀ; W.C. Merwin, Adventure in unity (1974) ch. 2; A.R. Kepler, ‘Movements for Christian unity’, CCYB (1928) pp. 73–89. 32 Chao, ‘Chinese’. 33 Brook, ‘Toward independence’. 34 Harris, Nothing but Christ, pp. 75–76, 113.

 

315

claiming that the idea was already ‘conventional wisdom’ by that decade.35 Rather Banlam’s genius lies in the willingness of the missionaries to ‘let go’ (in contrast to the Sandwich Islands Mission of the ABCFM) and their refusal to maintain a structural hierarchy between themselves and their Chinese equals (in contrast to Anderson’s advice to the Armenian Mission)36. A key diﬀerence between Anderson and Talmage is that one was an armchair theoretician-executive prodding his ﬁeld agents to get things done while the other was a self-motivated ﬁeld-based implementor getting things done. Just as seventeenth century Rome had to deal with missionary opposition to the raising up of a native clergy and bishops in Portuguese Africa, India and Brazil as well as Spanish Philippines and America37, so too Anderson and Henry Venn38 struggled against their missionaries in the matter of the making of indigenous churches. In Banlam however the missionaries were the ones who were taking the lead in doing just that. Therefore both the Sinkoe and Taihoey events as well as the pastoral ordinations involved real power transfer. For this reason, they were truly historic moments in ‘political’ devolution within an ecclesiastical context. Such feats were facilitated by the transplantationfriendly39 and devolution-friendly40 character of Presbyterianism. While Congregationalism may claim similar structural advantages, Episcopalism in China and elsewhere encountered more diﬃculties at devolution41 and the ﬁrst Chinese bishop was consecrated only in the twentieth century.42

35 W.R. Shenk, ‘The origins and evolution of the Three-selfs in relation to China’, IBMR (1990) p. 28. Cf. idem, ‘Rufus Anderson and Henry Venn: A special relationship?’, IBMR (1981) pp. 170–171; Williams, Ideal, pp. 2–9. 36 See Harris, Nothing but Christ, ch. 8. 37 C.R. Boxer, ‘The problem of the native clergy in the Portuguese and Spanish empires from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries’, Studies in Church History 6 (1970) pp. 85–105. 38 Williams, Ideal, pp. 22–51. 39 Mess (1864) pp. 244ﬀ. 40 H.F. Wallace (EPM Swatow): ‘In these times [1920s] there is reason to be thankful that the Presbyterian system aﬀords a method of transferring responsibility, safe from the jars that some other Missions have suﬀered.’ WHP, p. 360. 41 E.g. E. Stock, The history of the Church Missionary Society (1899) II: pp. 295, 589–594; T.E. Yates, Venn and Victorian Bishops abroad (1978) pp. 89–92, 108–109, 177–188; M. Warren, To apply the Gospel. Selections from the writings of Henry Venn (1971) pp. 67–68; idem, ‘The Church of England as by law established—Unﬁt for export?’ in L.S. Hunter (ed), The English Church (1966). 42 G.F.S. Gray, Anglicans in China (1996).

316

 

In examining the limits of the Banlam achievement in self-government, it is appropriate to begin by pointing out that to say simply that the Chinese gained ‘self-government’ is not accurate enough. For the devolution started in 1856 did not at the same time reach full consummation. First, the transfer of ecclesiastical leadership and authority was not total, for the resultant state was a case of powersharing between the missionaries and the Chinese elders. Second, although acting as co-governors with the Chinese elders in 1856, the missionaries still monopolised the unique role, function and authority of the pastoral oﬃce. In the absence of natives appointed to the latter post, the matter could not be helped. The recency of formal theological training and the irregularity of its execution meant that the ﬁrst ‘graduates’ could not be expected so soon. Where the pastoral function and authority (even if only partially) were not passed on to some native, the absence of a pastor becomes a limitation upon devolution. Thus even with the advent of Chinese representation in church government, the missionaries still held the leadership in a virtual sense. In other words, they shared the positional leadership with the Chinese elders but continued to be the actual leaders of the Amoy Church. Third, even after Chinese pastors were ordained into oﬃce, the chairmanships of the Consistories were not immediately transferred to them.43 Also the earliest records we have found of a Chinese moderator of the Taihoey dated from 1865 and 186644; even so, the elected post shifted between the missionaries and the natives during the 1870s45. On their part, the Chinese pastors of 1863 still regarded the foreign missionaries as their ‘special teachers and guides’ which condition the Westerners found in ‘every way desirable’.46 Consider, for instance, the statement that the native leaders met in Taihoey carrying out its functions ‘with our co-operation, and under our supervision’ so that they were ‘being trained’ for full self-government in the future.47 There

43 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 17 May 1862; AER, Doty from Amoy, 2 October 1862. 44 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 8 June 1865; PFS1/Bx94/F5, AR-SA (1867) p. 8. 45 PFS1/Bx9/F1/I3, ‘Annual report of Presbytery. A.D. 1873; Tung Chi 12th year’. 46 Rapalje of 7 October 1863; cf. AER, Kip from Amoy, 7 October 1863, p. 4. 47 Kip of 7 October 1863, p. 3.

 

317

is no question that the degree of self-government attained in our period fell short of the Talmage ideal. Fourth, by limiting devolution to the intangible, the missionaries continued to hold control over the physical centres of ecclesiastical life, i.e. the chapels. But it should be fairly said that were the missionaries to dispose of their ‘owned’ and rented premises, it is doubtful whether the Chinese would be able to purchase the property or take over the rentals. Even if no purchase be involved, one is still uncertain if the converts would be willing or able to shoulder the perennial maintenance of the ‘owned’ properties. Relatedly one wonders whether the Chinese were able to assume the support of the Mission-employed agents as well as the ﬁnancial sustenance of the inland work. In fact the missionaries believed the general membership to be economically weak (see infra) which is one reason why there was no property transfer. But other than this, there was actually a simpler explanation for non-transfer. For although the Sinkoe lot belonged legally to Ong, it belonged actually to the BFM (or earlier, the ABCFM) which also owned all the Mission properties. Thus any decision over ownership did not really rest with the missionaries. Fifth, the missionaries refused to be accountable to the Taihoey as a church court48. Although the latter may revoke their membership, it was no less an anomaly49 when certain full members of an ecclesiastical body were outside its disciplinary authority. When Talmage claimed this arrangement ‘rests on the will of [the Taihoey]’50, he had no more support for this than that he assumed the Chinese would think like him, since there was no indication of any sort that the matter had ever been actually discussed with the natives. Sixth, although pastoral leadership was devolved in 1863, missionary leadership did not terminate. Rather it continued and took on an additional dimension. It continued in the majority of the churches and stations which still had no native pastors. It took on another dimension when the missionaries eﬀectively assumed the

48 Talmage, ‘Ecclesiastical relations of Presbyterian missionaries specially of the Presbyterian missionaries at Amoy, China’, in FYC, pp. 297–298, 300; Talmage, History, pp. 41–42. 49 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, pp. 27–28; Dale, Missions, p. 14. 50 Talmage, in FYC, p. 297.

318

 

new ‘semi-oﬃcial post’ of mentor or adviser to the pastors. During 1864 ‘from time to time’ Doty and Kip held ‘special exposition of the New Testament epistles’ for the pastors.51 Reporting the erection of the Theological Hall in 1870, the CFM reiterated its policy on the ‘maintenance of the gospel in the Foreign Field [viz.]: we look for the planting of churches not to the missionaries from America, but to a Native Pastorate under the care of our Evangelists.’52 As pioneers and evangelists who desired to occupy all Banlam, the missionaries had no reason to want to be pastors of local congregations. But there was good reason to be ‘supervisors’ of pastors. Though both groups were peers in positional standing, both also knew they were not of perfectly equal status. Although the Chinese played a role in evangelisation and church life, the missionaries still retained great inﬂuence in terms of opinion and advice, or, moral leadership. Thus as the local congregational space opened for Chinese leadership, missionaries moved ‘upwards’ to regional and denominational leadership positions. Since the nation-wide Conferences of 1877, 1890 and 1907 were missionary conferences53, there was some national leadership space for foreigners but none for the Chinese. That came only after 1907 when the missionary establishment voluntarily invited natives to board the leadership vessel. But that was precisely what the Banlam missionaries had done half a century earlier. Seventh, self-governmental devolution was never completed in the nineteenth century. The Sinkoe devolution involved only one congregation while only two of the ﬁve organised churches had pastors in 1863. Furthermore even though the Taihoey agreed in April 1862 that the missionary element was to ‘gradual[l]y withdraw as the churches are passed over to the charge of Native Pastors’54, the ‘anomaly’ originally meant to be ‘temporary’ and applicable only to the ‘infant’ Church55 eventually outlasted the nineteenth century. Fifty years later, the transition of the ‘infant Church’ toward ‘full

51

AR-BFM (1865) p. 17. APGS (1870) p. 119 (italics added). 53 See J.C. Gibson, ‘The part of the Chinese Church in mission administration’, CR (1912) pp. 349ﬀ. 54 AER, Ostrom from Amoy, 7 April 1862. Cf. Doty of 10 September 1863 (‘Thoughts and Conclusions’), pp. 5–6 which said the ‘temporary’ Mission-Church relation was to be replaced by the permanent Pastor-Church relation. 55 Talmage, in FYC, p. 297. 52

 

319

self-government’ was still ongoing.56 Missionary supervision was still regarded a necessity for the native Church (and for sure, we may add, also for the ‘beneﬁt’ of the home Churches). Lastly, athough hitherto we have been using the term Classis quite freely ( just as the later RCA accounts did), the American missionaries did not consider the Taihoey a full-scale Classis. Thus the pastorselect were examined by the missionaries while ‘the body, as such, took no part . . .’57 Likewise the ordinations were done solely ‘on the authority of the missionaries.’58 In fact even among the missionaries there was divergence in understanding about the nature of the Taihoey which met in the spring of 1862. For Rapalje there were yet no ‘native classes’ six months after the pastoral ordinations.59 The same belief was held by Kip who reckoned the Taihoey a ‘Provisional Classis’ which hopefully ‘will in time grow to be a fully organized Classis . . .’60 In contrast to this ‘conservative’ view, Talmage regarded the Taihoey of spring 1862 to be ‘an incipient Classis’ which in autumn ‘became a real Classis, not fully developed as a Classis in a mature Church, but possessing the constituent elements and performing the functions of a Classis.’61 The principle at work here was function makes essence. The plurality of reckoning signiﬁes that the Taihoey was a novelty which each person interpreted in his own way. As a new phenomenon, it lacked a standard deﬁnition and could only be interpreted by the known category of Classis. Nonetheless some ambiguity remained as to its very nature, thus opening the room for divergent interpretations. Interestingly the EP missionaries did not regard the Taihoey as anything less than a Presbytery or Classis. Considering that the PCE accepted the Amoy Presbytery without reservations while the American Church initially opposed it, the ‘conservative’ missionary interpretation was possibly a case of ‘pulling the punch’ on the home Church during the height of the controversy in 1863. At any rate, the main point was that the Taihoey of spring 1862, although a devolutionary advancement, was not regarded a full Classis by all parties.

56 Dale, Missions (1907) p. 14; Dale, Opened (1913) p. 21; A.L. Warnshuis, Sketch of the Amoy Mission, China (1906) p. 18. 57 Talmage, History, pp. 26–27. 58 Kip of 7 October 1863, p. 3. 59 Rapalje of 7 October 1863. 60 Kip of 7 October 1863, pp. 3, 4–5. 61 Talmage, History, pp. 26–28.

 

320

8.3. Self-support The foundation of Banlam self-support was native liberality. During 1857–61 RCA Chinese benevolent contributions62 were63 as follows: Sinkoe-Tekchhiukha 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861

— — $315.76 341 471.33

Chiohbe

TOTAL

— — $105 136 200.29

$164.38 206.7764 420.76 477 671.62

For comparison, it may be pointed out that the 1876 per capita contributions at the American Methodist Episcopal Mission in Fuzhou was $0.80; the American Presbyterian Mission in Shandong, $1.00; LMS Amoy, $1.35; and the RCA, $1.84.65 On a broader scale, the RCA performance was said to be the best among the six ‘principal’ Protestant societies in China.66 Earlier in 1860, the average annual giving of the RCA was already more than $2 per communicant.67 After some time of economic recovery in the post-Taiping period, the RCA-EP giving stood at $1.48 per member.68 Adding interest to the phenomenon of Banlam liberality was the fact that poverty was prevalent among the church members69 including those in Amoy. The generally depressed condition of the economic life of the locals was so glaring that it did not take long for the earliest missionaries to notice. In 1846 Smith (CMS) noted the popu-

62 Calculated by Chinese year. Talmage from Amoy, 23 February 1861, Sower (1861) p. 23. 63 723CM/Bx1, Talmage of 31 December 1857; Talmage from Amoy, 15 June 1859. Also AR-BFM (1860–1862). 64 Included Chiohbe. AR-BFM (1859) p. 12. 65 Records 1877, pp. 480, 294–295, 297; ChronLMS (1878) pp. 256–257. Comparison could not be made with the EPM ﬁgure ($0.81) which was for allChina and Formosa. 66 I.e. American Methodist Episcopal North, CMS, LMS, American Presbyterian North, EPM, RCA. ChronLMS (1878) pp. 256–257. 67 MacGillivray, Century, p. 378. 68 ‘Annual report of Presbytery’ (1873). 69 E.g. Doty of 15 September 1857; Swanson, Sketch, pp. 10ﬀ.

 

321

lation in Amoy was ‘generally of the poorest class, and fewer external signs of wealth meet the eye than in any of the other newly-opened cities of China’.70 Later the same was observed by the EP missionaries.71 During the whole of 1846, the patients at the dispensary were mostly of the ‘lower classes of society’.72 This accounted in part for the reprinting in that year of Medhurst’s ‘Four character classic’ which was believed to be quite popular among these classes. In the early 1850s, the pupils at the EP schools were all the ‘children of poor parents, some of them very poor . . .’73 Thus they did not stay long enough ‘to have much impression made on their future character’ because parents grasped at the earliest opportunity to put them to work74 in order to supplement the family income. Interestingly though the ﬁrst baptised converts were not from among the poor. About twenty years before his baptism, Ong Hokkui had started a business which ‘realized a competent subsistence for himself and [his] family’.75 Although he later abandoned the original business on religious grounds, his ability to ‘purchase’ the Sinkoe lot (see infra) suggests a good measure of means and possibly also the investment of his capital in some other proﬁtable way. In the case of Lau Unsia, the shop he inherited from his late brother placed him above the have-nots even as we wonder if he was as well oﬀ as Ong. This phenomenon has certain research implications which we shall discuss later (see 8.8). But although Ong and Lau were not of the poor class, the same cannot be said of the later converts or even of the majority of them. During March/April 1847, the RCA afternoon meetings were attended by ‘the regular hearers’ as well as ‘sailors from the junks, persons from the villages, and sometimes traders from all quarters’.76 Occasionally the members of the higher class would come in a group or groups probably by mutual appointment

70

Smith, Narrative, p. 481, cf. p. 487. Burns of 9 March 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 219–221; Young from Amoy, 11 May 1853, Mess (1853) p. 288; Johnston of 18 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 218–220. 72 Pohlman of 4 January 1847, CI (27 May 1847) p. 182 c. 3–4. So too J.C. Hepburn, ‘Report of the Dispensary at Amoy, from the 1st of February, 1844 to 1st of July 1845’, CRep (April 1846) p. 181. 73 Young from Amoy, 5 September 1852, Mess (1852) p. 373. 74 Burns of 8 June 1852, Mess (1852) pp. 282–283. So too AR-FMC, in Mess (1853) pp. 142–144. 75 CRep 15:7 ( July 1846) p. 357. 76 Pohlman from Amoy, 1 May 1847, CI (2 December 1847) p. 82 c. 3–5. 71

322

 

and possibly out of curiosity77 or for investigative purposes. Unlike that of the middle class, their presence seemed to have intimidated others from simultaneous attendance. Thus it was noted of the hearers at the chapel that ‘[s]ome days all of them are of the court ranks; other days one-third will be of the middle class’78. In late 1847, Pohlman wrote that those ‘under our inﬂuence are not of the rich, the proud, the learned and the great, who frequent our chapels, but the poor and middle classes’.79 The numerical dominance of the lower classes prevailed beyond the lifetime of Pohlman. In 1854 Talmage mentioned how the ‘heathen’ were often astonished at the ﬂuent preaching of the converts who were ‘from the lower walks of life’, uneducated and ‘perhaps’ illiterate.80 Of course, not all of the converts were without education as Doty discovered during his visit to Pechuia in March 185481 and also as shown in the person of those who were appointed school teachers82. Yet the having of education and the possession of wealth were altogether two diﬀerent matters. Thus among the general membership both in Amoy and the inland, poverty was a serious problem.83 This was evinced especially by the institution of the collection for the poor in 185284. The idea may have been partly inspired by the missionary action taken just a couple of years ago. When the family of widow Hong was struck down by ‘sickness and aﬄiction’ to the point of ‘destitution approaching to starvation’, Doty had extended ‘temporary relief ’.85 Upon their application for more assistance, a loan was released which was subsequently repaid in full. Aside from the institution of the poor fund, the decline in per capita contribution over the years may pos-

77

Cf. Hepburn, ‘Report’, p. 181. Pohlman of 1 May 1847 (italics added). 79 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. Recall our earlier discussion about Pohlman taking the lower orders as his target group (see 3.3 supra). 80 Talmage of 18 August 1854, MH (1855) pp. 41–46. 81 Doty mentioned some ‘young men of some education’ at Pechuia who were actively preaching to others. Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (1854) pp. 280–282. 82 See 4.4 supra. 83 AR-BFM (1859) p. 11; (1860) p. 21; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860; Rapalje from Amoy, 19 June 1862. 84 Editorial note (based on Doty of 28 January 1853), MH ( June 1853) p. 162. 85 Doty, as cited in AR-AB (1850) p. 162. 78

 

323

sibly suggest an increase in the number of poor members. In 1852 a total amount of $40 was received toward the poor fund.86 The next year ca. $35 was ‘mostly’ expended to help poor members especially the widows upon whom the disturbance created by the insurgent movement had showered great hardships.87 From January to August 1854, the sum of $64 was received being applied partly to the needy and partly toward other ends.88 Seen in the light of the membership population, there was a steady decline of giving per capita over the three years. Since the year 1852 ended with twenty-one active adults89, we are speaking of about $1.90 per member.90 For 1853, the twentyfour members gave an average of $1.46 each. During the ﬁrst eight months of 1854, some ﬁfty-two people contributed $1.23 per capita. The decrease in giving points toward the likelihood of an increase in the number of the poor among the members. On this point, we speak with no little reservation and only in terms of likelihood and possible suggestion. This is because we are uncertain whether the increase of women members may have partly accounted for the decrease in contribution per member. Another reason is that in determining per capita contribution by counting only church members, we have systematically excluded non-members (if any at all) who also participated in the giving. But this reservation need not aﬀect our main point. For, as we have already seen, the fact of economic deprivation among the Christians does not lack adequate evidence. Because poverty characterised the general membership throughout our period, it made native liberality look even nobler to the missionaries. In terms of self-support, the Chinese were generally ready to do as they were able. In the sphere of evangelistic work, domestic missions were undertaken in 1853 (see supra) and 1859–65. In 1859 the challenge to support a home missionary was exceeded when an elder proposed to send out two men instead of one and this was adopted by the church.91 In addition, self-support in local

86

AR-AB (1853) p. 129. AR-AB (1854) p. 143. See also Johnston of 18 January 1854, Mess (1854) pp. 218–220. 88 AR-AB (1855) p. 112. No detailed ﬁnancial statement was furnished. 89 See 2.4 supra. 90 For reference, one who made as much as $6 a month in 1846 was considered ‘a poor man’ (see Smith, Narrative, p. 414). But the chronological distance of six years discourages us from drawing implications out of the comparison. 91 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 15 June 1859. 87

324

 

evangelistic work manifested itself in the form of the two Amoy congregations jointly renting a third chapel in addition to the two existing ones (1860)92, Pechuia contributing a third of the salary of an assistant (1860)93, Maping electing a preacher while subscribing ‘a very liberal sum’ (relative to their ability) toward his monthly expenses (1861)94 and Anhai choosing Song to be their evangelist among the surrounding villages while subscribing ‘nearly a dollar’ toward his monthly salary.95 Another area of self-support was educational work. From 1858 to ca. 1864, some of the church schools were wholly or partially Chinese-supported (see infra). From 1863 the Amoy churches undertook the support of their pastors. While acknowledging that Chinese giving in 1867 was still ‘small’, Talmage nevertheless confessed that according to ability the Amoy churches outdid any church he knew ‘whether in Christian or heathen lands’ and were ‘very far in advance’ of most missionary churches.96 Just as the case of self-government, the Banlam achievement in self-support was not without its limits. First, despite their sincerity and willingness, the Chinese lacked ﬁnancial ability. Consequently self-support projects were often short-lived. Consider for instance the work of domestic missions. When the Chiangchiu-Choanchiu missions of 1853 were aborted by political unrest, the frustrated Chinese home missionaries were re-assigned as Mission-supported workers97. The reason for this action was almost certainly the economic hardships brought upon the populace by the war of the insurgents. This means the most that the Chinese Christians expended toward the domestic missionaries was no more than a month’s salary for four men. The ﬁnancial burden upon the natives was therefore shortlived, having been removed immediately by the missionaries when the war economy made life diﬃcult for all. A somewhat similar fate was met by the domestic missionary work which was commenced in 1859. Even before 1862, the missionaries had foreseen that having pastors would imply the retrenchment of other self-support eﬀorts98,

92

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 February 1861 and 24 February 1862. In 1861 the landlord took back the chapel, thereby putting an end to the venture. 93 EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Pechuia, 15 June 1860. 94 Swanson of 19 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 282ﬀ. 95 Douglas of 9 October 1861, AR-SA (1861) p. 7. 96 AR-BFM (1868) p. 9. 97 See AR-AB (1854) pp. 142–143. 98 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 9 December 1861.

 

325

especially the defrayment of the expenses at the three stations99. Doubtlessly inspired by the separate accounting of the two churches as well as by the prospect of having their own pastors, native contributions in Amoy reached a peak in 1862 ($1,006.44) but was followed by a slump in 1863 ($591.12) and then ﬂuctuation during 1864–67100. Due to the economic diﬃculties caused by the Taiping war, native support of the domestic missionaries ceased in 1865.101 The only exception was Chiohbe which continued to give ‘a small sum’ each month toward the salary of an evangelist. Nevertheless for continuing to pay their pastors, the churches were still reckoned self-supporting.102 Another case of short-lived self-support was in the area of educational work.103 To provide a full perspective, the story must be told in some detail. Although educational work was attempted at various times, it was rarely characterised by native self-support. The elementary school founded by Doty in 1845 lasted only a few months, having been closed shortly after Mrs. Doty died in early October.104 But at this early time there were yet no baptised members, so that one cannot really speak of self-support in any truly meaningful sense. When the school of Peet opened in June 1847105, each student was given ‘a small weekly gratuity of about two cents, to supply paper and other writing materials’106. In this manner, not only were the practical needs of the pupils met, an incentive was oﬀered as well to the sending parents. Under Doty’s supervision107, increased enrolment and thus expenses led to a reorganisation in February 1848108. When school reopened after the Chinese new year holidays, the weekly gratuity of two cents was reduced in half, the amount being

99

AR-BFM (1863) p. 14. I.e. $930.87, $662.27, $805.79, $654.82. AR-BFM (1863–68). 101 AR-BFM (1866) pp. 21, 22. 102 AR-BFM (1866) p. 25. 103 In the absence of sustained medical work by the RCA during our period, no ﬁnancial burden on the part of the converts was ever contemplated toward that department. 104 See 2.3 supra. 105 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. 106 Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. 107 Pohlman of 18 December 1847; AR-AB (1848) p. 221. 108 Doty of 16 March 1848; AR-AB (1848) p. 221. 100

326

 

intended just ‘to supply the needful stationary’. Although the reduction caused some dissatisfaction, enrolment was little aﬀected as only one boy actually withdrew from the school. By mid-March, the student population was forty-six which was ‘probably three times as large as any other in Amoy, and six times as most schools’. There were in fact ‘some’ applicants who were turned away due to lack of room and also because there was only one teacher who could not do with more students. That all pupils spent half the day studying Christian literature and the other half the Chinese classics109 earned some degree of contentment from both converted and unconverted parents. Nevertheless attendance dropped steadily in the next two years, with forty regular pupils in the day school in 1849110 and an average attendance of twenty-ﬁve in 1850111. Between September 1850 and March 1851, the supervision of the boys’ school was transferred to Young by the overburdened Doty.112 Thus up to 1853 (inclusive) there was no indication of any sort that the Chinese converts were contributing to the expenses of the educational work at any time. However the story begins to change when the co-educational parochial school was opened by Doty in February 1854 with a church member serving as teacher to the eight boys and nine girls and with the missionaries assisting as they were able.113 With the Chinese asked to bear one-fourth of the school expenses114, we ﬁnd the report that the Chinese monthly collections in 1854 for up to August (amounting to $64) was dispensed to the poor and the schools aside from ‘some incidental expenses’.115 Talmage later expressed the rationalisation: It is very important that the children of church members should be gathered into a Christian school. If these church members are able, it is their duty to support such a school. If they are not able of themselves, we should assist them. Our school is of this character, and conducted on these principles. It is composed, with but two or three

109

Doty of 16 March 1848. AR-AB (1849) p. 170. 111 AR-AB (1850) p. 163. Visited almost daily by Doty, the school was then still under the care of a Chinese who appeared to be ‘convinced of the truth and importance of Christianity’. 112 AR-AB (1851) pp. 125–126. In 1851 there were thirty scholars. 113 Doty [from Amoy], 20 April 1854, MH (September 1854) pp. 280–282. One girl was not from a church-connected home. Cf. also AR-AB (1854) p. 143. 114 Doty of 20 April 1854. 115 AR-AB (1855) p. 112. 110

 

327

exceptions, of those who are children of, or otherwise connected with, church-members and inquirers. It is sustained in part by the churchmembers.116

Yet in 1854 the seventeen pupils at the two RCA schools in Amoy were not required to pay any fee at all.117 The same applied to the fourteen students118 at the free school started on 6 August 1854 (Chinese 7th month, 13th day) by Johnston at Pechuia.119 By 1856 the two educational institutions at Amoy which already had an enlarged studentry of thirty-six boys and nine girls continued to be operated as ‘free schools’.120 Meanwhile another school had been opened at Chiohbe which was ‘also [!] aided by the mission’.121 Taking also into account Talmage’s explicit statement about Chinese participation in supporting the parochial schools, the picture that emerged was this: Free education was being oﬀered, under the direction of the Mission, supported partly by the converts (out of their monthly collection122) but mostly by the Mission (three-fourths of all expenses). By any consideration, the amount of Chinese giving to educational work was anything but large. Also it seems the native contribution toward educational work was at least partly at the expense of the poor fund. Furthermore in that it took the form of voluntary oﬀering forwarded on a collective basis, the obligation upon each individual contributor was made as light as possible. The nonreporting of the degree of steadiness with which the converts kept up with their allotted contributions up to 1856 makes for our suspicion that the Chinese output was less than expected, for the Amoy missionaries were habitually extoling the merits of their church members. Therefore until 1856 the Chinese contribution toward educational work was neither large nor was the duty made too burdensome

116 Talmage from Amoy, 16 January 1856, CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 5–6. Cf. 723CM/Bx1, Joralmon from Amoy, 30 July 1856. 117 AR-AB (1855) p. 114. 118 Ibid. 119 Pechuia converts to the ‘Public Society’ [ABCFM], 21 August 1854 (Chinese 7th month, 28th day), CI (18 January 1855) p. 113 c. 6. At the time, the school had only twelve students. 120 AR-AB (1857) p. 123. Earlier in mid-1855, the school connected with Talmage’s chapel already had twenty-one boys and eight girls. Doty of 25 June 1855, MH (December 1855) pp. 354–356. 121 AR-AB (1857) p. 123. 122 The possibility that Chinese funds were also raised in other ways (such as directly from individuals) suﬀers from lack of solid evidence.

328

 

upon them. When it comes to the post-1856 period, the story of self-support in educational work moves into another new stage. A breakthrough was attained and the Chinese moved from partial to full self-support. By 1858 the RCA had three schools for boys including one at Chiohbe. At Amoy, one was sustained by the voluntary oﬀerings of Christians and missionaries while the other depended entirely on Mission funding.123 Things improved in 1861 when one became fully supported by the natives who were also half-supporting a school for girls while the Chiohbe school was jointly supported by the Dutch-American Mission and local church.124 The silence on schools in the next BFM report heralded the deteriorated state of 1863 when only the Amoy schools were found surviving125. For certain, from 1864 onward both became totally Mission-supported.126 This matter is only partly explained by the Chinese lack of interest in ‘the education of their children’127. As earlier mentioned, the Taiping insurgency severely restricted native ﬁnancial capability.128 Therefore the singular instance of full support which materialised in 1861 did not seem to have lasted beyond that year. Worse still, the state of aﬀairs reverted back to a complete reliance upon Mission funds within a few years. Second, it should not escape our notice that the so-called native contributions at Amoy actually included also the personal oﬀerings of the missionaries as well as of other foreign visitors.129 The last group need not concern us too much, since their contributions were only as steady as the irregularity of their occasional visits. What interests us more is the missionary participation in the giving which had started either since or just after the poor collection began130. Since the respective shares of the missionaries and the natives were never distinguished, the most we can say is that the so-called native contributions were 100% native only in terms of management but

123

723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 10 February 1858. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 24 February 1862; cf. AR-BFM (1862) p. 11. In contrast, the three schools at Pechuia, Maping and Emungkang were ‘mostly sustained’ by the EPM. 125 AR-BFM (1864) p. 14. 126 AR-BFM (1865) p. 16; (1866) p. 21. 127 AR-BFM (1864) p. 14. 128 E.g. AR-BFM (1865) pp. 13–16; (1866) pp. 21, 22. 129 E.g. AR-BFM (1859) p. 12; (1866) p. 22. 130 MH (1853) p. 162. 124

 

329

deﬁnitely not in terms of origin. To proclaim the relative size of the contribution of each party would be a speculative undertaking, but it is certainly reasonable to assume that the Chinese input was sizeable if not actually larger than the missionary share. Third, the missionaries did not devolve the expenses of chapel upkeep and regular worship upon the church members. For these expenditures, the native contributions were in the ﬁrst place never intended. For instance, the 1857 receipts were expended for the poor and toward one school.131 Again, although the balance of Amoy benevolent contributions was in the black for 1861 ($127.12), the beneﬁciaries were domestic missions, the poor and the schools.132 Meanwhile until 1864, the Americans continued to pay for the ‘public worship’ expenses at Amoy as well as to subsidise the schools.133 At Chiohbe some contributions went toward communion expenses but this was possible only because there was no local school to subsidise.134 By 1876 the working expenses of the BFM-owned church buildings in Amoy were being shouldered by the native church.135 Although it is unclear exactly when this practice commenced, it was deﬁnitely not during our period. At the time of union, Pechuia and Maping were funded by the EPM while the RCA-connected churches were receiving Mission subsidies.136 Fourth, there was a class of expenditures which were not fully devolved upon the Chinese. These included the construction or rental of the pre-1862 chapels, the building and maintaining of the boats and the support of the Mission-recruited evangelists as well as of the theological students. The Sinkoe chapel was totally ﬁnanced from America (see infra). With both site and construction at $1,300137, the cost of the Tekchhiukha chapel was mainly if not totally funded from America138. Likewise the Chiohbe chapel was funded by the Mission.139

131

723CM/Bx1, Talmage of 31 December 1857. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 16 June 1862. 133 723CM/Bx1, Rapalje from Amoy, 9 February 1861; Doty from Amoy, 5 July 1862; Doty from Amoy, 12 February 1863; Semi-annual account current, 4 January 1865. 134 AR-BFM (1863) p. 15. 135 Talmage, in Records 1877, p. 296. 136 Talmage, History, pp. 25–26. 137 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860. 138 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 20 September 1859. 139 Doty of 17 January 1855, MH (1855) pp. 186–187; Talmage, in CI (29 May 1856) p. 189 c. 6. 132

330

 

Similarly the Pechuia rent and room-enlargement were paid by the EPM.140 Eventually the site and construction costs141 were met from Britain142 and one Amoy foreign businessman143. Beside chapel costs, regular EPM expenses included the Gospel Boat with its boatmen and the evangelists.144 The ﬁrst RCA boat was given by Burns who built and initially sustained it with his personal funds. After Burns left and his funds ran out, the Americans sustained it with $100 per year.145 Likewise the Mission helpers and theological students were all Mission-supported. Exceptionally the Chiohbe converts rented a temporary chapel at Chiangchiu in May 1861146. Later the purchase of the building ($425) was funded almost equally by missionary (54%) and native (46%) sources. The Chinese output was possible only because it was a concerted eﬀort of all the various congregations.147 Just as Amoy native contributions partly went toward domestic missions but not local worship expenses, the congregations supported the Chiangchiu building as a domestic missionary project. Another exception was Maping renting a house in 1856148 but the initiative was shortlived as the EPM soon assumed the costs of the ‘chapel’149. We identify the above as a class of expenditures because the missionaries regarded these as part of their work as evangelists and foundationlayers. Consider, for instance, the case of the single largest expense in the Banlam work up to 1856. We refer to the Sinkoe chapel project which was consummated in 1849. In early 1847 Pohlman asked the ABCFM Prudential Committee (PC) for funds to rent a lot while at the same time requesting the RCA home Church to raise $3,000 for the building cost.150 The PC not only authorised Pohlman to

140

Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, p. 10; Johnston from Amoy, 1 May 1855, Mess (1855) pp. 243–245. 141 Douglas from Amoy, 3 December 1856, Mess (1857) pp. 84–86. 142 Mess (1856) pp. 51, 51–53, 122, 153, 155; (1857) pp. 149–150. 143 Douglas of 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118ﬀ; Mess (1856) p. 155. 144 E.g. Douglas of 1 January 1856, Mess (1856) pp. 118ﬀ. 145 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 1 June 1860. 146 Douglas [from Chiangchiu], 17 July 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 320–321. 147 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 6 January 1863. 148 Matheson, Narrative, p. 16. 149 Douglas from Amoy, 6 May 1857, Mess (1857) p. 252; Douglas from Amoy, 7 April 1858, Mess (1858) p. 224; Douglas from Amoy, 4 September 1858, Mess (1858) p. 386; Douglas from Amoy, 19 April 1859, Mess (1859) p. 221. 150 Pohlman to Anderson and De Witt, from Amoy, 18 December 1847, CI (27 April 1848) p. 166 c. 3–5. According to De Jong, it was on 25 December 1846

 

331

secure the site ‘without delay’ but further gave the promise that should the Dutch-American Church be unready to ﬁnance the construction of the ediﬁce, the ABCFM will advance the needed money.151 By mid-March, the provincial Viceroy had sanctioned both the transaction over the site and the proposal to erect a 36-by-68-foot building including a ten-foot verandah. Expected to cost less than $2,500, the single-storey brick ediﬁce was to have a sitting capacity of three hundred ﬁfty to four hundred people with secluded space for some sixty to seventy women.152 Upon receiving notice of the PC approval on 29 July, a 100-by-40-foot lot was obtained on 16 September. It was initially bought by Ong Hok-kui ‘for less than $550, and made over to us by perpetual lease’.153 The aged convert was quickly reimbursed and the Mission assumed the annual tax payment of ca. $12. We see therefore the Sinkoe chapel project was never made a real ﬁnancial responsibility of the Chinese converts. Throughout the whole transaction the only native eﬀort came from one individual. Even so, the aged convert was reimbursed within a short time. The upfront amount was required not because the Mission lacked the ability but because Chinese law and treaty terms on property-holding rights had to be reckoned with. In the light of the economic condition of the membership, one is tempted to think that it was on account of Chinese poverty that the project was dealt with the way it was by the RCA. But the fundamental rationale for the Mission ﬁnancing scheme was neither the economic situation of the natives nor the size of the membership154 even if either can be a valid justiﬁcation. Rather it was the ‘rule’ of Pohlman that every missionary should have his own chapel for preaching purposes, i.e. primarily (Pohlman never said exclusively) for evangelistic rather than pastoral use.155 that Pohlman wrote the ABCFM for $100 to buy a lot and $3,000 for chapel construction. Then in late July 1847, the ABCFM agreed to advance the sums on the understanding that the RCA home Church would reimburse these later. RCC, pp. 24–25. 151 AR-AB (1847) p. 167. The PC gave a grant of $3,000 to ﬁnance both site rental and chapel construction. Doty to Rev. Dr. Anderson, from Amoy, 16 March 1848, CI (27 July 1848) p. 10 c. 2–3. 152 Doty of 16 March 1848. 153 Pohlman of 18 December 1847. 154 In early 1849, the membership consisted only of the two old men and Teacher U. 155 See Pohlman, in CRep 15:7 ( July 1846) p. 356. Note: Although the author of the piece was not mentioned by name, we can be certain that the man was Pohlman since he was identiﬁed as the baptiser of the two old men in 1846 (p. 358).

