t 
 
 ) 
 
 3 m " 
 
 ACT HrrrJ^r 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 THE 
 
 MISSIONARY PROBLEM. 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 To “ Missionary Theology ” an Article by the Rev. Edward White, 
 ■published in the “Rainbow ” of July i, i 
 
 BY 
 
 F. S. TURNER, 
 
 MISSIONARY OF THE LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 
 
 \ A "V*. 
 
 " t« 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1870. 
 
 *'* t 
 
 r 
 
< 
 
 THE 
 
 MISSIONARY PROBLEM. 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 To “ Missionary Theology ,” an Article by the Rev. Edward White, 
 published in the “ Rainbow ” of July i, 1869. 
 
 BY 
 
 F. S. TURNER, B.A., 
 
 MISSIONARY OF THE LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 
 
 * 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1870. 
 
THE MISSIONARY PROBLEM. 
 
 To the Rev. Edward White, 
 
 Minister of St. Paul's Chapel , Hawley Road, Kentish Town, 
 My dear sir, 
 
 Querulousness, if sometimes excusable, is never agree¬ 
 able to its auditors. The noblest cause perpetually advo¬ 
 cated in a tone of hopeless upbraiding, becomes distasteful. 
 Men dislike to be urged, to save their own souls, in a pitifully 
 complaining tone, still more the souls of other people. It is 
 probable that, on this account, the foreign missions of our 
 churches have become an unwelcome theme to many excel¬ 
 lent persons, who know, by painful experience, the charges 
 of neglect which will surely be brought against themselves, 
 and that with more justice than forcibleness. Beyond all 
 question, the foreign mission has a right to demand a far 
 larger proportion of the thoughts and prayers, the gifts and 
 services of Christians, than it has hitherto received. But 
 what use is it to reiterate this ? I fear the case has been 
 pleaded almost ad nauseam; and that the wearied hearers, 
 under a veil of decorous attention, are secretly steeling their 
 hearts against our most pathetic appeals. 
 
 It is therefore quite an enlivening change, to pass from the 
 position of accuser to that of defendant. To have our prin¬ 
 ciples and our methods boldly challenged, is an experience 
 as novel as it is welcome. Keen criticism, though one may 
 wince under the operation, is more healthful treatment than 
 
4 
 
 patronising neglect. It is a new and encouraging sign to see 
 ministers, who occupy a well-merited eminence in the home- 
 churches, applying their acumen to a critical survey of the 
 foreign work. For a long time, missions have been going on, 
 like a railway train after steam is shut off, by the unexhausted 
 impetus of the mighty effort by which our forefathers set 
 them in motion. They seem to have got into a groove, along 
 which they have run pretty smoothly ever since, though some 
 of us fear, the velocity is gradually slackening. But most 
 friends of the undertaking seem so well satisfied with this 
 groove, and the progress made therein, that they have no 
 care beyond the raising of the necessary supplies. Self- 
 complacency, however, though a comfortable, is also a dan¬ 
 gerous condition, for enterprises, as well as for individuals. 
 No enterprise can prosper, which is carried on in a mere rou¬ 
 tine. Unless kept alive by perpetual freshness of thought, 
 it will slowly stiffen to stagnation. Yet, until recently, who 
 thought about missions ? The directors and secretaries of 
 our great societies ? No doubt these gentlemen, on whom 
 falls “ the care of all the churches ” over a region wider than 
 St. Paul ever dreamed of, must have spent many an anxious 
 thought about the important business committed to their 
 charge—-the collection of funds, the selection of missionaries, 
 the supply of the wants of the stations, and a multifarious list 
 of affairs besides. In the midst of all this needful and press¬ 
 ing business, one could hardly expect them to find leisure 
 for a philosophical study of the principles of missions. The 
 missionaries ? We, of course, do think a little, in the breath¬ 
 ing spaces of our arduous toil : but as you have remarked, 
 “ few men of the first class offer themselves for missionary 
 work.” I suppose therefore the missionaries have not 
 thought out any conclusions ; or, knowing the slight esteem 
 in which they are held, have not ventured to express them. 
 The public ? Setting aside the indifferent, the public 
 seems divided into blindly devoted friends, and blindly pre¬ 
 judiced foes of missions. The latter contemptuously assert 
 that missions are " all humbug-and deride all connected 
 with the work, as either impostors or dupes. But if they 
 venture to utter a sentence or two, beyond this general abuse, 
 it soon appears that they are as ignorant of the actual facts 
 
5 
 
 of missionary work, as they are of the living spirit of Chris¬ 
 tianity. Instinct teaches the believer that, in the root of 
 things, missions and Christianity are one, and must live or 
 die together. The very misty conception he has of the real 
 state of the work, does not impair his hearty allegiance to 
 the cause. He is content to trust that those who are officially 
 responsible, see the whole thing in a far clearer light than he 
 does himself; and so leaves it in their hands. Neither friend 
 nor foe has seemed eager for the labour of a thorough exa¬ 
 mination into the whole facts of the case. There are indica¬ 
 tions, however, that the churches are awakening to a sense 
 of the transcending importance of the foreign mission ; and 
 also to a suspicion that, perhaps, the problem is not yet quite 
 mastered. Your able and courageous paper, “Missionary 
 Theology,” is one of these. Viewed as an effort to arouse 
 the slumbering attention of the churches, as well as being in 
 itself a valuable contribution to the study of the subject, it 
 deserves grateful acknowledgments from us all; and I beg 
 to send you mine from the shores of far Cathay. 
 
 When, however, “ men of the first class ” begin to address 
 themselves earnestly to the study of a very complex problem, 
 with the data of which they are not familiar, it is not sur¬ 
 prising that they occasionally fall into mistakes, which lesser 
 men, having a practical knowledge of the subject, can easily 
 correct. Pardon my bluntness for saying, that your curious 
 notion about the antiquated theology of missionaries, was one 
 of these errors of genius. Your own pamphlet betrays your 
 regret, that the churches of to-day have not moved quite so 
 far from the stand-point of our great-grandfathers, as you in 
 your heart desire. Theology is now in a transition state. A 
 few leading minds have advanced to higher ground. Others 
 are striking their tents. But the great bulk of the people 
 still linger on the old camping-ground. It is not that mis¬ 
 sionaries represent the past, and you the present. Rather 
 is it that we, taken as a body, fairly represent the present 
 theology : you ante-date that of a coming age. One cannot 
 blame your regret, that we are not found in the vanguard of 
 progress ; but the notion that we are theological Rip Van 
 Winkles, can only have been evolved by the “ free play of 
 your consciousness ” ignoring the facts. 
 
6 
 
 Your subsequent letters to the Independent so satisfac¬ 
 torily explain away all that seemed offensive in your charges 
 against missionaries, that I should not allude to them here, 
 but for a very startling proposal to which they lead. As the 
 missionaries are discovered not to possess a differentiating 
 theology, you demand of the directors of our society, that 
 they should supply the lack, by drawing up a symbol of faith 
 for us. You say, 
 
 u I wish the question cleared up by the directors of Mis¬ 
 sionary Societies, what they do expect to be, believed and taught 
 respecting hell, and the idolaters, who have either gone, or are 
 going there/’ 
 
 No doubt, it would be very interesting to know “ what are the 
 present doctrines of the Missionary Societies on these topics, 
 or whether they have none at all.” The Church of England, 
 Wesleyan, Presbyterian, and other societies, have the ad¬ 
 vantage of being able to refer to the recognized standards 
 of their respective churches. The Baptists and Independents 
 are destitute of any authoritative confession of faith, and if 
 only the missionary boards could be induced to give formal 
 expression to their belief, at least it would present something 
 definite for reformers to assail, But it is more likely, that the 
 directors'will be discreetly deaf to your appeal ; so that it is 
 premature at present to inquire, whether you “do expect” the 
 missionaries of these societies to abide by the decision of the 
 directors on matters of doctrine. In the meantime some of 
 us can still imitate Bishop Watson, who avowed, “ I am of 
 mine own opinion,” 
 
 Having disposed of preliminaries in this introduction, I will 
 divide what I have to say in reply to your letter, in the usual 
 style of a sermon, under three heads and a conclusion. And 
 first, let me remark upon 
 
 The very grave accusation you bring against us, of having 
 misled the public into too favourable an opinion of the results 
 of our labours. I quote your own words : 
 
 “ Public opinion has begun to form itself under other influences 
 than missionary reports, and missionary speeches. These tell 
 but a portion of the truth. That which is favourable is generally 
 published. That which is unfavourable is withheld.” 
 
