"''' ""WarfSdd Library 
 
 The Iniquity of Chris- 
 tian Missions in China 
 
 By ROBERT E/SPEER 
 
 Secretary of the Presbyterian 
 Board of Foreign Missions. 
 
 The Board of Foreign 
 Missions of ihe 
 Presbyterian Church 
 in the IJ. S. A. 
 
 156 Fifth Avenue 
 New York 
 
¥■ 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/iniquityofchristOOspee 
 
THE INIQUITY OF CHRISTIAN 
 MISSIONS IN CHINA 
 
 By Robert E. Speer 
 
 Secretary of the Presbyterian Board of For- 
 eign Missions. 
 
 There appeared a few days ago, in The 
 New York Times, an article by Mr. Sydney 
 Brooks, entitled “Regulation of Missionaries 
 in China.” Its main propositions were that 
 missionaries have no right to be in the inte- 
 rior of China, and that, whether there or on 
 the coast, they are supported only by foreign 
 arms, that they are ignorant, untactful and 
 troublesome, and doing not a little evil, and 
 that they are responsible for the present diffi- 
 culties. The remedy proposed is that mis- 
 sionaries should be deprived of their foreign 
 protection, and even of their foreign citizen- 
 ship. 
 
 A good deal of this sort of thing has ap- 
 peared in the newspapers lately. It is easy 
 to write, for it requires no patient study of 
 facts, and it pleases many people, who are 
 not reluctant to find reasons for refraining 
 from supporting the missionary enterprise. 
 And it is in the main harmless. Indeed, it is 
 
encouraging in a way, for it shows that some 
 who would be glad to pass missions b ' as un- 
 important and ineffectual are forced to con- 
 fess their power. Such articles are scarcely 
 worth answering, save to call attention now 
 and then to their extravagances and to make 
 them an occasion for setting a little more 
 clearly before the public the significance and 
 character of Christian missions. 
 
 Mr. Brooks’s article especially would not 
 call for notice if it were not for its plausi- 
 bility and the publicity it has received. It is 
 not original, it is not intelligent, and it is not 
 true. It is in part a condensation of Mr. 
 Alexander Michie’s books on ‘ ‘ Missionaries in 
 China,” and “China and Christianity,” with 
 scant credit given to Mr. Michie, and with lit- 
 tle of tL’* “openness of mind” which the 
 author cr fits to Mr. Michie, and which saves 
 that stringent critic from the unpleasant 
 spirit and the indiscriminate sneers of Mr. 
 Brooks, and from some of his blunders. “The 
 Chinese,” he says, for example, “cannot for 
 a moment be brought to believe that women 
 who . . . worship in the same church along 
 side of men can possibly be moral.” There 
 are tens of thousands of Chinese temples 
 which testify against this judgment. There 
 are no separate temples, or hours of worship 
 for men and women in China. “ Men and 
 women,” as a correspondent of The China 
 Mail writes, “ come and go (in the temples), 
 4 
 
acquaintances and absolute strangers elbow- 
 ing each other, rubbing against each other, 
 tens and scores and hundreds of them.” That 
 has been Chinese usage, and is not regarded 
 as an outrage on ethical propriety. As a 
 matter of fact, Christian worship is more or- 
 derly, more ethically correct than the wor- 
 ship in Chinese temples. Let any traveler 
 attend the most popular temples in Canton, 
 for example, and then any Christian chapel or 
 church, many of which have partitions sepa- 
 rating the sexes, and contrast them. It is 
 true that the infamous publications sent out 
 by Chou Han from Hunan made some such 
 criticism as that of Mr. Brooks; but it was 
 with slanderous and malicious purpose, and 
 the temples of Hunan daily refuted his false- 
 hood. 
 
