To the Editor of the Noura-Curya Day News.
Sm,—My th to" Civis" for his letter w nur columns of to-day, because it gives me wppurtunity (L.) Po say that I entirely agree with Protessur Bonmell that it was unfortunate that the word missionary was used in the! readers to Dr.
eating; and that think ie even more un- pp, 35, fortunate that missionaries thought it right to actively support the resolution, Mr, Muirhead was udoed careful to say that t speak asa missionary; but De 18ih July.
trary he allowed the meeting to infer that ne such avowal, on the cone missionary societies do not desi m Gatling guns because they cannot afford them, 1 reluctantly intervened at the express request of some of the missionaries, that it hit be plain that the missionaries as whole do not claim and do not desire foreign uuterv in their behalf.
(2.) fo explain the poaicion of the m sionaries to whom J referred and for whom A spoke, more fully and clearly, They ave nut indifferent to the question of the safety of foreigners in China, nor are they ungrateful to those who use their influence to secure that safety. When occasion arises, they clu not hesitate to appeal to native officials the protection to which they and all other forei ners are entitled, But they feel—aud, 1 thi that the puni tion, of mandarins who fail in their duty. The cause they represent and for which they labour is dearer to them than even thei own lives. They hold that to further the gospel ict they must not only preach it but be true to the spirit ut it at any cost to themselves. They know that. for them to take the sword, ur to call upon others tw take it in thole behalf, would be to awaken bitter prejudice inst the divine truths they prociai prejudice which would bar the wey of the Kingdon of Christ in China, perhaps for generations, Tam profoundly sorry that any one should give it as his deliberate op that the bervie theory of missionary work is fallacious, and in this country, at least, unworkable. If that is really the case, so much the worse for the mis and so much the worse for Chi have searevly patience tw attempt a reply to the sueers, with which your correspondent disfigures an otherwise fair and well-reasoned letter—that some nis aries ure "'seltidh" and "arrogate" to themselves 'a peculiar heroism." Ts it selfish for to go forth, without weapons of defence, to preach the gospel ut peace at the risk of their own hives? I know some of the missionaries whose views T have tried to state, and so far from "arrogating" to themselves a "peculiar heroism," they are quiet, unassuming men and women, whose one concern it is that they may prove faithful witnesses of Jesus and who hardly know a greater unhappiness than to be obliged to differ from brethren with whom they are mainly at one.
Tam, ete., Union Church, 18th July.
To the of the susa Dany New Sin,—L feel it a duty to say that I hearty agree with the speech made by the Rev. Stevens in the 1
There is in my op all the difference between asking protection from the untire and domaining the punisliient ative authorities Ly foreign Lowers. The first, the missionaries may do consixtently with their office, because they seek the benefit of the Chinese people. The scornnd is not the business of the missionary, but vf the representatives of the foreign Powers, if they from their stand-point think it possible, {Unless it is made plain, that the foreign Powers and 1ut the missionaries demand this punishment, there is a gress dbuger, {lest the governing classes in China should receivoa wrong impression as to the nature and.aims of Christianity. Upon this point Tshould like to call the attention of your Faber's The Apostle Paul, 36, 50, 198.
Lam, ete, P. Kras Pustor of the German Congregation. the Editor of the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.