7 
 
 Our Chinese proverb says, “ Bitter reproof is wholesome 
 physic.” Your censure is unpalatable enough ; but must we 
 admit that this witness is true ? The copious correspondence 
 in the Independent , from July 22 to Sep. 2, contains not an 
 allusion to the charge. Could not Mr. Muirhead, or Mr. Hay, 
 have noticed it so far, as to utter a few words of indignant 
 denial ? Was it beneath the dignity of our secretaries to 
 repudiate the accusation ? Unless the defendant put in an 
 appearance, there is danger lest the public should allow judg¬ 
 ment to go against us by default. You will excuse me for 
 saying that these four or five lines were the really important 
 part of your letter. The question what theology we teach, is 
 not so urgent as the question whether we bear true witness to 
 the facts that come under our observation. Is it, or is it not, 
 that there is a prevailing misconception at home of the facts 
 of the case ? And assuming this to be true, is it to be attri¬ 
 buted to missionary misrepresentation or reticence ? I wish 
 indeed that this question were “ cleared up by the directors 
 of missionary societies,” for nothing touches so nearly our 
 personal honour, and the prosperity of our work. For my 
 own part, though I am sure nothing can have been farther 
 from the intention of the witnesses than to mislead, I cannot 
 pick up the gauntlet you have thrown down, It was evident 
 to me, when last in England, that a false impression had been 
 produced, as the total result of the various missionary infor¬ 
 mation laid before the public, This may be ascribed in part 
 to the misinterpretation of the statements of missionaries, 
 but I fear also, it is partly owing to a prevalent onesidedness 
 of those statements. But unjustifiable and mischievous as 
 this onesidedness is, the blame of it must be at least equally 
 shared by the religious public, and the missionary advocates. 
 If the directors put forth onesided reports, and the mission¬ 
 aries deliver onesided speeches, it is in response to a pressure 
 of public sentiment, well nigh irresistible. The root and 
 cause of it is, that “stock ” notion about the missionary work, 
 which obtains among its supporters, that it necessarily is, and 
 always must be, riding triumphantly on the high-tide of suc¬ 
 cess. To doubt this, they think, would be to cast a reflection 
 upon Christianity itself. If one dared to tell a plain tale of 
 almost hopeless toil in the face of difficulties apparently in- 
 
8 
 
 surmountable, uncheered by any prospect of approaching 
 success, the hearer looked askance at him, as though he might 
 be a secret traitor to the cause, or perhaps a Jesuit in disguise. 
 What else can follow from this state of public feeling, but 
 that the missionary should depict, in the brightest possible 
 colours, the more hopeful side of his work, and touch as lightly 
 as possible on its more gloomy aspect ? Demand produces 
 supply. Make it felt that missionary speeches are intolerable, 
 unless they are entertaining and encouraging, and the mis¬ 
 sionaries will do the very utmost their consciences will allow 
 to make them so. Poor missionaries! I know, from personal 
 experience, how painful is the struggle to be honest ; how 
 strong the temptation to put just a streak or two of rosy 
 dawn into a picture, which otherwise would be considered 
 repulsively gloomy. My late visit to England left the impres¬ 
 sion, burnt deep into my heart, that tke ministers and people 
 did not want to know the truth about missions. I do not re¬ 
 member, during a stay of more than a twelvemonth, to have 
 encountered any one bent on finding out as much as he could 
 of the real facts of the case. On the other hand, I met fre¬ 
 quently with direct requests for a onesided report. Privately 
 it was whispered, “ Give a good account of your work ; our 
 people don’t like to be discouraged.” Publicly, in presence 
 of a gathering of friends and supporters, the chairman would 
 say, “ Mr. Turner will now give an account of the success of 
 the Gospel in China.” Oh those missionary meetings ! One 
 need have a martyr-like sincerity, indeed, to tell, not one 
 truth only, but the whole truth, against the full current of the 
 sympathies and expectations of chairman, local orators, and 
 audience combined. Yes: if onesidedness is a just charge 
 against missionary speeches, the fault is less that of the 
 missionary, who would gladly tell the whole truth, than that 
 of the public, which is unwilling to hear more than half. 
 
 Granting the existence of this evil habit of exalting into 
 undue prominence every favourable symptom, and preserving 
 a cautious reserve as to the less encouraging side of missionary 
 work, the phenomenon is certainly a remarkable one, and one 
 cannot but desire to track it to its source. The pelting storm 
 of satire, which beat upon the very cradle of missions, may 
 perhaps be partly responsible for it. The friends of the 
 
9 
 
 enterprise were placed, from the first, in a defensive attitude. 
 After enduring years of unmerited ridicule, it was natural 
 that they should try to turn the tables on the sceptics, when 
 the first gleams of a brighter day enabled them to boast of 
 coming triumphs. Then came the striking successes in the 
 Pacific, which whetted the appetite of our public for victories, 
 and made them impatient under tidings of a different character, 
 from the far more serious battle-fields cf India and China. 
 Worst of all, a notion somehow got abroad, that people who 
 subscribe to missionary societies have a kind of right to 
 expect “ results ” for their money. They pay their guinea 
 annually; among them, they subscribe many thousands, even 
 tens of thousands of pounds, and that for the spiritual wel¬ 
 fare of dark-skinned multitudes, whom they have never seen ; 
 and they feel they have a claim on God Almighty for some 
 visible return. The notion is so absurd, and even impious, 
 that I am ashamed to cite it. Yet its extreme prevalence, 
 and the hold it has got upon the public mind, may be inferred 
 from the surprising fact, that there is a kind of reflex echo of 
 it in your own high-toned paper. You point out that the 
 decline of interest in missions is owing to failure of spiritual 
 results, in a manner which implies that it is quite excusable, 
 if not reasonable, to feel less interest in missions on account 
 of such failure. Ergo , the supporters of missions had a right 
 to expect spiritual results, as a return for so much effort and 
 such liberal subscriptions. Of course this mode of looking 
 at the matter must influence the advocacy of missions, not a 
 little. There are men who believe in missions with all their 
 heart and soul ; but they do not believe in the public, and if 
 they perceive the public will not contribute the needed funds, 
 unless stimulated by accounts of success, they will blazon 
 forth their successes with blare of trumpet, and will not talk 
 about their failures, unless they are pressed. This is sad : 
 but it is human nature. 
 
 It is one thing to extenuate, another to defend. Some 
 other advocate must be found for the latter. To me, the 
 slightest disguise of the real facts, appears as certainly bad 
 policy, as it is dishonest to truth. The natural tendency of 
 this constantly triumphant tone, is to hinder nobler natures 
 from offering themselves for a service, which seems to prosper 
 
IO 
 
 *Ttj weii wit'nout them ; and to discourage any search lor 
 improved methods, when the present system is so abundantly 
 flourishing. What secret damage it has already done to the 
 spiritual power of missions, only God can know. There is 
 danger, too, that the public will suddenly revolt to a scepti¬ 
 cism, as uninquiring as their present confidence, and so expose 
 our societies to a perilous crisis. But inasmuch as the fault 
 has never been deliberate and intentional, it may reasonably 
 be hoped that your firmness, in dragging it into this painful 
 publicity, will work an effectual cure, before it is too late. 
 
 II. 
 
 Have Our efforts to convert the Chinese resulted in failure ? 
 Before replying to this grave question, I wish to guard 
 against abuse of the conclusion we may come to, by pre¬ 
 mising two important considerations. 
 
 Failure does not of itself justify condemnation of the 
 means employed. To condemn the societies or the mission¬ 
 aries on account of failure, assumes the certainty of success 
 upon the right use of means, and of success Within a limited 
 time. But this assumption is without warrant, either of 
 reason or Scripture. Magna est veritas , etc., of course : but 
 he is a poor student of history who counts upon victory in 
 every battle. He were wiser to try to learn the courage 
 which knows not when it is defeated. Every one, who has 
 deeply pondered the history and fate of the Jewish nation, 
 knows that even Divinely revealed truth may result in what, 
 to human eyes, is signal and final failure. The history of 
 eighteen centuries of the Gospel dispensation is abundantly 
 fraught with the same sad lesson. To infer, therefore, from 
 missionary failure, that there is surely something wrong about 
 missionary theology, or missionary management, is not philo¬ 
 sophical. 1 admit that it is reasonable to hope for success, 
 and that its protracted delay justifies, nay, imperatively 
 requires, the strictest examination of the means employed. 
 But to pronounce a hasty condemnation, on the ground 
 of the little visible good result, is to be guilty of false 
 reasoning. Only God knows whether China can be converted 
 
at all. Only He can estimate the length of time, and the 
 amount of spiritual force needed, to accomplish its conversion. 
 Blame us then for defects you can point out. I doubt not 
 We have plenty. But do not conclude there must be some¬ 
 thing wrong in us, merely on the ground of our failure. 
 
 Neither can failure justify decline of interest in the work. 
 If you were partner in a company, established for the 
 introduction of the cultivation of the tea-plant into England, 
 the failure of successive years would naturally damp your 
 ardour, in a costly and unpromising undertaking. Unthinking 
 persons regard our work in a similar way. The experiment 
 of propagating Christianity in China, having been now carried 
 on for a good while, without the plant seeming to take kindly 
 to the new soil, they begin to weary of the affair, and to 
 suspect that they may have embarked on a losing speculation. 
 This feeling is based upon the absurdly unphilosophical notion, 
 that Christianity is the natural religion for an Englishman ; but 
 that its extension beyond its present limits, is of doubtful ex¬ 
 pediency. Those who entertain it, give indeed, an aesthetic 
 preference to Christianity ; but they have no real faith in its 
 Divine origin and authority. We, however, do not regard 
 missions as an experiment, to be justified by success. They 
 subsist by an internal necessity of the Christian faith alto¬ 
 gether indifferent to any calculation of consequences. Our 
 commission is Ezekief s : to preach to the nations “whether 
 they will hear, or whether they will forbear.” Our motive* is 
 Paul’s : “Necessity is laid upon me. Yea. Woe is unto me, 
 if I preach not the Gospel.” 
 