 Each of Mr. Brooks’s propositions is sur- 
 rounded by such misinformation. He alleges 
 that the missionary’s “presence in the inte- 
 rior is in itself a violation of a solemn com- 
 pact.” What compact ? Eesidence and ac- 
 quisition of property by missionaries in the 
 interior of China are guaranteed by clear 
 treaty provisions, confirmed by imperial 
 edicts, and acknowledged by the Chinese offi- 
 cials. The British treaty of 1858, Art. XII., 
 contains the words, “British subjects, 
 whether at the ports or at other places, de- 
 siring to build, etc.” More than once Consuls 
 and Chinese officials have interpreted these 
 
 5 
 
words as giving the right to reside and pur- 
 chase property in the interior. In some treaties 
 (Netherlands, Austrian, Spanish) it is de- 
 clared that merchants “ shall not be at liberty 
 to open houses of business or shops in the in- 
 terior ; ” but no treaty contains such restric- 
 tions as to missionaries. In the Chinese text 
 of the French treaty of 1858, Art. III., it is 
 stated, “It is permitted to French missiona- 
 ries to rent and purchase land in all the prov- 
 inces and to erect buildings thereon at pleas- 
 ure.” Whatever questions others may have 
 raised about this clause, the Chinese Govern- 
 ment has never denied its authenticity or 
 validity. Indeed, Chinese officials of their 
 own accord have often extended these rights 
 to missionaries, and on the declaration of war 
 between China and Japan, the Chinese For- 
 eign Office at Pekin addressed to the Ministers 
 of foreign countries a memorandum request- 
 ing them to notify missionaries to remain at 
 their posts, and promising all such the protec- 
 tion of the Chinese Government. The rights 
 of merchants and traders to reside and pur- 
 chase property in the interior are far less 
 solidly established than those of missionaries. 
 Indeed, the Netherlands treaty, which in Art. 
 
 III. denied to merchants the right of carrying 
 on business in the interior, provided in Art. 
 
 IV. that “Netherlands missionaries of the 
 Christian religion, intent upon the peaceful 
 propagation of the Gospel in the interior of 
 
 6 
 
China, shall enjoy the protection of the Chi- 
 nese authorities.” I ask, What solemn com- 
 pact is violated by the presence of missiona- 
 ries in the interior ? 
 
 But it is asserted also that the missionary is 
 ‘‘supported and protected by foreign arms,” 
 that “the evangelists are maintained by for- 
 eign arms ; they live within call of the aveng- 
 ing gunboat, and they are not backward in 
 summoning its aid.” The Presbyterian Board 
 has twenty-one stations in China, at which 
 missionaries reside. Of these, nine at the 
 most are within reach of gunboats. The great 
 majority of missionaries are in the interior, 
 and I do not believe that Mr. Brooks can cite 
 one instance where missionaries alone have 
 summoned a gunboat’s aid. There may have 
 been such, but I cannot remember one. Large 
 bodies of missionaries in China are opposed on 
 principle to doing such a thing, and of those 
 who are not, the majority would rather suffer 
 the petty difficulties of oppression and injus- 
 tice that resort to such an extreme measure ; 
 and have so suffered quietly, or resorted only 
 to peaceful representations to their Consuls. 
 But doubtless Mr. Brooks does not intend to 
 be taken literally here. If he does, then I 
 have only to say that his statement is false, 
 most of all, his declaration that the missiona- 
 ries are not backward in appealing for armed 
 interference. I suppose he means, however, 
 
 : by these reckless statements, only that “ mis- 
 
 7 
 
sionaries were thrust upon him (the Chinese) 
 through treaties exacted by foreign coer- 
 cion” and that the Chinese “Government 
 protects them against its own inclinations, 
 and against the sense of the people, through 
 fear of foreign pressure.” He neglects to 
 state that the wars which were terminated by 
 these treaties were fought for the sake of 
 commerce, and the first one, as the Chinese 
 maintain, in behalf of a ruinous and abhor- 
 rent traffic ; that no war has ever been waged 
 nor any battle been fought for the imposition 
 of missionaries upon China or for their pro- 
 tection. And the implication of this second 
 quotation I have just made from his article is 
 the common and erroneous one that the Chi- 
 nese Government has a peculiar dislike of the 
 missionaries as such, while it has learned to 
 endure other foreigners. ‘ ‘ When the ordi- 
 nary foreigner is tolerated,” says Mr. Brooks, 
 “they (missionaries) are hated.” “The 
 trader, the consul and the diplomat have won 
 their position. They are not liked, but they 
 are acqmesced in.” Nowit is significant that 
 in the very document to which Mr. Brooks 
 appeals as proposing “the best and only means 
 of escape ” from present difficulties, the Chi- 
 nese Government declares, “The Chinese 
 Government ... is not opposed to the work 
 of the missions.” Innumerable edicts and 
 proclamations have commended the missiona- 
 ries. I have before me a copy of one of these 
 8 
 