332

 

Understood as an instrument to facilitate the proclamation of the Gospel among ‘the heathen’156, the Sinkoe chapel was regarded as properly an investment of the Mission designed to help make converts. Consequently its existence could sensibly precede that of a congregation or even of the individual convert for that matter. This therefore is the main reason why the construction of the Sinkoe chapel was undertaken as a project of the Mission rather than of the Chinese Christians. In the case of the Tekchhiukha chapel, the situation diﬀered greatly. In 1859 there was already a congregation of substantial size (ca. 80) which provided the justiﬁcation for a larger and permanent chapel. Moreover convert-making in Amoy was no longer the singularly dominant missionary concern as it was in 1849 for various reasons, viz. there were also pastoral and training tasks, the work had spread inland, ﬁve Mission helpers were based in Amoy157. Most importantly, with even worship expenses still in the Mission account, the Chinese were in no position to pay such a huge construction bill in so short a time. In this case therefore Chinese ﬁnancial ability was a real limiting factor. At Pechuia, the same factor was at work and the membership was smaller (ca. 47 in 1856). However since the missionaries could have chosen to postpone chapel constructions until Chinese ﬁnancial ability improved, the fact that they did not suggests we must go beyond the ﬁnancial factor and reckon again with missionary self-consciousness as foundation-layers of the Chinese Church. For the stability of church life and work, there is every practical beneﬁt in owning a chapel.158 Thus in addition to Chinese economic capability, the Tekchhiukha and Pechuia chapels were not made Chinese projects also because the missionaries regarded these to be a part of their foundation-laying task. The same rationale applied to the Mission helpers and theological students. Seeing themselves as evangelists, the missionaries regarded the helpers as ‘our right arms [by] which we are enabled to reach forth with the gospel where it is quite impossible for us to go personally or at best only occasionally on account of want of health and strength and of pressure of engagements in Amoy itself.’159

156 157 158 159

Page 357. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 23 January 1860. Cf. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 5 June 1863. 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857.

 

333

Just as the Chinese evangelist was the extension of the missionary personality and functionality, so too the chapel and boat were regarded as the foreign evangelists’ accessories. By the same logic, the Amoy-supported missionaries were provided a Chinese boat as part of their evangelistic equipment160. Regarding the theological students, the work of training a native agency had always been understood as part of foundation-laying with a view to seeing the native Church someday stand on her own. For the reasons given above, the natives were not asked to assume responsibility for the said class of expenditures. Expectedly as the Chinese Church grew in later times, the expectations and demands for self-support advanced. But in our period, the missionaries saw no compelling reason to devolve these expenditures upon the natives. Neither did they think such a course of action to be realistic. Lastly, self-support was not fully attained even until the close of the nineteenth century. This is true even by the common missionary deﬁnition, i.e. supporting a pastor. In the Taihoey report of 1873, only three out of the fourteen churches and preaching-stations had native-supported pastors.161 By 1888 the RCA had eight organised churches but only ﬁve were self-supporting.162 Neither was self-support at the local church level fully attained in 1905.163 On the EP side, the FMC announced in spring 1863 that both self-government and self-propagation had been attained to some level at all the stations164 but conspicuously refrained from saying the same of selfsupport. By 1894, only eight self-supporting churches or groups of churches existed among its ﬁfty-three churches and preaching-stations.165 Beside external factors, a key internal limitation was the size of the church population. Liberality without quantitatively substantial resources is insuﬃcient for long term self-support or short term capital-intensive projects. Thus signiﬁcant native participation in buying the Chiangchiu house was possible only because ‘several Chinese Churches’166 combined their ﬁnancial resources in the undertaking.

160 161

723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 18 July 1859. PFS1/Bx9/F1/I3, ‘Annual report of Presbytery. A.D. 1873; Tung Chi 12th

year’. 162

AR-BFM (1888) p. 28. Warnshuis, Sketch, p. 19. 164 Mess (1863) p. 188. 165 Our Church in China (1895) p. 25. 166 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 5 July 1862 (second of two letters with the same date). 163

334

 

Likewise the Khiboey (EP) chapel was built by the converts with ﬁnancial assistance from other congregations (ca. 1864).167 Much later in 1880, Khiboey was able to call a pastor only because it united with Kiolai and two or three other congregations in doing so.168 8.4. Union As the ﬁrst of its kind in the modern Protestant missionary movement, the ecclesiastical union of 1862 was a historic and major achievement. In this organic union of two distinct groups of churches (even if self-consciously one), the Western national elements in a sense dissolved themselves. As a later expression beautifully captured the essence, the Taihoey churches were ‘not one half American Reformed and the other half English Presbyterian, but all equally and only Chinese.’169 Eventually in 1892, the Taihoey divided into two resulting in the formation of the Synod of South Fujian (1893) which held its ﬁrst meeting at Kolongsu in 1894.170 At this gathering, the state of devolutionary development was reﬂected in the composite attendance which included sixteen pastors, nineteen elders and eight missionaries. With the Western element comprising no more than twenty per cent of the representation at the very ﬁrst Synod meeting, the accomplishment in devolution was deﬁnitely not slight by any measure. Nor were the prospects of future progress by any means dim. But this is not all, for there was further the more-than-merely-symbolic act of choosing as moderator the senior pastor Iap ‘Hancheong’. The Taihoey and the Synod proved to be the institutional precedents for the later formation of the Tionghua Kitokkao Hoe Hap-it Hoey171 which comprised all the three Protestant Missions at Amoy.172 When the Church of Christ in China was formed in 1927, the united Church in South Fujian became the

167

Matheson, Narrative, p. 42; Swanson, Sketch, p. 14. The site was donated by two Christians. 168 WHP, pp. 63–64. 169 Talmage, ‘Should the native Churches in China’, in Records 1877, p. 437. 170 Mess ( June 1892) p. 16; (1893) pp. 158ﬀ, 207; (1894) p. 208. 171 C.K. Lee, ‘Fayang Minnan Jiaohui jingshen’, in Trinity Church commemorative magazine (Hong Kong, 1989) p. 41. The church name is literally United Chinese Protestant Church, but missionary literature normally has South Fukien United Church or some like variation. 172 Formed 6 January 1920 (RCC, pp. 182ﬀ ).

 

335

Minnan Dahui ( pinyin)173 or the South Fujian Synod of the larger ecclesiastical body. Not too surprisingly, it was regarded to be ‘one of the strongest [Synods] in the Church of Christ in China.’174 When the local Methodist Conference joined the Minnan Dahui in 1934175, there resulted a post-denominational Banlam Protestantism of which the 1862 union was the very beginning. However the union achievement was not without its shortcomings. First, the union of 1862 involved only the two Presbyterian Missions, thus excluding the LMS and the Roman Catholics. On account of intense anti-Catholicism in England and America176 as well as among the missionaries177, any union with the Catholics was unthinkable. However anti-Catholicism was not a factor in the 1862 union. Understandably it was a stronger motivation in the Englishspeaking world where there was a strong Protestant establishment178. In contrast, the main opponent in China was ‘paganism’. But even if unlinked to the union of 1862, the presence of rather strong antiCatholic sentiments among the ranks of the Dutch-American and British missionaries did mean the Catholics were automatically excluded from union. Aside from the Catholic angle, some limit upon union is also discernible even within Protestantism itself. Even if the degree of RCA-EP denominational compatibility was not shared by the LMS, a three-Mission union was not impossible as proven in the union of 1920. But then the conditions were quite diﬀerent. In the twentieth century, all parties irregardless of denominational or racial (i.e. whether Westerners or Chinese) backround were inﬂuenced by the nationwide call for union, especially the wider Presbyterian-Congregationalist union movement, and by the intense

173 The same was known in the Amoy dialect as the Banlam Taihoey. As the use of the latter name risks confusion with the Taihoey of 1862, we have opted to use its pinyin form for the sake of distinction and convenience. 174 Merwin (1974) pp. 72ﬀ. 175 Ibid. 176 See, e.g., J. Wolﬀe, The Protestant crusade in Great Britain, 1829–1860 (1991); idem, God and Greater Britain (1994) pp. 20–47, 111ﬀ; D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in modern Britain (1989) pp. 101ﬀ, 221ﬀ; R.A. Billington, The Protestant crusade, 1800 –1860 (1938); D.L. Kinzer, An episode in anti-Catholicism (1964). 177 E.g. Burns from Swatow, 15 September 1858, Mess (1858) pp. 384ﬀ; Douglas from Amoy, 8 January 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 117ﬀ; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 14 August 1861; 723CM/Bx1, Kip from Amoy, 25 December 1861. 178 See e.g. M.G. Finlayson, Historians, Puritanism, and the English Revolution: The religious factor in English politics before and after the Interregnum (Toronto UP, 1983).

336

 

anti-foreignism and anti-Christianism whose extensity and intensity managed to accelerate various Protestant unions.179 However in the historical context of Banlam in the early 1860s, the Presbyterian factor was important and in a sense determinative. Thus despite the RCA missionaries’ relatively broader catholicity as compared to their home Church’s narrow denominationalism, organic union was still conﬁned within Presbyterianism. Second, the Taihoey event consisted of the organic union of the native churches and not at all of the Missions. Thus after union, Doty remained a BFM agent as exclusively as Douglas was an FMC agent. To begin with, the missionary understanding of the ‘fact of union’ pertained not to the Missions but to the churches connected with them. Although it was said the Missions worked ‘almost as one mission’180, the confusion of ownership never applied to them as the object. Talmage clariﬁed the matter well when he wrote, ‘Although our missions as such are kept perfectly distinct, we work together as one church, agreeing in doctrine, church government, and church customs and usages. We cannot see any suﬃcient reason why we and they should not organize the churches gathered by us and them as one Denomination . . .’181 As foundation-layers of the Chinese Church, the missionaries felt it to be their responsibility to organise one Church or as few denominations as possible. As China agents they were working on the development of the Banlam Presbyterian Church, not the Western Churches or their Missions. Even so, the irony is at once puzzling and thought provoking. The Dutch-American Church was able to ‘accomplish’ in the distant Orient that which they never did at home even until the day their Amoy Mission withdrew from China. It is rather strange that the Church which produced some of the most progressive minds among nineteenth century China missionaries with respect to organic union proved also to be a Church herself most resistant to organic union with others.182

179 See, e.g., Latourette (1929) pp. 662–672; Merwin (1974) ch. 2; Kepler, CCYB (1928) pp. 73–89; Chao, ‘Chinese’. 180 Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, p. 8. 181 AER, Talmage from Amoy, 20 November 1861 (underscoring original). 182 See H. Harmelink III, Ecumenism and the Reformed Church (1968). Cf. J.T. McNeill and J.H. Nichols, Ecumenical testimony: The concern for Christian unity within the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (1974). In contrast, the English Presbyterian Church saw their dream of organic union materialised in 1876, some one and a half decade after it did in Banlam. See D.G. Cornick, ‘The expansion and uniﬁcation of the

 

337

8.5. Chinese and missionary credits Self-propagation For their zeal and initiatives in self-propagation, the Chinese deserved a great deal of credit. In Banlam it was self-propagation which preceded and led to self-government in 1856. Self-propagation was able to precede because it initially happened spontaneously at the interpersonal level. Not only did this make self-propagation independent of ﬁnancial capability and of self-government, it gave the evangelistic activity a structural freedom so that it became something diﬃcult to control. Not that the missionaries took eﬀorts to regulate it, for they were only too delighted to see it in progress. But even were they to try to stop it, the structure-free character of self-propagation would make control extremely diﬃcult if not impossible. When selfpropagation took on organised form in 1853 and then with greater (albeit not very long-lived) steadiness from 1859, the voluntary form of its manifestation never ceased. Because it could be either spontaneous or institutionalised and either voluntary or Mission/churchsupported, the space for exercising self-propagation was practically made ‘unlimited’ by its modal ﬂexibility. For this reason, the termination of the native support of the evangelists in 1865183 never did mean the cessation of self-propagation. From a comparative standpoint, the RCA-connected churches were more progressive than their EP counterparts in terms of ecclesial self-propagation work. Among the EP-connected churches, native domestic missions undertaken with more stability took oﬀ only after 1872.184 However some credit should also go to the missionaries. First of all, they played a provocative role. From the start, the missionaries had been inculcating upon the Chinese their duty of evangelisation. This the converts took seriously and soon self-propagation was in operation. No doubt missionary encouragement upon Chinese performance provided further psycho-emotional incentive for repeat performances. The value of such intangibles as instructional motivation and psychological reinforcement should not be overlooked. Secondly,

Presbyterian Church in England, 1836–1876’ (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1982). 183 AR-BFM (1866) pp. 21, 22. 184 See CAF, pp. 216–217.

 

338

the missionaries also played a supportive role. By employment they made it possible for certain converts to devote all their time to evangelistic work. Also there were the theological students who did parttime ﬁeld work while engaged in study. For Chinese credit, it certainly helped that the missionaries understood self-propagation to mean the extension of Christianity by Chinese Christians whether Missionemployed or any otherwise.185 Therefore as far as self-propagation is concerned, the main credit goes to the Chinese but the missionaries deserved some acknowledgment for their provocative and supportive roles. Self-support The Chinese deserved credit for responding to the challenges of selfsupport. Until 1856 there were the domestic missions (1853) and educational subsidies (1854ﬀ ). In addition, Chinese initiative also launched the monthly collection for the poor (1852ﬀ ) which the missionaries knew about only when asked whether they could join in giving.186 During 1856–62 there was marked improvement in Chinese performance. Not only were the poor fund and school subsidy continued, there were new projects which partook of the double nature of self-support and self-propagation, viz. domestic missions (1859ﬀ ) and the third Amoy chapel (1860). Again generally speaking, the RCA converts did better in self-support than the EP churches. However deﬁning self-support as supporting a pastor can sometimes bring misleading impressions. For instance, although Chiohbe was selfsupporting in 1873, its annual contribution was actually surpassed by those of Pechuia and Angsoa.187 But since the ﬁrst EP pastoral ordination was in 1877188, the seeming picture was of Chiohbe superseding Pechuia in ﬁnancial giving. Nevertheless since the Amoy churches were far ahead of any EP church, the position well stands that the RCA did better over-all. Although the Chinese get chief honours for self-support, the missionaries also deserved credit for certain contributions. First, it was they who from the beginning taught the members ‘the duty of sup-

185 186 187 188

See Swanson, Sketch, p. 15. MH (1853) p. 162. ‘Annual report of Presbytery’ (1873). M’Gregor from Amoy, 17 July 1877, Mess (1877) pp. 251ﬀ.

 

339

porting ordinances, and the privilege of spending and being spent for others . . .’189. Second, the missionaries were actualy ready to pass on the chapels to the Chinese, as revealed in connection with the proposed transfer of the RCA base to Kolongsu. Because the chapel stood on grounds which only partly belonged to the Mission, the disposal of the property was problematic. Finding it unacceptable to deprive the Chinese of their chapel, the Mission declared boldly that ‘[t]he [BFM’s] Church property . . . must necessarily pass over into the hands of the churches here. If we sell their present building we must secure another for them.’190 Here we see the nobility of the missionaries who were self-motivatedly willing to transfer not only intangible authority (self-government) but also tangible realty to the natives. That all Mission property belonged to the BFM only declares missionary blamelessness for non-transfer, detracting no credit oﬀ the devolutionary intention. Self-government First, the missionaries took the initiative to transfer ecclesiastical authority to the Chinese beginning in 1856. Even though Chinese self-propagation was the major factor in convincing the missionaries the time had come to devolve church government, it was the missionaries themselves who committed the ﬁrst act of devolution in 1856. Thus whether to initiate or hasten devolution, there was need for neither internal agitation on the part of the native Church nor external anti-foreign pressures such as those of the 1920s. Consequently there was a remarkable absence of Mission-Church friction during the entire devolutionary process. This is a rarity in the history of Chinese Protestant devolution. Second, although the missionaries desired devolution, they did not sacriﬁce quality for haste. In 1859 the appointment of the Pechuia oﬃcers-elect was delayed to allow examination in ﬁtness for oﬃce.191 When delay resulted in one man being found unsuitable and consequently replaced, the same care was later exercised at Maping.192 Presumably such missionary caution was an extension of the strict admission policy which both

189 190 191 192

Swanson, Sketch, p. 10. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 5 June 1863. Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 20ﬀ. EPMF/Douglas, Douglas from Amoy, 20 April 1860.

340

 

Missions observed zealously. Third, in organising the Taihoey, the missionaries did not ﬁrst seek the sanction of church authorities in England and America. As a consequence while the move was able to win remarkable sympathy and support from the PCE193, strong protests were registered on the American side194. Additional credit should go to the RCA missionaries for standing their ground in united deﬁance to the extent of oﬀering their mass resignation195. The ﬁrmness reaped its reward when the General Synod ﬁnally capitulated on a temporary albeit indeﬁnite (!) basis196. In putting the welfare of the native Church above the desires of home authorities, the missionaries deserved great commendation. Fourth, the missionaries observed a policy of non-direction as far as the political management and the devolutionary pace of the native Church are concerned. For instance, during the meetings in 1860 to decide whether to separate the Amoy Church into two, while the Consistory members freely aired their views, the RCA and EP missionaries ‘answered the questions proposed to us, and gave such general instruction as seemed called for, but carefully avoided expressing any opinion as to whether the time had come to separate or not.’197 Likewise at Amoy and Chiohbe in 1861, the foreigners allowed the Chinese full freedom in deciding whether to call pastors and in electing the candidates.198 Although the missionaries thought the chosen two to be the best ﬁt men, they gave no directive advice when one pastor-elect consulted them on ‘the path I should take’.199 A parallel instance of native independence was how the domestic missionaries were ﬁrst chosen by the Chinese before the names were submitted for missionary ‘approval or rejection . . . before the setting apart’ in 1859200. The same deferential spirit was manifested when the Maping congregation received the ‘right’ to elect the chapel-

193

Mess (1863) 189. APGS (1863) pp. 334–340; CI (18 June 1863) pp. 97 c. 6, 99 c. 3–4, 100 c. 3–5; (25 June 1863) pp. 106 c. 5–107 c. 3. 195 AER, Doty & Ostrom & Rapalje & Kip & Blauvelt to BFM, from Amoy, 16 September 1863. 196 APGS (1864) pp. 490–491. 197 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 August 1860. 198 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 18 July 1861; Doty from Amoy, 9 December 1861. 199 Doty of 9 December 1861. 200 Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 20–21. 194

 

341

keeper ‘although properly it belongs to us.’201 The non-direction policy however did not mean the missionaries waited passively for Chinese pro-action. Rather they actively presented matters to the Chinese but took care to let the latter make the decision. In so doing, they did not hesitate to oﬀer useful information and to point out possible courses of action. For example, although the RCA missionaries were convinced that their church order was both Scriptural and best adapted to the Chinese context, they refused to ‘impose’ their views upon the congregation in 1856 but simply presented the various forms of church government.202 Not knowing what form the converts would choose, they were only greatly delighted when the RCA form was picked.203 Also during the Sinkoe elections in 1857, the missionaries ‘did not feel at liberty to impose any plan on the Church’ although they did present ‘the three plans of election mentioned in our constitution’.204 Clearly the missionary claim of non-imposition upon the Chinese derived from the fact that the ﬁnal choice was allowed to rest with the Chinese church membership. Again although the missionaries once thought of organising Pechuia, Chiohbe and Maping into ‘one church’, this never ensued because it was decided beforehand that the matter ‘be left to [Chinese] judgment and desires.’205 Also in response to the BFM query about pastoral ordination, the missionaries replied that they would not take action, but would rather wait until the candidate has been called by a church.206 Again the foreigners defaulted by choice, leaving the initiative with the Chinese. The same pattern of behaviour occurred in the congregational elections of the pastors in November 1861.207 Fifth, the missionary-led devolution was in comparative terms more RCA-led than EPM-led. Taking the undisputed leadership at the Sinkoe event were the two senior RCA missionaries. During the prayer season held in the morning of election day, Doty was ‘called to the chair’ although both Talmage and Douglas were also present. During the election session in the afternoon, Talmage was this

201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Swanson of 19 June 1861, Mess (1861) pp. 282ﬀ. Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, pp. 17–18. Pages 18–19, 30. Talmage from Amoy, 10 July 1857, CI (5 November 1857) p. 74 c. 3–4. 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 16 July 1858. 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 23 November 1860. AER, Talmage from Amoy, 20 November 1861.

342

 

time ‘called to the chair’ and by congregational resolution was authorised to appoint the nomination committees. To the eldership nomination committee were named Doty, Lim Tekchoan and Lo Tau. The committee presented six nominees out of whom four were elected to be church elders. Talmage then named Doty and the four newly elected elders to the deaconship nomination committee. Out of eight nominees, four were elected church deacons. On the Sabbath of May the 4th, the names of all the eight elected oﬃcers were published but no objections were received. During the formal ordination service held in the afternoon of the following Sunday, Doty preached the sermon while Talmage read ‘The Form for Ordination of elders and deacons’ before an audience which included Douglas and Joralmon.208 That neither the EPM nor the Chinese were taking the leading role is not diﬃcult to understand. Douglas himself confessed that he was ‘invited’ to participate in the ordination service, just as in the same manner he was later able to join in the Consistorial meetings.209 Talmage was a bit more revealing when he said that Douglas was ‘cordially invited . . . to meet with us and our native Christians, for discussion on the subject [of church organisation].’210 The passive role of the Scotsman should therefore occasion no wonder especially when one recalls that the Sinkoe event was really an RCA event, even though the entire EPM (Douglas!) was in attendance. Neither could the converts have taken the leading role. As the missionaries did not expect the membership to reach the size it did in 1856, they had ‘never until now, preached much on the subject of Church Government’211. Other than the deﬁciency of knowledge on the said subject, the natives were entirely without experience in such transactions. Thus throughout the whole aﬀair, the leadership of the RCA missionaries could not be any clearer. Likewise in the Taihoey event and the pastoral ordinations, the RCA led the EPM. It was RCA-connected churches which ﬁrst reached the minimum number required in order to form a Classis. Whereupon (as in 1856) the RCA took the initiative to form the Taihoey and in the process drew in the EP churches. Therefore not only were

208

Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. Douglas from Amoy, 23 May 1856, Mess (1856) p. 338. Cf. Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3; WHP, p. 48. 210 Talmage, ‘Should the native Churches’, p. 437. 211 Ibid. 209

 

343

the RCA natives leading their EP counterparts in church growth, self-government, self-support and ecclesial self-propagation, the American missionaries were also leading the EPM in terms of devolutionary initiatives. Lastly, the Chinese deserved credit for courageously taking the forward course. For instance, when presented with the matter by the missionaries, the members of Pechuia and Maping made the decision that they will proceed with church organisation.212 More impressively, the formal requests for Consistorial appointment at Chiohbe213 and Emungkang214 came from the Chinese themselves. Native initiative was also manifested at the Taihoey when the matter of pastoral ordination was brought forward by the Sinkoe elder in an ‘spontaneous’ manner. Reﬂecting over ‘so healthy a spiritual development’ Doty felt ‘necessity laid upon us to advance.’215 Therefore in terms of credit for self-governmental devolution, the missionaries took ﬁrst honours for ‘letting go’ of some authority and for showing the Chinese the way forward without pressuring them into it. In response, the Chinese took up the challenge with courage and made possible the progress of devolution. Thereby both parties contributed to the peaceful and smooth character of the process. Union As far as the Chinese are concerned, they were one Church and knew no otherwise. For this reason, full credit for union goes to the missionaries who faced the choice of whether to organise one Chinese Presbyterian Church or two and resolutely opted for the former. But again comparatively the RCA deserved more credit. First, it was they who played the initiating role. By inviting the EPM to the Sinkoe event, the Dutch-Americans set the direction for the future relations of the two Missions. Being the ﬁrst to articulate the idea of union, Talmage drew the line of thinking toward 1862. Having three organised churches, the RCA did not need EP participation to form a legitimate Classis. It was the ideal of Presbyterian solidarity

212 Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) pp. 20–21; 723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 April 1860. 213 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 17 May 1859; Talmage from Amoy, 15 June 1859. 214 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 6 January 1863. 215 Ibid.

344

 

as expressed in union which moved things in that direction. Second, it was the Americans who had to contend with anti-union forces from home and triumphed after so many years of gallant resistance. Aware that compliance with the General Synod resolution of 1857 meant separation from the EP churches, Talmage deliberately postponed ‘a full discussion’ with the BFM in 1860216. Instead he emphasised the prematurity of a Classis at the time while simultaneously sustaining the pro-union campaign. Classical formation was deemed untimely, for even if there were enough RCA churches by 1860, there were just enough RCA missionaries to fulﬁl the Constitutional requirement of least three ministers217. But with Ostrom ill and absent and with Talmage likely to be away for some time, the permanency of a Classis faced great risks. Nevertheless while maintaining ‘our love for our [American] church’, the missionaries regarded themselves as commissioned to build up not the Dutch-American Church but ‘the Church of Christ in China’. As the EPM and the Chinese were uninvolved with the controversy, the RCA bore the full force of the opposition and thus also the full honour for the victory. Such admirable courage and ﬁerce determination should not be underrated. Between the Mission Boards at home, the FMC should be commended for its progressivism in promptly and warmly recognising the Taihoey. Beyond this, the extra eﬀort taken to initiate communication with the BFM with a view to convincing the latter to do the same218 also merits special mention. To sum up our analysis, the Chinese deserved the most credit for self-propagation and self-support. In the matter of self-government and union, the ﬁrst honours go to the missionaries, but more the RCA than the EPM. Of course this is comparatively speaking, for both Westerners and Orientals contributed in their own ways to the fulﬁlment of each aspect of the Talmage ideal as well as of the aspect of church union. Finally about the missionary leadership, it is helpful to note three general features. Firstly, the missionaries prioritised Chinese interests over those of their sending Churches. The RCA did this to the extent of ‘violating’ their Church Constitution, disobeying the General Synod, resigning their posts and being ready

216 217 218

723CM/Bx1, Talmage from Amoy, 30 August 1860. See Constitution, 1840, 2.3.1. See 723CM/Bx1, Peltz to Hamilton, from New York, 8 July 1863.

 

345

to devolve (if only possible) Mission property upon the Chinese. Likewise the EP missionaries did not ask the FMC ﬁrst before joining the Sinkoe and Taihoey events. In putting the Chinese ﬁrst, both Talmage and Doty were guided by the concept of functional eﬃciency. As early as 1848, Talmage had already observed that Chinese Christians ‘in some respects, may be more eﬃcient than the missionary’219. In 1857, Doty wrote that ‘the Bible church organization is best suited to promote purity[,] piety[,] eﬃciency and growth among the Lord’s people here’220. Evangelistic eﬃciency was a guiding principle in the making of the native church from 1856 onwards.221 Later at the 1877 Conference when confronting the question of the relations among the many Chinese Churches themselves and of these to their founding Missions and Western Churches, Talmage argued that both relations ‘should be such as shall best secure their [Chinese Churches] own welfare and eﬃciency’ while also expressing his conviction in the ‘importance of unity to economy and eﬃciency’222. This conceptual agreement on the part of the missionaries was a sine qua non for Banlam devolution and union. Secondly, the missionaries led but did not dominate the Chinese. There were no signs of any obsession with holding on to power, control or ‘rulership’. Rather there was a remarkable amount of self-motivation in the letting go of these to various degrees. Indeed all along and up to the formation of the Amoy Synod in 1893–94, the missionaries ‘took the lead in pointing out the Scriptural authority for these [organisational] arrangements’ while ‘the steps taken were the independent action of the members of the Church, from their own convictions’.223 Possessing a rather clear vision of the Chinese Church, the missionaries were consciously leading the Chinese toward that state of aﬀairs. But the Chinese were also moving on their own, as seen for instance in the petition for a pastor in 1861. Not that there was no instruction or persuasion, but that such diﬀers vastly from imperialistic domination or forceful imposition by virtue

219 Talmage to Middle Ref[ormed] Dutch Church (Brooklyn), from Amoy, 12 September 1848, CI (18 January 1849) p. 109 c. 1–2 (italics added). 220 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857 (italics added). 221 Talmage, History, pp. 13, 63–64. 222 Talmage, ‘Should the native Churches in China’, in Records 1877, pp. 429, 430, 435 (italics added). 223 CAF, p. 364.

346

 

of allowing the other party the freedom of consent and dissent. Perhaps it is this freedom which makes one somewhat hesitant to simplistically identify the Banlam brand of missionary leadership with the cultural imperialism with which China missions are so often associated.224 Whether it concerns opium importation or smuggling or ancestral worship, there is a great diﬀerence between being compelled and being convinced. This diﬀerence applies also between a postwar treaty signed by both victor and loser, on the one hand and on the other hand, a scholarly consensus over an academic issue. The introduction of Presbyterianism in Banlam without denominational subordination to Western Churches should be considered in this light. By their non-dominating leadership, the missionaries exhibited a humility and a nobility rather unusual for that particular period of mission history.225 Lastly, in the matter of devolution and union, the RCA missionaries acted quite independently of their ecclesiastical authorities in America. In the exercise of this independence, they were aﬀected to no small extent by their impression of disinterestedness in ﬁeld operational details on the part of the RCA home Church. Talmage put it this way, From the Reports on Foreign Missions at the meetings of General Synod, we see that they still regard Amoy as a Mission of the Dutch Church; but, they have not for many years, if ever, sent us any of their publications. We occasionally receive the [Christian] Intelligencer, but we have received no letters from the Secretary of Foreign Missions, neither do we ever receive a copy of their Minutes. We have concluded, notwithstanding, to state to the Synod our views and proceedings in the matter of church organization at Amoy, and ask their advice. I will endeavor in a few days to give you some extracts from the Minutes of our ﬁrst meeting of Consistory, and the rules which they have adopted for their government in the transaction of business.226

224 See e.g. A. Schlesinger, Jr., ‘The missionary enterprise and theories of imperialism’, in Fairbank (1974) pp. 336–373. The literature on Western imperialism is massive and still growing but it is not our present aim to engage with the subject here. 225 Our position runs counter to the view of Harris (1991) who relies mainly on the structural theory of imperialism. Without going into a full debate, it suﬃces to say that by dealing broadly with ABCFM missionaries in China, Harris’ work successfully falls into the category of survey-type studies whose general pictures of reality (risking simplism) our focused study is aiming to revise and reﬁne. 226 Talmage from Amoy, 30 May 1856, CI (25 September 1856) p. 50 c. 3. It seems the Consistory minutes, if ever sent at all from Amoy or received in America, were never published in the CI.

