IN presenting the accompanying documents to the Church, I am not unmindful of the grave responsibility assumed, or the very serious results the publication may have upon the China Mission. I have carefully considered the subject from every point of view, asking myself: What ought I to do in the premises; remain silent, or inform the Church of what has actually been taking place in reference to the Mission within the past two years? I have decided upon the latter course, believing that the Church does want, and has a right to know something of the Mission outside of the rosy (and oftentimes childish) reports and letters, as printed from time to time in The Spirit of Missions. The task is a hard one and not to be coveted, but I think common honesty demands it.

There is one letter in connection with the China Mission, I refrain from publishing. The contents of which, were it known, would make every Father, Mother and Brother in the Church blush with indignation. This letter is referred to in letter to the Southern Churchman, dated July 22, 1884 (No. 22, page 50), Mr. Thomson before he left home was commissioned to make an investigation on his arrival in Shanghai, of certain charges brought against a member of the Mission. It was presumed at the time (from correspondence received from Mr. Kimber) that Mr. [i/ii] Thomson, had accepted the responsibility. Upon his arrival, the subject was brought to his attention; he refused to investigate, and said he would leave the Mission rather than do so. He, however, took copies of the charges and with a reply thereto from the accused, forwarded them to the Secretary of the Foreign Committee, under a sealed cover, with instructions not to break the seal until requested to do so by the party interested. Thus matters rested until the injured party had arrived home; when an investigation was demanded. The seal was then broken and the contents of Mr. Thomson's mysterious letter became known. It contained grave charges against a member of the Mission, and the accused denial of the same, no investigation had ever been made or the facts of the case even enquired into, all of the parties interested were in Shanghai at the time, and had Mr. Thomson done his duty, after accepting the responsibility, he would have had the matter settled without necessitating others taking it up and dragging an already clouded Mission before the public, in order to obtain at least some redress. The Secretary, in response to the demand for an investigation, replied:--"That the Board had resolved: "That--had a perfect right to an investigation, and they have investigated it and found that the parties disclaim having made such statements * * * * *', * "Such a verdict eclipses even Chinese justice. How did the Board investigate? Who did they call upon to give evidence? The above is. quite on a par with the usual methods of the Board in disposing of important matters connected with the China Mission.

I have been told that Mr. Appleton's letters to the Foreign Committee would have little or no weight, because of his withdrawal from the Church. The letters were written months before he even thought of leaving the Mission, allowing ample time, had the Committee saw fit to do so, to enquire into the subject of their contents. It is a very feeble excuse to discredit his letters on the plea of his [ii/iii] withdrawal from the Church. The same criticism might, with equal justice, be passed upon Mr. Sowerby by the Baptists, whose communion he left to unite with the Protestant Episcopal Church, in either case I think the men were right in changing, if it was for conscious sake. I would not have touched upon this subject had it not been brought before me by prominent and influential men in the Church. No one regretted more than myself Mr. Appleton's change of views.

It is now over six months since Mr. Thomson requested through the columns of the North-China Daily News (Letter No, 30) that judgement as to Mr. Boone's fitness for office be held in abeyance until an investigation could be held. I never for a moment believed that there ever would be one. In my conversation with Bishops Williams, Moule, and Scott on the Saturday preceding the consecration, I told them I wished an investigation before the consecration; this was objected to by one of the Bishops on account of the want of time. In reply, I said that four hours was all the time I wanted, and that I was prepared to prove upon oath all of the statements I had made, or if they would guarantee to me, that a thorough and impartial investigation would be held, I would take no further steps in the matter pending such investigation. This last proposition the Bishops could not accept, as they could not guarantee anything. Mr. Boone was well aware of the strenuous efforts I was making to have an investigation before the consecration, and had he been sincere in his wishes of having one, there would not have been any delay; an investigation was not wanted, an investigation meant sure death to the consecration. Why was a "want of time" brought up as a reason for not having one? This plan fell through. Then my being an Episcopalian was questioned, that also fell to the ground. I was asked if I would be willing to meet Mr. Boone face to face. I signified my willingness to meet Mr. Boone at any time. That ruse failed also. Now why were so many [iii/iv] attempts made to corner me? Simply to find a loophole to get out of a very awkward and not honourable position.'