issued by the Emperor in 1844, sixteen years 
 before the treaties which Mr. Brooks says 
 thrust missionaries on China. The Rescript 
 of Prince Kung, issued in 1862, declared: 
 “The missionaries are well-disposed men, and 
 are in their own country greatly respected by 
 others, and whereas their first object is to in- 
 struct men to do good, they must be treated 
 with more than usual high consideration.” 
 Scores of proclamations to the same effect 
 have been issued by local prefects. One is- 
 sued in 1895, by the Prefect of Nanking, will 
 serve as illustrative of many; “Now having 
 examined the doctrine halls in every place 
 pertaining to the prefecture, we find that 
 there have been established free schools where 
 the poor children of China may receive in- 
 struction; hospitals where Chinamen may 
 freely receive healing; that the missionaries 
 are aU really good ; not only do they not take 
 the people’s possessions, but they do not seem 
 to desire men’s praise. . . . Although China- 
 men are pleased to do good, there are none 
 who equal the missionaries.” Prior to the is- 
 sue of this proclamation, the magistrate in- 
 vited the missionaries to dinner, and treated 
 them with imusual honor. If it is said that 
 these utterances are insincere, and exacted by 
 “ fear of foreign pressure,” it may be replied 
 that there are too many cases in which such 
 suspicions can be proved to be unfotmded. 
 
 I do not cite these edicts as worthy of aO' 
 9 
 
ceptance at face value, but only as supporting 
 the assertion that the official utterances of 
 the Chinese Government are favorable to 
 missions, and that the insinuation that Chris- 
 tian missions, as such, are detested by .the 
 Chinese is imjust. Christianity is objected 
 to primarily not because of its doctrines or 
 practices, but because it is a foreign religion, 
 and because European Governments have suc- 
 ceeded in deeply impressing its foreign con- 
 nections upon the Chinese mind by the way 
 they have made it a cat’s paw, and pretext of 
 political and territorial aggrandizement. This 
 view is easily capable of proof. The very 
 placards and publications which produce anti- 
 missionary disturbances speak of the mission- 
 aries not as Christian propagandists, but as 
 foreign intruders. “Attack and beat the for- 
 eigners.” “ Determinedly destroy the West- 
 ern men.” These are specimens of Hunan 
 mottoes. “All dealings with foreigners are 
 detestable. These men have no fathers or 
 mothers. Their offspring are beasts,” is a 
 sample Canton proclamation, scattered in a 
 city where the Chinese have been dealing 
 commercially with foreigners for hundreds 
 of years. Such placards are issued where 
 there are no missionaries. As soon as news 
 arrived that Shashi was to be made an open 
 port in 1896, anti-foreign placards were posted 
 over the city. There have been, and accord- 
 ing to ex- Consul Read are, no missionaries at 
 10 
 
Shashi. And outrages are not confined to the 
 persons of missionaries. Mr. Margary was 
 not a missionary, and it is the Ministers, not 
 the missionaries, who have been the centre 
 of attack in Pekin. 
 
 The missionary appears prominently be- 
 cause he is everywhere. He is the only for- 
 eigner that most of the Chinese see. He lives 
 where no trader will go. And so he bears the 
 bnmt of anti-foreign dislike. For this his 
 reward is the sneers and ignorant reviling of 
 men like Mr. Brooks. The missionary is do- 
 ing his own work, but b3 is doing, too, the 
 work of civilization. He is its vanguard. 
 As has been well said, “ China has been opened 
 professedly by treaty, but China has to be 
 opened by something else besides a treaty. 
 There is an enormous amoimt of personal and 
 friendly contact work to be done and that is 
 being done by missionaries on a scale of mag- 
 nitude, with a diffusiveness, and general tact- 
 fulness, that entitle them to commendation, 
 and not censure.” The missionary is helping 
 to open the empire, while the reactionary 
 mandarins want to keep it shut. He is in- 
 domitable. He has a motive which makes 
 life and comfort of secondary consequence. 
 He secures a lodgment where civilians would 
 fail. .“He gets access to the people; he talks 
 to them in their own mother tongue; he 
 shows them that the foreigner is not the hor- 
 rid monster he has been pictured to them ; but 
 11 
 