 

347

Two things require comment here, viz. the non-communication from the American home front and the ﬁeld report about the Amoy church organisation. In fact, missionary disappointment over the failure of the home Church to maintain constant communication with the Amoy Mission extended to the time of Pohlman. In late 1846, the lone RCA missionary lamented that the last ABCFM letter sent him was ‘a year old’, that from the Secretary of the BFM ‘more than two years old’ and the one from ‘the [local] church I represent’ was ‘older still’.227 In 1857, Doty complained that he was unsure whether to regard Isaac Ferris’ letter as coming from the BFM secretary or ‘a friend and brother in the Lord’ for the reason that ‘we have seen no report of the Election of [BFM] oﬃcers’.228 The noncommunication of the American home front was therefore not just an instance of simple negligence but a case of prolonged or habitual failure. But what interests us is more than the mere existence of this shortcoming. Rather it is that this non-communication or non-direction may have reinforced (if not created) the idea that the ﬁeld workers were free not only to pursue any activity within the bounds of the RCA Constitution but also to react to situational exigencies as they see ﬁt or necessary even if this means crossing legal boundaries. Consider how the principle of the priority of necessary situational adaptation over literal Constitutional loyalty was implied in the polite apologetic rhetoric of Doty penned in 1857: ‘Have we violated the spirit of the standards of our Church or of her Constitution?’229 In response to what ‘looks like implied censure’ from T.W. Chambers, the chairman of the General Synod Committee on Foreign Mission, Doty asked in restrained protest: ‘Is it, that so far as we have organized, we have so closely adhered to the standards and formulas of our church and are now acting upon the same platform with our bench of Elders and deacons? Or does our error consist in presuming to examine and compare—with the teachings of the S[acred] S[criptures] and the circumstances and necessities of our case—those standards and forms—before we carried them out?’230 The other thing to comment on is the initiative of the RCA missionaries in

227 P.S. dated 17 December 1846, Pohlman from Amoy, 17 September 1846, CI (6 May 1847) p. 168(170) c. 2–4. 228 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 7 October 1857. 229 Ibid. 230 Ibid.

348

 

reporting the matter of the Amoy church organisation to the home Church. Both the wording itself—i.e. ‘We have concluded, notwithstanding, to state to the Synod our views and proceedings . . . and ask their advice.’231—and the literary context—i.e. home non-communication—suggest that the missionary report was made on the assumption of home Church disinterestedness in such details. Furthermore the Mission made it clear that they were making a statement about what they had already done on their own and this before seeking the ‘advice’ of the General Synod. The meaning of the latter request was put into proper perspective by the voluntary oﬀer to forward a copy of the rules of church government and portions of the minutes of the Chinese Consistory. That is to say, the request was nothing but a circumlocution for the asking of Synod agreement or endorsement rather than permission or approval. And not only was the action of the Mission taken in an independent spirit, the decision itself as well as the thinking behind it partook equally of the same spirit. Thus in response to some allegations that there had been ABCFM inﬂuence behind the making of the Amoy Consistory232, Doty remarked, . . . as to all our views and consequent action let no one surmise that the New England inﬂuences were at work in our midst. I do not think we ever rec[eive]d a sentence from Boston on the subject of “Ecclesiastical organization” until some considerable time after our action had taken place. We have rec[eive]d the decided approbation of Dr. Anderson to our organizing according to our home ecclesiastical standard and forms; but never a word of discouragement or opposition thereto.233

Therefore where it concerns the theoretical dimension, the RCA missionaries were primarily motivated by the Talmage ideal. Where it concerns the application dimension, they were driven by an independent spirit. Yet it was neither an independence without direction nor one without purpose. For it was an independence which refused to be bogged down by the legal constraints reckoned to be ﬁtting for the older Church in America but impractical for the younger Church in Banlam. The whole matter boils down to an obsessive determination on the part of Doty and Talmage. Driven by

231 232 233

Italics added. Doty of 15 September 1857. Doty of 7 October 1857.

 

349

the zeal to convert the ideal into the actual, these men were visionaries as well as realisers. As the leading spirit of the devolutionary movement launched in 1856, the two Dutch-American gentlemen were to be given full credit for their courage and determination. As the leaders of the RCA Amoy congregations who held all ecclesiastical authority and power until the Sinkoe event, Doty and Talmage readily took the initiative to share these with the Chinese, generously making the latter their fellow-rulers in a new era of Banlam Protestantism. 8.6. Comparative perspectives Any evaluation of the Banlam achievement requires some reference point. One way of proceeding in this respect is by way of comparison and contrast. Taking up this procedure, we present three comparative perspectives. These are (a) comparing the actual results in Banlam with the aims of the RCA and EP missionaries, (b) comparing the South Fujian achievements with those of certain nineteenth century missions and (c) comparing the Banlam accomplishment with some twentieth century ideals. To compare aims and results, it is inevitable that we take the Talmage ideal as the starting point. By 1867 the Banlam missionaries were able to claim that should they be unexpectedly removed, the churches would be ready to ‘secure their own growth, support, and purity of doctrine’ in an independent manner.234 However the various limits we have noted (many of which were still true in 1867) make us wonder whether this self-assessment was over-optimistic or whether it referred to only some of the churches. Historically that claim was never really tested in the nineteenth century since the Missions were not permanently removed until after 1949. At any rate, the various limits which existed even after the ﬁrst pastoral ordinations imply that the missionaries did not fully realise their dream. This is not to say that signiﬁcant progress was not made in all areas of pursuit. As things turned out, the best gains were in self-propagation, self-government and union while self-support proved to be ‘the weakest link’.

234

Van Doren, in AR-BFM (1867) p. 11.

350

 

However solely comparing results and ideals does not yield a full picture. It is useful to also compare the results with other results. Thus from among other nineteenth century Missions, we look at three ‘contemporary neighbours’. These were (a) the ‘town-mate’ of the RCA and EPM, or the LMS Amoy Mission, (b) the other EP Mission on the mainland, or EPM Swatow and (c) one of the ‘more successful’235 Protestant missions of the nineteenth century, i.e. the Hakka mission of the Basel society. LMS Amoy Among the various China Missions of the LMS, Amoy was considered to be the most successful one in terms of devolutionary progress.236 In 1870 when no great improvement in devolution was observed among the LMS stations in the many eastern lands, Amoy was presented as the only exception237. However in comparison, the RCA work was certainly more advanced. Whereas the ﬁrst Chinese pastors in the LMS churches appeared in 1872238, the Taihoey saw its earliest ministerial ordinations take place two decades before. Whereas the LMS native missionary society was formed only in 1892239, the RCA Chinese launched their ﬁrst home missions in the 1850s (the speciﬁc year being 1859, that is, if we discount the aborted domestic missions of 1853). Whereas the practice of self-support among the LMS Christians started in 1866240, the RCA equivalent had preceded in 1863. Also while the LMS began with the partial support of the preacher, the RCA pastors had started out fully church-supported. The claim of superiority was later made that the LMS aimed at the self-support of both pastors and preachers while ‘[the Presbyterians] support their preachers with foreign money, and pastors by groups of churches.’241 While it is true the Chinese Presbyterians started systematic eﬀorts to support the evangelists much later (that is, in 1913)242, to compare LMS aims with Presbyterian

235

J.G. Lutz, Hakka Chinese confront Protestant Christianity (1997) p. 3. MacGillivray, Century, p. 8. 237 LMSReport (1870) pp. 27–28. 238 ChronLMS (May 1872) pp. 92ﬀ. 239 F.P. Joseland, ChronLMS (1899) p. 53. 240 J. MacGowan, The history of self-support in the London Mission (1888). Call number = CWML, 0251. 241 Lovett, I: p. 506. 242 Shengyan Xu, ‘Minnan Dahui jiushinian shilue’ [Ninety-year outline history 236

 

351

reality in the 1890s seems a bit strange. As a matter of fact, all three Missions were still subsidising their evangelists in the 1920s.243 Finally whereas the Amoy Congregational Union was formed in 1870244, the Taihoey had materialised a bit earlier in 1862. Furthermore the former involved only the churches of one Mission even if the term ‘Union’ may appear to suggest otherwise to some. Within Banlam throughout the entire nineteenth century, only the Taihoey could lay a valid claim of having achieve the organic union of native churches originally connected with distinct Western Protestant denominations or missions. In truth, it was only in the having of deacons that the LMS was in advance of the RCA-EP. Therefore in general terms, the RCA-EP achievement superseded that of the LMS Amoy Mission whether in devolution or union. EPM Swatow Comparatively speaking, Banlam was not only more progressive than EPM Swatow but also became an inspiration and a model for the latter. In following Banlam’s devolutionary course, Swatow deviated, beside some ‘slight’ details, in only one respect, i.e. the Gibson-led objection to having a creed until one can be written which is 100% authored by the Chinese.245 But in self-government, the formation of the Swatow Presbytery (1881) and its ﬁrst pastoral ordination (1882) were inspired mainly by the South Fujian example and particularly by the visiting Banlam pastors in 1880.246 Since both Smith and Mackenzie had originally come to Swatow from Amoy, the newer EP Mission was from the ﬁrst already aware of the devolutionary progress in South Fujian. Subsequent Banlam developments were also not unknown to Swatow. During his ﬁve-week visit to Swatow and ‘Yam-chau’ in 1864, Swanson was able to compare notes with his colleagues at these places.247 In 1865/66 Mackenzie

of the Minnan Dahui], Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui zhonghui di-erjie changhui jiniance (1930) p. 161. 243 Shengyan Xu, ‘Minnan Dahui lilai ziyangli yu jiaohui xianzhuang’ [The historical self-support ability and present church condition of the Minnan Dahui], Wenshe yuekan (1927) p. 96. 244 N. Goodall, A history of the London Missionary Society (1954) pp. 233, 238. 245 J.C. Gibson, ‘Memorandum regarding [the] Presbyterian organization of [the] native church in South China’, CR (1902) pp. 11, 13–14. 246 Hood, Mission, p. 137; WHP, p. 202. 247 Swanson from Amoy, 30 May 1864, Mess (1864) pp. 318–319.

352

 

attended the Taihoey meeting at Maping and found himself quite impressed with the proceedings.248 The Banlam model was also familiar to J.C. Gibson whose visit to Amoy in 1875 converted him into a leading advocate of the Romanised colloquial and probably also convinced him of the need for parochial schools.249 In fact, the visit of the Banlam pastors in 1880 were deliberately designed by Swatow missionaries for the purpose of providing inspiration to their converts.250 The advancement of Banlam over Swatow is further seen in the communicant population at the time of Presbyterial formation. The two Missions in Banlam had a total of 355 church members in early 1862 whereas Swatow had 700 in 1881251 (or nearly twice the Banlam size). Partly because of this population diﬀerence, Swatow outpaced Banlam in Synodical formation. Whereas the time-gap between Presbytery and Synod (1899)252 at Swatow was eighteen years, that for Banlam was three decades. But this does not topple the overall leadership of Banlam over EPM Swatow in self-governmental devolution during the nineteenth century. In terms of self-support and self-propagation, again we ﬁnd Banlam to be generally more progressive. However the details are not as complete or as clear as they are in the sphere of self-government. In self-support, period comparison in ﬁnancial statistics cannot be made due to the lack of reliable data from the early decades of the Swatow Mission.253 In this absence, perhaps data from the early twentieth century may be helpful for a general impression. Based on 1909 realities, a survey of devolutionary progress in South China revealed that South Fujian (above $6 per member) topped in selfsupport, outgiving Swatow by about $2 per member (and Manchuria’s Irish Presbyterians by ca. $4.50 per member!). Apart from educational work expenses, the Banlam Christians (connected with all Missions) were supporting their local church work at the level of up to ca. 80%. This practically matched the self-support status of EP Swatow as reported in 1907.254 Yet the regress of EP Swatow from

248 249 250 251 252 253 254

Matheson, Narrative, pp. 72ﬀ. Hood, Mission, pp. 115–134. Cf. Gibson, ‘Memorandum’, p. 12. Hood, Mission, p. 141. WHP, p. 267. Hood, Mission, pp. 145, 322. Gibson, ‘The Chinese Church’, in Records 1907, pp. 11–16.

 

353

80% (1907) to 65% (1930) and 69% (1931)255 illustrates the ﬂuctuating fortune of self-support and the inadvisability of trend-ﬁnding based on scanty statistics. On a surer footing however we may point out that the two Banlam pastors were invited in 1880 to speak speciﬁcally on self-support.256 This suggests that EPM Swatow regarded Banlam as being in advance of them in this department. Thus whereas we could oﬀer no solid comparative statistics from the early decades of both regions, there is ground for saying Banlam led and inspired the self-support campaign at Swatow. In self-propagation, Banlam’s domestic mission stimulated Swatow’s Namoa mission (supra). Banlam also did better at training up a native agency. The ﬁrst Swatow theological class of six students ﬁrst met in 1871 but closed after its second year when the only student remaining with the Mission was appointed to a station outside Swatow.257 Following his Amoy visit (ca. April 1873), William Duﬀus was impressed by the Banlam success in raising up a body of well-trained and earnest preachers in contrast to the deterioration in this department of work at Swatow.258 Again we ﬁnd Banlam to be more progressive and playing the role of inspirer to Swatow in the area of self-propagation. Some comment should perhaps be made with respect to the relationship between the states of devolutionary progress in Banlam and Swatow on the one hand, and on the other hand, the respective periods during which the missionary ideal of the native church emerged. Although its ﬁrst explicit statement appeared only in 1881259, Hood assumes that the Three-self ideal had always been the aim of the EP Mission at Swatow.260 Refraining from discussing the historical accuracy of this assumption, we point out that Swatow formally adopted the Three-self ideal during the time of J.C. Gibson whereas the Talmage ideal was expressed during the pioneering stage of the Banlam work when the RCA church membership numbered less than a handful. But the crux of the matter is not whether the church ideal was held from the earliest times or later. Rather it is at what point in time the ideal began to be realised. Inevitably

255 256 257 258 259 260

Hood, Mission, p. 296. Page 137. Pages 77–78. Page 78. Gibson, Mission, p. 222. Hood, Mission, pp. 4, 257.

354

 

the matter is intimately related to the key personality(s) who played the role of the prime mover(s) in devolution. From this standpoint, we note that things began to happen at Swatow under the leadership of a second-generation missionary, Gibson, who ﬁrst joined the work when it was already in the mid-part of its second decade.261 In contrast, the same happened at Banlam under the leadership of two ﬁrst-decade missionaries, Doty and Talmage, who joined the work in its third (1844) and sixth (1847) years, respectively. Little wonder then that Banlam should turn out to be more advance in devolutionary achievement during the nineteenth century. Lastly although Swatow knew about the Banlam union, no like thing was duplicated there in the nineteenth century.262 Although Swatow was quick to join the Reformed-Presbyterian Alliance (1888)263 and in responding positively to the idea of Presbyterian union as expressed at the 1890 Missionary Conference264, there was no local union within its own region. Its ‘post-denominational’ church came about only after 1949.265 More positively, Gibson later cited Banlam as a model of ‘the building up of one Chinese Church’.266 Interestingly his proposed ‘steps towards union’267 were similar in substance to the ideas which Talmage had expressed publicly some thirty years ago268. Thus not only in the area of devolution but likewise in that of church union, Banlam led and inspired Swatow. Basel The crowning glory of Basel’s Hakka mission was the ‘success’ of Chinese labours. While it was claimed Banlam’s work expanded mostly by self-propagation269, Basel’s unsupervised paid Chinese labour undertaken on an extensive scale was an important diﬀerence. At Wuhua, native work carried on independently for a decade before

261 The Swatow Mission commenced in 1858 while Gibson arrived in 1874. See Hood, Mission, chh. 2–3. 262 Cf. WHP, p. 264. 263 Hood, Mission, p. 143. 264 ‘Resolution on Presbyterian union’, CR (1891) pp. 9–12. 265 Hood, Mission, pp. 276–277. 266 Gibson, in Records 1907, p. 3. 267 Pages 3–5. 268 Talmage, ‘Should the native Churches in China’, in Records 1877, pp. 435ﬀ. Cf. Talmage, History, p. 66. 269 E.g. Douglas, in Records 1877, pp. 348–349.

 

355

the ﬁrst missionary visit was made.270 Such a thing would never have been allowed in Banlam. In this respect, the Basel attitude toward native self-propagation proved more progressive. That is, more progressive in the sense that the Basel missionaries allowed the Chinese to operate rather independently. However the cost of this early relaxation told on the quality of their converts (see infra) and this was one thing the Banlam missionaries would not conceivably put into risk. But hardly could Basel claim similar success in the sphere of selfgovernment. After three decades in China, its missionaries still thought it ‘premature’ to grant independence to any single native community.271 Even the choice of elders was monopolised by the missionaries who also did not regard the Chinese pastors as equals.272 In contrast, the Banlam elders and pastors enjoyed real power and greater autonomy, not to mention the respect of being treated as equals by the missionaries. Banlam also preceded Basel in having pastors and exceeded the latter in ministerial ordinations. Greatly delaying the appearance of the ﬁrst Basel pastor (1869) was the need to train and ordain him in Europe273. Congregational inability to pay pastors also prevented new ordinations. In contrast, although the suggestion was made that Chinese youths be trained and ordained in England274, neither the Banlam missionaries nor the FMC took it seriously. Western ordination standards were dispensed with275, allowing things to proceed as freely as congregational self-supporting ability could cope. Consequently devolution suﬀered less technical hindrance in South Fujian. By 1905 Basel had one pastor276 and RCA thirteen277 while the EP in 1894 already had eight.278 Lutz thinks Basel’s linkage of self-support with self-governance to be a major obstacle to the attainment of the latter.279 Whereas Lutz

270

Lutz, Hakka, p. 4. Pages 238ﬀ. 272 Pages 243ﬀ. 273 Pages 247ﬀ. 274 E.g. see Mess (1855) p. 242. 275 E.g. Doty & Talmage & Joralmon from Amoy, 17 September 1856, p. 29. 276 Records. China Centenary Missionary Conference (1907) p. 775. 277 AR-BFM (1906) p. 103. In the whole of China, the EP had thirty-four pastors. Short report of the FMC (1915) p. 3. 278 Our Church in China, p. 25. 279 Lutz, Hakka, pp. 244ﬀ. 271

356

 

could at most argue hypothetically280, our research provides positive evidence that in Banlam de-linkage did actually liberate both selfgovernment and self-support unto varying degrees of realisation. The 1856 devolution did not involve the transfer of any property or institution and hence the duty to maintain such ﬁnancially. The only ‘transfer’ was of ecclesiastical leadership and authority via the creation of a group of Chinese church oﬃce-bearers. Thus native inability to sustain educational work was irrelevant in 1856, just as it too was later in 1862. Furthermore as no pastoral appointment was involved, the matter of ministerial support was never an issue. Since the Sinkoe event involved no new ﬁnancial obligation upon the native church, Chinese ﬁnancial ability was neither a facilitation nor an obstruction. In other words, regardless of how one deﬁnes it or how the missionaries understood it, self-support was a non-factor in 1856. Even so, Chinese ﬁnancial initiatives did create some impact. The missionaries were not unaware that despite their general poverty the Christians were generous within their limits especially in helping the poor within the believing community and in doing domestic missionary work. These active displays of Christian generosity and charity certainly improved the already-good impressions of the natives on the part of the foreigners, thereby adding to the Westerners’ conﬁdence in them. In the end, not only was Chinese ﬁnancial ability a non-factor in the devolution of 1856, Chinese ﬁnancial performance was in fact a positive factor in enhancing their standing in the eyes of the missionaries. However unlike in the case of the Sinkoe event, Chinese ﬁnancial ability was a crucial factor in the Taihoey event. While various self-support eﬀorts in 1856–62 did their share in impressing the missionaries, it was the readiness to support pastors (1861ﬀ ) which proved critical in hastening the Taihoey. Even as retrenchment in other areas of self-support was anticipated, the news of Chinese readiness was no small delight to the missionaries who were only too conscious that pastoral ordinations signify a simultaneous attainment in self-support and selfgovernment. Thus when native ﬁnance mattered in 1862, it was not a hindrance to devolution. Finally still on ﬁnance, we may add that,

280 For we can always ask, what assurance is there that de-linkage will surely actualise progress in both self-government and self support in Hakkaland?

 

357

comparatively, Basel communicants gave $0.41 per capita281 in 1908 while the Banlam ﬁgure for 1909 was above $6 per member282. The matter of self-government also relates to the strict admission policy on account of which the Banlam missionaries had greater respect for and stronger conﬁdence in their Chinese converts. As we have previously discussed rather extensively, to no mean degree did this facilitate the realisation of devolution. In contrast, Basel was never as stringent in the matter of church admission and worker quality control. For instance, after a decade of purely native work, the ﬁrst Basel missionaries visited Wuhua and baptised about one hundred people283(!). Oft-repeated doubts about the authenticity of the conversion of both evangelists (!) and converts284 also indicate no little missionary diﬃdence about the natives’ Christian quality. Perhaps we should not altogether rule out the possibility that there was no residue of Gutzlaﬀ left in Basel.285 Thus eventually when Hakka autonomy came in the 1910s–20s, it was not by Basel’s design. With the missionaries ejected oﬀ the mainland for political reasons, the Chinese were left on their own.286 Thus what the ‘peaceful’ times of the nineteenth century failed to produce, wartime twentieth century did in a rather handy manner. The need for such extreme external pressures contrasts greatly with the relatively selfmotivated character of Banlam devolution. Finally the feat of Banlam in eﬀecting an organic union of churches was not something duplicated by Basel in the nineteenth century.287 In sum, Basel bested Banlam in self-propagation although at the cost of convert quality. On the other hand, Banlam was able to out-do Basel in the areas of self-government, self-support and church union. Twentieth century ideals Compared with the more ‘enlightened’ aspirations of the twentieth century, the Banlam devolution deﬁnitely falls short. Already we

281

Lutz, Hakka, p. 245. CMYB (1910) pp. 195ﬀ. 283 Lutz, Hakka, p. 4. 284 Page 241. 285 Cf. J.G. Lutz and R.R. Lutz, ‘Karl Gutzlaﬀ ’s approach to indigenization: The Chinese Union’, in Bays (1996) pp. 269–291. 286 Lutz, Hakka, pp. 255ﬀ. 287 By 1910, Basel had federated with the Rhenish and Berlin missions. CMYB (1910) p. 196. 282

358

 

have mentioned the many limitations of the Banlam achievement in terms of the Talmage/Three-self ideal and of union. But the indigenisation movement of the 1920s entertained an even more comprehensive vision and pursued an equally large project. The Declaration of the National Christian Conference in 1922 contained nine articles explaining the concept of a Chinese church288. The objective of indigenisation was deﬁned in the broadest sense conceivable encompassing both cultural and organisational or institutional dimensions.289 Measured against these, the Banlam devolution has two major shortcomings. First, it was purely ecclesiastical in nature. The primary (not to say full ) responsibility for educational work was not devolved in the nineteenth century. The transfer of the control of the educational and medical290 institutions came only in 1945ﬀ.291 Both the Sinkoe and Taihoey events were church events. Or even more speciﬁcally, the ﬁrst was a local church event and the other a regional Presbyterian church event. Second, the Banlam devolution was purely political in nature. There was a major transformation in the power structure of the Church but no equiponderant transformation of the Gospel into Chinese cultural terms or forms. Or using Bays’ self-confessedly ‘oversimpliﬁed’ terminology, there was some ‘indigenization’ but not ‘inculturation’.292 In our preferred language, we say that there was some devolution but not inculturation.293 In terms of devolution in self-government and self-support, we may consider the proposals of Gibson, a key ﬁgure in EPM Swatow (1874–1919) and the Centenary Conference (1907).294 Gibson suggested that (a) devolution should begin with the transfer of pastoral duty, (b) then followed by that of the external relations of the Chinese Church (including property matters and disputes between Chinese parties); (c) in ﬁnances, let the missionary administer Mission funds while the Chinese their own subscriptions; (d) in theological educa-

288 See S.F. Yang, Zhongguo Jidujiao shi (History of Christianity in China) (1958) pp. 293–294. 289 Cf. also e.g. K.T. Chung, ‘The yearnings of the Chinese Church’, CMYB (1925) pp. 86–89; D.Z.T. Yui, ‘The indigenization of the Y.M.C.A. in China’, CMYB (1925) p. 165. 290 In 1863, there was no medical work on the part of the RCA and EPM. 291 WHP, pp. 559–561, 584. 292 ‘The rise of an indigenous Chinese Christianity’, in Bays (1996) p. 265n. 293 On ‘inculturation’, see Arrupe’s deﬁnition in P. Schineller, ‘Inculturation: a diﬃcult and delicate task’, IBMR 20:3 (1996) p. 109. 294 Hood, Mission, ch. 3.

 

359

tion and pastoral training, prolonged missionary involvement was to be expected.295 In 1862 Banlam, we ﬁnd that (a) was accomplished in only two out of ﬁve organised churches. In terms of (b), property ownership was not devolved but the burden of dispute settlement was shared with the elders. And lastly, we observe that both (c) and (d) were true of Banlam. Yet in Gibson’s proposals, one does not see the fullness of the Talmage/Three-self ideal. Rather there was more a statement of how to attain that ideal. This brings up two important aspects of devolution. The ﬁrst is its historical deﬁnitions. Warneck wrote that by the late nineteenth century the Three-self ideal was conventional wisdom for the Protestant missionary movement.296 Although the ideal had not been fully achieved anywhere, ‘in several mission ﬁelds they are at least in the position of approximating to the attainment of it.’297 This estimation relates to terminological deﬁnition. It seems the terms self-government and self-support had both a stable conceptual deﬁnition and a ﬂuid operational deﬁnition. Users did not apply either of the terms univocally but meant it in diverse degrees at various occasions. For instance, commenting on the domestic missionaries, Douglas said ‘a beginning has been made of the self-supporting principle’298. Yet later Doty declared that with pastors placed over them, the Amoy churches will likely become ‘entirely self-sustaining’299, thus suggesting that full self-support was only to begin. However after church-supported pastors were installed, Ostrom assessed that the Tekchhiukha congregation was only ‘in a great measure self-sustaining’, thus not fully self-supporting.300 Also it was noted that the (largely self-sustaining!) congregation was ﬁnancially incapable of acquiring a church building should they lose the existing one.301 Even later in 1910 when some South China congregations were fully paying their local church expenses, the situation was still considered ‘a far cry to complete self-support’ and mainly because higher education was practically all ﬁnanced from foreign sources. Thus it was clariﬁed

295 J.C. Gibson, ‘The part of the Chinese Church in mission administration’, CR (1912) pp. 352–354. 296 G. Warneck, Outline of a history of Protestant missions (1901) pp. 140ﬀ, 348ﬀ. 297 Page p. 348. 298 Douglas from Maping, 1 August 1859, Mess (1860) p. 20. 299 723CM/Bx1, Doty from Amoy, 9 December 1861. 300 723CM/Bx1, Ostrom from Amoy, 5 June 1863. 301 Ibid.

360

 

self-support could only be spoken of ‘in a limited sense . . . [i.e.] the ability of local congregations to pay the expenses of their local church work.’302 Actually it was this deﬁnitional ﬂuidity that allowed missionaries, Mission Boards and Societies to speak of any Three-self achievement at all. At times the ﬂuidity no doubt opened the door for interpretational ambiguity whether intended or unintended. Yet this does not justify a blanket conclusion about the honesty or the precision of general missionary reportage. Each case must be judged by its merits. Perhaps Hollis’ remark on another subject is helpful here: ‘Every human formulation is in the terms of the thinking of a particular age and society. It employs certain dated categories and asks its questions in those forms which are within its own inheritance and relevant to its own needs.’303 Therefore in its fullest sense, the Three-self ideal was never attained in Banlam or all-China during the pre-PRC era.304 This was true despite the waning of the old position305 which linked self-government with self-support.306 Even during the Japanese years, there was autonomy from Western missionaries but not ‘autonomy from the state’.307 Neither has the ideal been achieved after 1951, for the new government took the place of Western Missions as the ﬁnancier of the Chinese Church.308 Furthermore it is doubted by many whether full self-government exists or ever did exist under the new regime.309 The second aspect of ecclesiastical devolution is that in practice it is by any count a process. In order to do it justice, the Banlam achievement must be placed in the proper historical and processive perspectives. It is very signiﬁcant that in 1856 the process was set in motion. Despite the absence of Chinese pastors, the accessibility of the eldership to non-clerics within Presbyterianism allowed for the state of power-sharing which came into being. Consequently the

302

CMYB (1910) p. 197. M. Hollis, The signiﬁcance of South India (1966) p. 40. 304 E.g. J.M. Yard, ‘Self-support—is it growing?’, CMYB (1925) pp. 94–96; C. Lacy, ‘Self-support in the Chinese Church’, IRM (1939) pp. 246–251. 305 E.g. S.L. Baldwin, ‘Self-support of the native Church’, in Records 1877, pp. 283–293. 306 R.M. Cross, ‘The problem of Mission-Church relationship in Peking’, CR (1925) pp. 106–110. 307 Brook, ‘Toward’, pp. 335ﬀ. 308 N.H. Cliﬀ, ‘A history of the Protestant movement in Shandong province, China, 1859–1951’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Buckingham, 1994) pp. 434ﬀ. 309 See Lambert, Resurrection (1994). 303

 

361

long theological training course awaiting pastoral candidates did not serve to delay the installation of native co-governors of the church. Most importantly, the phenomenon of partnership in leadership was something new in its time and also a real devolutionary advancement. That the missionaries should continue to be the actual leaders was inevitable. The ‘anomalous’ missionary membership in the Taihoey was likewise deemed acceptable only because the arrangement was intended to be temporary.310 Thus the missionaries were doing their best in the situation. There was no transfer of ‘owned’ property, for the missionaries themselves had nothing to hand over. There was no transfer of educational institutions, for the missionaries thought the natives unready to assume such ﬁnancial burdens. There were only elders because no convert yet qualiﬁed to be a pastor. Naturally this raises the question of prematurity. One may say that if the RCA missionaries had waited a little longer, the devolution may have been more complete. That is, there could also be the devolution of pastorates to some theological graduates; more aged converts to ﬁll the elderships; a larger membership able to undertake self-support, inherit and maintain properties, institutions, workers and the inland work; etc. In reply, we say that delay at most means a relatively more complete devolution in one action. But this need not be the case, for devolution as a process is really a series of actions. To withhold one ripe action only in order to wait for another to ripen is to deny devolution itself, for the same rationale can actually justify an indeﬁnite postponement or non-devolution itself. By letting the devolution process begin at the soonest moment without at the same time sacriﬁcing their own principles and standards, the RCA missionaries were to be commended for making what they believed to the best out of what existed in 1856 and again in 1862–63. As far as ecclesiastical devolution is concerned, the actions therefore were inaugural in nature. As a beginning, they were incomplete but certainly not insigniﬁcant. Perhaps what Merwin said of the Church of Christ in China applies also to Banlam: Despite many limitations, ‘the direction was right’.311 Relatively speaking, union did better than devolution in Banlam. Whereas the Talmage ideal was never fully attained in 1862 or afterwards, the aim of organic union was realised. In 1934, A.R. 310 311

Talmage, in FYC, pp. 297, 300–301. Merwin (1974) pp. 212–213.

