In the organization of the native church, what polity shall be given it? Shall it be organized exactly as the home church which the mission represents, or shall it be free to develop its own form of organization? Both of these plans are unsatisfactory. Most churches are agreed that no special form of church polity has divine sanction, this being merely a question of expediency; and that therefore the new churches should, as far as possible, be left free to adopt a constitution in harmony with the national character and habits. At the same time, forms of church government that have been tried at home and approved should not be ignored. What has stood the test of time, and proved its worth in many lands, doubtless will in its main features be of substantial value in the mission field. It is but natural that Presbyterian societies should organize native churches under their own form of government, Methodist under theirs, and Episcopal under theirs. But, in the very nature of the case, a first organization will only be tentative. As the church develops it will probably develop a polity of its own. In view of this, the polity imposed upon the native church by the mission at its first organization should be as flexible as possible. {292} It would be folly for the Lutheran Church, for instance, which has one polity in Germany, another in Sweden, another in Iceland, and still another in America, to attempt permanently to impose any one of those special forms upon the Japanese Lutheran Church; it will have its own special polity, but this should not cause us any anxiety or concern. If the faith and life of the church are right, it matters but little about its polity. We should be more concerned for the broader interests of the kingdom than for the perpetuation of our special form of the church, for the promise of final triumph is only to the kingdom. Experience has settled certain points in regard to the native church, which Dr. Lawrence, in his admirable book on "Modern Missions in the East," denominates "axioms of missions." My own experience and judgment lead me to give them my hearty indorsement. Three are named: 1. "The native church in each country should be organized as a distinct church, ecclesiastically independent of the church in any other country." 2. "The pastorate of the native church should be a native pastorate. Whatever else the missionary is, he should not be pastor." 3. "The principles of self-control, self-help, and self-extension should be recognized in the {293} very organization of the church. To postpone them to days of strength is to postpone both strength and blessing."