a human being like one of tliemselves — a man 
 who knows how to be neighborly and courte- 
 ous, and pays his debts and can be trusted ; 
 who visits the sick and helps the poor, and 
 evidently seeks the good of the community 
 where he is. His notions as they consider 
 them, about a resurrection from the dead 
 and a future life, may not interest them 
 much; but the man himself they do appre- 
 ciate, and they say that if all foreigners con- 
 duct themselves like that, they cannot be 
 such a bad lot after all. ” 
 
 But this is not Mr. Brooks’s view. In his 
 opinion, missionaries are “ not well educated,” 
 are untactful, careless of local prejudice, 
 speaking a “bastard Chinese,” guilty of 
 “blundering provocation,” ignorant of “the 
 philosophy he is intent on overthrowing or 
 the language which must be his chief weap- 
 on,” bigoted and sectarian, “enthusiastic 
 girls who scamper up and down the country.” 
 I should like to have the names of the mis- 
 sionaries in China with whom Mr. Brooks is 
 personally acquainted, and who have supplied 
 him with that knowledge of them and their 
 disgraceful defects which alone can entitle a 
 man to issue such a slanderous representation. 
 I know more than two hundred missionaries 
 in China, and am familiar with the methods 
 of selection and the requirements of the vari- 
 ous missionary boards and societies at work 
 there, and I have met also many foreigners 
 
 12 
 
in China in other occupations, and I place my 
 knowledge against Mr. Brooks’s ignorance in 
 saying that the average missionary is far bet- 
 ter educated, better bred, more familiar with 
 the people, their language and their thought, 
 and infinitely more in sympathy with them, 
 than the average foreigner, and that no other 
 foreigners in China — merchants, traders or 
 diplomats — are superior to the best missiona- 
 ries, and very few of them their equals. W ith 
 that open-mindedness which Mr. Brooks so 
 admires in others, Mr. Michie avoids any such 
 indiscriminate abuse as Mr. Brooks allows 
 himself in his \xnrelieved picture of mission- 
 ary incompetency. “The great service which 
 missionaries have rendered to the cause of 
 knowledge can never be forgotten,” wrote 
 Mr. Michie, seven years ago. “It is to their 
 labors that we owe what we know of the Chi- 
 nese history, language and literature. Mis- 
 sionaries compiled the only dictionaries as yet 
 in common use ; a missionary translated the 
 classics into English, laying the whole world 
 imder perpetual obligation ; missionaries have 
 explained the Chinese religions. A mission- 
 ary has quite recently made a valuable con- 
 tribution to descriptive anthropology, the 
 first attempt at a systematic analysis of the 
 Chinese character. And, turning toward the 
 Chinese side, the missionaries have the credit 
 of awakening thought in the coimtry, and 
 their great industry in circulating useful and 
 13 
 
Christian knowledge in vernacular publica. 
 tions of various sorts, though comparatively 
 barren of result in its main purpose, has 
 spread the light of Western civilization far 
 and wide in the Empire. The benefits con- 
 ferred on China by these literary labors, and 
 especially by medical missions” (for which 
 Mr. Brooks has not one appreciative word), 
 “are fully acknowledged by educated Chinese 
 who have no leaning toward Christianity as a 
 religion.” Li Hung Chang is one of these. 
 “ You have started,” he told the representa- 
 tives of missionary organizations in New 
 York, Sept. 1, 1896, “you have started numer- 
 ous educational establishments which have 
 served as the best means to enable our coun- 
 trymen to acquire a fair knowledge of the 
 modern arts and sciences of the West.” The 
 missionaries are the most intelligent foreign- 
 ers in China. They are the true representa- 
 tives of the West. They are organizing the 
 schools and colleges which the Chinese them- 
 selves are founding. They have been inter- 
 preters for our Consuls and Ministers. For 
 years a missionary did the work of the Amer- 
 ican Legation in Pekin, while others bore the 
 title and the credit. And these are not merely 
 exceptional men. Almost all missionaries are 
 required to pass language examinations, and 
 if any fail to acquire the Chinese, they are 
 quietly retired. As for their being poorly ed- 
 ucated, almost all the men sent from America 
 