The most powerful influences were brought to bear upon me to keep me quiet. The most effective of which, was the option of losing a lucrative and responsible position or abstain from further interference with Mr. Boone. I resigned my position one month later, but postponed printing my pamphlet some months, hoping that Mr. Thomson's (letter No. 30) meant something. A short time since, I heard there would not be an investigation. So my predictions to the Bishops have been verified.

Any attempt now to investigate would be simply a waste of time. The parties interested are scattered, and the whole affair would doubtless end about as satisfactorily as the case already mentioned.

I might mention that Bishop Williams did not call or communicate with me after his arrival in Shanghai, until after the consecration had taken place, although he had been in the neighbourhood of my office several times on business in relation to the very letters he had received from me. It was only by chance I met him at the house of the Ven. Archdeacon Moule, the Saturday preceding the consecration. I thought my communication was of sufficient importance to have secured some attention, or at least an acknowledgement of its receipt, especially so, when such vigorous efforts were made to secure possession of, or, failing in this, to suppress the publication of the documents.

The home authorities, I understand, have been made acquainted with the whole affair through Bishop Williams, together with a joint expression of regret from Bishops Moule and Scott that an investigation had not been made. This latter, I believe, was put in writing and addressed to Bishop Williams, to be forwarded home with the other documents. In face of Bishop Williams' representations, and the joint regret of the Assisting Bishops, the home authorities still refuse to move in the matter.

[v] I have to ask my readers after carefully perusing the contents of this pamphlet, to read with equal care, the service for the consecration of Bishops, and decide with an unbiased mind, whether I am justified in taking the position I have. Not only is the Mission most miserably managed, the Church suffered in prestige; but, a Church in close communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church has been insulted, by procuring the assistance of some of its Bishops to take part in a service that I am sure one at least deplored. Mr. Boone was the only man who could at the time have saved the Bishops the painful necessity of participating in a service they were so innocently led into.

For convenience of reference; I have numbered all letters and communications, and shall refer to them by numbers. The letters and documents as arranged are self-explanatory; foot notes have been added where it has been found necessary to give a clearer idea of the subject.

I will take this opportunity of saying, that the Rev. W. S. Sayres did not give me copies of his correspondence until he gave up all hope of the home authorities doing anything in the matter. I had repeatedly asked for the correspondence, but Mr. Sayres invariably refused to give me any papers, until, as I have just said, the home authorities refused to do anything. I consider Mr. Sayres justified in acting as he has, to have done differently, would, in my opinion, been dishonest. He is paid by the Church to do its work in Christianizing China and is not employed by any Committee to conceal the irregularities of the members of the Mission. Missionaries are accountable to the Church who employs and pays them, and to no one else. If the home Board is guilty of concealing Mission matters, they ought to be replaced by men who are courageous enough to face,unfavourable reports from the field without doctoring or pigeon-holing them. These last remarks do not apply to the Protestant Episcopal Church alone, there are others to my certain knowledge equally guilty in this direction.

[vi] The object of this pamphlet is not to remedy the great calamity that has befallen the Church, this is too much to hope for, but to guard against its repetition.

I understand that the home authorities had 'resolved' to send a Bishop to China to investigate the management of the Mission, but upon receiving a letter of explanation from the Rev. J. K. Yen, it was decided not to carry the resolution into effect. That a letter from a person so deeply interested in the matter of an investigation should have such a powerful effect as to stop an investigation seems to me inexplicable.

FERDINAND MCKEIGE.

SHANGHAI, July 1885.

Erratum.--The last three lines of foot-note on page 64, "From what I know of other Missions I believe that the proposals of Mr. Sayres could have been carried, out without additional help, and very little, if any, additional expense," should have been foot-note for rules page 72

No. 1.

MR. APPLETON'S LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE.

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE,
SHANGHAI, China, July 20, 1883.

MR. EDITOR,

In a former letter a promise was made, and I now keep that promise, though not exactly as proposed. I am sorry I cannot fall in line with those who shout a "jubilate" over St. John's College. My first impressions (hinted at in my former letter) were not correct, and I find that matters have not been so very much exaggerated. First, let me say that I do not think it is the place of a new corner to sit as judge of established institutions; and second, that I am not authorized to act as anybody's champion. I shall confine myself to known facts, and without regard to what has been said by others. Never having seen Wuchang I cannot speak of matters at that point. My remarks are confined to the conduct of affairs at St. John's College, and to things that have come under my own observation.