 Let us now undertake a candid examination of the ques* 
 tion. Has our Protestant Mission to China proved a failure ? 
 The facts of the case are briefly these. Sixty-two years ago, 
 Robert Morrison commenced the mission. Since then more 
 than 300 missionaries have followed in his steps ; of whom 
 about 150 are now labouring here. During the first genera¬ 
 tion, in China itself but little actual mission-work could be 
 done. The few missionaries were employed in studying the 
 language, translating the Bible, preparing books, and preach¬ 
 ing-to the Chinese dispersed over the archipelago. In 1844 
 the opening of the five ports inaugurated active work in 
 China. For a quarter of a century, a large number (averag- 
 
12 
 
 ing, I think, not far short of a hundred) of missionaries, have 
 been ceaselessly preaching and teaching, among the dense 
 populations of the treaty ports, and within a considerable 
 radius around them. The Elgin treaty nominally threw open 
 the whole country to us, and actually widened our sphere of 
 operations considerably. The visible result of all this labour, 
 of so many Christian ministers, during 25 years, extending 
 over so vast an area, is, that we now number between 5,000 
 and 6,000 Chinese Protestant Christians. The real results 
 only the Searcher of hearts can enumerate. It is natural 
 to suppose, that where there are avowed there are also 
 secret believers : and that there is a considerable diffusion of 
 knowledge, which has not ripened into faith, but is never¬ 
 theless a clear gain, because it paves the way for future 
 success. But, if we are to reason upon results at all, we must 
 reason upon the basis of the known, not upon the unknown. 
 I have not raised this question of success or failure, and, for 
 myself, could be well content to “ walk by faith, and not by 
 sight.” But, if we are to discuss this matter, to any good 
 purpose, it will not do to draw largely upon this supposed 
 fund of hidden successes. We are told by Mr. W. P. Lyon, 
 in the Independent , August 5 th, that, here in China, “ Chris¬ 
 tianity is making rapid progress through the labours of the 
 converts themselves, and that Christian ideas are rapidly 
 leavening great heaps of the population. It is, perhaps, not too 
 * sanguine a hope to give expression to, that China by the 
 close of the present century will be, to a large extent, a 
 Christian country.” I would that Mr. Lyon had given his 
 authority for these statements. God can open windows in 
 heaven, and, if He pleases, all that Mr. L. predicts may be 
 accomplished before A.D. 1900. But I am sure, there is not a 
 sober-minded missionary in China, who will not reject his 
 representation of the present facts. Christianity is not making 
 rapid progress in China ; but progress indubitably slozv. 
 What progress is being made, is due in very small degree 
 to the independent efforts of the converts, mainly to the 
 foreign missionaries, and their paid assistants. These, I am 
 persuaded, are the assertions the missionaries would almost 
 to a man support. The third assertion, that Christianity is 
 rapidly leavening great heaps of the population, will also be 
 
13 
 
 generally regarded as extravagant in the extreme ; though, as 
 it is an assertion about the invisible, it may not be easily dis¬ 
 proved. The first two, however, are statements of fact. If, 
 to have gathered less than 6,000 converts, by the labours of 
 sixty years, be rapid progress, we have made rapid progress. 
 The character of the converts, I shall speak of by-and-by; 
 but even supposing them all that Mr. Lyon imagines them to 
 be, there yet remains the fact, that they are not 6,000 in 
 number : and the question before us is, is this result to be 
 regarded as success, or as failure ? 
 
 What we have achieved looks small. An enemy can easily 
 represent our enterprise as a complete failure. But to a 
 disappointed friend we may say, does your disappointment 
 arise from the absolute barrenness of our husbandry, or from 
 its harvest falling short of your expectations ? If the latter, 
 then it is possible that the error lay in those expectations 
 having been raised too high. No completely decisive victory 
 has been won by Christianity in any age, or any land. Partial 
 success is the best that can be predicated of its highest de¬ 
 velopments. The first thing to be ascertained is, what result 
 might reasonably have been looked for, from the means 
 employed, all the circumstances of the case being taken into 
 account. And since only Omniscience is able to perfectly 
 estimate all the conditions of such a complicated problem, 
 the probability is, that the more you weigh the matter in your 
 mind, the more reluctant you will be to pronounce a decision. 
 
 There is a more important question than the number of our 
 converts. What is their quality ? Have they spiritual life, 
 and expansive power, among them ? Will they, though so 
 few, increase, and multiply, and replenish the land ? Re¬ 
 member, Christianity is not now, for the first time, introduced 
 into China. Whilst our Anglo-Saxon forefathers were still 
 worshipping Odin and Thor, Christian missionaries found their 
 way over the mountains of central Asia, to promulgate the 
 Gospel, in the land of Sinim. For centuries, the good work 
 was carried on, and it appears in Maro Polo’s time, to have 
 been in a flourishing state. Our knowledge of that Nestorian 
 mission is too meagre, for us to pronounce an opinion, as to 
 the causes of its decline. We cannot doubt, however, that it 
 perished chiefly from lack of internal vitality. 
 
H 
 
 The last lingering sparks, of this earliest Chinese Christian¬ 
 ity, can not have been long quenched in darkness, before 
 Roman Catholic Christianity appeared upon the stage. Six 
 hundred years ago, the missionaries of that mighty church, 
 began their labours in China. Nearly three hundred years 
 ago, the celebrated Jesuit mission, made a new commence¬ 
 ment of the work. This Roman Catholic mission has been, 
 in our local newspapers, frequently extolled, to the disparage¬ 
 ment of our more prosaic Protestant effort. Its history is, in 
 truth, a deeply interesting one. Great names appear on the 
 list of its missionaries. It has basked under the sunshine of 
 imperial favour, and braved the pitiless storms of persecu¬ 
 tion ; and added fresh recruits to the noble army of martyrs. 
 Venturing far into the interior, identifying themselves more 
 closely with the people, the Roman Catholic missionaries 
 seem, in some ..respects, to put their Protestant rivals to the 
 blush. But, when all honour has been paid to their zeal and 
 devotedness, what is the result of this second long-sustained 
 effort to evangelise the vast population of China ? Their 
 half-million or million converts, are a great host, compared to 
 the little company of Protestant believers ; but they are an 
 insignificant, almost unappreciable, minority, of the untold 
 millions of this immense empire. Moreover we must not 
 overlook'the fact that their mission is centuries old, while 
 ours is comparatively hut of yesterday. I do not think it is 
 Protestant prejudice which leads me to the conclusion, that in 
 this attempt to convert China, Roman Catholicism has been 
 tried in the balances, and found wanting. Three centuries of 
 primitive Christianity sufficed to overthrow paganism in the 
 old Roman world. Six centuries of Roman Catholic effort 
 leave China to-day, pretty much as its earliest missionaries 
 found her. Converts have been gained in considerable num¬ 
 bers ; some of them have kept steadfast through bitter per¬ 
 secutions, but their Christianity seems to lack vital force, and 
 self-propagating energy. There is no sign that from them 
 will arise the regeneration of China. One must, at any rate, 
 admire the indomitable perseverance of the Roman propa¬ 
 ganda. I do not know whether they ever ask themselves the 
 question, have we failed ? but at least, one can detect no 
 symptom of flagging zeal. At this very time, they are erect- 
 
15 
 
 ing, in Canton, a vast cathedral of solid granite, which bids 
 fair, to last for ages, and perhaps, will overshadow the pro¬ 
 vincial city a thousand years hence, and be thronged with 
 worshippers, when Buddha’s temples have utterly perished, 
 and the name of Confucius is almost forgotten. But if so, 
 
 I think a simpler worship and a purer faith than theirs, will 
 abide within its walls. 
 
 As regards our Protestant mission, it is almost too young 
 to have a history, and it would be premature to pass any 
 positive opinion as to its failure or success. But, if we are to 
 form any conjecture from the present aspect of affairs, we 
 must not attach so much importance to the numbers, as to the 
 quality, of our converts. Will they manifest a vital expansive 
 energy, able to leaven this enormous mass of heathenism ? It 
 is over early to say much about this yet. Some few of our 
 converts have manifested strong faith and ardent zeal. But 
 from what I have witnessed myself, and heard from my 
 brother-missionaries of other provinces, I conclude, these in¬ 
 stances are the exception. The Gospel net brings in bad as 
 well as good ; and if analogy leads us to believe there are 
 secret believers outside our 5,000 converts, so, on the same 
 principle, we must suspect there are to be found Ananiases 
 and Demases among them. This cannot well but be; for a 
 good deal of money is spent, one way or other, in connection 
 with the missions ; and wherever the clink of dollars is heard, 
 needy and unscrupulous Chinese will flock like vultures to the 
 carcase. The hope of being put in some office, about the 
 mission, where he may eat a piece of bread, is quite induce¬ 
 ment enough to make a hungry and threadbare scholar, who 
 has failed at the examinations, turn his attention to Chris¬ 
 tianity. It is probable, however, that there are very few of 
 this hypocritical class among us ; for " the burnt child dreads 
 the fire,” and the detection of a good many such cases has 
 made the missionaries extremely suspicious. I think that 
 native agency is still pushed forward too eagerly; but if so, 
 one cannot deny that, on the other hand, even excessive 
 caution is displayed, lest insincere professors should creep into 
 the church. The hypocrite, moreover, if he does intrude 
 himself among us, has seldom the wit to wear the mask long 
 and is sooner or later expelled. We may, with tolerable 
 
safety, conclude that the proportion of persons absolutely 
 destitute of true religion, is quite insignificant; but, at the 
 same time, those manifesting a high degree of godliness, are 
 also few. I speak from personal acquaintance only, with the 
 Chinese Christians of the south of China ; but I have met 
 with missionaries from Amoy, Shanghai, Hankow, and other 
 places, and I believe they would all endorse this opinion. 
 The majority of our converts are not burning and shining 
 lights: they are in a low stage of Christian development, 
 both in knowledge, faith, and good works. With some excep¬ 
 tions, they are feeble Christians. They lean upon the stronger 
 character of the missionary, and are as yet unable to walk 
 alone. Some of them have borne steadfastly the test of per¬ 
 secution, and the genuineness of their faith is thus placed 
 beyond reasonable doubt. Some have manifested consider¬ 
 able zeal for the progress of the Gospel. But these cases are 
 a selection only. The majority are not eminent for personal 
 piety, nor for missionary fervour. It can hardly be questioned, 
 that the foreign missionaries are, at present, the mainstay of 
 the work. They either do themselves, or set and keep a-going, 
 the far larger proportion of missionary work. If they were 
 removed at this period one could not, humanly speaking, ex¬ 
 pect that the results of their labours would long survive. But 
 another generation or two may see a sturdier, more robust 
 race of native Christians grow up ; and upon this, I think, 
 depends our hope for China, if we place it in anything below 
 the sun. Will these converts always continue to sit at our 
 feet, the captives of our sword and our bow ? or will they 
 learn to bear armour themselves, and go out manfully to the 
 holy war ? Will they begin to search the Scriptures for them¬ 
 selves, or continue always to regard the dictum of the foreign 
 teacher as an oracle ? Will they take the propagation of the 
 Gospel into their own hands, or always look to have every¬ 
 thing planned by foreign thought, and supported by foreign 
 money ? If they do not grow to this higher development, 
 then our mission may disappear like a deceitful brook, as did 
 the Nestorian; or, it may be sustained in a lingering existence 
 by foreign importations, like the Roman Catholic ; but no 
 conversion of the nation can be looked for from it. Of this, 
 however, our children and grandchildren will be in a fitter 
 
r 7 
 
 position to judge than we are. Some hopeful signs I see in 
 various quarters ; but the time for triumphing, even in antici¬ 
 pation, has not come yet. 
 