362

 

Kepler312 lauded Banlam as ‘one of the rare places in the Christian world where denominationalism has been entirely eliminated.’313 For the Protestant parties within the union church, it did not matter that the Catholics were excluded, for that was precisely the intention.314 In the instance of Banlam, therefore, ecclesiastical union preceded the full realisation of the Talmage ideal. In this monograph, we have argued that since 1848 the Talmage ideal guided the devolution programme of the Banlam missionaries. In this pursuit, the Dutch-Americans preceded the EPM. Actual moments of devolutionary progress were motivated immediately by Chinese Christian quality and quantitative church growth. Eccelesiastical union however was not in the 1848 blueprint. Rather it came about as a result of the peculiar RCA-EPM cooperative relationship during 1850–1862. Thus design (Talmage ideal) and circumstance (union) were both at work in the Banlam phenomenon. Despite its many limits and outright failure to measure up fully to twentieth century ideals, the Banlam achievement properly retained its merits, being found to be more progressive than any China mission in 1863. For all that was accomplished up to 1863, both the missionaries and the Chinese shared the credit. But between the two Missions, the Dutch-Americans deserved more than the British missionaries. Coming to the end of our study, we are compelled by the research exercise to say that the subject matter to which we have conﬁned ourselves is indeed extremely modest. We have undertaken a meticulous and detailed investigation, yet have not really gone beyond the ﬁrst two decades of Banlam Protestantism. We have sifted through the RCA and EPM sources rather comprehensively, but have excluded the LMS almost totally. Furthermore we still long for the contemporary Chinese view(s) of things during that primitive period. In a true sense, the study of Banlam devolution-union has merely just begun. It would hardly be a surprise to the researcher if the reader discovers that our attempt to seek some answer to a few questions has in fact resulted in the raising of more questions still without answers. This would be no surprise for the reason that the researcher

312

General Secretary (1927–34), Church of Christ in China. Merwin (1974) p. 73. Cf. WHP, p. 480. 314 E.g. Douglas, in Records 1877, pp. 447–448; Gibson, in Records 1907, pp. 29–30, 415. 313

 

363

has himself experienced the same. Perhaps it would be helpful to mention some of these questions, if only to oﬀer them as suggested areas for future research. First, to what extent did the RCA missionaries and Rufus Anderson inﬂuence each other conceptually on the subject of the indigenous church ideal and of the process of devolution? Is there any relationship between Anderson’s ideology on the one hand and on the other hand, Pohlman’s methodology (the emphasis on preaching, etc.), the parochial school system and the Talmage ideal?315 These pertain particularly to the period of the BFM-ABCFM working relationship (1832–57) during which the Mission maintained regular correspondence with Boston. After 1857, were there discernible Andersonisms or neo-Andersonisms in the thought and the development of the Church in Banlam? Second, devolution progressed well among all three Missions at Banlam. What does this imply? Was there any RCA-EP inﬂuence upon LMS Amoy or vice-versa? If yes, what is the nature and the content of the interaction(s)? Or was there something about Banlam itself or its people—as Speicher suggested316—which was inherently devolution-friendly? Third, to what extent did Banlam inﬂuence EPM Swatow and Formosa in terms of devolution and union? While we have brieﬂy touched on Swatow, there is certainly much more to be done in this direction. The case of Formosa should also be interesting since both devolution and union did transpire and the native Presbyterian Church survives to this day. Fourth, a comparative study with Manchuria would surely be interesting.317 We have not done this mainly because it was not a ‘contemporary neighbour’ to Banlam. That is, the geographical location is distant while contemporaity is denied by its rather late ‘blooming’. Consider, the union Presbytery was formed in 1891, the ﬁrst pastoral ordination occurred in 1896 and the Synod was organised in 1907.318 Another area for research is women’s work. To date, we know rather little about the female dimension of Banlam Protestantism. 315

See Harris, Nothing but Christ, ch. 2, ch. 5, p. 113. CMYB (1910) pp. 195–196. 317 See WHP, p. 431. 318 See A. Fulton, Through earthquake, wind and ﬁre. Church and mission in Manchuria 1867–1950 (1967). 316

364

 

The role and contribution of the lady missionaries remain an underexplored area. Our terminus ad quiem places the Bible women (1879ﬀ )319 outside the temporal coverage of this study. At various points in our discussion, we have cited the evangelistic endeavours and initiatives of female converts and especially widows and those more advanced in age. The dynamics and the impact of these as well as their place within the larger Protestant work in Banlam certainly deserve greater attention. Then there is the Banlam Confession of Faith drawn up by the missionaries, the pastors and the elders which was adopted by the Taihoey in 1876.320 To what extent did the eight-article doctrinal statement represent inculturation? How do the individual tenets compare with the Articles of Dort and with the Westminster Confession? Were there other discernible sources of thought? What were the respective roles and input of the Westerners and the Chinese in the making of the Banlam Confession? Is there any sign of native creativity in the composition of the document? These are questions of interest to historians, missiologists and theologians. Also, an aspect of our study requires to be located within the context of the scholarly discussion on local resistance and receptivity to Christianity321. The current ‘consensus’ is that the receptive parties were those somehow alienated322, marginalised323, oppressed or subordinated and lacking internal mechanisms for collective resistance to Christianity324, and lastly, those who were crisis-stricken325. Or in other words, those with some weakness or deﬁcit. It is therefore interesting that the ﬁrst converts (1846) were neither Mission employees326 nor from among the poor327 and thus hardly to be labeled ‘riceChristians’. In fact their baptism was delayed largely due to the mis-

319

RCC, pp. 131ﬀ. Warnshuis, Sketch, pp. 17ﬀ; WHP, p. 233. 321 R.R. Covell, The liberating Gospel in China (1995) pp. 263ﬀ. 322 P.A. Cohen, ‘Christian missions and their impact to 1900’, in The Cambridge history of China (1978) X: pp. 559ﬀ. 323 See J. Shepherd (plains aborigines in Taiwan), N. Diamond (Hua Miao) and N. Constable (Hakka) in Bays (1996). 324 T’ien Ju-k’ang, Peaks of faith (Brill, 1993). 325 Covell, The liberating Gospel, pp. 268–269. 326 Cf. the ﬁrst convert of ABCFM Fuzhou. E.C. Carlson, The Foochow missionaries, 1847–1880 (Harvard, 1974) pp. 66ﬀ. 327 Cf. David Cheung, ‘The growth of Protestantism in China: The role of the Chinese Christians, 1860–1900’ (M.A. thesis, University of London, 1997) pp. 20ﬀ. 320

 

365

sionary suspicion that they might have ‘sinister motives, and expect some worldly proﬁt by their connection with missionaries’.328 Not only did they gain no material beneﬁt from admission, Ong had to produce out of his resources the up-front money for the Sinkoe lot. In this case, the Mission actually beneﬁted from the convert rather than the reverse. However economic non-marginalisation does not automatically mean that they were not marginalised in any other way. But the extant evidence yields no suggestion that they were.329 The implication of this and like cases for the resistance-receptivity discussion is something requiring further study. Then there is the much studied subject of Chinese anti-foreignism. Were the relatively amicable Sino-foreign or Sino-missionary relations in Amoy sustained after 1860? How does this relate to the thesis that the missionary played a critical role in fostering the growth of antiforeignism in post-1860 China?330 Relatedly we have seen how the friendly attitude toward foreigners in Amoy spared the work from any major disruption. Meanwhile the inland work experienced no little opposition and persecution.331 Is this town-vs-country dissimilarity related to the fact that Protestant growth in Amoy greatly exceeded that in the interior? In contrast, anti-foreignism was intense in Fuzhou city where growth was dismal while local receptivity in the outstations made for encouraging conversion rates.332 Likewise EPM Swatow experienced greater success in the outstations.333 A study of the pre-1860 treaty ports and their inland vicinities may shed more light on the nature and dynamics of anti-foreignism in city/town-vs.-country terms and would supplement the great attention showered on post-1860 anti-foreignism and anti-Christianism. The last suggested research area concerns the uniqueness of Banlam. Over against many generally held perceptions about China missions, it stood peculiar on more than one count. Consider Chinese non-antagonism in Amoy, the absence of missionary preoccupation with quantitative church growth, the relative lack of complaints about

328

CRep (1846) p. 359. See CRep (1846) pp. 357–361. 330 So, e.g., P.A. Cohen, China and Christianity: The missionary movement and the growth of anti-foreignism, 1860–1870 (1963). 331 E.g. see sub-section on ‘Convert quality’ in 6.3. 332 See Carlson, Foochow, chh. 5–6; Stock, Story, pp. 39–40, 49–50, 293–294. 333 Hood, Mission, p. 136. Cf. pp. 56–68, 82–83. 329

366

 

rice-Christians within the churches, the progressive character of devolution and union, etc. Yet despite its signiﬁcance, Banlam was a small part of the Protestant enterprise so that our overall picture of nineteenth century devolution (and union) was little changed by it. Yet its very fact tells us one case did exist and as early as mid-century. The question then is: Besides Banlam, anywhere else? Indeed the present research project has accomplished but little. We have suggested some conclusions, yet these are out-numbered by the areas we have found to require further research. Nevertheless, what little we have done we oﬀer to others for their judgment. Many previously unknown details of a story hitherto largely untold have been unveiled. An in-depth analysis of the ﬁrst case of devolutionunion in China has been oﬀered. The larger picture of Chinese mission and church history has been further reﬁned. A gap in the scholarly literature on the indigenisation of Christianity in the Eastern world has been ﬁlled to a humble extent. Finally toward a global history of Christianity, our study locates another piece in the puzzle while also standing as a gateway and an invitation to further research by others who appreciate the value of understanding an important part of our past for the making of a better future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY RCA: Unpublished sources and primary publications 713 Borneo Mission, Correspondence and papers, 1836–1859, 1 box. RCAA. 721 China Mission, Minutes of the Amoy Mission meetings, 1918–1950, 1 box. RCAA. 723 China Mission, Correspondence 1856–1949, 11 boxes. RCAA = JAH/WTS, Microﬁlm, Box 27f. 724 China Mission, Papers, 1856–1951, 2 boxes. RCAA. Note on Box 1, Amoy Ecclesiastical Relations, Correspondence 1861–1864 folder: Contents actually include letters from 17 September 1856 to 7 October 1863; this already told the RCAA archivist in late 1999. 724.2 China Mission, Papers concerning disagreements within the mission, 1898–1905, 1 box. RCAA. 725 China Mission, Papers of Philip Wilson Pitcher (1856–1915), 4 folders. RCAA. 725 China Mission, Papers of Johannes Abraham Otte (1861–1910), 9 folders. RCAA. 725 China Mission, Manuscript biography by an anonymous author of William J. Pohlman (1812–1849), 1 folder. RCAA. 726 China Mission, Scrapbook of clippings, pamphlets almost entirely about Dr. John A. Otte. 1 volume. RCAA. A Sermon delivered May 6, 1849, in the North Dutch Church, Albany, on occasion of the lamented death of the Rev. William J. Pohlman, late missionary to China; and with some modiﬁcation, on June 10th, in the City of New York, as the Annual Missionary Discourse before the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church by Duncan Kennedy, D.D., minister of the said church (Albany: Joel Munsell, 1849). RCAA/MF/Pohlman. ‘The Abeel papers and journals (originally in the Picnic Basket)’, 2 pamphlet boxes. SL/MSS.XT8.Ab3. David Abeel, ‘Correspondence 1831–1846’, 1 reel, 35 mm. SL/Microﬁlm 15. ——, Journal of a residence in China and the neighboring countries, from 1829 to 1833 (NY, 1834). Note: Journal extracts appeared in Chinese Repository 12:5 (May 1843) pp. 266–269; 13:2 (February 1844) pp. 74–77; 13:5 (May 1844) pp. 233–238. ——, Journal of a residence in China, and the neighbouring countries; with a preliminary essay on the commencement and progress of missions in the world, 2nd ed. (NY, 1836). ——, The missionary convention at Jerusalem. Or, an exhibition of the claims of the world to the Gospel (NY, 1838). ——, ‘Sermon notes and analyses’, 2 volumes (1826–1844). Acts and proceedings of the General Synod (1771–1997). Note: Pre-1807 issues were variously entitled as Minutes or Acts or Proceedings. The 1866 and 1867 issues were entitled Acts and proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church. From 1868, the title was Acts and proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America. The annual report of the Missionary Society of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America (1826). Annual Report of the Board of Foreign Missions (1858–1957). Articles of Dort (1619). Articles explanatory of the government and discipline of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States of America (1792).

368



Ban-lam Lu Soan-to Hoe. 1935. Te 9 kai Ni-hoe e Po-ko [South Fujian Ladies Missionary Society. 1935. The 9th annual report]. JAH/W88–012, Box 3, Chinese materials folder. Ban-lam Seng-hoe Po [South Fujian Church Newspaper], 55:2 (1 August 1939) and 55:4 (1 December 1939). JAH/W88–012, Box 3, Chinese materials folder. Harry Peter Boot (1874–1961) papers. JAH/W88–0012, Boxes 1–4. James Brownson, ‘Ecclesiastical structure in foreign missions: A study of the development of Reformed Church missionary policy in Amoy China’ (unpublished paper, [Western Theological Seminary], n.d.). JAH/W88–0758. Chiang-Choan Tiun-lo Chong-hoe e Tiau-kui [Rules of the Chiang-Choan Synod] (E-mng [Amoy], 1906). Note: SL has a copy of the Chinese edition. Christian Intelligencer (1830–1934). The Church Herald (1944–ongoing). Classis of Albany, ‘Minute’. General Synod Papers, 102 Box 5, folder 26 (1864). H[enry] Cobb, Far hence: A budget of letters from our mission ﬁelds in Asia (NY, 1893). ‘The confession of faith of the Presbytery of Chang-chew and Chin-chew’ (n.d.). PFS1/Bx23/F4. The Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America: with an appendix, containing formularies for the use of the churches; together with the rules and order for the government of the General Synod (NY, 1834). See also the 1833, 1840 and 1874 editions. The Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America: with an appendix, containing formularies for the use of the churches together with the rules and orders for the government of the General Synod. The Catechism, Articles of Faith, Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, and Liturgy (Philadelphia, 1840). SL also has a copy of the 1869 Constitution (New York, 1869). Charles E. Corwin, A manual of the Reformed Church in America (formerly Reformed Protestant Dutch Church), 1628–1922, 5th ed. (NY, 1922). Edward Tanjore Corwin, A digest of constitutional and synodical legislation of the Reformed Church in America (formerly the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church) (NY, 1906). ——, A manual of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in North America (NY, 1859). ——, A manual of the Reformed Church in America ( formerly Ref[ormed] Prot[estant] Dutch Church) 1628–1878, 3rd ed. (NY, 1879). H.P. De Pree to Rev. W.I. Chamberlain, Lungyenchow, 14 February 1920. JAH/W88–012, Box 1, Amoy Mission 1920–29. ‘Death of Amoy’s Oldest Pastor, Rev. Tan Khe-Hong’, Intelligencer-Leader (16 April 1937) p. 15 c. 2. David P. Demarest, Paul D. Van Cleef and Edward T. Corwin (eds), Centennial of the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in America ( formerly Reformed Protestant Dutch Church) 1784–1884 (NY, 1885). E. Doty, ‘Journal, June 7, 1836–October 6, 1845’. RCAA/Minister’s File/Doty. T.M. Elliott, circular letter [n.d.]. JAH/W88–315, Box 1, Correspondence, n.d., 1918–1977 (from Rose H. Talman). E-mng si-ui e te-to (Map of the Amoy region) (n.d.). JAH/w88–315, Box 1, Maps. Rev. John G[erardus] Fagg, ‘David Abeel, pioneer missionary to China’, Chinese Recorder 25:4 (April 1894) pp. 160–164. ——, Forty years in South China. A biography of the Rev. John Van Nest Talmage (NY, 1894). Dr. John G. Fagg, ‘How Pastor Iap became a Christian’, Mission Field 30:2 ( June 1917) pp. 52–55. General Synod Papers, 102 Box 5. James I[saac] Good, Famous missionaries of the Reformed Church (Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1903). Greetings from Amoy, 1842–1907. To the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America and to its Board of Foreign Missions, 1832–1907. Greetings and congratulations, thanks-



369

giving and earnest prayers from the Amoy Mission, 1842–1907 (ca. 1907). JAH/W88–315, Box 1, Misc. publications. Herman Harmelink, ‘Dr. A. Livingston Warnshuis. Ecumenical servant. 1877–1958’ (unpublished paper, New Jersey, 1962). JAH/H88–0194. Historical Highlights. Newsletter of the Historical Society of the Reformed Church in America 1:1–4 (1980). ‘History of the Four Foreign Fields. The Amoy Mission, China’ (mimeograph, ca. 1942). JAH/W88–1078, Box 6, 1 folder. Tena Holkeboer, God’s bridge or the story of Jin-gi (Eerdmans, 1944). JAH/W88–055. Intelligencer-Leader (1934–43). Rev. L.W. Kip, ‘E-mng si-ui e te-to [Map of Amoy and vicinity]’. JAH/W88–315/ Bx1, ‘Maps, Amoy, China, n.d.’ folder. Rev. Jin-gi Lin, ‘The history of the ﬁrst Protestant Church in China, after one hundred years’ (unpublished paper, n.d.). JAH/W88–0758. Stanley Lin, ‘The problem of ecclesiastical organization of the Amoy Mission: 1856–1864’ (unpublished paper, 7 May 1963). JAH/W88–0758. ‘List of 1920 Mission Day schools and Teachers’. JAH/W88–012, Box 2, Amoy Mission 1911–20. Manual of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church of America, for the use of missionary candidates and missionaries under appointment and in their ﬁelds of labor (NY, 1885). Copies of the editions of 1895, 1901 and 1909 are also held at the SL. Messengers of Hope (1907, 1910, 1912–13, 1915). JAH/H88–0440. Rev. F.B. Meyer addresses/sermons in Amoy, convention of 24–30 June 1909. JAH/W88–012, Box 2, 1 folder. Minister’s Files. RCAA. Note: These are ﬁles on individual ministers and missionaries. Minutes. Amoy Mission. JAH/W88–012, Box 2. Minutes. Board of Foreign Missions. RCAA/704, volume 2 ( June 1857 to May 1901). Minutes. Executive Committee, Board of Foreign Missions. RCAA/704, volume 4 (23 June 1857 to 16 June 1880). Mission Field (1888–1922). New Brunswick, N.J. Theological Serminary of the Reformed Church in America. Records, 1784–(ongoing), 25 feet, 105 items. SL/MSS.XTs.RBR. Note: Including the Abeel materials. ‘Obituary (long notice)’, 17 March 1958, typescript. JAH/H88–0194. P[hilip]. W[ilson]. Pitcher, ‘The Amoy Mission’s tribute to the Rev. Iap HanCheong’, Christian Intelligencer 74:27 (8 July 1903) pp. 432 c. 2–3 to p. 433 c. 1. ——, Fifty years in Amoy, or a history of the Amoy Mission, China, founded February 24, 1842 (NY: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1893). ——, In and about Amoy. Some historical and other facts connected with one of the ﬁrst open ports in China (1909). CWML/L97. SOAS also has a copy of the 2nd ed. (Shanghai and Foochow, 1912). ——, ‘In Memoriam. The Rev. Ti Pheng-Theng’, Christian Intelligencer 79:1 (1 January 1908) pp. 861 c. 3–p. 862 c. 3. ——, ‘The Rev. Iap Han-cheong, pastor of the Sio-khe Church, Amoy, China’, Christian Intelligencer 74:26 (1 July 1903) p. 418 c. 1–3. [W. Pohlman], ‘Conversion of the world’, an essay read before the Society of Inquiry on Missions, Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, 7th February 1835 (manuscript). RCAA/Minister’s File/Pohlman. [W. Pohlman and anonymous], ‘Amoy: memoranda of the Protestant missions from their commencement, with notices of the city and island. Prepared by resident missionaries’, Chinese Repository 15:7 ( July 1846) pp. 355–364. Henry A. Poppen, The miracle of a century—1842–1942. The Church of Christ in South Fukien, China (ca. 1942). JAH/W88–315, Box 1, Misc. publications.

370



——, ‘Out of the Lives of Men. Ang Khek Chhiong. July 31, 1855–June 3, 1928’, Intelligencer-Leader (21 October 1936) p. 12 c. 1–3. F.M. Potter to Rev. H.I. Todd (Amoy), New York, 24 July 1922. JAH/W88–0012, Box 1, Correspondence 1920–29. ‘Rev. William J. Pohlman, the missionary’ (ms. by anonymous author, ca. 1859). RCAA/725CM/1 folder. Mrs. Margaret E. Sangster (ed), A manual of the missions of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America (NY, 1877). Shima jiaohui jianzhu zhengxin lu [Record of donations for the construction of the Shima Church] (December 1929). JAH/W88–012, Box 3, Chinese materials folder. The Sower and Missionary Recorder (October 1860, June 1861, 1865–69 [= extant issues]). Note: Previously The Sower; subsequently renamed The Missionary Recorder, then The Sower and Gospel Field, then The Sower and Mission Monthly and ﬁnally superseded by The Mission Field (1888 onwards). J.V.N. Talmage from Amoy, 4 February 1879. PFS1/Bx9/F1/I4. ——, The anti-missionary movement in south China: More especially in the Amoy district and adjacent localities: Being a letter from Rev. J.V.N. Talmage to General Le Gendre, Consul for the United States at Amoy (Hongkong, 1871). CWML/N282. ——, Ecclesiastical relations of Presbyterian missionaries [e]specially of the Presbyterian missionaries at Amoy, China ([pamphlet, 1863]) in Fagg, Forty years (1894) pp. 295–301. ——, E-mng im e ji-tian. Tai Bi Kok Kui-cheng Kau e Ta n-ma-ji Bok-su choe e. Te san pian lai in [Dictionary of Amoy pronunciations, by Rev. Talmage of the American Reformed Church. 3rd printing] (Amoy, 1913). ——, History and ecclesiastical relations of the Churches of the Presbyterial order, at Amoy, China (NY, 1863). JAH/W-pamphlet = CWML/N282. ——, ‘Should the native Churches in China be united ecclesiastically and independent of foreign Churches and Societies’, in Records 1877, pp. 429–438. ——, Sketch of the Amoy Mission, China (NY, 1888). JAH/W88–315, Box 2. L[yman] A. Talman correspondence. JAH/W88–315, Box 1, ‘Correspondence, n.d., 1918–1977 (from Rose H. Talman).’ Rose H. Talman, ‘Our China years 1916–1930’. JAH/W88–315, China Mission, Box 1. Rev. A.L. Warnshuis, ‘A Chinese pastor for forty years’, Christian Intelligencer 74:26 (1 July 1903) p. 419 c. 1–3. ——, Sketch of the Amoy Mission, China (NY, 1906). JAH/W88–315, Box 22. G.R. Williamson, Memoir of the Rev. David Abeel, late missionary to China, by his nephew Rev. G.R. Williamson (NY, 1848). PCE: Unpublished sources and primary publications An account of the life of William Chalmers Burns, 1815–1868: English Presbyterian missionary in China from 1847 to 1868, in Romanized Ch’ao-Chou dialect. SOAS/MS.380376. Actings and Proceedings of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church in/of England (1856–88). Alan S. Moore Anderson, Random Reminiscences (Cricklewood [London], ca. 1955). 99-page pamphlet. PFS3/Bx48. ——, ‘Random Reminiscences’ (ca. 1955). PFS1/Bx124/F1. ——, ‘Random Reminiscences’. Typescript (carbon copy), illustrations and manuscript. PFS1/Bx122/F1. Annual reports of the Foreign Missions Committee (1851–65). Note: These appeared in the English Presbyterian Messenger of the same calendar year and from 1860 also in Actings and Proceedings of the Twentieth Synod of the Presbyterian Church in England. Autobiography of Ngau, an Amoy preacher (London, ca. 1886). PFS1/Bx23/F3.



371

Edward Band, Working His purpose out. The history of the English Presbyterian Mission 1847–1947 (London, 1948 = Taipei, 1972). Rev. Thomas Barclay, Supplement to the dictionary of the vernacular or spoken language of Amoy [Rev. Carstairs Douglas, M.A., LL.D.[,] Glasg[ow]] (Shanghai, 1923). Rev. Andrew A. Bonar, Memoir of the life and brief ministry of the Rev. David Sandeman, missionary to China (London, 1861). Islay Burns, Memoir of the Rev. William C. Burns, M.A., missionary to China from the English Presbyterian Church (London, 1870). ——, Memoir of the Rev. William C. Burns, M.A., ‘new edition’ (London, 1880). PFS1/Bx81/F10. W.C. Burns’ letters. Bx119/F5. Typewritten copies in Bx118/F4. Rev. W. Campbell, A dictionary of the Amoy vernacular spoken throughout the prefectures of Chin-chiu, Chiang-chiu and Formosa (Yokohama, ca. 1913). S.W. Carruthers, 1844. A tale of faith and courage (London, n.d.). PFS3/Bx48. Samuel William Carruthers (comp), Digest of the Proceedings of the Synods of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1876–1905 (London, 1907). —— (comp), Digest of the Proceedings of the Synods of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1906–1920 (London 1923). ‘China-Mission at Amoy. Sending of a Chinese evangelist to the Free Church at Singapore’, The Home and Foreign Record of the Free Church of Scotland (1 October 1857) pp. 70–72. In ‘English Presbyterian Missionary fasti: C. Douglas 1830–1877’. URCHS. ‘Copy of [the] Memorial concerning Chang-chew chapel to H.B.M. Plenipotentiary at Pekin’ (May 1864). PFS1/Bx9/F1/I2. Correspondence of the FMC Secretaries, 1849–1905, 1 box. URCHS. [Rev] W[illiam] D[ale], The opened door: The story of the foreign missions of the Presbyterian Church of England (ca. 1913). PFS1/Bx23/F3. ——, Our missions in the Far East. A historical sketch of the foreign missions of the Presbyterian Church of England 1847–1907 (London, 1907). ‘Dr. Barclay’s reminiscenses’, 91-page typescript. PFS1/Bx120/F12. Rev. Carstairs Douglas, Chinese-English dictionary of the vernacular or spoken language of Amoy, with the principal variations of the Chang-chew and Chin-chew dialects (London, 1873). —— [and Rev. Wm Macgregor], Chinese-English dictionary of the vernacular or spoken language of Amoy, with the principal variations of the Chang-chew and Chin-chew dialects, new ed. (1899). ——, A reply to the charges brought against Protestant missions in China. In a letter addressed to the ‘Times’ (London, 1869). John M. Douglas, ‘Memorials of the Rev. Carstairs Douglas, M.A., L.L.D.’ in Douglas (ed), Memorials (1878). —— (ed), Memorials of Rev. Carstairs Douglas, M.A., L.L.D., missionary of the Presbyterian Church of England at Amoy, China (London: Waterlow and Sons, 1878). SOAS/ CC266.40903,362560 = PFS1/Bx23/F3 (1877 edition). Rev. A.H. Drysdale, History of the Presbyterians in England: Their rise, decline and revival (London: PCE, 1889). English Presbyterian Missionary fasti’s (on individual missionaries). URCHS. Foreign Missions Committee, Convenor’s letters (1849–1905). URCHS. ——, Finance. PFS1/Bx77. The English Presbyterian Messenger (1845–1966). J. Campbell Gibson, Mission problems and mission methods in south China. Lectures on Evangelistic theology, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh/London, 1902). Revs. John C. Gibson, Arch. Lamont, William Dale and William Ewing, Missions of the Presbyterian Church of England to Jew and Gentile in the East and Far East (London, 1899). PFS1/Bx94/F8.

372



Miss E.J. Herschell, ‘History of the Amoy ﬁeld’, in ‘The Deputation News-letter. No. 4’ ( January 1932) pp. 3–8. PFS1/Bx23/F3. Index, Amoy district, People A-Z. PFS1/Bx120/F10. Rev. T.W.D. James, ‘Missionaries of the Amoy Mission. English Presbyterian Church. 1850–1942’ (13–page typescript), in ‘Historical notes of F[oreign] M[issionaries] prepared by Rev. T.W.D. James’. PFS1/Bx84/F3. Rev. James Johnston, China and Formosa. The story of the mission of the Presbyterian Church of England, with illustrations prepared for this work and four maps (London: Hazell, Watson and Viney, 1897 = Taipei reprint, 1972). ——, Correspondence 1853–57. PFS1/Bx17/F5. ——, Glimpses of missionary work in China, illustrated by engravings from the Chinese Pilgrims Progress (Edinburgh, 1860). PFS1/Bx94/F3 = PFS1/Bx94/F5. [ J. Johnston], The opium trade in China (Leeds, 1858). PFS1/Bx94/F2/I1. P.J. Maclagan, ‘China Mission-draft Handbook’ (typescript). PFS4/Bx15. Donald Matheson, The China Mission of the Presbyterian Church of England (1878). ——, Our mission in China. A narrative, 3rd and rev. ed. (London, 1882). PFS1/ Bx94/F10/I4. Note: Incomplete copy having only 96 pages in PFS1/Bx94/F10/I3. D. Matheson, et al., ‘Narrative of the Mission to China of the English Presbyterian Church’ by Donald Matheson. With ‘Remarks on the social life and religious ideas of the Chinese’ by the Rev. J. Macgowan; and ‘Notes on climate, health, and outﬁt’ by John Carnegie, 3rd ed., (London, 1866). CWML/021. Note: Contents same as those of 2nd ed. (London, 1866 [sic]). PFS1/Bx94/F5. Rev. P.J. Maclagan, J. Campbell Gibson, D.D. Missionary of the Presbyterian Church of England. A biographical sketch. January 8, 1849–November 25, 1919 (London, n.d.). PFS1/Bx84/F6. ——, The literary productions of English Presbyterian missionaries (Manchester, ca. 1947). PFS1/Bx84/F4/I3. ‘Memorial sketch of Carstairs Douglas, LL.D.’, Chinese Recorder ( June 1890) pp. 266–271. Memorials of Rev. Carstairs Douglas, M.A., LL.D., missionary of the Presbyterian Church of England at Amoy, China (London, 1877). PFS1/Bx84/F1 = F2 = F3. Minnan gui Zhu [South Fujian to the Lord] (Bringing South Fukien to Christ). A South Fukien chronicle (ca. 1936). PFS1/Bx23/F3. ‘[Minutes of the] Presbyterian Church in England, Foreign Missions Committee of Synod’, 2 volumes (1841–74). URCHS. ‘Missionaries of the Amoy Mission. English Presbyterian Church. 1850–1942’, 5-page typescript. PFS1/Bx84/F3. Mary V.D. Paton, It becomes a tree. The story of our Missions in the Far East (London, 1944). PFS2/Bx30. Report of the Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of England, for 1874, presented to the Synod at London, 1895. PFS1/Bx23. The Rev. William C. Burns, M.A. missionary to China (London, ca. 1870). CWML/028. R[eginald] A. Rogers, A gateway for the Gospel. The Amoy mission of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1851–1936 (London, 1939). PFS1/Bx23/F3. Short report of the Foreign Missions Committee, submitted to the Synod (1915). PFS1/Bx62/ F2/I16. Rev. Wm.S. Swanson, Correspondence 1870–93. PFS1/Bx118/F3. ——, ‘His missionary career’ in J.M. Douglas (ed), Memorials (1878) pp. 56–69. ——, ‘The Presbytery of Amoy, China. An historical sketch’, English Presbyterian Messenger (1877) pp. 82–86. ——, Sketch of the origin and history of the English Presbyterian Mission at Amoy (London, 1870). PFS1/Bx23/F3. ——, ‘Dr. Talmage—the man and the missionary’, in Fagg, Forty years, pp. 261–276.



373

—— and H.M. Matheson, The China Mission of the Presbyterian Church of England. Its history, methods, results (London, ca. 1887). PFS2/Bx30 = PFS1/Bx94/F10. Then and now. Forty-ﬁrst annual report of the Scottish Auxiliary of the China Mission in connection with the Presbyterian Church of England, for the year to 31st December, 1895 (Edinburgh, January 1896). PFS1/Bx23/F3. These forty years; being a review of the China Mission of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1847 to 1886. From Report to Synod, 1886, with short statement to date (Liverpool, 1891). PFS3/Bx48 = PFS2/Bx30 = PFS1/Bx94/F10. The Weekly Review (1864–78). A[lexander] Williamson and C[arstairs] Douglas, Analysis of the Circular of the Chinese government (London: PCE, Foreign Missions Committee, June 1871). CWML/N282. Note: Page 21 is dated July 1871 (!). ——, Analysis of the Circular of the Chinese government on missions, 2nd ed. (London: PCE, Foreign Missions Committee, June 1871 [sic]). CWML/0204 = CWML/ N301. Rev. J. Macartney Wilson, Changpu. The story of the riot (London, ca. 1906). PFS2/Bx30 = PFS1/Bx23/F3 = PFS3/Bx48. Women’s Missionary Association of the Presbyterian Church of England, Jubilee history 1878–1928 (London, ca. 1928). PFS2/Bx30. Women’s Missionary Association, Presbyterian Church of England, The work of our W.M.A. The story of Changpu (St. Leonards-on-Sea, n.d.). PFS3/Bx48 = PFS2/Bx30. The work of our W.M.A. Story of Chang-pu (ca. 1916). PFS1/Bx23/F3. Other primary mission/church sources from pre-1949 A virile, self-supporting church crippled by Japan’s undeclared war. Fitch Memorial Church. 17 Darroch Road, Shanghai, China (April, 1932). UTS/Pam., Native Church. Rev. W.S. Ament, ‘Comity and federation’, in Records 1907, pp. 311–334. Rufus Anderson, Memorial volume of the ﬁrst ﬁfty years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston, 1861). R. Allen, ‘The essentials of an indigenous church’, Chinese Recorder 56:8 (1925) pp. 491–496. Annual Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1831–57). [Annual] Report of the London Missionary Society (1850–78). ‘Annual report of Presbytery. A.D. 1873; Tung Chi 12th year’. PFS1/Bx9/F1/I3. Annual report of the Scottish Association (1856–67). PFS4/Bx15 and Bx94/F5. Note: Until 1861 inclusive, the actual title was Annual Report of the China Mission at Amoy; from 1862 onward, it was Annual Report of the China Mission at Amoy and Swatow. In the 1856–65 issues, the publication year basically coincided with the work year reported; the 1866–67 issues reported on 1865 and 1866 respectively. The 1858 issue was reprinted as [Annual] Report [of the Scottish Committee] (1858). CWML/N300. Extracts of the 4th (1858) and the 7th AR-SA (1861) appeared in the EP Messenger (1859) pp. 49–50 and (1862) pp. 49–51 respectively. Regrettably the SA materials in URCHS are from 1876f only. K.A. Baird, ‘Should the missionary go with mission property?’, Chinese Recorder 67:8 (August 1926) pp. 569–573. [Rev] S.L. Baldwin, Directory of Protestant missionaries in China, January 1st, 1865 (Fuhchau, 1865). CWML/021. ——, ‘Self-support of the native Church’, in Records 1877, pp. 283–293. Harlan P. Beach and Charles H. Fahs (eds), World missionary atlas containing a directory of missionary societies, classiﬁed summaries of statistics, maps showing the location of mission stations throughout the world, a descriptive account of the principal mission lands, and

374



comprehensive indices (London, 1925). SOAS/Special Collections/Open shelf (big size). Rev. G.H. Bondﬁeld, ‘The China Continuation Committee’, Chinese Recorder 44:4 (April 1913) pp. 218–219. G.H. Bondﬁeld, Ching-yi Cheng and J.W. Bashford, ‘The Continuation Committee Conferences in China’, International Review of Missions 2:7 ( July 1913) pp. 501–519. E. Box, ‘The place of the missionary in the self-governing church’, Chinese Recorder 51:12 (December 1920) pp. 851–856. Rev John Butler, ‘The native pastorate’, in Records 1877, pp. 304–315. Robert E. Chandler, ‘Progress in church union and co-operation in China’ Chinese Recorder 55:9 (September 1923) pp. 511–520. China Centenary Missionary Conference Records. Report of the Great Conference held at Shanghai, April 25th to May 8th, 1907 (Shanghai, [ca. 1907]). China Mission at Amoy and Swatow. Occasional Papers X–XII (1865–67). PFS1/Bx94/F5. China Mission Year Book (1910–25). China Church Year Book (1926–39). Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (1869–1941). Chinese Repository (1837–51). Chronicle of the London Missionary Society (1869–1899). [Rev] K.T. Chung, ‘The yearnings of the Chinese Church’, China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 86–89. Church of Christ in China: Origin—purpose—constitution (Shanghai: The General Assembly of the Church of Christ in China, 1932). CWML/B11,64. Arthur E. Claxton, ‘Independence and self-support: West China’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 205–206. Rev. Hunter Corbett, ‘Church discipline’, in Records 1890, pp. 382–389. ——, ‘The native pastorate’, in Records 1877, pp. 299–304. Council for World Mission, South China, Fukien, Incoming correspondence, Boxes 1–2 (1845–84). ——, South China, Fukien reports, Box 1 (1866–91). Rev. T.P. Crawford, ‘Advantages and disadvantages of the employment of native assistants’, in Records 1877, pp. 323–328. [Rev] Rowland M. Cross, ‘Mission devolution in North China: The question of organization’, China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 103–109. ——, ‘The problem of Mission-Church relationship in Peking’, Chinese Recorder (February 1925) pp. 106–110. H. Davies, ‘Church union in Kwangtung’, Chinese Recorder 51:9 (September 1920) pp. 641–646. Directory of Protestant Missionaries in China, June 15th, 1866. Including also a list of Protestant missionaries in Japan and Siam (Foochow, 1866). CWML/021 = CWML/028. Samuel Dyer, A vocabulary of the Hok-keen dialect as spoken in the county of TscheangTshew, to which is preﬁxed a treatise on the Hok-keen tones (Malacca: Anglo-Chinese College Press, 1838). CWML/N281 = CWML/091. William Ellis, The history of the London Missionary Society, comprising an account of the origin of the Society; biographical notices of some of its founders and missionaries; with a record of its progress at home and its operations abroad, volume 1 (London, 1844). C.H. Fenn, J.C. Garritt and H.W. Oldham, ‘Theological education’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 235–253. David Johnson Fleming, Devolution in mission administration. As exempliﬁed by the legislative history of ﬁve American missionary societies in India (NY/London, 1916). Foreign Mission Boards, RCA, The Story of the Amoy Mission After One Hundred Years 1842–1942 (NY, n.d.). JAH/W88–0315, Box 1. Frank Garrett, ‘Independence and self-support: From Nanking to Ichang’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 206–209.