Is ritualism the rule? That term is defined by everybody from some prejudiced point of view, and as your correspondent cannot claim to be an exception he will not say "yes" or "no." "Facts, Mr. Gradgrind, facts, sir." The College chapel is not very ornate, though neat and. (I think) well arranged. The communion table is not what would be generally called a table. If I know the meaning of terms I should call it "table and re-table," or "altar and super-altar." The former, I think, is correct. On the elevation at the back of said table there stands a large gilt cross. This table is decked with colored cloths, which are changed with the change of the church seasons. At Christmas and at Easter the color adopted is red, rather than white, for the latter, among the Chinese, is the sign of mourning, while the former symbolizes joy.

As to conduct in chancel. I have seen the following Colored stoles, various positions at different parts of the [1/2] service (of course I do not refer to standing and kneeling), and at recitation of the Creed the position is facing the table.

As to conduct at celebration of the Lord's Supper. Special vestments, mixing the chalice, ablution of vessels at the table and after celebration, carrying the vessels back to the robing-room, the congregation standing.

I do not know what word to use to describe a certain posture assumed before. the bread and wine. "Prostration" means too much, while "kneeling" does not mean enough. It is simply a very low kneeling, and bowing of the head. The cassock is worn both in the chancel and about the college grounds. I understand that this is discarded in the hot weather:

The above statements give you an idea of how things are done by the Rev. W. S. Sayres and the Rev. W. J. Boone. Rev. Y. K. Yen and your correspondent do not adopt these things. As I am speaking of St. John's College, I am not prepared to say what is done elsewhere. Rev. Mr. Sayres declares himself a ritualist, while Rev. Mr. Boone denies the charge.

Again: Rev. Mr. Sayres makes the sign of the cross at each presentation of the cup and with each piece of bread.

I have no comments to make. These are the facts as I have seen them at St. John's College, and I ask the simple question, Does the induction justify the term or does it not?--Is ritualism the rule?

There are others things I do seriously object to, if I, a novice, may be allowed an objection. In the college no less than five teachers are employed who are openly non-believers. What their belief is I do not know; but I do know that they are not confessing Christians. Let me be just, however. There are two, sides to the question. It is argued that a Chinaman is not educated unless he knows the Chinese classics, and, furthermore, that none but these heathen can properly teach these classics. Here a question is suggested; Are missions intended to teach the impotent Chinese classics? But it is urged that by this means many may be brought under good influences. Here another question arises: Does the proposed end justify the means employed?

Once more: Does the study of English tend to promote the cause of Christianity among the natives? You will understand that this is a principal feature of St. John's [2/3] College, though I believe this branch is partly self-supporting. Apropos of this subject I clip the following from a religious paper published in Shanghai:

"These last (viz., English, and the three 'R's') are all useful in their way and are no doubt much appreciated by juvenile celestials who look, forward to one day entering foreign Hongs as office boys, shroffs or compradores. But for missionaries to engage in elementary instruction of this description is in our opinion from a Christian point of view practically so much time wasted. A friend of ours lately visiting. one of the so-called high schools not a thousand miles from Shanghai found a full blown missionary with chalk in hand before a blackboard expounding to a class of Chinese youngsters the mysteries of a b--ab; b a--ba, and so forth. The impartation of such knowledge is no doubt well enough in its way, but it does not strike us as forming a profitable part of missionary work. Let those Chinese who desire to see their sons become acquainted with the English language provide them with suitable teachers, and let missionaries look to their marching orders and confine themselves mainly to preaching the gospel. (The italics are my own.) There is no doubt this is the means specially ordained and peculiarly blessed of God to the conversion of the souls of men. That education does not necessarily improve our race is evident from the presence of accomplished villians in the most cultured lands, and that the education of Chinese even in mission schools does not ordinarily make Christians of them must we fear be frankly admitted. Only a few weeks since we were conversing with an exceptionally intelligent Shroff occupying a responsible position on the staff of a large mercantile firm. When the name of Jesus was mentioned he remarked: "Oh yes, I know about Him. He is a very good man." On being asked where he had obtained this knowledge, he replied: 'At the mission school where I learned English.' In answer to a further question he stated that he still worshipped his heathen gods on the first and fifteenth days of the moon."