 In the above remarks success and failure have been before 
 our minds, viewed in connection with the great aim of our 
 endeavours, the conversion of the Chinese nation. But 
 missions have to do with individuals, as well as with nations. 
 Of their effect upon individuals, it is possible to speak more 
 decidedly. Here too, we do not know everything, but from 
 what we do know, I think an. impartial judge will agree with 
 your conclusion that “ the failure of spiritual results ” is 
 sufficiently evident to summon us all to a very serious 
 examination of the whole subject. We must however take 
 some pains to interpret aright, the acknowledged facts. The 
 population of China is estimated conjecturally at four hun¬ 
 dred millions. Our tiny band of Christians does not exceed 
 six thousand. Only one believer to every seventy thousand 
 souls ! What an appalling contrast! Let these innumerable 
 multitudes pass before you in single file, night and day, 
 one hundred in every minute. In one brief hour all the 
 Christians have passed by ; while for eight long years, every 
 day and every night, under the sunlight, and under the 
 solemn stars, the endless procession of the heathen still moves 
 on ; faster than the pulses of your heart, and yet so awfully 
 slow ; will it never end ? Words utterly fail, our imagina¬ 
 tions give way in the attempt to conceive of hundreds of 
 millions of souls, and they fail therefore to represent to us 
 the vastness of the disparity between the handful of believers 
 and the multitudes of the unconverted. 
 
 But what use shall we make of this overwhelming contrast ? 
 Our Lord has taught us the right, and only right use to be 
 made of such comparisons. “ The harvest truly is plenteous, 
 but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the 
 harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest.” 
 Pray for more labourers ; do not chide those few, toiling 
 under the burden and heat of the day, because they cannot 
 compass the vastness of the field. The most part of these 
 400,000,000 stand in no closer practical relation to the 
 present missionaries, than do the inhabitants of the planet 
 Jupiter. Three, out of the four hundred millions, have never 
 
1 8 
 
 been within a hundred miles of the nearest Protestant mis¬ 
 sionary, have never seen even the outside of a Bible. They 
 live on the same globe with us ; but we are no more re¬ 
 sponsible for success or failure, so far as they are concerned, 
 than we are for the conversion of the Patagonians. Then the 
 remaining one hundred million—have we any responsibility 
 in connection with these ? Assign one million to each of the 
 hundred Protestant missionaries, it would take him twenty- 
 seven years to give one day’s instruction to each, if he took 
 them a hundred at a time. Such calculations are more 
 curious than profitable. There is no room for question, of 
 success or failure, as to those whom the Gospel has never yet 
 reached. 
 
 The only method of comparison by which we can reason¬ 
 ably judge of the effects of our teaching, is to ascertain, as 
 nearly as possible, how many persons the missionary can 
 reach , how many do actually come within the range of his 
 message. A certain number of people do hear the Gospel, do 
 pay some attention to it, and get to understand its general 
 purport. Compare the conversions with the total of these 
 hearers of the word, and you will have a basis on which to 
 argue. This number cannot be accurately computed, because 
 our hearers do not “ take seats,” nor become “ regular atten¬ 
 dants ” at our chapels. They are a fitful, ever fluctuating 
 audience; but nevertheless some rough estimate of their 
 numbers may be made. In this little island of Hong Kong 
 there are three mission-chapels under my charge. If the 
 audiences were counted on each occasion, during one year, 
 and the whole figures were added together, the total would, I 
 am pretty sure, amount to over, rather than under, twenty 
 thousand. There is no means of ascertaining how many of 
 the hearers come only once, and how many repeatedly. But 
 we may safely conclude, that they amount to several thousand 
 persons. Out of these thousands, during the past three years, 
 only nine persons have embraced Christianity. The whole 
 number of our church, after twenty-five years’ labour, does not 
 amount to one hundred. Thousands hear, and units believe—is 
 not this failure ? In the case of the few who have embraced 
 the Gospel we speak of success. What word shall we employ 
 
19 
 
 t 
 
 to describe our work in its respect to the many, who have 
 heard and believed not, but failure ? 
 
 Hong Kong is probably the least hopeful mission-station 
 in China. But the general aspect of the work, is much the 
 same from Canton to Pekin. In other places there are more 
 converts, but they have been gathered by more missionaries 
 working among denser populations. During the past quar¬ 
 ter of a century, millions of Chinese must have heard the 
 preaching of Jesus. Of these millions, only six thousand are 
 now in the Christian Church. For every single convert there 
 must be hundreds, probably thousands of persons, who have 
 had the claims of Christianity pressed home very closely 
 upon them, but who have turned away in indifference. 
 Myriads of Chinese who heard the Gospel twenty years ago, 
 are heathen this day. Failure in so many instances, failure 
 on so vast a scale as this, is not a matter to be lightly passed 
 over. There can be no real gain, in comforting ourselves 
 under present discouragement, by permitting our hopes to 
 run forward, and exult in future hypothetical successes. What 
 our mission may yet achieve, nobody can foretel; but what it 
 has already effected, and what it has failed to effect, are mat¬ 
 ters we can form some tolerable judgment about. Let us 
 look the stern fact fairly in the face, like brave Christian men, 
 who can bear this, and greater trials to our faith, without being 
 shaken in mind. Let acknowledgment of failure lead us to 
 a searching examination of all the methods of our work, and 
 all the circumstances of the problem, to see if there be any 
 discoverable cause of our slow progress. He who ignores the 
 failure will not be first to find out the remedy. 
 
 III. 
 
 If failure be admitted, it is natural to inquire, first of all, 
 whether it can be attributed to any defect in the teaching 
 which the missionaries communicate. Should God’s ambas¬ 
 sadors misrepresent the message entrusted to them, they would 
 have no right to hope for success in their embassy. You have 
 discovered the source of our impotence, in erroneous doctrine 
 upon two points : the future punishment of the lost, and the 
 
 2 A 
 
20 
 
 second coming of Christ Both these allegations ought to be 
 seriously examined. 
 
 Now it must be confessed, that statements used formerly 
 to be made, as to the certain and inevitable eternal destiny of 
 the greater part of the human race, which are horrible to 
 think of. Were they to form a prominent feature in mis¬ 
 sionary sermons, the reluctance of the Chinese, to bow to such 
 a system of doctrine, would be not only explicable, but ex¬ 
 cusable. To teach that the innumerable multitudes of the 
 Chinese people, from their ancestors, who settled on the banks 
 of the Yellow River, four thousand years ago, to those who 
 are dying to-day, without excepting their sages, their virtuous 
 monarchs, their patterns of filial piety, their martyrs to 
 loyalty, their painful searchers after truth, without indeed any 
 discrimination of character, but simply on account of their 
 not having believed in Jesus Christ, are all shut up together 
 in hell, enduring inconceivable torments, and that without 
 hope of escape or cessation through all eternity, is to re¬ 
 present Christianity as the most ghastly, and horrible of all 
 imaginable religions. So far from wondering, that the Chinese 
 should reject it, our wonder is, that any one could ever have 
 been found to believe, and teach it. If this be truth, then 
 truth is more dreadful than the worst lie ever feigned. Better 
 than this, the Chinese popular notion, that men die like the 
 beasts and are no more. Better than this, the metempsychosis, 
 nirvana, and hells of Buddhism, the worst of which, like Pan¬ 
 dora’s box, has hope at the bottom. But this is not Christianity, 
 neither is it missionary theology. I do not believe, that 
 among all the missionaries in China, such a theory would 
 find one unflinching adherent. The obnoxious doctrine may, 
 it is true, be found in creeds and catechisms and tracts, which 
 have unfortunately been translated into Chinese. But there 
 are obsolete doctrines in the creeds, as there are obsolete laws 
 in the statute-book. The old form of thought, no doubt, still 
 haunts some minds, though it is not willingly expressed, be¬ 
 cause no new form has as yet been presented, with sufficient 
 clearness and force, to expel it. You admit yourself, that the 
 advanced theologians of the day, have not been able to agree 
 in any one clear definite substitution for the old theological 
 view of future judgment. It being so among the leaders of 
 
21 
 
 thought at home, some uncertainty and confusion of mind, 
 may be excused among missionaries. As you have openly 
 challenged us for a confession of our faith, and we, of the 
 London Missionary Society, have no recognized standard to 
 point to, I will take this opportunity of declaring my views 
 upon the point, incomplete and unsatisfactory though you 
 may deem them. 
 
