To.the Editor of the "NoRTHR-CHINA Dany News"
Si,—Bible Students intemperate language was read correctly, his chal-longing letters applied honestly, his deservedly. exuberant sectarianism chastened
Open-mindedly ' let him once and for all review the case reduced to its sole essential elements. From his letter of February 3
"The work of the Missions, however commendable, has nothing whatever to do with the spreading of the Kingdom of God." ere Now, change this radical assumption of his to precisely the opposite sense:
"The work of the Missions has every thi More accurately expressed, this Catholic doctrinal conception should regi This work is the Kingdom of God.
Does Bure Sruvenr still fail to see that, by challenging publicly and by name this theology of the Kingdom, he is equivalently (even if unwittingly) disparaging the Mission's social and religious raison d'être? This should explain everything in my letter, even to the foundlings' clothes, 1 erred on the side of naivete, this now appears, in presuming that the logical nexus above was apparent to outsiders, most particularly to a student of the Bible. Assuredly, bad faith does not go with unintentional misunderstanding of one's position and I thus promptly take back this charge. No uncharitableness of any kind was intended. nbk Sruvenr erred on the side of negligence in not first buying a penny catechism and learning the truth, Let him now fulfil his promise and withdraw his challenge to a debate (letter of February 3). Buying baby napkins does mean inaugurating ihe Kingdom—at the Zikawei Orphanage for instance, And so, with everybody happy, here we are back at the original sermon! Think it out, brother; pray for light, and go in peace.
Dovay Shanghai, Feb. 5.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.