This quotation shows you how some other missionaries regard these things. Of course both sides think their plan is the best, and the solution is left to your readers. [3/4] Fortunately, I have had Evangelical work assigned me, and am now hard at work on the language, preparing to speak to the people about the gospel. I have tried to be just, and to give both sides of the question.

By the next mail you shall have some words about Japan and China.

GEO. H. APPLETON.

No. 2.

MR. GRAVES' LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

CHINA AND RITUALISM.

GENEVA, N.Y., September 15, 1883:

MR. EDITOR,

In your paper of 13th September there appeared a letter from the Rev. George H. Appleton, of Shanghai, on the conduct of affairs, religious and educational, at St. John's College. I consider this letter calculated to spread false impressions in many ways.

Will you permit me of your courtesy a few words in answer?

Mr. Appleton, no doubt, intended to be fair, and affects in his letter to be impartial, but he does a great injustice to the mission of which he is a member by selecting a few "facts," as he calls them, separating them from the real facts which qualify and explain them, and then tacitly accusing the mission on these grounds of grave mistakes in its chief educational institution and of what he calls "ritualism" in the conduct of the services of the church.

His letter confines itself to Shanghai and matters there, and I shall limit myself to the same ground. Let me first premise that no missionary can enter his chosen field and find all things to suit him. He will see much that seems to him faulty in the conduct of the work, and much that seems to him, with his slender experience of the field, a waste of labor, or misapplication of energy. Mr. Appleton is, a new recruit, and it has happened to him just in this way to find [4/5] fault with what meets him in China. His very zeal for the truth of Christ has led him to imagine that he can bring it home at once by word of mouth to the souls of the heathen, and to forget the slow and steady steps by which the gospel wins its way, by schools, by hospitals, by books, by the introduction of Western civilization, as well as by the word of the preacher. As a man new to the work it would have been wise in him to keep silence even from good words, to wait till study had taught him the language and brought him into contact with the Chinese mind.

His experience will be that of, every missionary, and he will come to see the necessity a year hence of what he now sees no use in. He may even now be regretting hasty words, which were the result of new impressions, and which may harm the work he has given his life to further.

In answering him I will speak first of what he says of the education of the Chinese pupils of St. John's and then of the other matters with which he, concerns himself.

When Christianity came into the Roman Empire she found that education was founded on the great classics of antiquity. So far from rejecting these, she taught her children in them, thankfully acknowledging their value, and not forgetting to correct what was wrong in them by Christian teaching. And when Julian forbade Christians to study those books be was considered as having done a, grievous wrong to them, and his prohibition is cited as an act of persecution. In China all education for 2,000 years has been founded on the Confucian and Mencian classics. They lie at the root of all the civilization and culture which China possesses, and to call them "impotent," with the results before one's eyes in a mighty empire and an extensive literature, convicts whoever says it of entire ignorance of these great books and of their influence.

These classics are not books to be banished or prohibited. They are full of moral teaching; they are free from immorality, which cannot be said of the Latin and Greek classics; more than this, they are the books which are absolutely required for any entrance to the examinations of the scholars of the empire, so that not to know the classics is to cut oneself off from any chance of public life either as a teacher or as an officer of the government. To be ignorant of them is to consign oneself to a life of manual [5/6] labor, for there is no such thing in China as an educated man who is unfamiliar with these books, and the contrast in china between the scholar and mechanic, laborer or merchant is a sharp one, and one of which we can form no conception here. There can be no Chinese education without them, so that educators, recognizing this fact, use these books, but never to exclude Christian instruction, building on them for the culture of the mind, and supplying by the gospel of Christ the antidote for their errors. These errors are of defect more than anything. These books do not teach the worship of heathen deities, but that a man must be loyal to his prince, filial to his parents, loving to his brethren, true to his wife, and faithful to his friend. These five virtues are the text of much of what the Chinese classics teach, and surely this basis of natural religion is invaluable and not to be rejected.