375

The General Conference of Protestant missionaries assembled at Shanghai, May 10–26, 1877, unanimously adopted the following resolutions. PFS1/Bx94/F9/I17. Rev. John C[ampbell] Gibson, ‘The Chinese Church’, in Records 1907, pp. 1–33. ——, ‘Memorandum regarding [the] Presbyterian organization of [the] native church in South China connected with the Missions of the Presbyterian Church of England and of the American Dutch Reformed Church’, Chinese Recorder 33 (1902) pp. 10–17. ——, ‘The part of the Chinese Church in mission administration’, Chinese Recorder 63:6 (1912) pp. 347–355. ——, ‘Presbyterian union—and a sequel’, China Mission Year Book (1918) pp. 75–86. Rev. R.H. Graves, M.D., ‘How shall the native church be stimulated to more aggressive Christian work’, in Records 1877, pp. 38–46. Violet M. Grubb, The Chinese indigenous church movement. Some of its problems (London/NY: World Dominion Press, n.d.). UTS/Pam., Native Church. Rev. C[harles] Hartwell, ‘Questionable practices connected with marriage and funeral ceremonies’, in Records 1877, pp. 387–392. M. Isidore Hedde, ‘Notices of an excursion to Changchau, chief city of one of the principal departments in the province of Fukien’, Chinese Repository 16:2 (February 1847) pp. 75–84. John Hind, ‘New methods of evangelism’, Chinese Recorder 51:1 ( January 1920) pp. 18–21. ‘History of the Four Foreign Fields. The Amoy Mission, China’ (mimeograph, ca. 1942). JAH/W88–1078, Box 6, File 1. C. Silvester Horne, The story of the London Missionary Society, with an appendix bringing the story up to the year 1904, new edition (London, 1908). J. Johnston (ed), Report of the Centenary Conference on the Protestant missions of the world. Held at Exeter Hall ( June 9th–19th), London, 1888, 2 vols. (NY/Chicago, 1888). Rev. Frank P. Joseland, ‘Our missionary districts. Amoy and Chiang-chiu’, Chronicle of the LMS N.S.87 (March 1899) pp. 53–55. Carleton Lacy, ‘Self-support in the Chinese Church’, International Review of Missions 28 (April 1939) pp. 246–251. Rev. J.W. Lambuth, ‘Standard of admission to full church membership’, in Records 1877, pp. 241–246. N. Astrup Larsen, ‘One united Lutheran Church for China’, China Mission Year Book (1918) pp. 87–92. Rev. R. Lechler, ‘I.-Methods of dealing with inquirers. II.-Conditions of admission to church fellowship. III.-Best methods of discipline’, in Records 1890, pp. 373–381. Rev. J. Lees, ‘The best method of selecting and training native preachers, etc.’, in Records 1890, pp. 483–490. Samuel H. Leger, ‘Recent developments in mission policy in the Foochow Congregational Mission’ Chinese Recorder 55:3 (March 1923) pp. 157–161. Timothy Tingfang Lew, ‘Church union: II. Lausanne and China’, International Review of Missions 17 (1928) pp. 90–100. Rev. W.C. Longden, ‘Independence and self-support: Central China’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 199–205. Richard Lovett, The history of the London Missionary Society, 1795–1895, 2 volumes (London, 1899). Walter Lowrie, Memoirs of the Rev. Walter M. Lowrie, missionary to China, edited by his father (NY, 1849). Rev. John McCarthy, ‘Co-operation’, in Records 1890, pp. 594–600. D. MacGillivray (ed), A century of Protestant missions in China (1807–1907) being the Centenary Conference historical volume (Shanghai, 1907). J. Macgowan, Christ or Confucius, which? Or, the story of the Amoy Mission, 2nd ed. (London Missionary Society, 1895).

376



——, English and Chinese dictionary of the Amoy dialect (London, ca. 1883). PFS1/Bx23/F1. ——, The history of self-support in the London Mission (Shanghai, 1888). CWML/0251. ——, A manual of the Amoy colloquial, 4th ed. (Amoy/Kulangseu: Chui Keng Tong, 1898). PFS1/Bx120/F13 = SOAS/CC495.17, Amo, 77041. ——, Pictures of southern China (London: R.T.S., 1897). Rev. W.M. McGregor, ‘The training of a native agency’, in Records 1877, pp. 453–458. Alex R. MacKenzie, ‘The Chinese church and the union movement’, Chinese Recorder 51:11 (November 1920) pp. 770–771. Rev. G.L. Mason, ‘Methods of developing self-support and voluntary eﬀorts’, in Records 1890, pp. 415–424. William A. Mather, ‘Achievement in self-support’, Chinese Recorder 55:6 ( June 1923) pp. 338–340. ——, ‘Some veriﬁed principles of self-support’, Chinese Recorder 53:1 ( January 1922) pp. 20–28 and 53:2 (February 1923) pp. 89–95. ‘Memorial sketch of Carstairs Douglas, LL.D.’, Chinese Recorder 21:6 ( June 1890) pp. 266–271. Missionary Herald (1846–57). Minutes and reports of the second meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Christ in China (1930). CWML/B.11,63. J. Nevius, China and the Chinese (1872). ——, The planting and development of missionary churches (Philadelphia, 1899). Our Church in China. Printed for the Scottish Auxiliary of the China Mission in connection with the Presbyterian Church of England (Edinburgh, January 1895). PFS2/Bx30. Rev. W.S. Pakenham-Walsh, Some typical Christians of South China (London: Marshall Brothers 1905). CWML/N38. Rt. Rev. Edwin James Palmer, ‘Church union: I. The demand from mission lands and the bearing of the Lausanne Conference on it’, International Review of Missions 17 (1928) pp. 74–90. Cornelius H. Patton, ‘Christian cooperation in China—The impressions of a traveler’, Chinese Recorder 51:1 ( January 1920) pp. 15–18. H.W. Pierson (ed), American missionary memorial. Including biographical and historical sketches (NY, 1853). SL/NC.P61. Rev. P.W. Pitcher, ‘Iap Han-cheong’ in Pakenham-Walsh, Some typical Christians (1905) pp. 28–35. ——, ‘Ng Ho-seng’ in Pakenham-Walsh, Some typical Christians (1905) pp. 67–74. E. McNeill Poteat, ‘The salary question’, Chinese Recorder 51:10 (October 1920) pp. 700–704. ‘Present aim of Christian missions in China. A symposium’, Chinese Recorder 51:12 (December 1920) pp. 821–825. J.T. Proctor, ‘Some experiments in devolution of Mission responsibility in the Northern Baptist Mission in East China’, China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 97–102. ‘Progress of Christianity in the nineteenth century’, The Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record (September 1888) pp. 553–561. In ‘English Presbyterian Missionary fasti: James Johnston 1819–1906’, URCHS. Frank Rawlinson, Western money and the Chinese Church. An attempt to ﬁnd a modern approach to an old practice (Shanghai, 1929). UTS/MR5.pam. The relations between the younger and older churches. Report of the Jerusalem meeting of the International Missionary Council, March 24th-April 8th, 1928. Volume III (OUP, 1928). Records of the General Conference of the Protestant missionaries of China, held at Shanghai, May 7–20, 1890, eds. W.J. Lewis, W.T.A. Barber and J.R. Hykes (Shanghai, 1890). CWML/035.



377

Records of the General Conference of the Protestant missionaries of China, held at Shanghai, May 10–24, 1877, eds. M.T. Yates, R. Nelson and E.R. Barrett (Shanghai, 1878). Reports and minutes of the annual meeting of the General Council of the Church of Christ in China (1928–32). CWML/B.11,63. ‘Resolution on Presbyterian union. Adopted by the Swatow Mission of the English Presbyterian Mission [22 October 1890]’, Chinese Recorder (1891) pp. 9–12. Resolutions and appeal unanimously adopted by the Conference of Protestant missionaries at Shanghai, May 16th, 1877 (Shanghai, 1877). PFS1/Bx94/F9/I16. The Rev. William C. Burns, M.A. Missionary to China, Biographical Series no. 1025 (London: Religious Tract Society, ca. 1870). CWML/028. Rev. Mart. Schaub, ‘The best method of selecting and training eﬃcient native assistants, preachers, school teachers, etc.’, in Records 1890, pp. 476–482. Rev. D.G. Sheﬃeld, ‘Questionable practices connected with marriage and funeral ceremonies’, in Records 1877, pp. 392–396. Short report of the Foreign Missions Committee (1915). PFS1/Bx62/F2/I16. Rev. N[athan] Sites, ‘Advantages and disadvantages of the employment of native assistants’, in Records 1877, pp. 329–333. G[eorge] Smith, A narrative of an exploratory visit to each of the Consular cities of China, and to the Islands of Hong Kong and Chusan, in behalf of the Church Missionary Society, in the years 1844, 1845, 1846 (London, 1847). CWML/A10. C.G. Sparham, ‘Developments in mission administration in the London Missionary Society’, China Mission Year Book (1918) pp. 101–108. Jacob Speicher, ‘Independence and self-support: South China’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 195–199. Rev. C.A. Stanley, ‘Standard of admission to full church membership’, in Records 1877, pp. 246–250. M.T. Stauﬀer (ed), The Christian Occupation of China. A general survey of the numerical strength and geographical distribution of the Christian forces in China, made by the Special Committee in Survey and Occupation of the China Continuation Committee, 1918–1921 (Shanghai, 1922). CWML/V.8. Rev. J.W. Stevenson, ‘The division of the ﬁeld’, in Records 1890, pp. 592–594. Eugene Stock, The history of the Church Missionary Society. Its environment, its men and its work, volumes 1–3 (London, 1899), volume 4 (London, 1916). ——, The story of the Fuh-kien mission of the Church Missionary Society, 3rd ed. (London 1890). SOAS/CC266.409034,105105. J[ohn] Stronach. The blessedness of those who die in the Lord: A sermon occasioned by the death of the Rev. Samuel Dyer, missionary to the Chinese, (which took place at Macao, 24th October 1843): preached in the new Mission chapel, Singapore, November 9, 1843 by John Stronach, Mr. Dyer’s colleague in the Chinese Mission at Singapore. With a sketch of Mr. Dyer’s life and character, by his widow (Singapore: Mission Press, 1843). CWML/010. John and Alexander Stronach, and William K. Lea, ‘Amoy’, The Missionary Magazine and Chronicle N.S. 317 (1 October 1862). William Ellsworth Strong, The story of the American Board: An account of the ﬁrst hundred years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston, 1910 = NY: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969). ML/BV.2360.A5.S9.1969. W.J.R. Taylor, ‘Union and co-operation in foreign missions’, in Johnston (ed), Report of the Centenary Conference (1888) II: pp. 464–470. Joseph Tracy, History of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 2nd ed. (NY, 1842). ‘Union of Presbyterians and Congregationalists’, Chinese Recorder 53:6 ( June 1922) pp. 428–429. Rev. T.E. Vermilye, ‘Rev. David Abeel, D.D., American Board of Commissioners on Foreign Missions’ in Pierson (ed), American missionary memorial (1853) pp. 329–342.

378



A.L. Warnshuis, Lessons in the Amoy vernacular, rev. ed. (1930). SOAS/CC495.17, Amo,77039. Wenshe yuekan (1925–28). Columbia University/East Asian Library/Microﬁlm ECFN 10. J. Wherry, ‘Independence and self-support: North China’, China Mission Year Book (1910) pp. 189–195. F.C. Wilcox, ‘Western money and Chinese churches’, Chinese Recorder 57:8 (August 1926) pp. 565–569. S. Wells Williams, List of Protestant missionaries sent to the Chinese (Canton, 1 July 1855). CWML/028. ——, The Middle Kingdom: A survey of the geography, government, education, social life, arts, religion, &c., of the Chinese Empire and its inhabitants. With a new map of the Empire, 4th ed., 2 volumes (New York, 1861). ——, The Middle Kingdom: A survey of the geography, government, literature, social life, arts and history of the Chinese Empire and its inhabitants, rev. ed., 2 volumes (London, 1883). [Alexander Wylie], Memorials of Protestant missionaries to the Chinese: giving a list of their publications, and obituary notices of the deceased, with copious indexes (‘Shanghae’, 1867 = Taipei 1967). Shengyan Xu, ‘Minnan Dahui jiushinian shilue [90–year outline history of the Minnan Dahui]’, Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui quanguo zhonghui di-erjie changhui jiniance [Memorial volume of the second regular meeting of the Church of Christ in China] (1930) pp. 154–163. ——, ‘Minnan Dahui lilai ziyangli yu jiaohui xianzhuang [The historical self-support ability and present church condition of the Minnan Dahui]’, Wenshe yuekan (1927) pp. 92–98. James Maxon Yard, ‘Self-support-is it growing?’ China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 94–96. Rev. Dr. M.T. Yates, ‘Ancestral worship’, in Records 1877, pp. 367–387. David Z.T. Yui, ‘The indigenization of the Y.M.C.A. in China’, China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 154–166. Minglu Zheng, Shangdi Jidujiao Hui [God’s Christian Church] (Xiamen UP, 1989). Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui zhonghui diyici zhonghui jilu [Records of the ﬁrst general meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Christ in China] (Shanghai, 1927). SOAS/C Per, 440692. Zhonghua Jidujiao hui nianjian (China Church Year Book) (1914–36). Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui quanguo zhonghui di-erjie changhui jiniance [Memorial volume of the second regular meeting of the Church of Christ in China] (Shanghai, 1930). SOAS/ c.802.c.52,441031. Zhonghua Jidujiao wenzi suoyin/A classiﬁed index to the Chinese literature of the Protestant Christian churches in China (Shanghai, 1933). SOAS/CC266,78025. Zhonghua Jidujiao Yongde daquhui diyijie jishice fu zhengxin lu [Records of the ﬁrst Yongde regional meeting of the Church of Christ in China, with a record of donations] (Yongchun, 1935). SOAS/c.802.c.29,293861. General bibliography J.F.A. Ajayi, ‘From Mission to Church: The heritage of the Church Mission Society’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23:2 (April 1999) pp. 50–55. Franklin W. Allen, Breaking the barriers. A history and model of Church/Mission relationships in the Philippines (Singapore: OMF-IHQ Ltd, 1990). Gerald H. Anderson (ed), Biographical dictionary of Christian missions (NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1998).



379

—— (ed), Studies in Philippine church history (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1969). The Anglican-Presbyterian conversations. A report of the panels appointed by the Church of Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of England, the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in Scotland (St. Andrew Press/SPCK, 1966). E. Theodore Bachmann, ‘North American doctoral dissertations on mission: 1945–1981’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 7:3 ( July 1983) pp. 98–134. Derek Baker (ed), Religious motivation: Biographical and sociological problems for the church historian. Studies in Church History 15 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978). S.W. Barnett and J.K. Fairbank (eds), Christianity in China: Early Protestant missionary writings (Harvard UP, 1985). M. Searle Bates, ‘The theology of American missionaries in China, 1900–1950’ in Fairbank, Missionary enterprise (1974) pp. 135–158. D.H. Bays (ed), Christianity in China. The eighteenth century to the present: Essays in religious and social change (Stanford, 1996). ——, ‘The growth of independent Christianity in China, 1900–1937’ in Bays (1996) pp. 307–316. ——, ‘Indigenous Protestant Christianity in China, 1900–1937: A Pentecostal case study’ in Kaplan (ed), Indigenous responses (1995) pp. 124–143. R[obert] Pierce Beaver (ed), To advance the Gospel: Selections from the writings of Rufus Anderson (Eerdmans, 1956). ——, ‘Eschatology in American Missions’ in J. Hermelink and H.J. Margull (eds), Basileia. Walter Freytag zum 60. Geburtstag (Stuttgart, 1959) pp. 60–75. ——, From missions to mission (NY: Association Press, 1964). ——, ‘North American thought on the fundamental principles of missions during the twentieth century’, Church History 21:4 (1952) pp. 3–22. D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in modern Britain. A history from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989). Thomas O. Beidelman, ‘Contradictions between the sacred and the secular life: The Church Missionary Society in Ukaguru, Tanzania, East Africa, 1876–1914’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 23 (1981) pp. 73–95. ——, ‘Social theory and the study of Christian missions in Africa’, Africa 44 (1974) pp. 235–249. Stephen Bevans, ‘Models of contextual theology’, Missiology: An International Review 13 (1985) pp. 185–202. Robert Bickers and Rosemary Seton (eds), Missionary encounters: Sources and issues (Curzon Press, 1996). R.A. Billington, The Protestant crusade, 1800–1860: A study of the origins of American nativism (NY, 1938 = 1952). P. Richard Bohr, ‘The legacy of Timothy Richard’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 24:2 (April 2000) pp. 75–80. C. Gordon Bolam, Jeremy Goring, H.L. Short and Roger Thomas, The English Presbyterians, from Elizabeth Puritanism to modern Unitarianism (George Allen & Unwin, 1968/Boston: Beacon Press, [1968]). Muriel Boone, The seed of the Church in China (Philadelphia/Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1973). C.R. Boxer, ‘The problem of the native clergy in the Portuguese and Spanish empires from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries’, in Cuming (ed), The mission of the Church (1970) pp. 85–105. Reprinted from C.R. Boxer, The Portuguese seaborne empire 1415–1825 (Alfred A. Knopf/Hutchinson Publishing Group, 1969). Timothy Brook, ‘Toward independence: Christianity in China under the Japanese occupation, 1937–1945’ in Bays (1996) pp. 317–337. Arie R. Brouwer, Reformed Church roots. Thirty-ﬁve formative events (Reformed Church Press, 1977).

380



G[eorge] Thompson Brown, Earthen vessels and transcendent power: American Presbyterians in China, 1837–1952 (Orbis Books, 1997). ——, ‘Why has Christianity grown faster in Korea than in China?’ Missiology: An International Review 32:1 ( January 1994) pp. 77–88. James Brownson, ‘Ecclesiastical structure in Foreign Missions: A study of the development of Reformed Church Missionary policy in Amoy China’ (unpublished paper, [Western Theological Seminary], n.d.). JAH/W88–0758. E.J. Bruins, ‘The New Brunswick Theological Seminary, 1884–1959’ (Ph.D. diss., NYU, 1962). E.C. Carlson, The Foochow missionaries, 1847–1880 (Harvard UP, 1974). ——, ‘Obstacles to missionary success in nineteenth-century China’, Asian Studies 4:1 (1965). Columba Cary-Elwes, China and the Cross. Studies in missionary history (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957). Catalogue of the Foreign Mission Library of the Divinity School of Yale University, New Haven, Conn[ecticut], No. 4 ( January 1897) and No. 5 (March 1899). James Shih-Chieh [Shijie] Cha, Zhongguo Jidujiao renwu xiaozhuan (Concise biographies of important Chinese Christians), volume 1 (Taipei, 1983). C.L. Chang, The Chinese gentry: Studies on their role in nineteen-century Chinese society (University of Washington Press, 1955). Jonathan Tien-en Chao (comp), A bibliography of the history of Christianity in China (A preliminary draft) (Waltham, Massachusetts: The Faculty-in-Preparation, CGST Inc., 1970). ——, ‘The Chinese indigenous church movement, 1919–1927: A Protestant response to the anti-Christian movements in modern China’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1986). —— and Rosanna Chong, Dangdai Zhongguo Jidujiao fazhan shi (1949–1997) [A history of Christianity in contemporary China (1949–1997)] (Taipei: CMI, 1997). —— and Meidong Mo, ‘Minnan jiaohui fazhan jianshi [Brief history of the development of the South Fujian Church]’, in The Min-Nan Chinese Christian Trinity Church, Hong Kong, 35th anniversary (1954–89) commemorative magazine (Hong Kong, 1989) pp. 42–44. ‘Chen Mengnan and the China Evangelisation Society’, Religion in the People’s Republic of China. China Study Project Documentation No. 18 (December 1985) pp. 28–29. Note: Being extracts from Tian Feng (February 1985). David Cheung, ‘The growth of Protestantism in China: The role of the Chinese Christians, 1860–1900’ (M.A. diss., University of London, 1997). China Evangelical Seminary Library (ed), Jidujiao Zhongwen qikan biaoti huipian 1975–1980 [Articles from Chinese-language Protestant periodicals, classiﬁed topically] (Taipei: CES, 1982). —— (ed), Jidujiao Zhongwen qikan lunwen suoyin 1981 [Index of essays from Chineselanguage Protestant periodicals 1981] (Taipei: CES, 1981). —— (ed), Jidujiao Zhongwen qikan lunwen suoyin 1983–1985 [Index of essays from Chineselanguage Protestant periodicals 1983–1985] (Taipei: CES, 1987). T[orben] Christensen and W.R. Hutchison (eds), Missionary ideologies in the imperialist era: 1880–1920, revised edition (Arhus, Denmark, 1983). University of London/ Senate House Library/Stack, PNV.Mis. Clayton H. Chu (comp), American missionaries in China: Books, articles, and pamphlets extracted from the subject catalogue of the Missionary Research Library (Harvard UP, 1960). C.A. Clark, The Nevius plan of mission work in Korea (Seoul, 1937). Norman Howard Cliﬀ, ‘A history of the Protestant movement in Shandong province, China, 1859–1951’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Buckingham, 1994). P.A. Cohen, China and Christianity: The missionary movement and the growth of Chinese anti-foreignism, 1860–1870 (Harvard UP, 1963).



381

——, ‘Christian missions and their impact to 1900’ in The Cambridge history of China, Volume 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Part 1 (CUP, 1978) pp. 543–590. ——, Discovering history in China: American historical writing on the recent Chinese past (Columbia UP, 1984). ——, ‘Missionary approaches: Hudson Taylor and Timothy Richard’, Papers on China 11 (1957). N. Constable, ‘Christianity and Hakka identity’ in Bays (1996) pp. 158–173. David George Cornick, ‘The expansion and uniﬁcation of the Presbyterian Church in England, 1836–1876’ (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1982). R.R. Covell, The liberating Gospel in China. The Christian faith among China’s minority peoples (Baker, 1995). C.S. Craig, Archives of the Council for World Council: An outline guide (London: SOAS, 1973). Archie L Crouch, Christianity in China: A scholar’s guide to resources in the libraries and archives of the United States (NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1989). Dan Cui, The cultural contribution of British Protestant missionaries and British-American cooperation to China’s national development during the 1920’s (America UP, 1998). G.J. Cuming (ed), The mission of the Church and the propagation of the faith. Studies in Church History 6 (CUP, 1970). Robert Currie, Methodism divided: A study in the sociology of ecumenicalism (London: Faber and Faber, 1968). ——, Alan Gilbert and Lee Horsley, Churches and churchgoers: Patterns of church growth in the British Isles since 1700 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). Immanuel David, Reformed Church in American missionaries in South India, 1839–1938: An analytical study (Bangalore: Phoenix, 1986). SL/XP23.D28. Gerald [Francis] De Jong, Mission to Borneo. The Historical Society of the RCA Occasional Papers No. 1 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Historical Society, RCA, 1989). ——, The Dutch Reformed Church in the American colonies (Eerdmans, 1978). ——, The Reformed Church in China, 1842–1951 (Eerdmans, 1992). N. Diamond, ‘Christianity and Hua Miao: Writing and power’ in Bays (1996) pp. 138–157. Gordon Donaldson, ‘The relations between the English and Scottish Presbyterian movements to 1604’ (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1938). Ryan Fisk Dunch, ‘Archival sources for Fujian history: Notes on a year in Fuzhou’, China Exchange News 22:3 (Fall, 1994) pp. 18–21. ——, Fuzhou Protestants and the making of a modern China, 1857–1927 (Yale University Press, 2001). ——, ‘Piety, patriotism, progress: Chinese Protestants in Fuzhou society and the making of a modern China, 1857–1927’ (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1996). Enrique Dussel (ed), The Church in Latin America, 1492–1992 (NY: Orbis Books, 1992). Irene Eber, The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S.I.J. Schereschewsky (1831–1906) (Brill, 1999). Wolfram Eberhard, Social mobility in traditional China (Brill, 1962). [ Jonathan Edwards], Works of President [Jonathan] Edwards, 4 volumes, reprint of Worcester edition (NY, 1843–44). E. Eisenstein, The printing press as an agent of change, Volume Two of Communications and cultural transformation in early-modern Europe (CUP, 1979). P.M. Evans, John Fairbank and the American understanding of modern China (Oxford/NY: Basil Blackwell, 1988). J.K. Fairbank, ‘Assignment for the 1970s: The study of American-East Asian relations’, in J.K. Fairbank, China perceived (1976) pp. 207–233. Reprint of American Historical Review (1969) pp. 861–879. ——, China bound: A ﬁfty-year memoir (NY: Harper and Row, 1982).

382



——, China perceived: Images and policies in Chinese-American relations (London: Andre Deutsch, 1976). —— (ed), The missionary enterprise in China and America (Harvard UP, 1974). ——, ‘Patterns behind the Tientsin massacre’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 20:3–4 (December 1957). M.G. Finlayson, Historians, Puritanism, and the English Revolution: The religious factor in English Politics before and after the Interregnum (Toronto UP, 1983). Wayne Flynt and Gerald W. Berkley, Taking Christianity to China. Alabama missionaries in the Middle Kingdom, 1850–1950 (Alabama UP, 1997). C. Forman, ‘A history of foreign missions theory’ in R.P. Beaver (ed), American missions in bicentennial perspective (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1977) pp. 69–140. Hideo Fukazawa, ‘Riben de Zhongguo Jidujiao shi yanjiu: Huigu yu zhanwang (Studies on the history of Chinese Christianity in Japan: Retrospect and prospect’ (Chinese translation by Rong Ying-yu) Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 77–84. Austin Fulton, Through earthquake, wind and ﬁre. Church and mission in Manchuria 1867–1950. The work of the United Presbyterian Church, the United Free Church of Scotland, the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland with the Chinese Church in Manchuria (Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1967). Robert Paul Gardella Jr., ‘Fukien’s tea industry and trade in Ch’ing and Republican China: The developmental consequences of a traditional commodity export’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1976). Robert Gardella, Harvesting mountains: Fujian and the China tea trade, 1757–1937 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Russell L. Gasero, Historical directory of the Reformed Church in America, 1628–1992 (Eerdmans, 1992). Noel Gibbard, Griﬃth John: Apostle to central China (Wales: Bryntirion Press, 1998). Alan D. Gilbert, Religion and society in industrial England: Church, chapel and social change, 1740 –1914 (London: Longman, 1976). Norman Goodall, A history of the London Missionary Society 1895–1945 (OUP, 1954). G.F.S. Gray and M.L. Smalley, Anglicans in China. A history of the Zhonghua Shenggong Hui (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Huei) (New Haven, Connecticut: The Episcopal China Mission History Project, 1996). James H. Grayson, ‘The legacy of John Ross’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23:4 (October 1999) pp. 167–172. Wei-ming Gu, ‘Dalu de Zhongguo Tianjujiao yanjiu gaishu (A brief account of studies on the history of the Catholic Church in the PRC)’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 28–76. ——, Jidujiao yu jindai Zhongguo shehui [Christianity and modern Chinese society] (Shanghai, 1996). Gregory Eliyu Guldin, The saga of anthropology in China. From Malinowski to Moscow to Mao (M.E. Sharpe, 1994). Krikor Haleblian, ‘The problem of contextualization’, Missiology: An International Review 11 (1983) pp. 95–111. Gary Hamilton, ‘Why no capitalism in China? Negative questions in historical, comparative research’ in Andreas E. Buss, Max Weber in Asian studies (Brill, 1985) pp. 65–89. Herman Harmelink III, Ecumenism and the Reformed Church (Eerdmans, 1968). ——, ‘World mission’ in James W. Van Hoeven (ed), Piety and patriotism: Bicentennial studies of the Reformed Church in America, 1776–1976 (Eerdmans, 1976) pp. 77–94. Paul W[illiam] Harris, ‘Cultural imperialism and American Protestant missionaries: Collaboration and dependency in mid-nineteenth-century China’, Paciﬁc Historical Review 60 (August 1991) pp. 309–338.



383

——, Nothing but Christ: Rufus Anderson and the ideology of Protestant foreign missions (OUP, 1999). Victor E.W. Hayward, Christians and China (Belfast: Christian Journals Limited, 1974). John H. Hedges (comp), Diplomatic records. A select catalog of National Archives microﬁlm publications (Washington D.C.: National Archives Trust Fund Board, NARA, 1986). P.G. Hiebert, ‘Critical contextualization’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 11:3 ( July 1987) pp. 104–112. P.T. Ho, The ladder of success in imperial China: Aspects of social mobility, 1368–1911 (Columbia UP, 1962). Michael Hollis, The signiﬁcance of South India (Lutterworth, 1966). George A. Hood, Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. A study of the interplay between mission methods and their historical context (Frankfurt am Main/NY: Peter Lang, 1986). ——, Pilgrims in mission. Celebrating 150 years of the English Presbyterian Mission (Alnwick: Aln Printers, 1998). Princeton S, Hsu, Chinese indigenous church movements (Hong Kong Baptist Press, n.d.). Asian Theological Seminary Library/P,266.51,H85. P.C.C. Huang, ‘The paradigmatic crisis in Chinese studies: Paradoxes in social and economic history’, Modern China 17:3 ( July 1991) pp. 299–341. Everette N. Hunt, Jr., ‘The legacy of John Livingston Nevius’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15:3 ( July 1991) pp. 120–124. W.R. Hutchison, Errand to the world: American Protestant thought and foreign missions (University of Chicago Press, 1987). ——, ‘A moral equivalent for imperialism: Americans and the promotion of “Christian Civilization”, 1880–1920’ in Christensen and Hutchison (1983) pp. 167–178. I.T. Hyatt, Jr., Our ordered lives confess. Three nineteenth-century American missionaries in East Shantung (Harvard UP, 1976). S.M. Jackson (ed), The new Schaﬀ-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, 12 volumes (NY/London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908–1912). S. Jewitt, ‘Europe’s “Others”?: Forestry policy and practices in colonial and postcolonial India’, Environment and planning D: Society and space 13 (1995) pp. 67–90. Youwen Jian, Zhongguo Jidujiao de kaishan shiye (Pioneers of the Protestant church in China) (HK, 1956). SOAS/c.802.c.18,242692. ‘Jianjie “Zhonghua Jidujiao hui nianjian” [A brief introduction of the “China Church Year Book”]’, Zhongguo yu Jiaohui 2:5 (82.3–4) pp. 16–17. Allen Johnson, et al. (eds), Dictionary of American biography, 17 bound volumes (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927–1988). Joint Committee for conversations between the Congregational Union of England and Wales and the Presbyterian Church of England. A statement of convictions on which a United Church, both Catholic and Reformed, might be built (n.p., ca. 1965). ML/BX.5.G7.J646. G. Kao (ed), The translation of things past: Chinese history and historiography (Hong Kong: Chinese UP, 1982). Steven Kaplan (ed), Indigenous responses to Western Christianity (NYUP, 1995). Wendell Karsen, ‘A pioneer ecumencical [sic] equipment [sic] in indiginization [sic]: Xiamen 1842–1994’ (unpublished typescript). Note: Section headings suggest that the title seems to be more correctly, ‘A pioneer ecumenical experiment . . .’ Rosemary A. Keen, A survey of archives of selected missionary societies (London: Historical Manuscripts Commission; distributed by the Church Missionary Society, 1968). D.L. Kinzer, An episode in anti-Catholicism: The American Protective Association (Washington UP, 1964).

