They never can have a full representation of ministers. Only very seldom can they have even one minister present. He usually will only be one who is ill, and consequently not a proper representative. The native element, _i.e., the chief element_ of the Church can never be represented at all. The representation, at the best, will only be a representation of your Missionaries, not at all of the Chinese Church. Therefore, we assert that such a union would not be _real_, not even _apparent_, only _nominal_. In striving after it, we are pursuing a chimera, destroying a substance for the sake of a shadow. But it is offered as an objection to our views, that the Presbyterian Church (O.S.) has Presbyteries and Synods in India and China. Yes, they have three Presbyteries and a Synod in India, and have had for twenty years. But even yet there is not so much of a native element in their whole Synod as there is already in the little Church in the region of Amoy. As an ecclesiastical body, it is not _Indian_ in its characteristics--it is _American_. So with all their Presbyteries in Siam and China, with the exception, perhaps, of the Presbytery at Ningpo. They are _American_ Presbyteries, not native in their character.[2] [Footnote 2: The following statistics are from the Minutes of General Assembly, 1863. _Synod of Northern India_--Was organized in 1841. Is composed of three Presbyteries. Now has 19 ministers (only one of these is a _native pastor_); 9 churches; 246 communicants. (How many of these are natives not reported.) _Presbytery of Canton_--Has 4 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 12 communicants. (How many of these are natives not reported.) _Presbytery of Ningpo_--Has 8 ministers; no native pastor; 2 churches; 111 native members. _Presbytery of Siam_--Has 6 ministers; no native pastor; 1 church; 8 communicants. (How many of these are native members not reported.) _Presbytery of West Africa_--Has 9 ministers; no native pastor; 6 churches; 191 communicants (probably all natives.)