Heathen teachers are indeed used in the mission, but only because men cannot be found who are at once Christians and competent teachers. When the man is a scholar and a Christian the mission naturally employs him in preference to a heathen, but ignorance is not bettered in the teacher's chair by the profession of the Christian faith.

English is studied because it is the language which is everywhere spoken in the East, and because there is a demand for it in China. It is the mercantile tongue and the medium of communication between all nations as they meet in the Chinese ports, and it throws open to the learner all Western knowledge at first hands, and not through the bald translations (few enough, too) which are accessible.

RITUALISM.

I come now to a more important thing. Mr. Appleton discusses the services in St. John's chapel to see if there be such a thing as "ritualism" there. What he means it is hard to say. The word is a poor one, a nickname which may mean much or little, but which as commonly used implies a censure. It is unfair to use this word and so fix upon the China mission the unjust imputation it is intended to convey.

If by "ritualism" is meant any mere aesthetic sentiment, or religious prettiness, or disloyalty to the church, or tendency to any Roman error, I emphatically deny from my [6/7] own knowledge that such a thing exists in China in our mission.

But if it is meant that the missionaries are earnest for the Church of God and are determined, to exhibit her in her true, ancient, and Catholic character to the heathen and to impress this upon them by a proper, and reverent, and lawful ritual in her services, this is so. The men in the field have no thought but to bring home to the hearts of the heathen the precious truths of the gospel and to give them the Church of Christ in her truth, her purity, and her beauty.

I will not speak one by, one of the things which Mr. Appleton instances as evidences of "ritualism." There is, nothing of which he speaks which is not a recognized and familiar usage in the American Church with one exception. I have myself received the holy eucharist often in the chapel and it has been my privilege also to celebrate that holy sacrament there on more than one occasion. I have never seen the mixing of the chalice and ablution of vessels performed as part of the service, in the chapel. So far as I know the vessels are cleansed in the vestry, instead of at the altar as I personally should wish to see it.

To discuss the particulars further is useless. If people will let their minds be disturbed by such things and listen at home to accusations of false teaching or Romish practices against the men in the field, the only way we can meet it is, by defining our position and trusting to time, and our work to vindicate us, and above all to God who has so wonderfully worked in the revival of the last fifty years.

This is not the only time the accusation of "ritualism," meaning Romanism, has been openly made against the China mission. Speaking for myself and the other clergy I can only say that we repudiate any charge of teaching what the church does not teach or practicing what is not allowed by the law of the church on the Reformation settlement.

We stand by the Prayer-book and by the church as that book gives it to us.--We teach the faith of the creeds. We set forth the church as catholic, as the creeds teach us.

We celebrate the holy sacrament with a reverent and proper ritual, well recognized as lawful and which is actually the use in numbers of our churches here. We sympathize with all that is true in the great catholic revival of to-day. I [7/8] speak after no consultation with the men in the field and with no other authority than that of being their fellow worker. I do not think they would disavow this, if this be "ritualism."

To me the services at St. John's seem cold and stiff. We walk in the fetters of Western ideas and formulas unsuited to an Asiatic nation. To their minds our services must seem cold. To their minds used to the outward expression of religious sentiments an ornate ritual which we could not use would seem inexpressive, and the scanty symbolism which we actually offer must be greatly inadequate. [Other missions far outstripping ours in results have no ritual whatever, showing conclusively that it is the gospel that is wanted and not ritual.]

It is time that the church should cease speaking of high and low and all that, and set itself to the task of converting China.

It will never be done by distrust of workers in the field. There is no conspiracy in China, nothing to conceal, only the church has moved forward in the last fifty years and that mission with it.

Struggling against all manner of difficulties the men in the field want support and aid and confidence and not vague charges and foolish fears at home.

But there is another side to Mr. Appleton's letter. It may startle some by their ignorance of the real work in China, but it will go far, in a way in which it was not intended, to reassure many at home who have doubted whether the church appears in our foreign fields in her true character and not as a mere sect. If ever our missions succeed it will be because Christ is preached there in His fullness and because He will be seen in the church which is His body, in her beauty and in her power.

F. R. GRAVES.

[9] No. 3.

MR. THOMSON'S LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

ANOTHER LETTER ABOUT CHINA.