 I believe that in every nation, he who fears God (though he 
 may call Him Tien or Shangti, and not Jehovah), and worketh 
 righteousness, is accepted of Him. I read in my New Testa¬ 
 ment that, in the great day of account, men will be judged 
 according to their works, not according to their faith ; that 
 the test to divide the righteous from the wicked will be 
 brotherly love, not a religious creed. I believe therefore, that 
 acceptance in that day, will not be limited to those who have 
 been baptized and have believed in the atonement. The 
 necessary and inherent immortality of the soul, I have long 
 regarded as a metaphysical speculation, rather than a scrip¬ 
 tural doctrine. But the nature and duration of the final punish¬ 
 ment of the wicked, still lie shrouded in awful darkness, from 
 my most earnest gaze. God is Love. We know the dark¬ 
 ness hides not a fearful spectre, but a merciful Father, from 
 our view. I would not employ my imagination to people that 
 darkness with horrid forms, and ghastly sights, and sounds 
 of terror and of torture. Rather I rejoice to rest in the 
 thought, that Infinite Wisdom and Goodness have boundless 
 resources, wherewith to bring good out of evil, to surpass our 
 hopes and disappoint our alarms. To you, this state of mind 
 will seem very unsatisfactory, for I perceive you “think,” that 
 “ the doctrine of Heaven and Hell, of Life and Death eternal, 
 are taught in the Bible, with the utmost clearness.” I cannot 
 but regret, that you did not devote a page or two, in one of 
 your letters to set forth, at least, the outlines of this doctrine. 
 Many besides myself, would gladly welcome any farther gleam 
 of light shed upon an awfully mysterious subject. Meantime 
 we can but teach what we know, and be silent, where we our¬ 
 selves are ignorant. 
 
 It must have been the heat of controversy, which carried 
 you on to accuse us, of omitting “ hell ” altogether from our 
 doctrine, and thus depriving the Gospel of that “ doctrine of 
 
22 
 
 terror, which is essential to conversion.” The lact, the cer¬ 
 tainty, the fearfulness of future retribution can be preached, 
 and are preached faithfully, by those, who are as yet unable to 
 use precise, definite language, as to the mode of that retribu¬ 
 tion. The value of this doctrine, as a moral force, consists 
 entirely in the certainty and the justice of the wrath to come. 
 The vagueness as to details, which you complain of, cannot 
 destroy; to many minds, would rather enhance its power. 
 
 One cannot be too thankful, that the glorious doctrine of 
 our Lord’s second coming, has recently been restored to its 
 rightful place, in our theology. I can remember when, in the 
 pulpits of the Independents, the individual aspects of the 
 Gospel, were allowed altogether to eclipse the canonical. The 
 duty of saving our own souls was pressed upon us, with such 
 vehement earnestness, that we were hardly permitted, to spare 
 a thought, upon the destinies of the race, the salvation of the 
 world. We owe sincere gratitude to the pre-millenarian 
 school, for their recalling us to more Christian views, to the 
 closer study of the promises of our Lord’s return. To the 
 missionary, whose special office it is, to call the heathen from 
 their dumb idols to serve the living God, and to wait for His 
 Son from heaven, this doctrine is peculiarly precious. While 
 he toils on through the long black night, casting his net into 
 the waters, but taking nothing ; raising his eyes to the Eastern 
 hills, but seeing no glimmering of dawn above them ; where 
 shall he turn for consolation and strength, but to this truth 
 which shines the morning star of hope upon his soul ? When 
 Christ, the King, shall come in His glory, all shall be well ! 
 What true Christian heart, but will echo John’s response, 
 “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” Nevertheless, we may not be 
 able to follow the reasonings of those, who profess to point 
 out the time approximately, to define at least the position of 
 the event in the world’s history, and its circumstances and 
 consequences. Here, however, I maintain, as before, that a 
 certain vagueness in our expectations, neither invalidates the 
 reality of our own faith, nor renders us unfit to use the doc¬ 
 trine, for purposes of instruction. It is the fact, that Christ 
 will come to judge the world, and establish His kingdom, 
 which is of vital importance in the Christian creed: the time 
 and manner of the event are of secondary importance. 
 
23 
 
 Any imperfection in our representation of the Gospel, must 
 to some extent, weaken the spiritual power of the Divine 
 message. It becomes therefore, a serious duty, to take a 
 comprehensive survey of the whole system of doctrines 
 preached to the heathen, and to mark the impact of these 
 doctrines on the Chinese mind, if it may perchance lead to 
 the detection of defects, which mar our work. If we are 
 trying to build with hay and stubble, no wonder we do not 
 succeed. Careful scrutiny of the facts is necessary for the 
 discovery of any errors of this kind. You appear to have 
 pitched upon the two doctrines above referred to, rather with 
 the intent of impressing your views upon the public mind at 
 home, than because you perceive their special missionary 
 bearing. Practical experience of the work causes me to 
 doubt, whether these doctrines have the fundamental relation 
 to missionary teaching, which you claim for them. All error 
 is prejudicial, but not all equally so. If these things do not 
 come into the direct line of attack and defence, they may 
 have but small share in deciding the contest. They may be 
 our weak points, but if the battle rages in quite another part 
 of the field, weakness here cannot explain our failure. Before 
 the second advent can be so much as discussed, we must 
 have settled that there was a first advent. The heathen 
 refuse to believe in the Christ who did come in humiliation ; 
 and consequently the prophecy of His coming in glory, has 
 no interest for them. If you proclaim it with the utmost 
 fervour, it only carries them back to the previous question, 
 whether your declaration of His past coming, is credible. In 
 the same way, our doctrine, that after death, the wicked will be 
 cast into hell, creates no surprise, leads to no anxious ques¬ 
 tionings ; because their faith in existence after death, is too 
 dim and unsubstantial for this. The real point at issue 
 between them and the missionary, is a preliminary one, viz., 
 whether there will be a future life at all; whether any judg¬ 
 ment to come, in any shape is to be apprehended : or, more 
 strictly speaking, whether Christians are in possession of a 
 Divine revelation upon these points. If they learned that 
 the Christian teaching condemned all their ancestors, irre¬ 
 spective of character, to the endurance of eternal torments, 
 their instinct and natural affection might well rebel against, 
 
24 
 
 such doctrine. But then neither do the missionaries gene¬ 
 rally hold such a view as this, nor do the heathen push their 
 inquiries to this point. They have not a sufficiently vivid 
 conviction, that their ancestors are in being at all, to care to 
 enter into curious speculation as to their present situation. 
 This is the more remarkable, because the most frequent and 
 deeply felt of all objections to the Gospel, arises from its 
 bearing on their deceased ancestors. There has never come 
 a single case within my missionary experience, nor have I 
 heard of one from others, in which a Chinese was repelled 
 from Christianity, by its doctrine of future punishment. But 
 they daily object, that our doctrine cuts at the root of filial 
 piety, by forbidding them to sacrifice to the departed. That 
 same filial piety, which guards so jealously these vain super¬ 
 stitions, would certainly lead to opposition to the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of hell, if they had any real faith in the continued 
 life of the objects they worship. 
 
 The current notions of popular theology must be studied, 
 not only in themselves, but in their relation to our work, in 
 order that we may discover errors, which actually impede our 
 progress. Considering the prominent position the circulation 
 of the Scriptures occupies in our Protestant mission, it might 
 have occurred to you, to examine how the still common 
 notion of verbal inspiration, would affect a Chinaman’s mind in 
 the perusal of the sacred book. But the very central doc¬ 
 trine of Christianity, and that which occupies the main posi¬ 
 tion in our teaching, is the doctrine of the Atonement; and I 
 wonder you did not undertake a consideration of the influence 
 of the popular forensic view of this vital tenet upon our 
 mission work. You might well have inquired whether a theory 
 of the Atonement, which seems unable to hold its ground in 
 England, is the best weapon to wield abroad. These things I 
 commend to your consideration. But I will venture here to 
 point out one doctrine of old Calvinistic theology, which 
 appears to me a great obstacle to the reception of the Gospel 
 by the Chinese. I refer to the dogma of Original Sin, as 
 stated, for instance, in the work of President Edwards upon 
 that subject. Now if there is one truth which the Chinese 
 really believe, it is that “ human nature is good.” More than 
 2,000 years ago Seun Tsze argued with great vigour for the 
 
25 
 
 opposite opinion. The intermediate view, that human nature 
 is originally neither bad nor good, but indifferent to, and capa¬ 
 ble of either, has also been eagerly contended for. But the 
 goodness of human nature finally triumphed. The intellect 
 and conscience of the wisest and best of the nation pronounced 
 the verdict, and I am persuaded that no system which attempts 
 to uproot their deepest conviction can succeed in China. 
 
 Human nature, says the Chinese, is originally good. No, 
 replies the Calvinist, it is innately and wholly bad. In the 
 words of Whitfield, unregenerate man is “half beast, half 
 devil.” I hold with the Chinese, as against Edwards and 
 Whitfield. But whatever be the case with Calvinism, there 
 is no real antagonism between Chinese and Christian doctrine 
 here. The human nature of the Chinese philosophers is ideal 
 human nature : i.e. human nature in its original divine inten¬ 
 tion. They mean that if a man accords with the true law of 
 his being he will be good. In other words, that unrighteous¬ 
 ness, malevolence, vice, and crime are unnatural. The benevo¬ 
 lent sages and upright monarchs of antiquity, these are the 
 true ideal men. As for the Chinese Neros and Caligulas, they 
 illustrate the distortion of humanity, not its ideal. In them 
 human nature is well nigh extinct, and they ought almost to 
 be classed among the wild beasts. Who does not see that this 
 doctrine of man’s original goodness is not only true, but 
 inestimably precious, the very foundation of all morality ? 
 Does not the Bible, too, teach that man was made in the image 
 of God ? In this respect Christianity and Chinese philosophy 
 are at one. Farther on they clash. The Confucianist ima¬ 
 gines, an inherent power of moral reformation in man, and 
 ascribes an actual attainment of perfection to the sages (which 
 however the sages never claimed for themselves). Here Chris¬ 
 tian doctrine necessarily diverges ; but until we reach this 
 point, there is no necessary collision. The unreflecting trans¬ 
 lation into Chinese of western theological phrases, which can¬ 
 not fail to be misunderstood here, is greatly to be regretted. 
 Such technical terms as ‘ original sin,’ ‘ federal head-ship,’ 
 ‘ imputation of Adam’s guilt,’ have but slight scriptural au¬ 
 thority to rest upon. Their usefulness in our own theology is 
 questionable: to translate them literally into Chinese, is to 
 provoke misunderstanding and dislike. 
 