 14 
 
are college graduates, and the women far 
 better educated than ordinarily well educated 
 women at home. Mr. Brooks could learn 
 many things from a proclamation of the Pre- 
 fect of Paotingfu in 1895, in which he said. 
 The missionaries “are chosen from men of 
 superior character and learning, who, after 
 successfully passing an examination, are suf- 
 fered to come out to China. Moreover, none 
 of the missionaries of these societies come at 
 the commission of their sovereigns, nor are 
 they animated by any other motive than to 
 obey the last command of Jesus, who bade all 
 His followers without fail to preach the relig- 
 ion far and wide, and thus fully attest the 
 sincerity of their faith and love. Refusing 
 to do this, though members of the society. 
 He could not recognize them as of the high- 
 est character.” 
 
 Mr. Brooks condemns the missionaries for 
 their hostility to ancestral worship, their con- 
 tempt for Chinese superstitions like fungshui, 
 or geomancy, the seclusion and secrecy of 
 their work, and their protection of their con- 
 verts. As to ancestor worship, a few mis- 
 sionaries plead for toleration, but the great 
 majority believe that the rites of worship are 
 idolatrous, though at the same time they ap- 
 preciate the immense value of the spirit of 
 filial piety, and endeavor to preserve what is 
 not idolatrous in it. As to local geomantic 
 prejudices, perhaps headstrong and thought- 
 
less men have sometimes acted unwisely (can 
 Mr. Brooks give instances ?) ; but the mission- 
 ary is the last person to view the animosity 
 of the people with indifference. He wants to 
 gain a hospitable entrance and to conciliate 
 the people, and succeeds in doing so. “To 
 the credit of the missionaries,” says Mr. 
 Michie, who denies the spontaneous friendli- 
 ness of the people to missionaries, which no 
 one asserts, “it must be said that wherever 
 they settle they gain the affection of many of 
 the natives.” As to the secrecy of Christian 
 work, Mr. Brooks is referring evidently to 
 Roman Catholic missions, as he singles out 
 “ especially the secrecy of the confessional.” 
 I shall not speak of this, save to say that 
 Protestant churches, schools and hospitals are 
 ever open to inspection, and invite the fullest 
 scrutiny. As to the protection of converts, 
 Mr. Brooks charges that they come usually 
 from the lower classes, that they are dishon- 
 est debtors who want protection from Chinese 
 courts. The missionary “fights their legal 
 battles for them, supplying them with money 
 and advice, and securing for them a sort of 
 consular protection by means of which their 
 suits are transferred from Chinese to foreign 
 courts.” This question of the protection of 
 converts is to many missionaries a difficult 
 one. Some will not touch the lawsuits of na- 
 tive converts at all. Others will interfere 
 only in cases of persecution because of their 
 16 
 
religion, while still others insist that these 
 are just the cases in which there should be 
 no interference. That there is possibility of 
 abuse here, all missionaries admit. One of 
 their most diflScult tasks is to sift the motives 
 of inquirers, in order to refuse those who 
 want to join the Church for the sake of such 
 help. The practice of missionaries is not uni- 
 form as yet, but the principle on which aril 
 Protestant missions act is to avoid interfer- 
 ence as far as they can possibly do so, and to 
 exclude this political element from the 
 Church. This is a point on which they part 
 widely from the Roman Catholics. They 
 flatly refused to accept the privileges secured 
 to the Roman Catholic missionaries by the 
 French Minister in 1899, enlarging their po- 
 litical influence and prescribing certain rights 
 of visit and communication between Catho- 
 lic missionaries and provincial officials, which 
 the latter had previously refused. As the 
 bishops of the Anglican Communion in China 
 wrote to Mr. Conger, “We have no wish to 
 complicate our spiritual responsibilities by 
 the assumption of political rights and duties, 
 such as have been conceded to the Roman 
 Catholic hierarchy.” Mr. Brooks’s contemptu- 
 ous opinion of the character of the converts 
 has been sufficiently belied by the heroism 
 with which scores, perhaps hundreds, of them 
 have met death without denying their faith, 
 when a little of that hypocrisy which, accord- 
 17 
 
ing to Mr. Brooks, brought them into the 
 Church, might have saved them in their time 
 of trial. 
 