384



James E. Kirby, ‘The Foochow anti-missionary riot—August 30, 1878’, Journal of Asian Studies 25 (1966) pp. 665–679. Jeﬀrey Klaiber, ‘Toward a new history of the church in the Third World’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14:3 ( July 1990) pp. 105–108. John Yung-Hsiang Lai (comp), Catalog of Protestant missionary works in Chinese. HarvardYenching Library, Harvard University (Massachusetts: G.K. Hall and co., 1980). SOAS/Ref CC,019,433325. Wing Hung Lam, Chinese theology in construction (William Carey Library, 1983). ——, ‘Patterns of Chinese theology’, Evangelical Review of Theology 6:2 (1982) pp. 224–236. Reprinted from Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research ( January 1980). ——, Qu gao he gua. Zhao Zichen de shengping yu shenxue [A tune too high thus lacking cosingers. The life and theology of Zhao Zichen] (CGST/China Alliance Press, 1994). ——, Wang Mingdao yu Zhongguo jiaohui (Wang Mingdao and the Chinese Church) (Hong Kong, 1982). Tony Lambert, The resurrection of the Chinese church, rev. ed. (Wheaton, Illinois: OMF Books, 1994). K.S. Latourette, A history of Christian missions in China (NY/SPCK 1929 = Taipei 1970). Chee Kang Lee, ‘Fayang Minnan Jiaohui jingshen [Forwarding the spirit of the South Fujian Church]’ in The Min-Nan Chinese Christian Trinity Church, Hong Kong, 35th anniversary (1954–89) commemorative magazine (Hong Kong, 1989) pp. 40–41. Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, ‘Conversion or protection?: Collective violence and Christian movements in late nineteenth-century Chaozhou, South China’ (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 2000). Kam-keung Lee, ‘Zhongguo jidujiao yanjiu zhi xingqi jigi fazhan (The rise and development of research on the history of Christianity in China)’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 5–30. Delavan L. Leonard, A hundred years of mission, or the story of progress since Carey’s beginning (NY, 1895). Ka-lun Leung, Fu lin Zhonghua (Blessing upon China—Ten talks on the contemporary church history of China), 2nd ed. (Hong Kong, 1992). Philip Yuen-sang Leung, ‘Mission History versus Church History—The case of China historiography’ Ching Feng 40:3–4 (Sep-Dec 1997) pp. 177–213. Donald M. Lewis (ed), The Blackwell dictionary of Evangelical biography, 1730–1860, 2 vols. (Blackwell, 1995). The life of Christ by Chinese artists, 4th ed. (London: S.P.G., 1945). Stanley Lin, ‘The problem of ecclesiastical organization of the Amoy Mission: 1856–1864’ (unpublished paper, 7 May 1963). JAH/W88–0758. Zhiping Lin and Shijie Cha, Jidujiao yu Zhongguo. Lishi tupian lunwen ji [Christianity and China. Collection of historical images and essays] (Taipei: Cosmic Light, 1979). Oi Ki Ling, The changing role of the British Protestant missionaries in China, 1945–1952 (London: Associated University Presses, 1999). K.C. Liu (ed), American missionaries in China: Papers from Harvard Seminars (Harvard UP, 1966). Y.C. Liu, ‘Qingdai qianqi de nongye zudian guanxi (Agrarian tenancy relations in early Qing times)’, Qingshi lunzong 2 (1980) pp. 57–88. Yu-Ts’ang Liu, ‘The churches in Fukien. A study of the development of the three churches in North Fukien, China, and the prospects of church unity’ (S.T.M. thesis, Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1950). UTS/MR2.18,F9,L78. Hui-Min Lo, Foreign Oﬃce conﬁdential papers relating to China and her neighbouring countries, 1840 –1914. With an additional list, 1915–1937 (Paris, 1969). SOAS/Ref.C.951.031,257621. Kathleen L. Lodwick (comp), The Chinese Recorder Index: A guide to Christian missions



385

in Asia, 1867–1941, 2 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1986). Charles Henry Long and Anne Rowthorn, ‘The legacy of Roland Allen’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 13:2 (1989) pp. 65–70. J.G. Lutz, ‘Chinese Christianity and China missions: Works published since 1970’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research (1996) pp. 98–106. ——, ‘Chinese Christianity and Christian missions, Western literature: The state of the ﬁeld’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 31–54. ——, Hakka Chinese confront Protestant Christianity, 1850–1900 (M.E. Sharpe, 1997). ——, ‘The legacy of Karl Friedrich August Gutzlaﬀ ’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 24:3 ( July 2000) pp. 123–128. ——, ‘Review of Ralph R. Covell, The Liberating Gospel in China: The Christian Faith among China’s Minority Peoples. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1995’, China Review International 4:2 (Fall, 1997) pp. 364–366. —— and R.R. Lutz, ‘The invisible China missionaries: The Basel Mission’s Chinese evangelists, 1847–1866’, Mission Studies 12:2 (1995) pp. 204–227. —— and ——, ‘Karl Gutzlaﬀ ’s approach to indigenization: The Chinese Union’, in Bays (1996) pp. 269–291. J.M. McCutcheon, ‘The American and British missionary concept of Chinese civilization in the nineteenth century’ (Ph.D. diss., Wisconsin, 1959). J.M. MacKenzie, ‘Edward Said and the historians’, Nineteenth-century contexts 18 (1994) pp. 9–25. John Thomas McNeill and James Hastings Nichols, Ecumenical testimony: The concern for Christian unity within the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974). Leslie R. Marchant, A guide to the archives and records of Protestant Christian Missions from the British Isles to China, 1796–1914 (University of Western Australia Press, 1966). Alfred DeWitt Mason, Outlines of missionary history (NY, 1912). SL/XT8.M38.1912. ——, Outlines of missionary history, 3rd ed. (NY, 1921). SL/XT8.M38.1921. Noel Matthews and M. Doreen Wainwright (comps), A guide to manuscripts and documents in the British Isles relating to the Far East, ed. J.D. Pearson (OUP, 1977). SOAS/Ref C,090,365095. Shailer Matthews and G.B. Smith (eds), A dictionary of religion and ethics (London: Waverley, 1921). C. William Mensendiek, ‘The Protestant missionary understanding of the Chinese situation and the Christian task from 1890 to 1911’ (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1958). ML/BV.3415.2.M26. W.C. Merwin, Adventure in unity: The Church of Christ in China (Eerdmans, 1974). University of London/Senate House Library/Stack/P.Orb.Mer. Elmer Miller, ‘The Christian missionary, agent of secularization’, Anthropological Quarterly 43 (1970) pp. 14–22. R. Strang Miller, ‘Greatheart of China. A brief life of William Chambers Burns, M.A., Scottish evangelist and revival leader, and early missionary to China’ in Five pioneering missionaries (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965) pp. 93–169. R.B. Morris and J.B. Morris (eds), Encyclopedia of American history, 7th ed. (NY: HarperCollins, 1996). H.B. Morse, The international relations of the Chinese empire, 3 volumes (NY, 1910, 1917, 1917). D.J. Munro, Microforms for historians: A ﬁnding list of research collections in London academic libraries, 2nd ed. (London: Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 1994). James A.H. Murray, et al. (eds), A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 16

386



volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888–1933) = The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically, 2 volumes (OUP, 1971=1984). National Archives microﬁlm resources for research: A comprehensive catalogue (Washington D.C.: National Archives Trust Fund, 1986). Stephen Neill, A history of Christian missions (Penguin, 1964). P. Neils (ed), United States attitudes and policies toward China. The impact of American missionaries (NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1990). Chin-Keong Ng, ‘The South Fukienese junk trade at Amoy from the seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries’, in Vermeer (ed), Development (1990) pp. 297–316. Peter Tze-ming Ng, ‘Zhongguo jiaohui daxue lishi chongxun de xiandai yiyi (Historical studies of Christian colleges in China in recent years and their signiﬁcance in the contemporary era)’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 101–110. Stephen L. Peterson, ‘North American library resources for mission research’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15:4 (October 1991) pp. 155–164. Clifton Jackson Phillips, Protestant America and the pagan world: The ﬁrst half century of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1810–1860 (Harvard UP, 1969). Alvin John Poppen, ‘The life and work of David Abeel’ (S.T.M. thesis, UTS, [1959]). Note: Chinese translation by Walter de Velder (Hong Kong: The Council on Christian Literature for Overseas Chinese, June 1963). SL/XT8.P81c. ——, ‘Out of the picnic basket’ The Church Herald 14:15 (12 April 1957) pp. 12–13, 21–22. SL Periodicals, Per Folio. Janet Percival (ed), A guide to archives and manuscripts in the University of London (1984). Karl Raimund Popper, The poverty of historicism, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960). G.R. Potter, et al. (eds), The new Cambridge modern history, 14 vols. (CUP, 1957–1979). Volume 12 (1960) has a revised edition (1968). Andrew Porter, The Council for World Mission and its archival legacy, Occasional Publication of the Archives and Manuscripts Division, SOAS Library (1999). Cliﬀord Putney, ‘The legacy of the Gulicks, 1827–1964’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 25:1 ( January 2001) pp. 28–35. Dana L. Robert, ‘From missions to mission to beyond missions: The historiography of American Protestant foreign missions since World War II’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18:4 (October 1994) pp. 146–162. Renato Rosaldo, ‘The cultural impact of the printed word. A review article’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 23 (1981) pp. 508–513. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds), A history of the ecumenical movement, 1517–1948 (London: SPCK, 1954). 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967). William T. Rowe, ‘Approaches to modern Chinese social history’ in Zunz (1985) pp. 236–296. G. Rozman, Population and marketing settlements in Ch’ing China (CUP, 1982). Murray A[aron] Rubinstein, The origins of the Anglo-American missionary enterprise in China, 1807–1840, ATLA Monograph serries No. 33 (Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996). ——, ‘Zion’s corner: Origins of the American Protestant missionary movement in China, 1827–1839’ (PhD diss., NYU, 1976). Edward William Said, Orientalism: Western conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978 = 1991). The 1995 edition contains a new ‘Afterword’. Ch’eng Tzu San Mu, ‘Ershi niandai Zhongguo Jiaohui de zili yundong—yijiu erling nian zhi yijiu sanling nian jian (The movement for an independent Chinese church in the twenties)’, Ching Feng 32 (1972) pp. 44–60.



387

Peter Schineller, ‘Inculturation: a diﬃcult and delicate task’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 20:3 (1996) pp. 109–112. ——, ‘Inculturation and syncretism: What is the real issue?’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 16 (1992) pp. 50–53. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., ‘The missionary enterprise and theories of imperialism’, in Fairbank (1974) pp. 336–373. Friedrich Schmoll, Wetterleuchten. Als Missionar in China von 1902 bis 1922 (Satz: Verlag an der Lottbek, 1990). Robert J. Schreiter, ‘Deﬁning syncretism: An interim report’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 17:2 (April 1993) pp. 50–53. Rosemary Seton, ‘Archival sources in Britain for the study of mission history: An outline guide and select bibliography’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18:2 (April 1994) pp. 66–70. Republished in Bickers and Seton (1996) pp. 240–255. ——, Guide to archives and manuscript collections (SOAS Library, 1994). —— and Emily Naish, A preliminary guide to the archives of British missionary societies (Workshop on Missionary Archives, SOAS, 8–9 July 1992). ‘The Shandong Independent Church’, Religion in the People’s Republic of China. China Study Project Documentation No. 18 (December 1985) pp. 29–30. Reprinted from Tian Feng ( June 1985). J. Shapiro, ‘Ideologies of Catholic missionary practice in a postcolonial era’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 23 (1981) pp. 130–149. Eric J. Sharpe, Karl Ludvig Reichelt: Missionary. Scholar and pilgrim (Hong Kong: Tao Fong Shan Ecumenical Center, 1984). ——, ‘Reﬂections on missionary historiography’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 13:2 (1989) pp. 76–81. W.R. Shenk, ‘Henry Venn’s instructions to missionaries’ Missiology: An International Review 5:4 (1977) pp. 467–485. ——, ‘Henry Venn’s legacy’ Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 1:2 (1977) pp. 16–19. ——, ‘The origins and evolution of the Three-selfs in relation to China’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14:1 (1990) pp. 28–35. ——, ‘Rufus Anderson and Henry Venn: A special relationship?’ , International Bulletin of Missionary Research 5:4 (1981) pp. 168–172. ——, ‘Toward a global church history’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 20:2 (April 1996) pp. 50–57. J. Shepherd, ‘From barbarians to sinners: Collective conversion among plains aborigines in Qing Taiwan, 1859–1895’ in Bays (1996) pp. 120–137. Robert Shuster, ‘Documentary sources in the United States for Foreign Missions research: A select bibliography and checklist’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 9:1 (1985) pp. 19–29. K. Sivaramakrishnan, ‘Colonialism and forestry in India: Imagining the past in present politics’, Comparative Studies in Society and History (1995) pp. 3–40. Joseph D. Small, ‘Ecclesial identity and ecumenical decisions in the Presbyterian Churches (U.S.A.)’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37 (2000) pp. 1–12. Martha Smalley (comp), Archives and manuscripts. Missions Pamphlet Collection. Record Group No. 31 (Yale University Divinity School Library, n.d.). William A. Smalley, ‘Doctoral dissertations on mission: Ten-year update. 1982–1991’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 17:3 ( July 1993) pp. 97–125. Carl Smith, Chinese Christians: Elite, Middlemen, and the Church in Hong Kong (OUP, 1985). Christopher A. Smith, ‘Mission research and the path to CD-ROM: Report on the global quest to share information’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 19:4 (October 1995) pp. 146–152.

388



Bernard T. Smyth, The Chinese batch. The Maynooth mission to China: Origins 1911–1920 (Dublin: Four Courts, 1994). Eric S.Y. So, ‘Timothy Tingfeng Lew and the indigenization movement of the Church in China’, Ching Feng 39:3 (1996) 237–253. George Bryan Souza, The survival of empire: Portuguese trade and society in China and the South China Sea, 1630–1754 (CUP, 1986). N. Standaert (ed), Handbook of Christianity in China. Volume one: 635–1800 (Brill, 2001). Milton Theobald Stauﬀer, ‘Our Beloved Brother, David Abeel’, 27-page typescript (New Brunswick, 1941). SL/Dutch Colonial Studies Archives/New Brunswick Clergy Club. Note: Item missing as of December 1998, and thus was not consulted for this research. Lynn A. Struve, The Southern Ming, 1644–1662 (Yale UP, 1984). Bengt G.M. Sundkler, Church of South India: The movement towards union, 1900–1947 (London: Lutterworth Press, 1954). Feiya Tao, ‘1949 nian yilai guonei Zhongguo jidujiaoshi yanjiu shuping (A stateof-the-ﬁeld paper on the history of Chinese Christianity in the PRC since 1949)’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 56–67. David M. Thompson, ‘Theological and sociological approaches to the motivation of the ecumenical movement’ in Derek Baker (ed), Religious motivation (1978) pp. 467–479. James C. Thomson, While China faced West: American reformers in Nationalist China, 1928–1937 (Harvard UP, 1969). James Thomson Jr., Peter W. Stanley and John Curtis Perry, Sentimental imperialists: The American experience in East Asia (NY: Harper and Row, 1985). R.G. Tiedemann, ‘Baptism of ﬁre: China’s Christians and the Boxer Uprising of 1900’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 24:1 ( January 2000) pp. 7–12. —— (ed), Handbook of Christianity in China. Volume two: 1800–present (Brill, forthcoming). Ju-K’ang T’ien, Peaks of faith: Protestant mission in revolutionary China (Brill, 1993). Ernest Tipson, A pocket dictionary of the Amoy vernacular. English-Chinese (Singapore, 1934); 2nd ed. (Shanghai, 1940). ——, A pocket dictionary of the Amoy vernacular. (Chinese-English) (Singapore, 1935). Britt E. Towery, Jr., The churches of China. Taking root downward. Bearing fruit upward., 3rd ed. (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 1990). ——, ‘The contribution of Lao She to the Three-self principle and the Protestant Churches of China’, Missiology: An International Review 32:1 (1994) pp. 89–101. The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York alumni directory, 1836–1970 (NY: The Alumni Oﬃce, 1970). SL/EH.Un3ua. Peter N. Vandenberge (ed), Historical directory of the Reformed Church in America, 1628–1965 (New Brunswick: Commission on History, RCA, 1966). Note: A later edition covers the period 1628–1978 (Eerdmans, 1978) but adds nothing substantially new for our period. P.A. Varg, Missionaries, Chinese and diplomats: The American Protestant missionary movement, 1890–1952 (Princeton UP, 1958). E.B. Vermeer (ed), Development and decline of Fukien province in the 17th and 18th centuries (Brill, 1990). A.F.C. Wallace, Religion: An anthropological view (NY, 1966). A.F. Walls, ‘Eusebius tries again: Reconceiving the study of Christian History’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 24:3 (2000) pp. 105–111. ——, ‘Structural problems in mission studies’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15:4 (October 1991) pp. 146–155. Lewis C. Walmsley, Bishop in Honan: Mission and museum in the life of William C. White (University of Toronto Press, 1974). Zhixin Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao shi gang (An outline of the history of Christianity in China) (Hong Kong, 1959).



389

A.W. Ward, et al. (eds), The Cambridge Modern History, 14 vols. (CUP, 1902–1912). Kevin Ward, ‘The legacy of Eugene Stock’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23:2 (April 1999) pp. 75–79. Gustav Warneck, Outline of a history of Protestant missions from the Reformation to the present time. A contribution to modern church history, ET of 7th German ed. (Edinburgh and London, 1901). Max [A.C.] Warren, ‘The Church of England as by law established—Unﬁt for export?’ in L.S. Hunter (ed), The English Church: A New look (Harmondsworth, 1966). ——, The missionary movement from Britain in modern history (SCM, 1965). —— (ed), To apply the Gospel. Selections from the writings of Henry Venn (Eerdmans, 1971). Philip L. Wickeri, Seeking the common ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement, and China’s United Front (Orbis, 1988). Jean-Paul Wiest, ‘The legacy of Vincent Lebbe’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23:1 ( January 1999) pp. 33–37. C. Peter Williams, The ideal of the self-governing church. A study in Victorian missionary strategy (Brill, 1990). Bryan R. Wilson, Contemporary transformations of religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979). ——, Religion in secular society: A sociological comment (London, 1966). J. Wolﬀe, God and Greater Britain. Religion and national life in Britain and Ireland, 1843–1945 (Routledge, 1994). ——, The Protestant crusade in Great Britain, 1829–1860 (OUP, 1991). Thomas J. Woudstra, ‘A history of the Amoy mission 1842–1905’ (unpublished paper, Western Theological Seminary, 1979). JAH/W88–0758. Jun Xing, Baptized in the ﬁre of revolution. The American Social Gospel and the YMCA in China: 1919–1937 (Lehigh UP, 1996). T. Yamamori and C.R. Taber (eds), Christopaganism or indigenous Christianity (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1975). James Maxon Yard, ‘Self-support-is it growing?’, China Mission Year Book (1925) pp. 94–96. T.E. Yates, Venn and Victorian Bishops abroad. The missionary policies of Henry Venn and their repercussions upon the Anglican Episcopate of the colonial period 1841–1872 (Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research/London: SPCK, 1978). University of London/Senate House Library/Stack/PS4.V468.Yat. Wa Ye and J.W. Esherick, Chinese archives: An introductory guide (U.C. Berkeley, 1996). Fuk-tsang Ying, ‘Benshehua yu Minguo Jidujiao jiaohui shi yanjiu (Indigenization and studies of Chinese church history in the Republican period)’ Journal of the History of Christianity in modern China 1 (1998) pp. 85–100. ——, Wenhua shiying yu Zhongguo Jidutu—1860 zhi 1911 (Cultural accommodation and Chinese Christians 1860–1911) (Hong Kong, 1995). Ka-che Yip, ‘The anti-Christian movement in China, 1922–1927, with special reference to the experience of Protestant Missions’ (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1970). ——, Religion, nationalism and Chinese students. The anti-Christian movement of 1922–1927 (Western Washington University, 1980). Keping Yu, Culture and modernity in Chinese thought in the 1930s: Comments on two approaches to modernization in China, Working Papers in Asian/Paciﬁc Studies no. 94–02 (Duke University, 1994). Ying-shih Yu, ‘The study of Chinese history: retrospect and prospect’ in Kao (1982) pp. 7–26. O. Zunz (ed), Reliving the past: The worlds of social history (North Carolina UP, 1985).

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX Note: This Index covers only the main text plus additional information given in the footnotes. Bibliographic/documentary details from the latter are excluded. The author expresses deep appreciation to Ester Cheung for her invaluable assistance in the compilation of the Index. A History of the Work of Redemption, 191 ABCFM, 4, 7, 15, 19, 22, 45, 48, 50n243, 51, 53n265, 109, 115–116, 131n122, 186, 196, 289, 315, 317, 330–331, 331n150, 346n225, 347–348, 363, 364n326 Abeel, Rev. David, 14, 14n4, 15, 18–21, 23, 64, 67, 84, 92n136, 96–99, 105, 113–114, 115n5, 128–130, 132, 151–152, 167, 313–314 Aberdeen, 24 accommodationism, 3 admission(s), 38, 45, 47–53, 64–65, 67–68, 70, 75–76, 78–79, 82–83, 93, 105–106, 108–110, 150, 200, 217, 219, 225, 227–229, 230n174, 232, 235, 238, 243, 245, 248, 256, 293, 299, 301–302, 304–306, 312–313, 357, 365. See also baptism applicant/candidate(s) for admission/baptism, 47, 61, 68, 73–74, 76–79, 81–82, 93, 106, 108, 132, 148–150, 211–212, 214, 217–218, 222, 224, 227–231, 235, 237, 245, 248, 301–303, 305–307, 311–313, 326. See also under inquirers criteria/standards, 68, 105, 293, 299, 301, 307, 311 (requirements). See also under sincerity delay of admission/baptism, 66–67, 69, 73, 75–80, 82, 218–219, 231, 235, 237, 243, 300, 302–305 examination for admission/baptism, 28, 31, 76–77, 79–82, 93, 106, 108, 131–132, 149–150, 211–212, 214, 222, 224, 228, 230–231, 237, 245, 248, 302

policy of, 61, 64–82, 217–219, 237–239, 243, 261–262, 293, 297, 299–307, 339, 357 adoption, 177–179, 181–182 Adriance, Miss, 126n89 Africa, 9, 315 A-kui-a, 36, 174, 176 Albany, 87, 129n107 Allen, Roland, 3 America, 1, 15, 19, 22–23, 52, 56, 63, 84, 114, 125, 128, 130, 132, 134, 207, 250, 267, 277, 283–284, 288, 308, 313, 315, 318, 329, 335, 340, 346, 346n226, 347–348. See also United States American, 2n10, 4, 14, 32, 41–44, 61, 63–64, 67, 72, 106, 111, 114, 118, 130, 133, 151, 153, 165, 184, 192, 194, 203, 210–212, 214, 218, 228, 230, 236, 273, 282, 291, 303, 319, 340, 343–344, 347 American Methodist Episcopal, 320, 320n66 American Presbyterian (AP). See under Presbyterian American Reformed, 334 Americans, 28, 42–43, 46, 75, 104, 108, 150, 152, 211, 250n254, 269, 271–272, 277–279, 282, 289, 302, 306, 329–330, 344 Amoy, 1, 2, passim climate of, 10, 124, 126–128, 144, 147 friendliness, 94–105, 162, 246, 295n282. See also anti-foreignism occupation by British, 98 occupation by insurgents, 33–35, 50n239, 137n159, 141 oﬃcial(s)/oﬃcialdom of, 85, 90, 98, 98n176, 99, 105, 128. See also government oﬃcer

392



Amoy centre approach/strategy. See centre strategy Amoy Committee/Council Minutes, 7, 7n34 Amoy Colloquial Dictionary, 156n290 Amoy dialect/colloquial, 8, 11, 32, 37–38, 43, 45, 45n214, 71n34, 84, 96, 98, 129–131, 134, 138–139, 143, 145, 148–149, 150n261, 153–154, 156, 160, 171, 176, 184, 212n42, 302, 335n173 Amoy-speaking, 9, 96, 98, 179 diﬃculty of, 131, 154, 156, 166, 237 See also Chinese language Amoy Island, 10–12, 84, 86, 88, 94, 167–168, 174, 196, 199, 262, 310 Amoy Mission, 11–12, 58, 310 Amoy Synod. See Synod of South Fujian ancestor worship, 67, 69–71, 73, 80, 304, 346 ancestral tablets, 68–69, 202–221, 260 Anderson, Rufus, 3, 53, 84, 314–315, 348, 363 Andersonisms, 363 Andrew (disciple of Jesus), 202 Anglicize, 54 Anglo-Chinese Manual of the Amoy dialect, 155 Angsoa, 338 Anhai, 256–257, 259–260, 303, 306–307, 324 Anjean, 66 Annual Reports (AR-AB), 7 anti-Catholicism, 335 anti-Christianism, 10, 223, 223n119, 232–233, 314, 336, 365 anti-foreignism, 94–105, 101, 171, 314, 336, 339, 365. See also Amoy friendliness anti-missionary, 103n215, 104 Apollos (Bible character), 242 apostles (of Christ), 94 Arcot, 306 Armenian Mission, 315 Arrow War, 101 Asia, 9, 19–20 Athens (New York), 20, 20n54 Aukoey, 143, 193 Australia, 292

autonomy. See under self-government awaken(ed)/awakening, 28, 51, 52n259, 51n258, 82, 209, 223, 226, 236, 243 Pechuia awakening/ingathering, 28, 79, 93, 239, 242–243, 247, 294 See also ingathering; revival backsliding, 107 Ban, 66, 66n15 Band, E., 27n97, 142n205 Banlam, 1, 2, passim. See also South Fujian Banlam Confession of Faith, 364, 354 Banlam Taihoey. See also Minnan Dahui baptism(s), 20–21, 28, 45, 48, 51, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 76, 78–82, 106, 108, 132, 134, 149–150, 157–178, 178n59, 200, 211, 218–219, 222–224, 227– 228, 231–233, 235, 238, 244, 256, 263, 270–271, 274–275, 289, 299–300, 302, 304–306, 311, 321, 364. See also admission(s) infant/child baptism(s), 47, 49, 256 barber of Kangthau, 301 Basel, 350, 354–357 Batavia, 115n5, 129 Baypay, 45n214, 145n231 Bays, D.H., 358 bead-carver, 198 Beijing, 27n97, 29–30 believer(s), 43, 63–64, 72, 74, 79, 83, 108, 171, 177, 197, 219–220, 224–225, 230, 234, 236, 245–246 (believing community), 258. See also convert(s) Bepi, 45n214 Berlin mission, 357n287 BFM, 24, 79, 116, 124, 262, 278, 280, 313, 317, 328–329, 336, 339, 341, 344, 347, 363 Secretary of, 346–347 Bible, 152, 154, 215, 217, 233, 237, 258, 291, 296, 296n286, 345 Bible class(es), 91–92, 91n135, 131, 237 Bible study, 63, 91–92 Bible translation project, 152–153, 161

 Bible women, 364. See also woman Chinese Testament, 70 New Testament, 89, 92, 147, 153, 318 Old Testament, 91, 281 Scripture(s), 62, 67, 88, 148, 167, 182, 199, 215, 217, 222, 298, 305, 313, 341, 345, 347 See also Delegates Version; the Word bishop, 259, 315 Blauvelt, Rev. August, 285 boat(s), 176, 180, 182n80, 220, 262, 329–330, 333 boatman(s), 74, 143, 279, 330 Good News Boat, 220 Gospel Boat, 146, 330 Boey-Koey-hang, 87, 167 Book of Ruth, 155 books. See colportage Boone, Mrs., 124n75 Boone, Rev. W.J., 14–15, 15n8, 124 Borneo, 83, 85, 114–115, 115n5, 116, 129–130 Boston, 348, 363 Boundbrook, 286 Boxer uprising, 314 Brahmin, 313 Brazil, 315 Britain, 125, 128, 213, 277, 288–289, 330 British, 14, 17, 27n98, 29, 42, 110–111, 117, 162, 165, 203–204, 270, 272, 275, 279, 284, 290, 292–294, 299, 307, 335, 362. See also English British Consul, 40, 100, 178, 246. See also consuls British Consulate, 102, 118n24, 233 Brooklyn, 55n271 Brown, Rev. H.A., 15, 67, 131, 131n120 Bruce, Sir Frederick, 29 building(s), 1, 133, 168, 175, 177, 270n120, 329, 359 Amoy Mission Buildings (project), 120, 120n48, 174 Sinkoe chapel/church building, 13, 21, 48, 88, 116, 133, 133n136, 134–135, 168, 173n36, 195, 200, 261, 330–332 Burns, Islay, 17n32, 30

393

Burns, Rev. William Chambers, 7, 16–18, 24–31, 36–41, 41n196, 42–45, 45n214, 50n242, 65, 79, 88–89, 89n120, 101, 104, 117–118, 118n28, 119, 121, 121n52, 122–123, 127, 137–140, 142–144, 155, 160, 171, 171n26, 173n39, 174–175, 179, 179n67, 188, 192–193, 196, 206, 208–214, 216, 218–219, 221, 225, 228, 230, 235, 240, 240n224, 241–244, 247, 260, 260n65, 269–274, 282, 285, 287, 293–294, 294n274, 295– 296, 298–330 Caesar, 166 Calcutta, 118n28 Calvinist, 288 Cambridge, 7 Camilla, 100 Canada, 292 Canadian Mission in Formosa, 306n362 Canadian Presbyterian mission at Tam-sui, 302 Canton, 15–17, 19, 25–26, 31, 39, 51n256, 69, 87, 95, 100–102, 104, 128, 131–32, 155, 184, 200, 238, 255, 293, 306 Cantonese, 71n34, 95–96, 138 Guangdong, 69, 138 Ka-eng-chew, 184 Carnegie, Dr. John, 221n101, 285 catechists, 189n120 catholicity, 336 Central Kingdom, 1 Central Reformed Church (Brooklyn), 55n271 centralisation, 25 centre strategy, 11, 166–170, 174–176 Amoy centre approach/strategy, 166–167, 169, 174–176 centrifugal force/principle, 175 centripetalism, 63, 175 chapel-centre approach, 63, 167, 169–170, 173–174, 176, 181 planetary method, 174–176, 179, 181 stated-centre concept, 174 Chailau festival, 182n83, 220 Challenger, 122 Chambers, T.W., 347

394



chamhoo. See government oﬃcer chapel(s), 20, 36–38, 49, 63, 66, 70, 72, 87–88, 90–92, 92n140, 93, 99, 116, 130–132, 134, 134n137, 135, 138, 141, 147, 148, 151, 159, 162, 167–169, 172–173, 173n36, 184, 186, 195–198, 202, 221, 231–234, 257–258, 278–279, 290, 294, 317, 322, 324, 324n92, 327n120, 329, 330–331, 331n150, 331n151, 332–334, 338–339 chapel-centre approach. See centre strategy chapel keeper, 66, 107, 109, 189, 259, 340–341 preaching hall(s)/place, 32n128, 36, 88, 176–177, 209, 226, 260 worship place(s), 13, 52 chaplain, 19 character of converts. See Christian character of converts Chateris, Rev. William, 16n22 Chekcheng, 182 Chen Mengnan, 3n14 Chengsoan, 80n73 Chheng Hung. See Ong Chhienghong Chhengchoan villages, 181n76 Chheng-choan. See Ong Chhiengchoan Chhieng-chuan. See Ong Chhiengchoan Chhoa Giau, 192, 194 Chhoa Giau-siok, 13, 192, 311 Chiang river valley, 168 Chiangchiu, 35–36, 49, 77, 88–89, 102–103, 139, 141, 151, 167–168, 172, 175, 179n67, 187–189, 194–195, 205–207, 207n15, 208, 226, 229, 232–233, 233n192, 256–257, 261, 263, 278–283, 290, 294, 303–304, 330, 333 Chiangchiu mission, 188, 205–207, 236, 247, 324 Chiangchiu-Emungkang entanglement, 269, 278–283 China, 1–2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15n8, 16, 16n24, 18–20, 24, 24n80, 26–32, 38–40, 42–44, 48, 51–55, 59, 63, 71, 85, 87, 90, 102, 104, 106, 109–110, 114–116, 118–119, 121–123, 125–126, 128–129, 133, 140, 142, 144n222, 145, 145n230,