26 
 
 It will be patent to you now that I am no apologist for 
 erroneous doctrine. I may therefore meet with some atten¬ 
 tion when I say that I do not regard error in doctrine as the 
 main cause of our small success. We cannot claim immunity 
 from error, but the whole circumstances of our work are such, 
 as to demand and encourage great simplicity of teaching. 
 At home the most rigid Calvinist, the rankest Arminian, at 
 times lose sight of their distinctive tenets, and preach a 
 gospel so simple and pure, that each could almost adopt the 
 very words of the other. It is opposition which provokes the 
 hardest, most offensive expressions of doctrine on all sides. 
 Now here, in the missionary field, our teachings are for the 
 most part elementary, and we have neither time nor inclina¬ 
 tion to quit the common battle, and turn our arms against 
 each other. The being and fatherhood of God, the sin of 
 idolatry, the sinfulness of sin, the gift of a Saviour, the facts 
 of our Lord’s life, His dying for our sins, His ascension, 
 mediation, and return to judgment ; repentance, faith, the 
 promise of the Spirit, the nature of Christian worship and Chris¬ 
 tian life, these are the doctrines which you will hear insisted 
 on most frequently in missionary sermons : and that without 
 much use of technical theological expressions. It is these vital 
 truths of Christianity, taken altogether as a system, that our 
 hearers^ reject or neglect. If there were one doctrine of 
 Christianity so especially obnoxious to the Chinese mind, that 
 they very commonly stumbled at it, and rejected the Gospel 
 on this account, such doctrine could hardly remain undis¬ 
 covered by a hundred missionaries, coming constantly into 
 contact with so many thousands of heathen. Our experience 
 however is, speaking generally, not that they dislike this or 
 that in Christianity, but that the Gospel, as a whole, possesses 
 no commanding power over their faith. We must therefore 
 search for the causes of our failure otherwhere than in our 
 system of doctrine. 
 
 Some may perhaps be inclined to ascribe the poverty of 
 our achievements, to the unheroic character of the modern 
 missionary. Far be it from me to provoke the proverb, “It’s 
 an ill bird that fouls its own nest,” upon my head. We are 
 more than sufficiently reviled already, by malignant spirits, 
 who take delight in heaping cruel slanders upon us, which 
 
2 ;'/ 
 
 however are happily for the most part so evidently exag¬ 
 gerated, that they carry their own refutation with them. If 
 illustrious scholars, acute philosophers, splendid geniuses, are 
 rare in our ranks, I am bold to say that we are a respectable, 
 faithful, and laborious body of working clergy. We are not 
 the elite, the mental aristocracy of the ministry, neither are 
 we the dregs. Silly extravagances of eulogium have been 
 pronounced upon us at missionary meetings, and before 
 Sunday schools, as though we were worthy to be ranked with 
 apostles and martyrs of old ; but this unmerited eulogy is 
 not farther from the truth on the one side, than are the 
 unkind caricatures, drawn by two of our most popular novelists 
 on the other. Spite of the dictum of a noble duke, mis¬ 
 sionaries are neither knaves nor enthusiasts. I could wish 
 indeed we were a little more open to the latter charge ; but 
 a more sober-minded, and hard-working class of men it would 
 be difficult to find. Yet when full justice has been done to 
 missionaries, one must admit, that there is yet something 
 to be desired. Extraordinary enterprises demand extraor¬ 
 dinary men ; while the rank and file of the clergy (dare I 
 utter it) are apt to be just a little narrow-minded, and slow to 
 recognize the differing requirements of new circumstances. 
 But if the churches joyfully consecrated their choicest spirits 
 to the most arduous undertaking, and could be content with 
 the meaner men for their own edification, even then the 
 necessities of the case might call for something higher still. 
 The past great epochs in the history of the human race have 
 always been associated with the names of great men, who 
 embodied the spirit of the new age into which they led their 
 emancipated followers. Paul leads the van of missionary work. 
 Patrick in Ireland, Columba in Scotland, Boniface in 
 Germany, Ulfilas among the Goths ; these are men who 
 have left deep footprints on the sands of time. The Refor¬ 
 mation required Luther; the revival in England, Wesley. 
 The gospel sword has not lost its edge, but perhaps the 
 hand that wields it lacks vigour. Our Protestant mission in 
 China waits for the appearance of its hero. 
 
 It is, however, our humility which suggests that the want 
 of success may be partly owing to missionary inferiority. 
 The cause I am now about to bring forward is no hypothesis 
 
28 
 
 but a real and unquestionable hindrance to our progress, which 
 most of those who have practical acquaintance with the facts 
 will set down as the hindrance, by its magnitude casting all 
 others into the shade, and sufficient alone, to account for a 
 more complete failure than ours has been. I mean, of course, 
 the influence of our national policy, and the evil example of 
 so-called Christians. Modern missions have a national aspect. 
 The Chinese hear that England is a Christian nation, and 
 they look for the embodiment of Christianity in the acts of the 
 State. To their minds religion and politics are not two mutu¬ 
 ally independent and irresponsible fields of action. The Anti- 
 State-Church theory has not yet dawned upon their horizon. 
 In their view the first purpose of religion is to secure a wise, 
 upright, and benevolent government. Confucianism begins 
 with the State, and only through its influence hopes for the 
 reformation of the people. In its scheme the sovereign is 
 heaven’s vicegerent; and then only is the true ideal attained, 
 wnen the sovereign is also the sage. Imbued with these 
 ideas they naturally criticize a foreign religion through its 
 influence upon the foreign government. Is your religion better 
 than ours, then your national policy must be better? Unfor¬ 
 tunately their conclusion, from this line of argument, is alto¬ 
 gether unfavourable to Christianity. The gospel of free-trade, 
 of free-trade even in opium, the doctrine that might makes 
 right, have been preached to China eloquently enough by 
 British guns. But any higher morality, any more excellent 
 religion, they have failed to see in our national dealings with 
 them. The history is open for any one to read it. I know that 
 many excellent persons defend our government throughout; 
 they look upon the unhappy collisions with China as the 
 inevitable consequence of the contact of a higher with a 
 lower civilization. They deplore the misfortune, but deny 
 our culpability. They urge, with reason and truth, that the 
 Chinese began this national intercourse with feelings of insolent 
 contempt for the outer barbarian ; and that absurd pride, 
 obstinate bigotry, and frequent perfidy, have characterised 
 their side of it all along. It is not, however, my business now 
 to hold the balances between the two nations. I have only 
 to do with the unpleasant but incontrovertible fact, that the 
 issue of a century of intercourse, so far from recommending 
 
29 
 
 Christianity to the Chinese, has been to accumulate a feeling 
 of intense, deep-rooted prejudice against it. Similarly, I 
 decline here to enter into an examination of the reasonable¬ 
 ness of the Chinese dislike to foreigners in their private 
 capacities. Race antipathies are for the most part founded 
 on mutual misconception. I am confident that, take us all 
 in all, we are not so bad as the Chinese think us. A heathen 
 people is ready enough to reverse the rule of Christian charity, 
 and think all the evil of others it can. Nevertheless they do 
 think very badly of us, and no candid mind can deny that 
 they have considerable excuse for thinking so. The vices of 
 the foreigner are patent to every Chinese, while our virtues 
 for the most part abide in the shade and escape his observa¬ 
 tion. Our immoralities, love of money, luxuriousness, arro¬ 
 gant contempt for the inferior races we come into contact with ; 
 these the Chinese are familiar with: and the evil that is, in 
 reality, only the guilt of some is too easily, by unfriendly 
 minds, suspected to exist in all. Thus their opinion of 
 foreigners, partly unjust though it is, created an almost 
 impassable barrier in the way of their reception of our 
 religion. It is proverbial among missionaries, that the 
 nearer one is to the great emporiums of foreign trade, the 
 harder is the work of spreading the Gospel. Hong Kong, 
 a British colony, is by many degrees a less favourable soil 
 for the Gospel than Canton, where the foreigners are very 
 few, and Canton city has been far less fruitful than districts 
 like Pokloh, where no white-face is ever seen but that of the 
 missionary. When these things have been duly weighed, the 
 Chinese rejection of Christianity will, to many persons, seem 
 fully accounted for. 
 
 Not all however will think thus. There are those, whose 
 faith in the Gospel is so strong that they expect to see it 
 triumph, in spite of the imperfections of its real and nominal 
 friends, and the hostility of avowed foes. If this triumph is 
 not achieved, farther examination of the whole case seems 
 called for. I will therefore venture to state a difficulty, which 
 appears to me both real and formidable. I do so diffidently 
 and reluctantly, because, so far as I am aware, the very ex¬ 
 istence of this difficulty has never been publicly recognized, 
 and because its statement opens the way for questions of the 
 
30 
 
 gravest and most momentous nature. But truth is not served 
 
 o 
 
 by concealment of difficulties. 
 