ASHBOURNE, Penn., Sept. 1883.

MR. EDITOR,

In your issue of 13th September I note a letter from our friend and brother, the Rev. Geo. H. Appleton, on the conduct of the service at St. John's College, Shanghai, China. As an old member of the mission, all that concerns it is of deep interest to me. In my visits to the churches of Virginia in conversation with the bishop and clergy I have said that the services were conducted as they are here in the States in our non-Ritualistic churches. I think it due to myself and also for the interest of the mission, that I should send you a few words on the subject. Our good brother, Mr. Appleton, states that the Rev. Mr. Sayres declares himself a Ritualist, as I understand the term, one who holds high sacramentarian views and thinks a, high or elaborate ritual conducive to spiritual worship. When I left China Mr. Sayres came down from Wuchang to help in the college and the general work at Shanghai. His tastes being of the Ritualistic order, he, it may be, introduced practices which were new to the worshippers there. To show this, I will state in as few words as possible the things mentioned by Mr. A. in his letter, which I never saw in our mission services. I do mot remember ever having seen any but a black stole used. I knew that one of the brethren liked the use of colored stoles, and it was said did use them in a weekday school service. Nor have I ever seen any special changing of positions during the service, except that of turning to the communion table at the recital of the creed, and it maybe with more of the communion service being read with the back to the congregation than was formerly the use in our churches out there. I say table, but at St. John's there is no proper table, but an altar with a "retable," as he calls it. I have never seen, and, before I left, I do not think there ever were any special vestments at St. John's for the administration of the Holy Communion.--[9/10] Again, as far as I ever saw or heard there never was such a thing as thee mixing of the chalice. Sometimes, when we had to buy the strong wine of the shops, we had to dilute it with water to make it palatable, to the Chinese who are not accustomed with strong wine, but in these cases it was done before the wine was taken into chancel. The ablution of the vessels is a new thing; in fact, I did not know it was ever practiced in the church until I saw it done at a cathedral in this country.

The "prostrations," "bowings," or "genuflections" to which he refers before the bread and wine; I never saw in our church in China, nor the sign of the cross, being made at the delivery of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. All these must be new things introduced since I left China last year; new there, and they are all of very recent introduction in our Protestant Episcopal Church. The cassock I have seen worn about the grounds by two of the brethren who fancy that sort of thing. The gilt cross on the communion table at St. John's is not unknown to many, and such crosses are so common here that many would not refer to it, but I do not like it so placed either here or there. I have objected against that at St. John's especially, or any such use of the cross in China. The Chinese worship the gilt tablets of Confucius, and of their dead ancestors, so they might only too soon learn to worship the cross.

Allow me to say that I believe Bishop Schereschewsky will not allow these extreme practices. I have a letter from him of very recent date, in which he says he had written out to China expressing his disapprobation of such practices, and directing a conformity to the rubrics and canons of our church by the members of the mission.

Our services at all the chapels and churches conducted by the Chinese only, when I left, were entirely free from such things as have been mentioned, and I trust they may always continue to be so.

Then of the seven congregations of native Christians at and in the plain around Shanghai, only one has any "Ritualism," in the sense of the word as describing a party in the church, in its service, and that only when it was not conducted by a native clergyman. Let us wait for further information and for the working of the mission when its Bishop is present in the field.

[11] I have met with some and heard of others who seem for take a strange position with regard to the foreign mission work, because they hear that some one or another, or may be two or three, of the workers hold views at variance with their own, or I will put it stronger, that some workers, not all, may do and teach things which they, the objectors, hold to be contrary to the rubrics and canons of the church, therefore, they say, we will not give to such a mission and we will have no sympathy with it. It is indeed sad that it should be so that there are so many errorists in our church, but are we to give up the work and leave it to those who teach what we believe to be error? If we do this with foreign missions, can we stop there? As an old missionary of the whole church, and as one who has no sympathy whatever with the Ritualistic movement in our church, or with the high sacramentarian views, I appeal to all who consider themselves as loyal to the church, as she has expressed herself to her article, rubrics and canons, not to forsake us in our work, but come up to our help, by taking a more active part in aiding and guiding her foreign work in all its departments.