 For this time of trial, Mr. Brooks holds the 
 missionaries responsible. “Of the needless 
 causes of irritation the missionary is easily 
 the most prominent.” And he begins his ar- 
 ticle by discrediting the plea which the mis- 
 sionaries may make, that the political press- 
 ure of the West and the seizure of territory 
 and “the endless demands for concessions are 
 the real occasions of this semi-national up- 
 rising.” Well, let some one else than a mis- 
 sionary be heard. Mr. Barrett, formerly 
 Minister to Siam, is as reliable a witness as 
 Mr. Brooks. “The spread of Christianity in 
 the province of Shantung,” he says, “met 
 with few checks until the commercial spirit 
 of a great European country apparently in- 
 spired it to seize a portion of Chinese terri- 
 tory and a port in this province. . . . When- 
 ever it was my privilege to disouss anti- for- 
 eign sentiment with intelligent Chinese, I 
 found invariably that they placed the chief 
 blame upon the land-grabbing spirit of the 
 European countries.” Surely the Chinese 
 Government itself is competent to testify on 
 this point, and tliis is its judgment, put forth 
 in an edict issued in July: “Since the first 
 days of our dynasty, all the foreigners com- 
 ing to China have been invariably treated 
 with liberality, and, coming down to the eras 
 18 
 
of Taokwang (1821) and Hienfung (1851), we 
 concluded with them treaties of commerce 
 and intercourse and conceded to them the 
 right of propagating Christianity. Latterly, 
 however, the foreigners have come to en- 
 croach on our territories, to rob us of our 
 good people and to plunder by force our proj)- 
 erties, thus trampling under their feet this 
 favored land of ours. Thus have they deeply 
 wronged us, and the results have been the 
 destruction of their churches and the murder 
 of their missionaries.” 
 
 But it is not right for the sake of argument 
 to assent to such a partial statement. A dozen 
 things enter into anti-foreign feeling in China. 
 Its sources are found in the Chinese officials, 
 their character and their education, in the 
 agents of foreign powers, in the Chinese peo- 
 ple, in the spirit of Western peoples, in foreign 
 trade and its representatives, in the Roman 
 Catholic Church, in the Protestant missiona- 
 ries also, and in the history of China’s rela- 
 tions with the West. It is imphilosophical as 
 well as imfair to single out any one of these 
 and lay the blame there alone. As Mr. Brooks 
 himself admits, “ possibly most of the antag- 
 onism is fundamental.” Assuredly it is, but 
 not, as he says, “inevitable.” If missions 
 had been let alone, free from the burden of 
 the political blunders and misdeeds of the 
 West, and especially free in the case of Roman 
 Catholic missions from the patronage of France 
 
and now of Germany, while tlie mistakes of in- 
 dividuals and of the movement would have 
 caused some difficulty, this would have been 
 easily lived down, and Christianity would 
 have made its way, as it has been making its 
 way in a hundred fields in China, without 
 political support and with the increasing favor 
 of the people. 
 