 Imagine now that there were a Chinese living in London, 
 who had been resident there long enough to become familiar 
 with our language, literature, and national life; and that to 
 you was allotted the task of trying to make him a Christian. 
 At the outset of your undertaking, you would find that he 
 had of his own accord abandoned the idolatry and supersti¬ 
 tions of his native land. He would also readily acknowledge 
 the excellence of the Christian religion. On being pressed 
 for a reason why he did not embrace Christianity, he might 
 tell you, that he considered all religions to be good, but that 
 he could not see that absolute truth, Divine authority, impera¬ 
 tive claim on our adherence, are possessed by, or at least 
 proved, on behalf of any. There are many persons in Europe 
 who hold that opinion, and it would not be an unnatural re¬ 
 fuge for the Chinaman in the supposed circumstances. Mere 
 contact with a higher civilization has sufficed to dissipate his 
 old superstitious notions ; but mere contact with Christianity 
 has not sufficed to beget a living faith in its divinity. The 
 onus probcindi would therefore fall on you. The great ques¬ 
 tion would arise, how shall l convince this man of the Divine 
 authority of the Christian faith ? You could not expect him 
 to receive so solemn a truth, ’fraught with such awful conse¬ 
 quences, on your mere assertion. You would feel bound to 
 lay evidence before him ; evidence sufficient to justify, nay, 
 to demand his faith. The evidences of Christianity may be 
 variously treated ; but I think whatever arguments you might 
 adduce could be referred to one of three heads : the historical 
 evidences, the internal evidences, and the effects of Chris¬ 
 tianity. You might commence by inviting him to a study of 
 Christian doctrine ; its perfect morality, its sublime theology, 
 its adaptation to human wants, its remedy for the past and 
 its hope for the future. You would entreat him to study Chris¬ 
 tianity in Christ, Himself the embodiment of His teaching. 
 Then you might appeal to the blessed effects of Christianity, 
 both in the cases of individuals, and also in its influence for 
 good upon society in general. And also you would lay stress 
 on that chain of historical evidences, which brings us into 
 relation with the eye-witnesses of those great transactions, 
 
31 
 
 which are the foundation of the Christian faith. You could 
 not dispense with this last. Christianity is founded upon the 
 supernatural. If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain. The 
 author of Ecce Homo postulates miracles. Without them, 
 how shall we listen to Ecce Deus? If the facts of the Gospel 
 be not facts, then the whole Christian system remains an 
 inexplicable phenomenon ; grand, beautiful, beneficent ; but 
 a mystery as to its origin and real nature, and destitute of 
 power to command allegiance. The historical argument 
 therefore is of essential importance. If you succeed in con¬ 
 vincing him here you may not even then succeed in making 
 him a Christian : but if you fail here, you ought not to make 
 him one. 
 
 Let us now shift the scene from London to China. It is no 
 longer trying to convert one isolated oriental with the whole 
 authority of Christendom to back you. Here you may see 
 one solitary Christian missionary labouring in the midst of an 
 almost boundless horizon of unbroken heathenism. The 
 enterprise seems hopeless, but it is not really so. That one 
 unsupported voice, speaking in the might of truth, will awaken 
 echoes even among the dead. Spite of the vis inertia of the 
 immense mass of heathenism opposed to him, his attacks upon 
 it soon make some impression. He batters the fortress of 
 idolatry, until it begins to crumble and fall beneath repeated 
 shocks. So far his work is encouraging. A good many per¬ 
 sons are brought to the state of mind your London friend 
 is supposed to have reached spontaneously. They cease to 
 defend idolatry, and if they do not abandon the cherished 
 customs of their forefathers, they practise them only in defer¬ 
 ence to the opinion of the multitude. So far they are brought, 
 but no farther. We demolish the walls of the fortress, but 
 we are not strong enough to take it by assault. Their old 
 beliefs are shattered, but they dwell unconquered among the 
 ruins. Pass now in review the arguments you were supposed 
 to bring to bear upon the Chinese in London, and consider 
 how far they are available for our purposes here. You 
 would expect the moral excellence of Christianity alone to 
 demonstrate its divinity. But it does not: and why ? We 
 can only quote St. Paul : “ The natural man receiveth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God.” Truth shines by its own 
 
32 
 
 light, but it requires a purged eye to receive its rays. Such 
 exposition as the missionaries have been able to give of the 
 moral beauty, grandeur, and benefits of Christian truth, have 
 not availed to induce the vast majority of our hearers to em¬ 
 brace Christianity. A superficial attention to our teachings 
 gains for the doctrine a degree of respect and admiration ; 
 but this does not imply the acknowledgment of its unique 
 excellence. It may be that, in a system of truth like the 
 Christian religion, the mind requires to be satisfied about the 
 facts, befofe it is in a fitting state to give to the doctrines the 
 calm, undisturbed attention, which will reveal their intrinsic 
 excellence. 
 
 If we find then that the argument from the internal excel¬ 
 lence of our faith does not bring our hearers to a decision, to 
 what shall we turn ? Shall we say, “ a tree is known by its 
 fruits ; ” see now the blessed and glorious effects of this reli¬ 
 gion in Christian nations ? Alas ! the Chinese perpetually 
 turn this argument against us. Instead of our being able to 
 command their belief in Christianity on this ground, they con¬ 
 tinually taunt us with the proverb, “ Physician ! heal thyself.” 
 
 We are then driven back upon the historical evidences. 
 We proclaim the Gospel, as Peter did in Jerusalem, appealing 
 to the evidence of our Lord’s resurrection. But we do this 
 at a distance of eighteen hundred years, with nothing to 
 bridge over the vast gulf which separates the Chinese of 
 the nineteenth century from the crowds who gathered at the 
 feast of Pentecost. Can you realize the position ? A stranger 
 from the unknown west addresses a Chinese crowd, asserting 
 that certain facts, intimately related to their everlasting wel¬ 
 fare, occurred in Judea eighteen centuries ago. Is it within 
 reason to expect that the Chinese audience should at once 
 accept his bare assertion ? It is clear that the Chinese, if 
 they are beings constituted with minds like our own, must 
 desiderate evidence which we are not in a position to give 
 them. We are engaged in the effort to propagate Christianity 
 outside its historical basis , and apart from its historical 
 evidences . 
 
 I have stated this difficulty nakedly. Some modification 
 must be made in order to arrive at a true and exact concep¬ 
 tion of the case. The solitary missionary must be multi- 
 
33 
 
 plied into a half-dozen, or a score. The Chinese, too, know 
 that Christianity is our national religion; and thus the testimony 
 of the individuals is confirmed by the tradition of the nation. 
 They also begin to apprehend that the foreigners are divided 
 into distinct nations, holding one common faith. The relics 
 of Nestorianism and the presence of Roman Catholicism also 
 afford us independent witness. But all these things are very 
 dimly apprehended, if not altogether unknown, to the great 
 mass of the people. They know nothing of history, nothing 
 of geography, nothing of foreign nations or churches. You 
 may form a conception of our position by imagining the case 
 reversed. Suppose that Christianity had been first promul¬ 
 gated in extreme eastern Asia, Jesus had been born in 
 Shantung ; and that a company of ten or twelve Chinese or 
 Japanese were now in London, proclaiming him as the Son 
 of God and only Saviour of men. You, being by supposition 
 a heathen, a worshipper of the gods, or a philosopher of the 
 schools, happen to encounter one of these strange preachers, 
 announcing his marvellous story to a crowd in Hyde Park. 
 If you were patient enough to listen to the end, and candid 
 enough to give a little serious thought to the matter, would you 
 not feel that such extraordinary occurrences, involving such 
 tremendous consequences, were being presented to you on 
 very slight evidence ? Who knows this Chinaman ? you would 
 say, and granting that he is an honest well-meaning person, 
 who can say that the traditions of his country may not have 
 misled him as to facts which he says happened during the 
 time of the early Roman Emperors, indeed very little time 
 after Julius Caesar invaded Britain? If you were to examine 
 his doctrine carefully, comparing it with the established 
 idolatries, and the current philosophies, you might see reason 
 to embrace it, but the question is, would you, under the cir¬ 
 cumstances, feel called upon to give it such an examination ? 
 
 When we are searching for causes of missionary failure, 
 this feature of the missionary problem should at least not be 
 left altogether out of sight. It appears to me, that our weak¬ 
 ness does not lie in the region of theology, but in that of 
 evidences. 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 IV. 
 
 My object in this letter is not to solve, but to state the mis¬ 
 sionary problem. A correct statement of a difficulty is the 
 first step towards a solution. Some practical acquaintance 
 with the work emboldens me to essay this first step. May 
 others go far beyond the reach of my feeble powers, and by 
 an inspiration from above, guide us to the right conclusion ! 
 
 The only remedies which I have seen proposed, are your 
 own; viz., an improved missionary theology, which I have 
 already commented on ; and another, which assumes that we 
 only lack one thing, “ the outpouring of the Spirit.” Pious 
 minds hope that the Spirit of God will be poured out upon 
 the heathen, and by an immediate supernatural agency ren¬ 
 der missionary preaching effectual. Undoubtedly if such be 
 the Lord’s will it shall be so. In His awful presence it be¬ 
 comes us to speak with bated breath. But in indulging such 
 hopes we can have no warrant save that given by the Holy 
 Book. I may therefore dare to say that I read nothing of 
 such an outpouring upon the heathen in the New Testament. 
 I read there, that the gift of the Spirit is the promise given to 
 faith. The Spirit was poured out first on the apostles and 
 believers at Jerusalem, and the manifestation of His presence 
 among them was the power which led three thousand to 
 believe, to whom St. Peter held out the hope of receiving the 
 Spirit as the result of their faith. All the New Testament 
 teaching on the subject seems to be in accordance with this 
 first effusion of the new and distinguishing gift of the Chris¬ 
 tian dispensation. We may well long and pray for an out¬ 
 pouring of the Spirit; but it should be that He may descend 
 upon ourselves and the churches. When the heathen witness 
 the signs of His presence among us, there is good reason to 
 hope they wiil be awed to solemn anxiety by the sight, and 
 led to crave the same sacred boon for themselves. 
 