Are the men in the field with whom you sympathize in heart to feel that you have forsaken them, and that hereafter no more men will be sent forth by you to help bear the burden, and that when they die their work will perish, or be left only to those whose views we hold to be unsafe? Will this not take all the heart: out of a worker, let him be never so strong? Brethren, you who are staunch, sound and loyal to the church in her purity, I ask for your expressed sympathy, for your prayers, for your men and for your, means, and that you forsake not the work of the Lord; the great work of his church, the bearing his message of salvation to those who still sit in heathen darkness. To turn now to another matter mentioned in Mr. Appleton's letter, viz., the teaching of the English language to the Chinese by the missionaries.

Bishop Boone and the earlier missionaries who were with him labored for many years in teaching English. Their united experience and the results of their work led to a rule being passed that no English should be taught in any of the mission schools. This rule was adhered to, or very nearly so, until the opening of St. John's College. At first English, [11/12] was not taught, or only a very little, but when it was found that a number of pay scholars could be obtained, and these were the sons of influential, or at least wealthy men, and that they could thus be brought under the influence of a Christian institution, it was determined to have an English class. A person was especially employed, one who was not a missionary, to take this work.--He taught the scholars all the rudimentary branches in English, and then one of the missionaries would take them up in the advanced classes, if they remained long enough to get on so far. Sometimes, when we were not able to get a suitable person to carry on this class, a member of the mission would help for the time, just to keep the dams together. I have done this in many of the classes, not sally in English, but in arithmetic and the like.

After Prof. Buttles came out, he said it was hopeless to try to teach the advanced sciences in the Chinese language, that it must be done in English. We all felt, the force of this. Dr. Boone had felt this in his medical class. A rule was passed by the mission that English should, be taught to all who were to pass through a full course in the college. Thus the question of English stands in the mission as a necessity for advance in the higher sciences. Personally, I had rather not teach English or have it taught by the missionaries, but I endeavour to help in any work under-taken by the whole mission be it to my taste or not.

I ought to say that English is taught in its rudiments by the missionaries of the Southern Methodist Mission in their two large establishments at Shanghai. In these they are said to have some four or five hundred scholars. These schools are free and are largely supported by contributions of the heathen Chinese. It is to one of these schools that the extract in Mr. A.'s letter probably alludes. [The Anglo-Chinese University managed by the Southern Methodist Mission was opened three years ago, the report sent home at the time states that some four hundred pupils were admitted, and that one thousand. were knocking at the door for admittance; the second year the attendance was about 200, and the third year 212. The present year it opened with about 50 pupils, and the daily attendance is now about 85. These figures speak louder than words as to the advisibility of spending thousands of dollars of the hard-earned money of the church at home in teaching English to Chinese. The first Bishop Boone and his colleagues realized this years ago.]

[13] The next subject is that of the use or employment heathen teachers: When I went to China the number of Chinese professing Christianity was small, and so it often, happened in our day, schools and boarding schools, we were obliged to employ heathen teachers to help us in our work. Many of these teachers became our preachers and to-day many who are preachers of the gospel began as heathen teachers in some Christian school, But now we have, I believe, no heathen teachers in any of our day schools, because there are Christian men raised up from our schools, or brought into the church who are able to do the work'. So it will be in the college. At the first it is very difficult to get Christian men with the education needed for the work, therefore and only for this reason, are heathen teachers still employed.

We have sometimes been able to get a Christian man from some other mission, but they want their able men for their own work. As soon as the heathen can be replaced by Christian students from the college it will be done.

I am sure in saying these things my brother and fellow missionary will know that I am not-in-any way entering into controversy with him, but only seeking to explain some things which are not clear at first sight. Long may he labor and have much success in his-work.

In closing this let me add that Bishop Schereschewsky has over and again declared that he wants men who fairly represent the church; but none who go beyond permitted limits on either side. May many true men come up when the church calls.

I am ready to answer any reasonable questions about the field and the work.--My address is at the head of this letter.

ELLIOTT H. THOMSON,
of the China Mission.

P.S.--It is proper that I should state that since writing the above, I have been credibly informed that the Rev. Mr. Sayres has, over his own signature, disclaimed any preference for an ornate Ritual. Let me also add that he is an earnest, loving Christian man and a good missionary.