 “In that case,” Mr. Brooks might ask “why 
 is not my suggestion acceptable, namely, that 
 missionaries should be divested of their for- 
 eign citizenship, or at least of their right of 
 political protection ? In no other way can 
 the political element in their propaganda be 
 destroyed.” That is a question which I shall 
 answer, not as one who sympathizes with mis- 
 sions, but as a citizen of the State. (1) Such 
 a course would be treason to civilization. The 
 missionary is its forerunner. He makes way 
 for light and human movement. But beside 
 that, to remove from him the shelter and pro- 
 tection of Government is to imperil every for- 
 eigner. The Chinese does not stop to distin- 
 guish. To put the missionary at his mercy 
 and to acknowledge the right of the Chinese 
 to expel or exclude or assassinate him is to take 
 one step toward gratifying the Chinese desire 
 to exclude all foreigners. (2) Such a course 
 would be criminal. It would be the announce- 
 ment to China that the missionary was fair 
 game. “ Steal his property, kill him, outrage 
 the women,” it would proclaim. “ We will 
 20 
 
not interfere. We leave them to your barbar- 
 ous and hideous cruelty to do with as you 
 please.” If certain rights had never been 
 granted, to refuse to grant them now would 
 be one thing. Having been granted, to take 
 them away is quite a different thing. (3) 
 Mr. Brooks’s proposal is childish folly. He 
 might as sensibly propose that missionaries’ 
 passports should be viseed by the man in the 
 moon. This country does not denationalize 
 its citizens, least of all its best citizens. 
 Wherever in this wide world they go, they go 
 under the shelter of its flag, and secure in its 
 certain protection. (4) Such a proposal is in- 
 solent effrontery. The missionary is to be de- 
 nationalized. There is no provision for nat- 
 uralization of foreigners in China. The mis- 
 sionary is to be a man without a country. 
 The American harlot in Shanghai can fly the 
 Stars and Stripes over her brothel. The 
 American saloon-keeper can demand the Con- 
 sul’s protection in Tien-Tsin. But the mis- 
 sionary, teaching, preaching, healing the 
 sick, is to be an alien and a stranger. Sydney 
 Brooks (I invent the illustration ) selling rum 
 in China can claim the rights of his nation- 
 ality and stand with its whole power behind 
 him. Phillips Brooks preaching the Gospel 
 in China is an outcast, a political pariah. I 
 And it impossible to suppress a feeling of stern 
 indignation at such an infamous and con- 
 temptible proposal, infamous and contempti- 
 21 
 
ble in its view not so much of the rights of 
 missionaries, as of the duties of civilized 
 States. 
 
 But Mr. Brooks alleges that something must 
 be done to regulate the missionary. ‘‘Until 
 his relations with the Chinese people and the 
 Chinese Government are radically altered, 
 there can be no hope of settled peace.” The 
 shortest answer to that is a flat contradiction. 
 Rather let the European nations stop using 
 missions as the “advance agent of annexa- 
 tion.” Let them deal honorably and firmly 
 with China. Let them repent of their folly 
 in throwing away the unparalleled opportu- 
 nity for peaceful reformation presented in 
 1898, by the Emperor and Kang Yu Wei — an 
 opportunity produced by missions — and atone 
 by helping China to break with her iron con- 
 servatism and shake loose her grave clothes. 
 
 And, lastly, and not to follow Mr. Brooks 
 beyond this, even into his curious appeal to 
 the early history of Christianity, the mission- 
 ary’s influence, he holds, is subversive, and 
 his propaganda will have revolutionary effects. 
 In a sense, this is not true. The missionary’s 
 work is not destructive. It follows the lines 
 of national character and qualification. Chris- 
 tianity has adapted itself to more peoples, and 
 more diverse peoples, than any other religion, 
 and it is compatible with any orderly and 
 righteous government, of whatsoever form. 
 It does not attack the Chinese political system 
 22 
 
or social life. Yet in a sense the cl>arge is 
 true. Christianity is a power of upheaval 
 and renovation. It turns the world upside 
 down. It begets wrath againsfr injustice, 
 eagerness for liberty, impatience with ignor- 
 ance and sloth, and passion for progress. It 
 has done this in China. It will continue to 
 do this in China, whether in war or in peace, 
 with the sympathy of the Christian nations 
 or with the petty criticism and futile opposi- 
 tion of newspaper publicists. That is its mis- 
 sion in the world. In his naive language, 
 the Prefect of Paotingfu suggests that, if men 
 do not perceive it and are not in sympathy 
 with it, they cannot, by the judgment of 
 Jesus, be regarded “as of the highest char- 
 acter.” 
 
 [Reprinted from The Churchman, 
 August 25, 1900.] 
 
 Form 776