 A contemporary writer says, “ to ask men to believe is to 
 call on them for the very greatest act of which they are 
 capable, and the most tremendous for which they will have 
 to give account.” If this be true, then he who summons 
 another to believe, should be prepared *to give him strong and 
 sound reasons for it This brings up two most important 
 
35 
 
 and at the same time, perplexing questions. The first is an 
 ethical question : On what evidence ought a man to believe ? 
 The second is a practical one : On what evidence will he be¬ 
 lieve ? The two should of course coincide in one reply, but 
 practically I fear the answers are not always identical. It is 
 the latter question which immediately presses on our atten¬ 
 tion. How may we best win the Chinese to faith in the 
 Gospel ? 
 
 Were the Apostles and primitive Christians now labouring 
 in the cities of China, as formerly they did in the old Roman 
 empire, I cannot doubt that they would achieve similar suc¬ 
 cesses. There is no assignable reason why the Gospel, 
 preached with apostolic fervour, attested by eye-witnesses of 
 its facts, and confirmed by mighty signs and wonders follow¬ 
 ing, should not repeat in this land its early triumphs. 
 Modern missionaries are neither apostles, eye-witnesses, nor 
 workers of miracles. Here the question naturally suggests 
 itself, Why have we no miracles now ? The usual answer is, 
 that miracles are needed to establish a religion: once 
 established they are no longer necessary. They are but the 
 scaffolding, to be taken down when the temple is erected. 
 It may be so ; but this is a plea for, not against, the repetition 
 of miracles in China. We have here to introduce and establish 
 Christianity in an entirely new region, to which the ancient 
 miracles, and the whole history of Christendom, are as though 
 they had not been; according to the legal maxim, de non 
 existentibus et non apparentibus eadem est ratio. Lately 
 it has become the fashion to speak of miracles as though 
 they never were an important factor in Christianity. The 
 internal evidences are regarded as alone truly valuable. And 
 the argument from miracles is slighted as almost superfluous. 
 Yet Christ said, “ If I had not done among them the works that 
 none other man did, they had not had sin.” If the super¬ 
 natural is of small account as evidence, what shall we say of 
 the supernatural element interwoven with the very texture 
 of the gospel history, and forming the basis of its doctrines? 
 Reject the miraculous ; then Christianity, as represented in 
 the Apostles’ Creed, is a delusion; and Biland’s shot was almost 
 justifiable. The Christianity we preach cannot dispense with 
 its original Divine attestations, as recorded in the Scriptures ; 
 
36 
 
 and therefore if it should seem good to the Divine Wisdom 
 to renew such manifestations in these latter days, there 
 would be no incongruity between them and our doctrine. 
 Merely to suggest such a possibility may shock some good 
 people. Their minds are so completely cowed by the 
 scientific scepticism of the age, that they disbelieve the 
 possibility of any supernatural signs, in these days of steam 
 and electricity, almost as fervently as they believe in their 
 actual occurrence in Judea long ago. The iron hand of modern 
 science has now got a firm grip of the whole material uni¬ 
 verse, so that Almighty God cannot find anywhere a single 
 atom of loose matter which He can move of His own free 
 will. Some faint shadow of liberty is still allowed Him in 
 the sphere of spiritual phenomena, but science is ominously 
 stretching her long cold arm in that direction also. There 
 is one thing to admire in these tendencies of scepticism, and 
 that is their consistent development. First, there can be no 
 miracles ; then there can be no living personal Deity; and 
 now we can hear the threatenings of the coming decree, that 
 man must no longer consider himself as a spiritual being, 
 but take his place in the first rank of the brutes. Let us be 
 as consistent in our faith, and place no bounds to our 
 Omnipotent Father, save those which His own Omniscience 
 assumes. While however we firmly believe in God’s power 
 to attest His word to-day by like signs and wonders to those 
 wrought of old ; it does not follow that we should confidently 
 expect, still less presumptuously demand them. Our puny 
 minds cannot judge when is the fitting occasion for the 
 Lord of the universe to depart from the ordinary methods 
 of His providence. But if the thought begets a wish, and 
 the wish breathes itself heavenward in a prayer, always in 
 submission to His superior wisdom, who shall blame the 
 petitioner ? 
 
 I can conceive of the Gospel triumphing gloriously in China 
 without any miracle, if it were at all worthily commended by 
 the lives of its professed followers. Let Christianity be ex¬ 
 emplified to the eyes of the Chinese by the nations and the 
 individuals that bear its name, and farther evidence could 
 hardly be necessary. If not only strict justice, but a mag¬ 
 nanimous forbearance and Christian mercy to the weak, were 
 
37 
 
 the prevailing characteristics of our governments; if the 
 opium-trade were abandoned ; if our merchants and other 
 residents in the east were conspicuous, not only for their 
 courage and truthfulness, but for their gentle and meek spirit, 
 their brotherly feeling toward their dependents, their earnest 
 desire to win them to Christ, their evident preference for the 
 treasure in heaven, over any earthly gain ; if our soldiers and 
 sailors were remarkable for their freedom from drunkenness 
 and hatred of uncleanness; if these things were, the conver¬ 
 sion of China could not be far off. I fear the mere mention 
 of such a moral miracle as this, will make a greater strain on 
 the faith of the reader, than the possible revival of physical 
 miracles has made. But with God all things are possible. It 
 is well for us to bear continually in mind that every improve¬ 
 ment in this respect is another link in the evidence required, 
 to win the Chinese to faith in the Gospel. 
 
 It may seem a tame conclusion, but I believe it is the true 
 one, that until farther discoveries are made, the immediate duty 
 of the Christian church is to go on doing what she is doing 
 now, only with greater vigour, self-denial, and earnestness. 
 I am no fanatical believer in missionary societies, but I think 
 they are doing a good work. I should be glad if some 
 talented reformer would show us all a better way, but until 
 he has arisen, our wisest course is to persevere in the present 
 path, only pressing forward with more zeal and walking more 
 warily. It is highly desirable that the standard of missionary 
 character should be raised ; but there is no good reason for 
 despising the services of ordinary men, while waiting for 
 the appearance of the extraordinary. One hero might be 
 worth a hundred of us meaner souls. But heroes are born, 
 not made. You may lawfully demand of us that we shall be 
 good : I know not by what reason you can expect us to be 
 also great. A missionary can no more reasonably be required 
 to rival St. Paul, than Demosthenes or Milton. It is really 
 asking too much of directors of missionary societies, that they 
 should provide you apostles in return for guinea subscriptions. 
 We must look higher than to Blomfield Street for a St. Paul 
 for China. Meanwhile it may be well to do more of what we 
 can do. You speak sceptically of “the idea that a few hun¬ 
 dreds of additional missionaries will hasten the conversion of 
 
38 
 
 Asia to the belief of the Gospel.” I have already protested 
 aeainst the idea that the conversion of Asia is the work for 
 which the Christian church is immediately responsible. Our 
 accountability ends when we have given to Asia the oppor¬ 
 tunity of being converted. Our duty being to preach the 
 Gospel to every creature, a few hundreds of additional mis¬ 
 sionaries would hasten the performance of our allotted task 
 very materially. Moreover, though nothing multiplied a hun¬ 
 dredfold is nothing still, the most humble and cautious 
 estimate of the results of our work cannot quite reduce it to 
 zero. Something has been achieved, and increased numbers 
 may multiply that to something more. It does not follow 
 that if one missionary wins no converts, a thousand will win 
 none. The thousand would witness to a good degree of faith 
 and zeal in the churches sending them, while the one only 
 made their lack of interest in the work more conspicuous. 
 And numbers of themselves carry weight. I have already 
 pointed out the prime importance of the national aspect of 
 our work. Large bodies of missionaries would at least serve 
 to convince the Chinese that the so-called Christian nations 
 believed in their religion very heartily themselves. If to 
 every countryman of ours coming to China to make money 
 there .were another coming to spend it, and himself too, for 
 their conversion, the Chinese would see that at least English¬ 
 men cared as much for the Gospel as they do for dollars ; 
 and I question whether a miracle would astonish and impress 
 them more. At present the poverty and insignificance of 
 the scale on which missions are carped on in China, compared 
 with the wealth, power, and energy of the British nation, can 
 only lead intelligent Chinese to think that the Gospel has very 
 few adherents in England, or that they feel their obligations 
 very lightly. 
 
 In conclusion : I send forth this letter painfully aware ot 
 its incompleteness. Somebody has said of Archbishop 
 Whately that he was quite content if he could send down his 
 plummet a few fathoms deeper than anybody else, and seemed 
 not to care whether he really got to the bottom of a sub¬ 
 ject or not. I have sent my plummet down to the full length 
 of my line. I know it has not reached the bottom, and I 
 am intensely affected by the suspense. I appeal to you and 
 
39 
 
 to all, to cast put your leads once more and reach soundings 
 for us ; if we be not indeed sounding the unfathomable. At 
 least, I have done what I could. May the effort be accepted 
 of Him in whose sight all things are clear, to whom belong 
 both the secret and the revealed ! 
 
 I am, my dear sir, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 F. S. Turner.