146–148, 165, 170, 173–174, 176–177, 179, 181–182, 184, 212, 215, 236–237, 240, 242, 242n230, 253, 257n38, 265, 267, 270, 272–274, 284, 284n206, 286n225, 293–294, 307–309, 314–315, 320, 320n65, 321, 335–336, 346n225, 355, 355n277, 360, 362, 365–366 South (China), 30, 40 South China, 124, 147, 309–310, 352, 359 See also empire; Sino- (preﬁx) China Centenary Conference, 2, 27n97, 314, 318, 358 China Evangelisation Society, 3n14 China Inland Mission, 109 Chinaman, 124, 301 Chinchew, 207. See Choanchiu Chinese, 1, 3, passim. See also native; Sino- (preﬁx) Chinese agency. See native agency Chinese-English dictionary, 154n269 Chinese labour(s)/work, 56, 111–112, 114, 122, 133–136, 140–141, 146, 149–152, 163, 165–251, 354. See also evangelistic labour(s)/work Chinese labourer/worker(s), 3, 109, 112, 135, 139, 140, 144, 146, 149, 157, 168, 171, 172n34, 176, 180, 184–194, 250, 259, 262–263, 296, 301, 312, 324, 361. See also native agency Chinese language, 27n97, 130, 145, 153, 160, 237–238, 307n370 mandarin (language), 188 See also Amoy dialect Chinese new year, 40n188, 99, 101, 159, 196, 198, 325 Chinese Repository, 85 Chinese work space, 111–112, 122, 124, 129–163, 165, 168, 172, 174, 177, 185–186, 190, 192, 203, 207, 236, 249, 250. See also Chinese labour(s)/work Chinghan, 66 Chiohbe, 45, 47, 50, 50n243, 50n249, 51–52, 78–82, 106–108, 144–145, 145n231, 146, 148, 148n245, 162, 180, 182, 189, 195, 205, 208, 210, 221, 224–236, 244–250, 253, 255–263, 265–266, 272–275,

 278–279, 282–283, 300, 303, 305, 311–312, 320, 320n64, 325, 327–330, 338, 340–341, 343. See also Pechuia-Chiohbe Choanchiu, 160, 195, 207, 207n15. See also Chinchew Choanchiu mission, 189, 205–207, 247, 324 cholera, 147n239, 285. See also health Cho-po-bio, 167 Christ, 22, 62, 70–71, 75–77, 83, 93–94, 198–199, 201, 207, 215, 217, 239–240, 258, 280 Jesus, 72, 168, 202, 227, 239, 305 Messiah, 202 Saviour, 29, 90, 215, 222, 260 Christian(s), 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 19, 23, 27, 27n97, 32–33, 37, 40–41, 48, 52, 55, 61–64, 66–68, 71–72, 75, 80–81, 85, 89–90, 104, 108, 111–112, 129, 133, 139, 140–141, 143, 151, 154, 157, 159–160, 165, 169–173, 178, 179n67, 186, 189, 190–192, 195, 199–204, 208, 210, 217–220, 222–223, 227–228, 229n170, 231–234, 236, 244–246, 250, 258–259, 279, 294, 296, 300–301, 309, 313, 323–324, 326, 328, 332, 334n167, 338, 342, 345, 350, 352, 356, 362 Christian classics, 27, 27n97 Christian Intelligencer, 346, 346n226 Christianity, 3, 9, 70–71, 76, 105, 109, 111, 115, 227, 242, 258, 304, 326n111, 338, 364, 366 resistance-receptivity to, 364–365 teacher(s) of, 148, 177, 227, 258 Christianize, 54 Chukak, 307n266 church(es), 1, 3–4, 7–9, 13, 28, 30, 37–38, 40, 42, 45–48, 52–56, 58, 60–61, 65, 67, 75–79, 106, 119, 119n33, 134, 137, 143, 165, 168, 170, 174, 177–178, 180, 187–188, 189n120, 190, 192, 196, 200, 202, 205, 211, 213, 216, 218, 222n106, 227–228, 234–236, 238–239, 243, 247–248, 250, 253n1, 254–257, 259–268, 270, 274–277, 279, 279n180, 280–281, 283, 289, 291–292, 298–300, 304–308,

395

310–313, 316–319, 323–324, 326n113, 329, 332–334, 336–345, 347–352, 354, 357–359, 361, 363, 366 Chinese church(es), 2, 3, 6, 8, 53, 55–56, 59–60, 174, 247, 254, 263, 268, 284–285, 297, 307n371, 332–333, 336, 345, 354, 358, 360 church(es) in America/England/ West, 2n10, 19, 41–42, 45, 53, 67, 78, 87, 115–116, 118n28, 119, 145, 203, 213n53, 216, 220, 229, 230, 241, 273, 277, 288–289, 319, 330, 331n150, 336, 336n182, 340, 344–348 indigenous church(es), 3, 6, 268, 314–315 infant church(es), 215, 224, 288, 303, 318 local church, 4, 37, 254, 312–313, 328, 333, 358–360 native church(es), 14, 52–54, 54n270, 56–58, 192, 196, 210, 249, 263, 268, 286–287, 313, 319, 329, 333, 336, 339–340, 345, 351, 353, 356 See also congregation(s) church discipline, 30, 106–108, 194, 230–231, 259, 262, 264–266, 276, 281, 300, 305, 312–313, 317 excommunication(s), 47, 106–107, 230–231, 289, 300, 306 suspension(s), 106–107, 259, 300, 306 church formation, 14, 21–25, 28, 30–31, 37–40, 44–46, 53, 57–60, 64, 67, 106, 110–111, 117, 123, 136, 142, 152, 157–158, 161–162, 175, 205, 247, 249–250, 256, 270–271, 274, 282, 295, 298 church gathering, 152, 159, 162, 295 church organisation (formal), 20–21, 37–38, 47, 52–54, 57, 60, 243, 257, 264–265, 267–268, 274, 276, 280, 286, 289, 293, 297, 299, 312–314, 341–343, 345–348

396



church planting, 19–20, 24, 26, 28, 31, 46, 53, 59–60, 65, 158, 161, 239–241, 272, 282, 318 church government/order/polity, 4, 13, 52, 251, 262, 288–289, 291–293, 311, 313, 316, 336, 339, 341–342, 348 church growth, 23, 46–53, 107, 114, 187, 190–191, 199, 238–239, 243, 254–257, 302, 343, 362, 365 church ideal/vision, 3, 14, 53–60, 263, 284–288, 308, 313, 353, 363. See also Talmage ideal Church in South Fujian, 334 church member(s), 3, 13, 21, 23, 38, 45, 47–50, 50n243, 52, 60–64, 78, 88–89, 106, 106n228, 106n229, 108, 111–112, 131, 136, 138, 143, 157, 187–188, 192, 194–198, 206–208, 212–213, 215–216, 221, 222n106, 224, 227, 234, 237, 240n224, 250, 256–259, 260–261, 275, 279–280, 283, 287, 294, 297, 304–306, 311, 317, 320, 323, 325–327, 329, 338, 343, 345, 352, 357 church membership, 13–14, 21, 23, 46–52, 61–62, 64, 67, 77, 79, 82–83, 94, 106–108, 149, 154, 214–218, 228, 228n158, 238, 243, 248, 251, 255, 255n14, 256, 259, 262, 280–281, 293, 300–301, 305, 317, 322–324, 331, 331n154, 332, 341, 353, 361 communicant(s), 215, 255, 257, 320 Church Missionary Society (CMS), 66–67, 87, 95, 98, 109, 125, 153, 307, 320, 320n66 Church of Christ in China, 2, 268, 314, 334–335, 344, 361, 362n312 church oﬃce-bearer/oﬃcers, 13, 45, 61–62, 111, 116, 194, 250, 250n254, 251, 261–262, 280, 289, 313, 339, 342, 356, 361 deacon(s), 13, 45, 257, 276, 291, 307n266, 311, 342, 347, 351 elder(s), 13, 24n78, 45, 192, 243, 245n238, 253, 253n1, 257, 262, 266, 276, 279, 291, 303,

311–312, 316, 323, 334, 342–343, 347, 355, 359, 360–361, 364 election of, 13–14, 45, 61–62, 190, 194, 276, 289, 313, 339, 341–342. See also electorate ordination of, 192, 257, 261, 280, 289, 312, 342 church order. See church government church organisation (formal). See under church formation church planting. See under church formation church polity. See church government church union, 1–2, 4–5, 7–10, 253–309, 314, 329, 334–336, 343–349, 358, 361–363, 366, 351, 354, 357 fact of union, 269, 277–278, 281–283, 336 organic union, 1, 254, 269, 277, 283, 292, 306–307, 334, 336, 336n182, 351, 357, 361 See also leadership; union Church church work, 41, 44, 46, 56, 111, 169, 282, 285, 299, 301, 307 Chusun Island, 95 Classis, 253, 253n1, 254–255, 257, 264–266, 268, 277, 293, 313, 313n28, 319, 342–344. See also Taihoey; union Classis clergy, 315. See also pastor cloth-dealer/merchant. See Nui colportage, 87–89, 111, 144, 189, 220, 242, 295, 297 books, 27n97, 36, 88, 90, 96, 220 literature distribution, 87–89, 94, 96, 111, 176, 297, 298 tract(s), 84, 87–89, 90, 156, 156n292, 168, 186, 189, 195, 197, 206, 296 colporteur(s). See native agency comity of mission. See cooperation Committee of Public Safety, 102 Committee on Foreign Mission (CFM), 318, 347 communicant(s). See church member(s) communion/Lord’s Supper, 13, 45, 48, 82, 132, 149, 216, 228, 232–233, 258, 274, 289, 329 Communist Party, 314 (Gongchandang)

 concentration method. See intensive method concert of prayer, 91, 131, 131n122, 200, 290 concubinage, 305 Conference of the PCE and the United Presbyterian Church, 292 Confession of Faith. See Banlam Confession of Faith conﬁdence of missionaries in Chinese Christians. See missionary conﬁdence confusion of ownership, 258, 269, 272–283, 336 congregation(s), 1, 4, 13, 20–21, 24, 29, 96–97, 108, 120, 212, 227, 231, 247, 249, 253, 255, 276, 278–279, 286, 313, 318, 324, 330, 332, 334, 340–342, 349, 355, 359–360 Congregational(ism), 5, 29, 270, 291–292, 307, 315, 335, 351 Consistory(s)/Consistorial, 24, 47, 61, 250–251, 257, 262–264, 274, 276–279, 283, 288, 291, 299, 300, 312–313, 316, 340, 342–343, 346, 346n226, 348. See also Session(s) Constitution (RCA), 265, 341, 344, 347 consuls, 101–102, 233n192. See also British Consul contextualisation, 3. See also indigenisation Continuation activities, 314 contributions (ﬁnancial). See under self-support controversy between RCA Amoy and RCA America, 57, 283, 291, 308, 319, 344 conversation(s), 36, 43, 87–89, 91, 111, 140, 148, 225 conversion, 36, 70–71, 76, 102, 104, 108–109, 158, 221, 239, 242–243 convert(s), 21–24, 28, 34, 36, 36n159, 41, 49–51, 54n270, 55, 61–63, 67–70, 72–75, 80, 83, 86n95, 89, 101, 105–109, 112, 116, 122, 136, 139– 141, 146, 151, 153–154, 157, 160–161, 165, 171, 176, 178, 190, 192, 194–204, 206–211, 215–217, 219–221, 223–226, 229–236, 240–241, 243, 245–247, 249–250,

397

258–261, 264, 271, 273–275, 278–281, 283, 293, 301–305, 311, 321–322, 325n103, 326–327, 330–332, 334, 337–338, 341–342, 352, 355, 357, 361, 364, 364n326, 365 convert making, 21–23, 63, 152, 158–159, 162, 199, 332 quality/character of, 61–64, 67, 70, 75, 79, 82–83, 94, 106–111, 136, 165, 179, 218, 224–225, 230–235, 250, 254, 258–259, 261, 297, 305, 355, 357, 362. See also sincerity quality control of, 65, 67, 82, 107–108, 150, 262, 293, 299–301, 305, 307, 357 zeal of, 62–64, 79, 89, 172, 194, 196–199, 216, 219–225, 231, 235, 240, 244, 246, 258–259, 261, 303, 310, 337 See also believer(s); disciples coolie, 101 cooperation, 15, 59, 131n122, 156, 196, 241, 269–283, 288, 290, 295n282, 307–308, 362 collaboration, 21, 269–270, 282 comity of mission, 273n140, 290 work space for non-Chinese, 131, 151 See also ecumenical; comity of mission; concert of prayer; work space for non-Chinese Cooperation in Foreign Missions, 2 Corfu mission, 16n22, 120n42, 120n45 Cowie, Rev. Hugh, 285 Crawford, 307 Crimean War/Campaign, 119, 119n37, 120 Cross, 170 cross-cultural, 309 cross-linguistic, 309 cultural imperialism. See imperialism Cultural Revolution, 8 Cumming, Dr. W.H., 14–15, 21, 67, 91, 98, 270 CWML, 7 Dale, W., 16n30 David (Bible character), 281

398



De Jong, G.F., 52 De la Porte, Dr., 101 de Velder, Walter, 19n45 deacon(s). See church oﬃce-bearers Declaration (National Christian Conference), 358 Delegates Version, 152 denomination(s)/denominational, 19, 53, 254, 268–269, 292, 306, 336, 346, 351 denominational compatibility, 288–293, 308, 335 post-denominational, 5, 335, 354 denominationalism, 336, 362 devolution, 1, 3–5, 7–10, 17, 21, 46, 53, 61, 135–136, 191–192, 204, 207, 211, 217, 249–251, 253–254, 268, 277, 308–309, 311–318, 329, 333–334, 337–349, 350–363, 366 devolution upon missionary(s), 22, 41–42, 65, 149, 161, 179n67 devolutionary, 4, 10, 254, 261, 264–265, 267–268, 288, 312, 314, 319, 334, 339, 340, 343, 349–354, 361–362 See also leadership; power-sharing; property diachronic approach, 18 disciples, 207 disciplinary/discipline. See church discipline dispensary. See under medical doctor (medical). See physician domestic mission(s)/missionaries, 254, 262–264, 310, 323–325, 329–330, 337–338, 340, 350, 353, 356, 359. See also self-propagation Dort, 288, 364 (Articles of ) Doty, Rev. Elihu, 13, 15–16, 18, 19n47, 21–24, 28, 32, 46, 49, 51, 53, 56, 62, 73–84, 86n95, 92, 93n143, 94, 113–115, 129–136, 138, 148n245, 151, 153, 155–157, 159, 161–162, 165–166, 170, 173, 173n36, 175, 185–190, 194, 196, 199, 205, 208, 210–212, 212n41, 213–214, 217– 219, 223, 226–228, 230–233, 233n192, 235, 245, 258–259, 261–262, 264–267, 270, 274, 280, 284, 286, 289, 294, 302, 307, 313, 318, 322, 322n81,

325–326, 326n111, 336, 341–343, 345, 347–349, 354, 359 Doty, Ferris, 130 Doty, Mrs. (ﬁrst), 15, 22, 113–114, 124n75, 127, 130, 325 Doty, Mrs. (second), 15, 93n143, 114, 134, 284 Douglas, Rev. Carstairs, 13, 17, 17n40, 18, 44–47, 52–54, 56–59, 63, 65, 88, 94, 102n207, 104, 107, 117, 119, 120n46, 121–123, 144, 146–153, 154n269, 161–162, 165, 173, 181–183, 193–194, 199, 216–217, 220, 224, 228, 228n158, 233n192, 234, 242n230, 256, 260, 262, 270–271, 273, 275–276, 276n154, 280–282, 284–289, 291, 295, 297–299, 302, 302n325, 303–304, 306–308, 336, 341–342, 359 Douglas, John, 146 Duﬀ, Alexander, 38–39, 121, 176, 298 Duﬀus, William, 353 Dundee, 24 Dutch, 2n10, 19, 280, 346 Dutch-American, 4, 14, 19, 28–29, 60, 239, 273, 276, 290, 292–294, 301, 309, 328, 335, 349 Dutch-Americans, 275, 282, 284, 306, 343, 362 Dutch-American Church, 236, 314, 331, 336, 344. See also Reformed Church in America Dutch Reformed, 313. See also Reformed Church in America Eastern, 366 ecclesia/ecclesial, 3, 52, 337, 343 ecclesiastical, 3, 7, 9, 61, 175, 192, 249, 253–254, 268–269, 276–277, 291–293, 309, 311–312, 314–315, 317, 334–335, 346, 348, 358, 360–362 ecclesiastical authority, 265–266, 268, 313, 316, 339, 349, 356 ecclesiastical union. See church union ecumenical, 4, 131, 254, 269, 274, 291 Edinburgh, 121, 287 Edinburgh Bible Society, 296 Edinburgh Conference (1886), 1 Edinburgh Conference (1910), 314

 Edinburgh University, 287 Edinburgh Witness, 102n207 education, 23, 33, 36, 176, 191, 203, 219, 359 Educational Institute, 176–177, 181 educational institution(s), 4, 16, 32, 40, 327, 358 educational objective, 23, 32, 143, 295 educational subsidies, 338 educational work, 21–26, 31–33, 33n136, 34, 36–40, 43, 85, 95, 111, 121, 137, 141, 156–162, 173, 176, 220, 241, 270, 324–328, 352, 356, 358 Edwards, Jonathan, 191 eﬀectiveness/eﬃciency of the Chinese, 200–204, 219–225, 235, 243–244, 261, 345 Eju. See Uju elder(s). See church oﬃce-bearers electorate, 61–62, 108, 111, 192, 250–251. See also under church oﬃce-bearers elites. See gentry emperor, 90 empire, 29, 163, 166, 170. See also China Emungkang, 256–257, 278–283, 303, 328n124, 343. See also Chiangchiu-Emungkang entanglement England, 16–17, 122, 142, 292, 335, 340, 355 English, 2n10, 19, 25, 32, 95, 95n153, 100, 104, 123, 126, 131, 137, 155, 159, 290, 335 Englishman, 124, 233 See also British English Presbyterian (EP), 1, 2, passim EP College, 39 EP domestic work (England), 118n28, 123 English Presbyterian Messenger, 123, 291, 292 English Presbyterian Mission (EPM), 4, 7, 9, 12, 14–16, 24, 28, 31, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 58–60, 88, 108–110, 112, 117–118, 121, 121n52, 123, 136, 150, 159, 161, 165, 174–175, 181–183, 194, 204, 211, 221, 225, 228, 242, 247, 250, 250n254,

399

255–256, 260–262, 269–271, 271n125, 272–279, 279n180, 280–282, 285, 287, 291–292, 298–299, 305, 315n40, 320n65, 320n66, 328n124, 329–330, 341–344, 350–352, 358n290, 362, 365 EPM Swatow, 310, 350–354, 358, 363, 365 likeminded with RCA, 277, 307–308 restricted size of, 173–174, 179, 181, 183 See also leadership of RCA over EPM; under Reformed Church in America Enkhuizen, 313n28 Episcopal, 4, 14, 109, 315, 320, 320n66 Europe, 19, 355 European(s), 147–148, 291, 297 evangelisation/evangelism, 36–38, 56, 85, 92, 102, 116, 163, 166, 170, 172–173, 201, 203, 208, 318, 337 evangelist(s), 20, 24–26, 28, 48, 49, 77, 79, 89, 103, 107, 143–146, 148–149, 161–162, 174, 177–182, 182n80, 182n83, 184–186, 186n103, 187, 189, 193–194, 210–211, 215, 220–221, 226, 228–230, 244–245, 259, 262, 275, 293–294, 312, 324–325, 329–330, 333, 350–351, 357. See also native agency evangelistic, 20–24, 26, 35–36, 38, 64, 85, 86n95, 89, 104, 111, 141, 151, 161, 172, 175, 183, 197–198, 200, 202–204, 207, 209, 221, 230–231, 235, 258, 260, 263, 331, 333, 337, 345, 364 evangelistic labour(s)/work, 36, 72, 139, 141, 142, 156, 159, 161, 169, 198, 200, 220, 265, 323–324, 338. See also Chinese labour(s)/work excommunication. See church discipline expectation of slow results. See slow results extensive method. See itineration Fagg, J.G., 286n223 Ferris, Isaac, 347

400



ﬁnancial giving. See self-support ﬁnancial test. See sincerity of convert First (Reformed) Church of Amoy. See Sinkoe First World War, 314 foreign, 1, 19, 24, 52, 55, 66, 85, 94, 98, 99–103, 105, 115, 119, 125–126, 129, 134, 139, 145, 149, 167, 169–171, 173, 180, 185, 194, 201–202, 219, 229, 233n192, 237, 243–246, 249, 272, 287, 290, 316, 318, 328, 330, 333, 346, 350, 359, 365. See also anti-foreignism foreigner(s), 62–63, 89, 95–96, 98–104, 124–125, 201, 203, 207, 210, 219, 230, 232, 245–246, 260, 265, 267, 318, 340–341, 356, 365 Foreign Missions Committee (FMC), 16, 16n23, 25–27, 38–40, 54, 118–123, 125, 145n229, 173, 173n39, 174, 177, 180–183, 241–242, 244, 275, 280, 282, 288, 333, 336, 344–345, 355 Formosa, 2, 30, 97, 155n288, 182, 306n362, 310, 320n65, 363 foundation layers/laying, 20, 55, 92, 170, 240, 265, 330, 332–333, 336. See also missionary(s) as evangelists; missionary pastor; superstructure Four character classic, 321 Free Church College, 287 Free Church of Scotland, 121–122, 292, 310 French, 101, 108 Fujian, 10, 97 north Fujian, 99n183, 109, 290 See also South Fujian Fuzhou, 7, 8n35, 22, 30–31, 95, 100, 104, 109, 255, 307, 320, 364n326, 365 gambling, 300 General Synod (RCA), 57, 115n5, 116, 276, 340, 344, 346–348. See also controversy gentry, 89–90 elites, 92 higher class, 321 higher ranks, 90 literati, 90

upper classes, 92 See also government oﬃcer Gibson, Rev. J.C., 351–354, 354n261, 358–359 Gingell, Wm. R., 100n189 giving (ﬁnancial). See self-support Glasgow, 24, 44 Glasgow Normal Seminary, 39 Glasgow University, 138 God/god, 23, 29, 69–70, 92, 119, 154, 166, 171, 177, 199, 203, 221, 224, 227, 230, 234, 239, 241–242, 280n180, 281, 298, 307n370 Providence, 25, 29, 115 Gongchandang (Communist Party), 314 Gospel/gospel, 22, 29, 43, 47, 54, 71–72, 74, 76, 83, 92–94, 96, 101, 129, 166, 168, 171, 197–199, 201–202, 208, 210, 214, 216, 220–222, 227, 234, 238–239, 242, 244, 248, 258, 279n180, 294–298, 302, 318, 332, 358 Gospel of John, 155, 155n278 Gospel of Luke, 155n278 Gospel of Matthew, 155, 155n278 Gospels (Bible books), 155 government oﬃcer/oﬃcial(s), 188, 233, 303 chamhoo, 99n186 haihong(s), 98, 98n176, 99, 99n186 haiquan, 99n186 magistrate, 99, 189, 232 mandarin(s), 45n214, 72, 98n176, 99, 101, 105, 166, 189, 223, 231, 233–234, 246, 303 police, 232, 233 provincial Viceroy, 331 taou-tai, 99n186 Tautai, 233n192 tetok, 99n186 to-tai, 233n192 See also gentry; Kiying gradualism, 92 Grant, Rev. Alexander, 285 great assembly of elders, 253. See also Taihoey Great Awakening, Second, 52 Greek, 139, 153 Guangdong. See Canton Gui Bunhoan, 158, 192, 194, 311 Gui Chiongjin, 13, 192

 Guizhou, 108 Guomindang, 314 Gutzlaﬀ, 26, 109, 153, 171n26, 306, 357 haihong, See government oﬃcer haiquan. See government oﬃcer Hakka, 310, 357 Hakka dialect, 130, 130n115 Hakka mission, 309–310, 350, 354 Hakkaland, 356n280 Hamilton, Rev. James, 120n40, 281 Harris, P.W., 346n225 Harritt, Miss, 118n24 heart work/change, 66, 70, 76–77, 299, 301, 303–304 heathen, 22, 24, 32–33, 67, 76–77, 93, 106, 108, 159, 170, 203, 238, 239, 298, 313, 322, 324, 332 Hebrew language, 139 helper(s). See native agency Hepburn, Dr., 15, 21, 98 Hepburn, Mrs., 15 Hey Sew, 301 Heyi Church, 1 Hirschberg, Dr., 142n205, 144 Hirschberg, Mrs., 142n205 history Chinese, 5, 366 of mission, 2, 8, 273, 346 History of Joseph, 155 Hok-ha, 67, 91n129 Holland, 313n28 Holland Museum, 7 Hollis, M., 360 Holy Spirit/Ghost, 62–63, 78, 81, 177, 218, 228, 234, 241 home mission. See domestic mission Hong Bunhong, 49, 93 Hong Khi, 301 Hong Kong, 1, 10, 16, 16n30, 17, 17n40, 25–26, 30, 39, 40n181, 95, 100, 102, 114, 122, 133, 133n136, 138, 205, 216, 238, 255, 284 Hong Sinsi, 48, 69, 73, 76–77, 81, 198, 198n172, 202, 206, 231, 322 Hood, G.A., 353 Hope College, 7 Hospital. See under medical Huihau, 212 hymn-book (Chinese), 70

401

Iap Hanchiong, 253, 334 idol(s), 68–71, 74, 77, 202, 209, 221, 260 idolatry/idolatrous, 67–69, 71, 73–74, 77, 80 (worship of gods) 105, 223, 232, 242, 300–301, 304 ignorance, 108, 237–238. See also illiteracy Iju. See Uju illiteracy, 90, 93–94, 153–154, 159, 203, 229n170, 237–238, 300–301, 322. See also ignorance image maker, 79 imperialism, 345–346, 346n224, 346n225 inculturation, 3, 358, 364. See also indigenisation India, 39, 306, 315 India Mission, 39 indigenisation, 2–4, 9–10, 314, 358, 366. See also contextualisation; inculturation ingathering, 23, 51, 52n259, 75, 79, 236, 240–243. See also awakening Inglis, Dr., 39 initiative(s) of the Chinese, 197, 200, 204–236, 243, 249, 250, 260, 337–338, 343 inland, 28, 44–45, 139, 150, 177, 179n67, 181, 188, 191, 204–206, 208, 236, 243, 248–250, 262, 272, 275, 282, 294, 304, 312, 317, 322, 332, 361, 365 inland station(s), 42, 44, 46, 162, 214, 223n119 interior, 103, 203, 209, 314, 365 mainland, 11, 26, 88, 94, 102, 167, 350, 357 inquirer(s), 28, 43, 61, 73–74, 76, 78, 82–83, 93, 112, 148, 186, 215, 218, 221, 223, 225, 227, 232–234, 245, 256, 260, 279, 300–302, 311, 327. See also admission applicant(s) instruction(s) of applicant/ inquirers, 26, 61, 63, 67, 72, 75–78, 80–81, 83–94, 106, 108, 110–111, 127, 169–170, 186, 199, 217, 220, 222, 226, 228, 231, 234–235, 241, 243–245, 293–297

402



insurgency/insurgent(s), 33, 35, 38, 49, 50n239, 103, 141, 188–189, 227, 236, 242, 323–324, 328 insurrection, 102–103, 188, 207 Little Knife insurrection, 103 See also Taiping intensive method, 61, 83–94, 104, 106, 108–110, 217, 237, 293–299 concentration method, 109–110, 174 interior. See inland Irish, 292, 352 Israel, 281 itineration, 84, 86, 167, 176, 212 itinerant/itinerary, 20, 24, 26, 84, 86, 86n96, 94, 108, 166–167, 169, 174, 176, 181, 198, 295–296, 298 extensive method, 76, 85–87, 104, 108–109, 293–295, 298 Japanese occupation, 314, 360 Jesuits, 3 Jesus. See Christ Jit-som, 213 Johnston, Rev. James, 17, 25, 32n128, 33, 38–44, 46, 51, 54, 57–60, 63–65, 88, 95, 104, 106, 117, 119–124, 127, 142–146, 149, 151–152, 161–162, 165, 173–183, 193, 213–216, 219–220, 224–225, 226n130, 228–229, 240–241, 244–247, 260, 271–275, 282, 289, 295–299, 301–302, 327 Joint Archives of Holland, 7 Joralmon, Rev. John S., 13–14, 16, 18, 63, 78, 88, 94, 100, 113–114, 116, 125–126, 126n89, 162, 189, 284, 342 Joralmon, Mrs., 113–114, 126n89 Juvenile scheme, 121 Ka-eng-chew. See Canton. Kalang, 80, 73 Kang, 259 Kangkhau, 256, 260–261, 303, 305 Kanglo, 214, 302 Kangthau, 263, 300–301 Keklai, 23, 26–27, 33, 36, 141, 157, 160, 192, 271n125 Kepler, A.R., 361–362 Khek. See Hakka dialect

Kheycheong, 66 Khiboey, 307, 334 Ki-an, 213 Kilsyth, 24 Kimkoa, 213 Kiolai, 334 Kip, Rev. Leonard W., 266, 284, 294, 318–319 Kiying, 85, 87, 99 knowledge (of Christianity), 36–37, 61–62, 66, 68, 75, 77, 79–81, 86, 93, 177, 210, 217–218, 231, 235, 237, 240n224, 258, 260, 262, 299–301, 303–305 knowledge test, 76, 80–82, 106, 217 Koajim, 199 Kolongsu, 11, 14–15, 17, 20, 30, 96, 98, 114, 124n75, 128, 334, 339 Kongbiau, 213 Kow-a, 177–178 Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong), 97 Kwai-a, 177–178, 182–183 Kwan-jim, 147n236 Ladies’ Association, 16n22 Lamchun, 214 Lampeng, 303 Lam-po-to temple, 102 lamps for chapel/church, 133–134 Lamsan, 182n83, 210, 212–214, 220–221, 221n101 language teacher(s) of missionaries. See under missionary(s) Latin America, 9 Lau Pihu, 13 Lau Unsia, 48, 48n221, 65–66, 66n14, 67, 70, 131, 201n182, 321 leadership in devolution-union, 9–10, 342–343 of Chinese, 3, 61, 192, 204, 260–261, 273, 280, 316–318, 356 of missionaries, 6, 10, 18, 31, 55, 111, 195, 243, 286–287, 313, 316–318, 346, 361 of RCA over EPM, 46, 58–60, 110, 250, 257, 341–343, 362 Legge, James, 205 Li Kahin, 13 Liau-a-au, 48 liberality. See Chinese ﬁnancial giving Limpai, 66

 Lin, Jinshui, 8n35 lingua franca, 310 Liongbunsi, 260, 307 Liongkhey, 147n236 literary work, 27, 30, 83, 85, 90, 132, 156, 237, 270, 294, 296 literati. See gentry literature distribution. See colportage Little Knife insurrection. See under insurgency liturgy, 149, 289, 292 liturgical form(s), 70 (worship), 71 (worship), 289 (baptismal), 342 (ordination), 348 (ecclesiastical) Lloyd, Rev. John, 15, 67, 131n122, 153, 154n269, 205 Lo, 188 Lo Tau, 253, 342 Loa Phanliong, 13 local work, 208, 212, 214, 216–217, 225, 230, 235, 243–244, 247, 259–261 London, 7, 32, 119, 145 London Missionary Society (LMS), 4, 6–7, 15, 22n67, 35, 36n159, 37–38, 40, 48, 51, 52n259, 59, 67, 74–75, 88, 91, 93, 99, 106n229, 118n24, 119, 124, 129, 130–131, 131n122, 132, 134–135, 153, 167, 169, 202, 205, 216, 242, 258n43, 270, 270n120, 271, 274, 289–290, 290n243, 291, 296n286, 306–307, 311, 320n66, 335, 350–351, 362 LMS Amoy, 15n13, 255, 306, 320, 350–351, 363 the Lord, 29, 37, 86n95, 196, 206, 241, 279n180, 345, 347 Lord’s Supper. See communion Lotia, 188, 192, 196, 206–207 lower classes/orders, 90, 92, 94, 203, 321–322, 322n79. See also poor Lowrie, W.M., 15 Lutz, J.G., 355 Macao, 14, 95–96, 114, 128, 131 Macgowan, Rev. John, 124 Macintosh, Mr., 123n71 Mackenzie, Rev. Hur L., 285, 351 Madras, 39 magistrate. See government oﬃcer mainland. See inland

403

Malacca, 295 malaria, 125, 130, 132 Manchester, 39, 292 Manchu, 97 Manchuria, 138, 352, 363 mandarin. See Chinese language; government oﬃcer Maping, 45, 145n231, 148, 181, 212, 221, 248, 253, 256–258, 260, 274, 276, 281, 302–306, 324, 328n124, 329–330, 339–341, 343, 352 Mariolatry, 300 market day(s), 74, 208, 223 market town, 208 martyrdom, 188–189, 194 Masing, 66, 66n15 Matheson, Donald, 16, 17n32, 49n230, 145n231, 213n48 Matheson, H.M., 120n40 Matheson, Mr., 214 May Fourth, 6, 314 McBride, Rev. T.L., 14 M’Crie, Dr., 291–292 Medhurst, Rev. W.H., 129, 138, 153, 321 medical, 4, 24, 36, 84, 99, 140, 144–145, 145n230, 221n101, 227, 241, 285 medical missionary(s), 21, 23–24, 99, 156, 221n101. See also physician medical work, 21, 24, 33–38, 98, 101, 112n1, 141, 151, 156, 159, 161, 270, 295, 325n103, 358n290 dispensary, 34–36, 38, 91, 98, 132, 140–141, 151, 159, 161, 192, 321 hospital, 47, 66, 221n101 medicinal/medicine, 96, 270 member(s)/membership. See church member(s); church membership ‘Memorial’ of the RCA Amoy Mission, 283 Merwin, W.C., 361 Messiah. See Christ Methodist Conference, 335 Methodist Episcopal Mission (Fuzhou), 109 methodology/methods of work. See work methodology Michaelius, Jonas, 313 Michigan, 7 middle classes, 90, 92, 92n140, 322

