the Editor of the Dean Sin, ~May I request that you will publish the subjoined letter, in reply to that which appeared over the signature of "Your unknown Friend," in your issue of the Ist instant.' I shall be obliged by your inserting it in an early issue, 80 that your readers may still have the former copy at hand, for reference.
Yours obediently, u'r Tao Ten.
My pear Unxnowx Fasexp,—I amsincerely grateful for the friendship you offer me, because to judge from your letter, it is that of an excellent and distinguished writer. You really have considered my former statements dispassionately and honestly," and your arguments are " fair and candid," as this further expression of my views, which you so earnestly hope for, will amply pro 1.—You write as if Iliad only spoken of the protection afforded to Missionarie the whole paragraph, No. 5, relating to the protection of converts, you pass by without a word This is eminently honest, my dear friend. I said, "The foreign preachers often get protection for their converts, Chinese subjects, in the interior, the Treaties providing for this." Do me the favour to meet this by the fair and candid argument you promise, and disprove, if you can, fiat such protection of converts "causes great bitterness and hatred in our officials and our people."
2.—You quote Mr. Corbett's case length to show that our officials are unwilling—they are certainly not "too weak to give sincere protection to Missionaries, But, my intelligent friend, there are tens of cases which prove this—and it is for this very reason that I proposed certain alterations of those treaty stipulations, on tial, supporting by arguments. which you, my friend, have very kindly ignored, my assertion that the hostility to Missionaries would then gradually disappear. I thank you, however, for thus having drawn attention to a fresh illustration of the fact that the existing status of Missionaries is highly unsatisfactory. What change do you propose? I presume you do not maintain that all the faults are on our, the Chinese, side! I cannot expect this from your promised candour and tairn 3.—You say " Mr. Sheppard did not protect Mr. Corbett because he was a Mission ary, but because he wasan American citiza T suppose that you are prepared, by di Bitclenale argument, to establish that it. Corbett was attacked, ergo, required protection, not because he was an American Missionary but because he was an American citizen. Are you? If you demonstrate that the people objected to the presence of the foreigner, that his quality as preacher made no difference, continue to be as candid as you have been in your first letter.
You state that the Consuls protect only your life and your property; Leay yours resume you are a Missionary—but not gion." Because there is indirect protection, you boldly assert that there is no protection at all. By protecting your life and your property does not the Consul enable you to preach your religion? You are attacked because you preach, the Consul defends you; is then not your preaching done in reliance on his help? I imagine you believe that your God i your work,—does he do it coming and making us Chinese believe"? Strange, then, that you should have so very few converts! Will you argue, as you do in the case of the Consul, that your God does not help you in your preaching tall, because he coco not "make us bolioy By the way, why does he not, if it be his will that we Chinese are to be converted No, no! do not try to make out that you do not use " wordly means you will not succeed. I advise you as your friend.
ask you, is it friendly' to. put mo in such an inextricable dilemma as you do? Either I am a fool, or I have condemned what I know nothing about, Terrible! And I incur this, because I yen tured to say that the doctrines which Missionaries preach are to us strange and incomprehensiblo"—(I added, "we can listen to your exhortations to be good").
Il, at Toast I can answer that I have d' to comprehend these doctrines—I failed. I must make this humiliating confession," as you call it, my friend, Many Chinamen who cannot read ven-li understand without any difficulty the doctrines of the Christian religion, you say, but I don't. Alas! You, my unknown friend, comprehend them all—so do all intelligent foreigners;—I must try again. Will you undertake to explain these dogmas to mo, so that I can understand them? I'll promise not to be quite a fool. But no—I think I see a way to escape from my terrible dilemma, Suppose there were others, many others, foreigners, born Christians, men of great repute, philosophers, and scientific men—who had declared that after careful oxamination they could not comprehend these dogmas? Can you tell me it I am correct in my supposition? If so, is the mental ability of those men also inferior to many of my countrymen who do not understand ven-li? I almost repeat your words.
Now, "let me ask you a simple question were you aware when you constructed your dilemma for me, that thera have been, and are, many intelligent foreigners who did not and do not comprehend the doctrines you proach? Now, either you were aware of this fact or you were not (to imitate your style of arguing); "hence you are by your own words shut up" to either (1) confessing that you know
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.