Mu. Lobenstine entirely mistakes our point of view if he imagines that it will be affected! by the action of the Conference of Missionary Societies of Great Britain, about which he writes, and we receive a telegram, today; and his letter reads very much like a transparent attempt to suggest that our critiei the National Christi was biassed, possibly by national feelings. If such be Mr. Lobenstine's belief, he is quite wi We do not care whether American, British, Dutch or Patagonian missionaries who recommend their governments 19) abolish extraterritoriality. The objection is to religious body: of any kind using the prestige which they possess to influence their governments in political matters. We deeply regret that latter into registering a vote favourable to their action.
Mr. Lobenstine objects (o the} rase about the N.C.C. "press ing buttons:" and he says that the action of the Mission Boards in Great Britain and America was taken on their own initiative ~and without.the previous knowledge or upon recommendation Jef the NCC" Well, the phrase] Jebjected to was used by our missionary contributor, who pro: bably knew what he was talking out. But we are bound to add that experience of Mr. Lobe stine's methods ride the case of the Rev. K. T.
Chung and Mr. Lobenstine's letter about ity obliges us to amine what he writes somewhat. narrowly. The fact that the N.CC. as such made no recom: mend at Jdoes not exclude the possibility something havi been dare!
its officers individual which such a phrase as "pressing but: tons" would describe sufficient accuracy. For mple, we do not suppose that the N.C.C. wrote Home officially' recommending that a certain missionary who had incurred its displeasure, as he told us yester-
Iday. should be asked to resign. Hut there is no doubt that cer-
[tain of its officers did so, In the case of treaty, revision it is indeed inconceivable that th.
American and Canadian Boards Yook the line they did without! having received advices from China, which may not have bean' official but would be none the less officious.
At the end of his letter Mr, Lobenstine refers to the infor-motion sent out for the guidance of the missionary bodies whom the N.C.C. was trying to induce to vote in favour of revision of unequal" treaties: from that information we quoted—on Wednesday the v ws of a Norweian missioner in Changsha and an Anglican missionary Hangchow. Mr. Lobenstine says:—
Since you stem to have access to our regular business correspondence on these matters you will find that these two quotations are by no means the only ones call attention to the dangers and difficulties for is and mis. ity is abolished, Is this not rather an example of Mr. Lobenstine's methods in controversy to which we have! just alluded? Neither the Nov. wegian at Changsha nor the Anglican at Hangchow said ar thing about the "dangers and difficulties" which may arise if ud when extraterritoriality is abolished. Neither appeared to be in the slightest degree influenced by personal considera tions. The whole burden of their letters is the danger which must ensue to Church work if missionaries mix themselves up political matters, But of course that is precisely the point which Mr. Lobenstine and the N.C.C. are most anxious to obscure.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.