To the Editor of the Mr, Eprror,—I thank you sincerely for allowing me to reply to Mr. Ch'ih Tao Den's proposition, to turn the missionaries over to the tender mercies of the Chinese officials.
Please give this letter a place in your columns, and thereby increase the gratitude of Yours truly, 'Mr, On' Tao Fey, My Dean Smt,—In answer to your rejoinder of the Sth inst., I will write: Without bitterness, and therefore say 1,—Donpot continue angry: anger makes, us blind. Let us not quarrel; let us argue this question and leave it to an intelligent: public to decide.
2.—You seem sore in the spot where) that dilemma gored you, and you bring out an imitation, Your dilemma, however, is such a wealding that I will take it by its harmless horn
yourself that you have gored me by your You any suppose," and then clatter supposition, "Suppositions, my dear humid Viated friend, can not gore. But what is ful supposition "It involves (1)
idea that' "many other foreigners, men of great repute, philosophers and scientific men" have confessed ignorance with regard to Christianity; (2), That they make this confession after acknow-lading, tat, they have, "carefully ex: amined" the doctrines of Christianity; (3) that they make this confession with regard Christianity as a system.
Fust here you grievously broken one of the fundamental laws of logic You uso the key word of the argument in an ambiguous sense. At one time you speak of Christianity as a whole, ay a tom of doctrines, Then you tak about these dogmas." That is, you refer to Christianity as if it wore a few truths asserted without accompanying proof. You are arguing about Christianity as a whole, and when you uso the term " these dogmas" you plainly take a part for the whole, What we began with was the system of truth called Christianity which the missionaries preach to the Chinese. Now as they always give arguments in support of their propositions, it is bringing in nother subject when you spank of these dogmas." A dogma isa doctrine simply asserted by sume person or body claiming authority.
Tf you point to some writer who says that he cannot understand one ortho dogmas, it will not help you, \We are not ussing a few dogmas, we ure now spenkof Eh ry as 'a system of truth, mind. presented with its proofs to the Chinese Now, answer me, from a Chinese point of view," or any other; what foreigner, of great repute, philosopher, confesses (1) That he has carfully tried to understand Christianity; and (2) That he has failed? The burden of proof rests upon you\ To make good your argument you must rove that there are many suc. these many foreign philosophers at whom you look from a Chinese point of view are where? tion," " unbecoming," " ungenerous," and "Keen optics must he have I ween, the like, should not be quite so freely 'Who sees what is not to be seen," used by' polished writer. and that from a Chinese point of view.
The men of great repute" for vain "philosophy " who in foreign lands ridu-I may possibly have to plead guilty to un-crile, Christianity, write books against it. witling exaggeration, but not surely to Is it conceivable that they confess that deliberate misrepresentation. Unfortun-they don't understand what they are wri-ately I could not at the moment obtain a ting about? copy of your paper in which Mr. Ch'il's Your supposition, therefore, is only a fast letter appeared (it was to that letter supposition, and hence your argument fi that L referred, not to the second). But to the ground. surely my memory serves mo rightly when I 8.—I am glad to see that you virtually assert that in that first letter, the following abandon your proposal. You admit that sentence or its full equivalent occurred the Chinese officials are unwilling to pro-"Our Government will then," (that is in tect the missionaries. They themselves the event of the Missionaries abandoning say that they are mable todo so. Then Treaty rights) "issue orders for the fullest drop the matter. How can yon defend the toleration to be accorded to Missionaries." cause after such confessions? Upon the Now this offer was given on Mr. Ch'il's heels of your letter comes a specimen of own responsibility; and did seem some-the toleration and protection you give to what a presumptuous undertaking.—It your own people in religious matters, The officials of Ningpo have threatened to pun-involved all that I mount by Missionaries "doing anything," ie., fully exercising ish with fine and imprisonment those who their vocation of teaching and preaching. observed a Chinese idolatrous festival. If Tt involved also all that I meant by going after this sou urge "from a Chinese point anywhere," for an express exception was of view" the proposal to turn the mistionasuggested as to the " open ports" where ries over to the protection of Chinese offi-the Treaty provisions at, present in force cial, you simply insult every forvigner's might be still continued; implying of course understanding. that this full and free toleration gave Mis-4.—In your rage and pain you uso sionaries access to the Empire at large. naughty words. Your style is as deficient T trust that this explanation will pacify in the " suaviter in mode" as your argu-Mr. Ch'ih somewhat; and free mo at least ment is wanting in the forriter in re." from the terrible charge of deliberately Tt were a waste of our kind editor's ink misrepresenting" Mr, Clv'ih's words, to bandy epithets, Therefore, after show-It is but fair that this " Chinese scholar" i ave done, the weakness of your should have the last word, even as he had ly point to the fact that over the first; and to guide him in his final 8 Chinese name there appears an Ang! summing up, I venture, therefore, to repeat Chinese letter. In this a Chinaman ep. familiarly of foreigners, men of repute, philosophers, and scientific men," und in the same breath he accuses his friend of dishonesty and T may remark in passing that Mr. Eh' lectual development of foreign countries plausible explanation of the recent maxis.
6.—In conclusion, T again assure you terial action in Ningpo with reference to that Tam your friend. A foreigner, a Taonism, will hardly be deemed conclusive man of repute, and a philosopher, Thomas by persons on the spot, [am under the Carlyle, says: It is unworthy a religious impression that many of Mr. Clvih's fellow man to view an irreligious one with alarm scholars and gentlemen look upon it as a or aversion, or with any other feeling than deliberate piece of Confucian intolerance regret, and hope and brotherly commisora~ of the follies of idolatry; whereby in one tion. "If he seek Truth, is he not our cate (go I am informed) a temple has beet brother, and to be pitied? If he do not turned into a school; in others the sale of seek Truth, is te not still our brother, idolatrous papers has been sternly pro-and to be pitied atill more hibited; and even the trade in kneeling It i" with such sentiments that I stools has been seriously affected. Mr. subscribe myself, Ch'ih's further criticism on my second Your unknown friend, letter I must pass by, for, in my stupidity, I have failed quite' to' comprehend his Lacon. meaning, But to my points, They are but two.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.