404



Milne, 83, 85 Min river, 100 Ming, 3, 97 minister(s). See pastor(s) Minnan Dahui (CCC), 335. See also South Fujian Synod missiological, 2–3, 9–10, 57, 65, 313, 364 Mission/mission, 1, 4, 6–8, 11–12, 14, 18–19, 21–24, 27, 31–32, 41, 43, 53, 58, 64–67, 83, 85, 92, 99, 108–109, 112, 115, 118–119, 120n40, 123n71, 130, 133, 144n222, 153, 156, 162–163, 166, 170, 174–175, 177, 181, 183–184, 200, 204, 216, 229, 239, 241, 268, 270, 272, 275–278, 279n180, 281, 286, 286n225, 287, 289–291, 298–299, 302, 306–308, 310, 317, 324, 327–332, 335–339, 346–348, 350–353, 354n261, 358, 362–365. See also Missions/missions Mission Boards, 344, 360 Mission-Church, 61, 318n54, 339 mission ﬁeld(s), 19–20, 24, 48, 123, 126, 132, 145, 240, 359 mission methods. See work methodology mission work, 105, 120, 166, 175–177, 296 mission year, 47, 77, 86 missionary(s), 3, 7, passim as evangelists, 151, 265, 294, 318, 332–333. See also foundation layers as helpers, 170 as teachers of Chinese pastors, 316 candidate(s), 39n172, 115–116, 121, 123, 123n71, 174 health/death of, 123–152 language (in)ability/study of, 39–40, 43–44, 46, 60, 98–99, 107, 123–152, 185, 191, 309 language teacher(s) of missionaries, 32, 66, 71–72, 144–145, 153, 160 medical missionary. See under medical missionary pastor, 254 Missionary Conference of 1877, 314, 318, 345

Missionary Conference of 1890, 314, 318, 354 Missionary Conference of 1907. See China Centenary Conference missionary conferences, 9, 318 missionary conﬁdence in Chinese Christians/work, 62, 64, 111, 136, 169, 187–192, 194, 197, 203–205, 218–219, 224, 243–245, 249, 255, 259, 261–264 missionary regard/satisfaction with Chinese Christians/work, 62–64, 146, 165, 190, 194–195, 204, 235, 250, 258–259, 261–263 missionary expectation of slow results. See slow results Missionary Herald (MH), 7, 207 missionary leadership. See leadership missionary limitation(s), 111–163, 190, 197, 237, 249, 250 missionary methods. See work methodology missionary movement. See Protestant missionary movement missionary objectives, 10, 13–14, 18–46. See also educational objective missionary overwork, 23, 136, 141, 259, 266. See also missionary shortage missionary regard/satisfaction with Chinese Christians/work. See under missionary conﬁdence missionary shortage/shorthandedness, 31, 42, 112–123, 133, 135–136, 144–146, 150–152, 158, 161–163, 179, 187, 211, 245, 279n180, 314 Missionary Societies, 119, 216, 360 Missionary Society of the Reformed Dutch Church, 19 Protestant societies, 320 native missionary society. See domestic missions Society for Promoting Female Education in the East, 117n24 missionary supervision/superintendence, 26–27, 32, 88, 145–146, 177, 179–181, 183, 230, 244, 249, 316, 318–319, 325–326 missionary visit(s), 103, 172, 187, 205–206, 235, 245, 256, 260, 355

 missioner, 202 Missions/missions, 4, 9, 37, 42, 46–47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 63, 107, 110, 112, 115–116, 124, 127, 131, 151–153, 162, 193–194, 199, 209, 226, 240–243, 255, 258, 266, 269, 272, 273n140, 274, 276–284, 287, 287n231, 288–290, 292–293, 306–310, 314, 315n40, 334–336, 340, 343, 345–346, 349–352, 360, 362–363, 365 modernisation, 6n28 money changer, 77 Morrison Education Society, 182 Morrison, Rev. R., 83, 85, 153

405

native, 5, 32n128, 61, 63, 67–69, 79, 105, 124, 149, 165, 169–171, 176, 180, 195–198, 200–201, 203–204, 211, 217, 219, 222, 225, 229, 246, 249, 260–261, 275, 309, 311, 315–316, 319, 320, 323, 325, 327–331, 333, 337, 340, 342–343, 350, 355–356, 361, 363–364 natives, 28, 52, 54, 96, 100, 108, 125, 159, 168, 170, 177, 203, 205, 212, 247, 249–250, 258, 260–261, 295n282, 316–318, 324, 328, 331, 333, 339, 342, 356–357, 361 native brethren, 162, 186, 196, 210–211, 219, 230, 279n180 native Christians, 171, 215, 217, 243, 260 native labour(s)/work, 171, 183, 204, 217, 219, 225, 244, 259, 354, 357

177, 179–180, 184, 186–190, 192–194, 199, 205–207, 226, 244, 259, 296 EP agent/assistant(s), 25, 37–38, 43, 44, 59, 136, 144, 178 (worker), 217, 270–271, 282, 296 helper(s), 89, 106–107, 109, 166, 168, 171, 184–186, 188–189, 201–202, 236, 259, 275, 330, 332 native/Chinese agent/assistant(s), 36, 58, 69, 87–89, 122, 133, 139–140, 142–143, 145, 148–149, 151, 161, 171, 176, 178–183, 185, 190–194, 203–204, 209–210, 213–214, 216–220, 222, 225, 229, 259, 272, 274, 296, 324 native medical missionary, 221n101 native ministry, 55, 165, 177, 181, 183 native pastor/minister(s), 191–192, 264–266, 268, 312–313, 317–318. See also pastor(s) native worker(s)/workforce, 135–136, 171–173, 183, 190, 203, 259, 261, 265 See also Chinese labourer/worker(s); evangelist(s); pastor(s); preacher(s); volunteers neo-Andersonisms, 363 Netherlands (Holland) Museum, 7 Nevius, Rev. John, 3 New Amsterdam, 313 New Brunswick, 19 New England, 348 New Testament. See Bible New World, 314 new year. See Chinese new year New York, 20, 129, 129n107, 134n139, 284 Newchwang, 30 Ningbo, 95, 255 Nisbet, James, 118, 118n28, 120 Nui (cloth-dealer), 74, 210, 212, 223, 303

native/Chinese agency, 135, 165–201, 203, 229–230, 259–260, 279, 296, 333, 353 colporteur(s), 35–36, 88–89, 107, 139–141, 146, 159–162, 171–172,

objectives of missionary work. See missionary objectives oﬃce-bearers. See church oﬃce-bearers Old Testament. See Bible Omega, 133–134

Namoa mission, 310, 353 Nanjing, 29 Nanjing Treaty, 99 Nanyang, 11, 48 Nathaniel (disciple of Jesus), 202 National Christian Conference, 314, 358

406



Ong Chhiengchoan, 48n224, 189, 206–208, 210 Chheng-choan, 89 Chhieng-chuan, 48bn224 Ong Chhienghong, 48n224, 49, 198, 206 Chheng Hung, 198n172 Ong Hokkui, 48, 48n221, 49, 65–66, 66n14, 67, 70, 131, 201n182, 317, 321, 331, 365 Ong Kau, 13, 13n3 Ong Ki-siong, Rev., 49 opium, 34, 66, 74, 77–78, 101, 104, 107, 124, 157, 182, 226, 242, 259, 299, 302, 304, 346 oral method of preaching/instruction, 22, 61, 75, 83–94, 103–104, 106, 108, 110, 156, 217, 222, 237, 238, 293–299 organic union. See church union Orientals, 344 Ostrom, Mrs., 126n89, 284 Ostrom, Rev. Alvin, 126n89, 276, 284, 308, 344, 359 othering, 6 out-station(s), 28, 162, 172, 205–206, 256, 263, 365 pagan, 68, 335 paradigm shift, 83, 249–250 Parker, Dr. Peter, 132 Parkes, Harry Smith, 100n189 parochial school. See school(s) pastor/minister(s), 19, 30–31, 38, 177–178, 191, 253–254, 258, 265–268, 308, 311–312, 316, 318–319, 324–325, 333–334, 340–341, 344–345, 350–353, 355, 355n277, 356, 359–361, 364 Pastor-Church relation, 318n54 pastoral, 20, 24, 26, 28–31, 37–38, 41–44, 45n212, 46, 80, 106, 123, 150, 211, 227–228, 230–231, 253, 268, 272, 274, 297, 312, 316–317, 331–332, 356, 358–359 candidate(s) for, 266–267, 312, 340–341, 361 examination(s) of, 253, 267, 312 ordination(s) of, 4, 10, 56, 59, 253–254, 264–267, 284–285, 288, 308, 312, 315–316, 319,

338, 341–343, 349–351, 355–356, 363 pastorate(s), 24, 61, 173, 212, 265, 361 See also under native agency Patriotic Fund, 119 Paul (Bible character), 242 Pechuia, 28–31, 40–46, 47, 50–51, 51n256, 62, 64, 79–80, 82, 106, 122, 127, 140, 143–146, 148–150, 161, 177, 180–181, 182n83, 193, 195, 199, 205, 208–230, 233–250, 250n254, 253, 256–260, 264, 269–271, 271n128, 272–276, 281–283, 289, 294, 302–306, 307n266, 310–311, 322, 322n81, 324, 327, 328n124, 329–330, 332, 338–339, 341, 343 Pechuia awakening/ingathering. See awakening Pechuia-Chiohbe entanglement, 269, 272–278, 282–283 Peet, Rev. Lyman B., 15, 15n11, 22, 157, 159, 307, 325 Pentateuch, 89 persecution of converts, 73–74, 80, 105, 162, 178, 219, 223–225, 231–235, 240n224, 246, 248, 259, 303, 305 steadfastness/perseverance (amidst persecution/suﬀering), 74, 219–225, 231–232, 235, 302, 305 suﬀerings of converts, 22, 49, 64, 70–74, 80, 216, 223–225, 231–232, 303, 305 Perth, 24 Peter (disciple of Jesus), 202 Philip (disciple of Jesus), 202 Philippines, 5n23, 315 physician/doctor(s), 21n62, 26, 35, 38, 101, 124, 126, 144–145, 156, 192. See also medical missionary; native medical missionary Pilgrim’s Progress, 27, 27n97, 88, 120n42, 155, 156n292, 241 pinyin, 335 pirates, 100 Pitcher, Rev. P.W., 8, 118n24, 189n120, 287n231 planetary method. See centre strategy Pohlman, Julia Ann, 15, 133–135

 Pohlman, Mrs., 15, 113–114, 124n75, 127, 130 Pohlman, Rev. William, 15, 19n47, 21–24, 32, 32n127, 46, 48, 64–76, 82–92, 93n143, 94–95, 98, 100, 100n192, 102, 104, 113–115, 124n75, 126, 129–135, 151–153, 165–170, 173, 173n36, 174, 183–186, 194, 200–203, 205, 236–239, 295–296, 301, 303–304, 322, 322n79, 330–331, 331n150, 331n155, 347, 363 police. See government oﬃcer polity. See church polity Poolamkio, 212 poor, 74, 92n140, 263, 321–322, 326, 329, 338, 356, 364. See also lower classes poor collection/fund, 216, 322–323, 327–328, 338 poverty, 124, 278, 301, 317, 320–323, 331, 356 Portuguese, 315 post-modernism, 95n155 power, 3, 262, 315, 345, 355, 358 power-sharing, 312, 316, 360, 361 (partnership in leadership) prayer, concert of. See concert of prayer PRC, 360 preacher(s), 19, 69, 83–85, 96, 177, 192–193, 227, 231, 237, 244, 261, 324, 350, 353. See also native agency preaching, 1, 20, 22–23, 26–27, 27n98, 29, 33, 36, 36n159, 38–39, 50, 52, 54, 69, 72, 74, 80, 83–86, 86n95, 87–89, 89n120, 91–93, 96, 103–104, 108, 111, 127, 129, 138–141, 150, 166–170, 172, 174, 176, 186, 195–196, 198, 200, 202, 234, 279, 293–299, 305–306, 311, 322n81, 331, 333, 363 preaching hall(s)/place. See chapel(s) Presbyterian, 251, 272, 288–289, 291–292, 302, 311, 315n40, 335–336, 343, 350, 354 Presbyterians, 350, 352 American Presbyterian (AP), 4, 14–15, 67, 124, 131, 131n122, 153, 167, 270, 320, 320n66

407

Presbyterian Church/church, 251, 292, 334n171, 336, 343, 358, 363 Presbyterianism, 289, 291–293, 315, 336, 346, 360 Presbyterian Church in England (PCE), 2, 2n10, 7, 31, 119, 174, 242, 284, 291–292, 296n286, 319, 340 Presbyterian Church of England, 2n10 Presbytery, 1, 1n3, 253, 310, 319, 351–352. See also Taihoey; union Presbytery pressure motivation, 282 priest (Roman Catholic), 168, 205 property(s), 21, 29, 34n144, 73, 99, 232, 317, 331, 339, 345, 356, 358–359, 361 Protestant, 1–5, 11, 17, 48, 51, 83, 97, 99, 109, 111–112, 124, 162, 165, 168, 193, 255, 268, 309, 314, 334–336, 339, 350–351, 362, 364–366 Protestants, 3, 85, 87 Protestant missionary movement, 253, 334, 359 Protestant population of China, 309 Protestantism, 5, 12, 62, 87, 112, 244, 251, 310, 335, 349, 362–363 Providence. See God Prudential Committee (PC), 85n91, 93n145, 115, 330–331, 331n151 Qing, 11, 97, 97n170 quality of converts. See under convert(s) Quemoy, 310 Rapalje, Rev. Daniel, 284, 319 rebels. See under insurgency receptivity to Christianity. See under Christianity Reformation, 288, 291 Reformed Church Archives, 7 Reformed Church in America (RCA), 2, 2n10, passim. likeminded with EPM. See EPM RCA-EP(M), 8, 75, 243, 258, 270, 274, 276–278, 280, 283, 289, 320, 335, 351, 363 See also under leadership Reformed Dutch Church, 19 Reformed-Presbyterian Alliance, 354

408



Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 2n10 Reformed theology, 288 regard of missionaries for Chinese Christians. See missionary regard Regent Square Church, 119 religion, 67, 75, 77, 90, 93 religiosity, 66 religious, 19, 26, 36, 61, 63, 68, 70, 73–75, 77, 82, 93, 103, 105, 111, 140, 147, 172, 201, 220, 225, 237, 243, 246, 249 religious toleration, 85, 87, 99, 246 rent(al), 20, 32n128, 33, 36, 209, 213, 221, 225–227, 244, 279, 317, 324, 329, 330, 331n151 resistance to Christianity. See under Christianity revival(s), 24, 51–52, 256. See also awakening Rhenish mission, 357n287 rice-Christian(s), 109, 301, 364, 366 rice merchant, 80 rice shortage, 100 rich tea merchant, 70, 303 Robertson, Dan Brooke, 100n189 Roman alphabet, 154 Roman Catholic(ism), 3, 69, 85, 87, 108, 168, 205, 335, 362 Romanisation, 156 Romanised Amoy/colloquial, 154–155, 166n3, 238, 286, 352 Romanised Amoy project, 141, 153–156, 158, 160–161 Romanised Colloquial Dictionary, 153 Rome, 315 Rubinstein, M.A., 19n51 Rutgers College, 286 Sabbath(s), 13, 28, 31, 37, 45, 48–49, 63, 74, 78, 82, 86n95, 91–93, 119, 132, 134–135, 149, 168–169, 172–173, 186–187, 195, 197, 202, 209, 212, 215, 221–222, 232–234, 342 Sabbath keeping, 70–71, 74, 107 (violator), 222–223, 225, 227, 233, 260, 299–301, 303–304 Sabbath School, 55n271 sacrament(s), 31, 43, 212, 245, 289. See also baptism; communion

Sage Library, 7 Said, Edward, 5–6 sailor(s), 19, 74, 101, 321 salary, 107, 192, 268, 324–325 Samaritan woman (Bible character), 202 Sandeman, Rev. David, 30, 121–122, 150, 150n262, 173, 208n19, 271, 271n128, 285 Sandwich Islands Mission, 315 Sanitarium of China, 126 Sarah Harvett, 117. See also Mrs. Young Sarah Marion, 142n204 Saviour. See Christ Schenck, 126–127 school(s), 22, 22n67, 23, 23n73, 25–26, 26n89, 27, 32, 32n128, 33, 33n137, 33n139, 34–37, 40, 44, 44n207, 46, 55, 76, 83, 95, 137, 141, 143, 148, 154–155, 157–162, 177–178, 179n67, 192, 207, 216, 220, 270, 271n125, 294, 321, 324–326, 326n111, 327, 327n119, 327n120, 328, 328n124, 329, 338 parochial school, 23, 192 , 326–327, 352, 363 school teacher(s), 32–33, 35, 40, 112, 143, 157–161, 192, 196, 199, 207, 220, 322, 326 the Heathen teacher, 32–33, 159 Scotch, 279n180, 280 Scotland, 121, 123, 292 Scotsman, 342 Scottish Association (SA), 44, 119, 119n33, 120n46, 121–123, 123n72, 149 Scottish deputation, 39 Seaman’s Friend Society, 19, 19n48 (Seamen’s) self-government, 2n6, 56, 60–61, 64, 111, 192, 205, 247, 249, 254, 261–264, 309, 311–319, 324, 333, 337, 339–344, 349, 351–352, 355–356, 356n280, 357–360 autonomy, 1, 3, 6, 225, 249, 314, 355, 360 self-governing, 3, 53–54, 56, 287 self-reliance, 54n270, 265 self-standing, 56 See also ecclesiastical authority; Talmage ideal; Three-self ideal

 self-propagation/propagating, 3, 53–54, 56–57, 60, 63, 155, 207, 236, 244–250, 254, 259, 261, 263–264, 287, 309–310, 333, 337–339, 343–344, 349, 352–355, 357. See also domestic mission(s); initiative(s) self-righteous, 70, 303 self-support(ing), 2n6, 3, 53–54, 54n270, 56–57, 60, 139, 247, 254, 261–264, 268, 287, 309–310, 312, 320–334, 337–339, 343–344, 349–350, 352–353, 355–356, 356n280, 357–361 contributions/giving (ﬁnancial), 312, 320–334, 338, 356–357 self-sustaining, 56, 359 See also domestic mission(s)/ missionaries; educational subsidies; rent; salary; Talmage ideal sense of oneness, 269, 277–278, 280–283 Session(s), 253, 291. See also Consistory settled/stated work, 37, 43–44, 86–87, 91–94, 167–168, 170, 176, 195, 217, 260, 297. See also centre strategy Shandong, 307, 320 Shanghai, 15n8, 16–17, 29, 40, 40n181, 95, 122, 136, 138, 143, 143n208, 153n26, 187, 255, 295, 306 Shenk, W.R., 314 Shwuilo, 66 Siam, 158, 160, 184 Siboo/Sibu, 213, 219–220, 310 sincerity of convert, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72–73, 75–77, 81–82, 105–106, 108, 197, 216, 225, 231, 235, 258, 300–301, 303–305, 324 Chinese lack of, 71–73, 82, 108 ﬁnancial test, 189–190, 194 sincerity test, 225, 304 time test, 72–73, 75, 80–82, 239, 304 Singapore, 96, 155n288, 220, 285, 310 Sinkoe, 13–14, 53, 116, 172, 186, 190, 250, 253–257, 261–262, 264–265, 276, 279, 289, 300–301, 317–318, 320–321, 329, 341, 343, 365

409

First (Reformed) Church of Amoy, 276 See also building(s) Sinkoe event, 4, 10, 12–14, 18, 21, 44, 46–47, 55, 57, 59–62, 108, 112, 121, 148, 165, 171, 192, 198, 204, 231, 243, 249, 250–251, 268–269, 274–278, 283–284, 286, 288, 290–291, 293, 298–299, 313, 315, 341–343, 345, 349, 356, 358 Sino-foreign, 365 Sino-missionary, 365 Sino-Western, 3, 101, 170 slow results, missionary expectation of, 104, 236–244, 247–249 Smith, Rev. George (CMS), 66–67, 87, 95, 95n153, 98, 125, 153, 320 Smith, Rev. George (EPM), 102, 258–259, 285, 351 SOAS, 7, 118n25 Soatau, 256, 305 society(s). See Missionary Societies Song, 324 South Fujian, 1, 2, 9, 309–310, 334, 349, 351–352, 355 South Fujian Synod. See Minnan Dahui South Fukien, 7 South Fukien United Church, 334n171 Southampton, 39 Spanish, 5n23, 315 Speicher, J., 363 sporadic principle, 175 St. Peter’s, 24 stated work. See settled work statistics, 45, 257, 279–283 steadfastness amidst persecution/suﬀering. See persecution Steele, William H., 115, 115n5 Stock, E., 109 Stronach, 134, 205 Stronach, Alexander, 39–40, 51n259, 68n21, 74, 153 Stronach, John, 67, 129–132, 153, 153n266 suﬀerings of converts. See persecution suicide, 200 Sui-mui, 80n73 superstructure, 55, 56, 92, 170 suspension(s) of church membership. See church discipline

410



Swanson, Rev. William S., 31, 53, 54, 56–57, 59–60, 147, 182, 216, 244, 261, 271, 276n154, 285–287, 297, 306, 308, 351 Swatow, 2, 29–30, 101, 104, 110, 285, 310, 315n40, 350–354, 358, 363, 365 Synod (PCE), 1, 16, 16n22, 26, 31, 39, 118, 281, 291, 292 Synod of Dort, 289 Synod of Manchuria, 363 Synod of South Fujian (1893), 334, 345 Synods (CCC), 335 systematic doctrinal class, 182. See also Theological Class Taihoey, 4, 32, 253–254, 257, 264–268, 271n129, 286–288, 290n243, 292, 299, 308, 312–313, 316–319, 333–334, 335n173, 340, 342–344, 350–352, 356, 361, 364 moderator of, 253, 286, 334 See also Classis; Presbytery; toa tiong lo hoey Taihoey event, 4, 10, 59, 253, 261–262, 276, 287–288, 301, 308, 315, 336, 342, 345, 356, 358 Taihoey formation/genesis, 254, 262, 264–268, 284–286, 288, 308, 312 Taiping(s), 29, 320, 325, 328 Tait, John, 122–123, 123n71 Tait, Mr., 137 Taiwan, 2 Talmage, Rev. Goyn, 134, 196n151 Talmage ideal, 5, 56–61, 110–111, 155, 170, 249–250, 254–255, 261, 264, 267–268, 284, 287–288, 308, 314, 317, 344, 348–349, 353, 358–359, 361–363. See also church ideal; Three-self ideal Talmage, Rev. James R., 196n151 Talmage, Rev. John Van Nest, 13, 15–16, 18, 19n47, 21, 28, 32n127, 36, 45–46, 52–60, 62–63, 65, 73–82, 88, 91n135, 92–93, 93n143, 94, 105, 114–115, 124–127, 133–134, 134n137, 135–136, 139, 148, 151, 153–156, 156n290, 157–158, 161, 163, 165–166,

170–173, 182–183, 186–188, 190, 195–196, 196n151, 197–199, 201–202, 205, 208–209, 211–213, 219, 227, 230n174, 238, 243, 245, 248–250, 266–267, 269–270, 274, 276, 284, 286–289, 298–300, 302, 307–308, 313, 315, 317, 319, 322, 324, 326–327, 327n120, 336, 341–346, 348–349, 354 Talmage, Mrs., 16, 114, 266–267 Talmage, Rev. Thomas DeWitt, 196n151, 286, 286n223 Tam-sui, 302 Tan Bu-siat, 80–81, 301 Tan Khey, 301 Tan-Lo, 189 Tangsoan, 310 taou-tai. See government oﬃcer Tartar(s), 97, 97n170 Taulo, 182, 189, 228 Tautai. See government oﬃcer tea-dealer, 306 tea merchant, 70, 303 teacher(s) of Christianity. See under Christianity Teacher Tan, 71–73, 166 Teacher U Teng-eng, 48, 51n258, 75, 103, 133–135, 184–189, 194–197, 200–201, 207, 243, 331n154 Tekchhiukha, 13, 21, 253–257, 262, 320, 329, 332, 359 Tekchoan, 32–33, 159–160, 162, 189, 192, 196, 207–208, 342 Tek-iam, 213, 226, 230, 244–245, 259 Teklian, 213 temperance society, 287 term question, 307, 307n370 territorial principle, 174 Tessie, 142 tetok. See government oﬃcer Theological Class, 158–159, 171–173, 183, 190, 192, 266, 353. See also systematic doctrinal class Theological Hall, 318 Theological Seminary at New Brunswick, 19, 286, 313 theological students, 329–330, 332–333, 338, 361 theological training, 19, 158–159, 177,

 179, 183, 190–191, 194, 267, 316, 358–359, 361. See also training theology Calvinist, 288 compatibility of, 288–289, 292 Reformed, 288 systematic, 158, 191. See also systematic doctrinal class Tho, 300 Three-self formula/terminology, 56–57, 59, 247, 287n231, 314 Three-self ideal, 1, 53–54, 56–60, 314–315, 353, 358–360. See also church ideal; self-government; self-propagation; self-support; Talmage ideal Tickjam, 226n131 Tiek-choan, 208 time test. See under sincerity tiong lo hoey, 253 Tionghua Kitokkao Hoe Hap-it Hoey, 334 To Tsai Church, 1 toa tiong lo hoey, 253 To-a, 274 Tong-an, 74, 100, 148, 167, 181n76, 261 to-tai. See government oﬃcer tracts. See colportage training of Chinese/native(s), 54–56, 58, 69, 165, 171, 175–179, 181–183, 185, 190–191, 193, 203, 220, 236, 265, 312, 316, 332–333, 353, 359. See also theological training transplantation-friendly, 315 treaty/treaties (Chinese-Western), 29, 170, 233 treaty port(s), 20, 39, 50, 95, 100, 128, 166, 168, 170, 199 U Teng-eng. See Teacher U Teng-eng Uju, 213, 226–227, 230, 244–245, 245n238 Eju, 226n131 Iju, 226n131, 245n238 Un Hese, 222, 222n106, 224 uncleanness, 300 under ranks. See lower classes Un-iam, 49

411

union/fact of union. See church union union Church/Classis/Presbytery, 4, 56, 253–254, 257, 268, 276, 309, 362–363 United Chinese Protestant Church, 334n171 United Presbyterian Church, 292 United Reformed Church History Society, 7 United States, 15n8, 276. See also America usury, 300 Venn, Henry, 3, 53, 315 Viceroy. See government oﬃcer volunteers (Chinese), 135, 142, 159, 194–200, 214, 216, 219, 225, 244. See also native agency Wallace, H.F., 315n40 war, 34, 34n144, 38, 49, 98–99, 101–102, 324–325, 357 War, First Sino-British, 96–97, 128 Warneck, G., 359 Wat, 304 Watkins, J.E., 284 West, 2, 53–54, 75, 147, 203, 216 Western, 5, 8, 29, 62–63, 100–101, 103, 137, 170, 314, 334, 336, 345–346, 346n224, 351, 355, 360. See also Sino-Western Western Theological Seminary, 7 Westerner(s), 96, 100, 104, 143, 170, 189, 204, 235, 246, 263, 273, 316, 335, 344, 356, 364 Westminster, 288 Westminster College, 7 Westminster Confession, 364 Westminster Shorter Catechism, 298 Whampoa, 17 widow(s), 48n223, 69, 73, 81, 119, 198, 198n172, 202, 206, 231, 322–323, 364 Williams, Samuel Wells, 88 woman/women/female, 48–49, 69, 73, 80–81, 130–131, 176, 196, 198, 202, 206, 215, 222, 224, 232, 248, 256, 305, 323, 331, 363–364 Women’s Missionary Association, 16n22

412 wood-carver, 220 the Word, 175, 226, 228, 231, 234, 242, 245, 298. See also Bible work methodology/methods, 10, 18, 22, 47, 61–110, 166, 170, 179, 181–183, 194, 217–219, 225, 236, 243, 254, 269, 293–308, 363. See also centre strategy; itineration work space. See Chinese work space; cooperation worship expenses, 329–330, 332, 338–339 worship forms. See liturgical forms worship place(s). See chapel(s) Wuhua, 354, 357 Xi Shengmo, 3n14 Xiamen, 8, 12

 Yam-chau, 351 Young, Dr. James Hume, 16–17, 21, 23, 25–26, 28, 31– 40, 49n231, 58, 65, 88, 117, 117n24, 121, 121n52, 123–125, 137–143, 151–155, 157, 159–161, 173–177, 179, 179n67, 192–193, 197, 207, 213–214, 227, 239–240, 242, 269–271, 274, 282, 294–296, 298–299, 306, 326 Young, Mrs, 34–35, 117, 117n24, 118n24, 121, 121n52, 137, 137n159, 141–142, 151, 173n39 Young, Rev. William (LMS), 67, 129–130, 132, 134, 153, 169 zeal of Chinese converts. See under convert(s) Zheng Chenggong. See Koxinga

STUDIES IN CHRISTIAN MISSION The Studies in Christian Mission publishes scholarly monographs in the history of the world-wide missionary movements, the dynamics of Christian witness and service in new environments, the transition from movements to churches, and the areas of cultural initiative or involvement of Christian bodies and individuals such as education, health, community development, press, literature and art. Special attention is given to local initiative and leadership and to Christian missions from the Third World. Studies in the theories and paradigms of mission in their respective contexts and contributions to missiology as a theological discipline are a second focus of the series. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Williams, C.P. The Ideal of the Self-Governing Church. A Study in Victorian Missionary Strategy. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09188 2 Stine, P.C. (ed.). Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church. The Last 200 Years. 1990. Reprint 1992. ISBN 90 04 09331 1 Oosthuizen, G.C. The Healer-Prophet in Afro-Christian Churches. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09468 7 Carmody s. j., B.P. Conversion and Jesuit Schooling in Zambia. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09428 8 Pirotte, J. & H. Derroite (eds.). Églises et santé dans le Tiers Monde. Hier et Aujourd’hui — Churches and Health Care in the Third World. Past and Present. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09470 9 Brent, A. Cultural Episcopacy and Ecumenism. Representative Ministry in Church History from the Age of Ignatius of Antioch to the Reformation, With Special Reference to Contemporary Ecumenism. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09432 6 Ruokanen, M. The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions. According to the Second Vatican Council. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09517 9 T’ien Ju-K’ang. Peaks of Faith. Protestant Mission in Revolutionary China. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09723 6 Weber, Ch. W. International Influences and Baptist Mission in West Cameroon. German-American Missionary Endeavor under International Mandate and British Colonialism. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09765 1 Aritonang, J. S. Mission Schools in Batakland (Indonesia), 1861-1940. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09967 0 Doti Sanou, B. L’Émancipation des femmes Madare. L’impact du projet administratif et missionnaire sur une société africaine, 1900-1960. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09852 6 Lapointe, E. (éd.). Correspondance entre François Laydevant et Albert Perbal, 19271952. Dialogue du Missionnaire et du Missiologue. Avec annotations et introduction. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10171 3 Toullelan, P.-Y. Missionnaires au quotidien à Tahiti. Les Picpuciens en Polynésie au XIXe siècle. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10100 4 Johnson Black, N. The Frontier Mission and Social Transformation in Western Honduras. The Order of Our Lady of Mercy, 1525-1773. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10219 1

15. Thompson, T. J. Christianity in Northern Mala wi. ˆ Donald Fraser’s Missionary Methods and Ngoni Culture. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10208 6 16. Benedetto, R. (ed.). Translations by Winifred K. Vass. Presbyterian Reformers in Central Africa. A Documentary Account of the American Presbyterian Congo Mission and the Human Rights Struggle in the Congo, 1890-1918. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10239 6 17. Reed, C. Pastors, Partners and Paternalists. African Church Leaders and Western Missionaries in the Anglican Church in Kenya, 1850-1900. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10639 1 18. Cook, G. (ed.). Crosscurrents in Indigenous Spirituality. Interface of Maya, Catholic and Protestant Worldviews. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10622 7 19. Craig, T.L. The Missionary Lives. A Study in Canadian Missionary Biography and Autobiography. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10815 7 20. Wang, X. Christianity and Imperial Culture. Chinese Christian Apologetics in the Seventeenth Century and their Latin Patristic Equivalent. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10927 7 21. Denis, P. The Dominicans Friars in Southern Africa. A Social History (15771990). 1998. ISBN 90 04 11144 1 22. Eber, I. The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible. S.I.J. Schereschewsky (18311906). 1999. ISBN 90 04 11266 9 23. Vähäkangas, M. In Search of Foundations for African Catholicism. Charles Nyamiti’s Theological Methodology. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11328 2 24. Railton, N.M. No North Sea. The Anglo-German Evangelical Network in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11573 0 25. Camps, A. Studies in Asian Mission History, 1956-1998. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11572 2 26. Joseph, J. The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East. Encounters with Western Christian missions, archaeologists, and colonial powers. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11641 9 27. Okkenhaug, I.M. The Quality of Heroic Living, of High Endeavour and Adventure. Anglican Mission, Women and Education in Palestine, 1888-1948. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12673 2 28. Cheung, D. Christianity in Modern China. The Making of the First Native Protestant Church. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13143 4