[14] No. 4.

EDITORIAL, "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN"

WE published a letter from Mr. Appleton, of China, in regard to ritualistic practices in the chapel of St. John's College, Shanghai. One would have supposed that among missionaries there would have been so strong a desire to bring the gospel to bear upon the consciences of heathens, they would have no desire for any ritual over and above that of the Book of Common, Prayer. In our last Rev. Mr. Graves, of the same mission, but who is now in this country, replied, and gave his views, in which he seems to take ground that what is done is allowable and ought to be done. In this paper there is another letter on the same subject, written by Rev. Mr. Thompson, of the mission, who is also in this country, and who, as everybody knows, is a faithful minister and missionary. What he says will be read with interest. In a private letter Mr. Thompson remarks:--"Give the Chinese Christianity and the Bible and they will work out a church and a form of Christianity which will be Chinese." This witness we, believe to be true. Christians take the sects of Protestant Christianity to the heathen, and with them their way of looking at things; but it is not likely that our way is going to be their way. They will work out for themselves their own forms. We must remember that theology is only our way of looking at the Bible. Theology, therefore, is not inspired; the Bible is inspired, but not our way of looking at it.--Each Christian nation has its own theology; and the Chinese will have their way, when once they begin to think for themselves and read the Bible with their own eyes. Our Western modes of thought are not going to be their methods; but both will be true, so far as both teach Christ as the only Saviour, to be received by the soul by faith and to be exhibited in a holy life.

[15] No. 5.

LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

CHINA AND RITUALISM AGAIN.

May I respectfully offer a few words on this subject as it is presented in the letters of Mr. Appleton and Mr. Graves?

While, doubtless, propriety demanded that Mr. Appleton should not, so soon after reaching his station, have assumed the role of critic, yet such criticisms are not to be wholly condemned, for this church has a right to know how the missions which she is supporting, and has the control of, are being conducted.

I suppose that no one, aware of the wide differences between us and the Chinese, and of the utility, not to say need, of a certain measure of concession to race traits, will be disposed to quarrel with our missionaries for adopting, in accordance with the spirit of the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, "forms and usages" suitable to the people among whom they are laboring, "provided the substance of the faith be kept entire."

Is this the case with the China mission? If it is, let us help it cordially. If it is not, the church ought to use her authority to correct the evil; and, if other measures fail, she should withhold support and force those who have betrayed her trust to look to that denomination whose work they are really doing. This church is under no obligation to support a mission which does not propagate the faith as she "has received the same;" she is under obligation to the contrary; and I, for one, would label all my contributions, "Not for such a mission."

But how stands the matter in China? that is, at St. John's College. Is Ritualism, in its Romish sense, there? I do not mean, are the services ornate, but are there practices symbolizing doctrine more Romish than Anglican in i its character.--This Mr. Graves positively denies, and affirms "we stand by the Prayer-book, and by the church as that book gives it to us;" and "we repudiate any charge of teaching what the church does not teach or practicing what is not allowed by the law of the church on the Reformation settlement."

[16] But can we, as we gladly would, accept this assurance? It is no doubt true in Mr. Graves' view; but is it true in fact? Let the members: of the church determine.--Observe that Mr. G. denies only one (which I can't clearly make out) of Mr. A.'s statements. We accept them then as giving us the facts of the case. The practices named do exist. Now what are they? To save space, I mention only one, viz., the "Rev. Mr. Sayres makes the sign of the cross at each presentation of the cup, and with each piece of bread." What does this signify? The "Reformation" doctrine of the sacrament, or the essence of the Romish doctrine that in the sacrament the priest makes a new, real, though unbloody, sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ for the congregation? The act certainly signifies the latter, and the view is substantiated by the "special vestments," "prostrations," etc., of which mention is made by Mr: A.

Mr. G. may claim that all this is "recognized and familiar in the American Church;" but there are very many who think the doctrine alien and hostile, and no more to be termed "recognized" (that is, duly authorized, or acknowledged as normally within the standards of the church) than a tumor is to be recognized as properly of the body because it is attached thereto: Like the tumor, this school which has sprung up within the church, and to this fact alone owes its adhesion to the church's body (for it would never have obtained admission from without; but would have been indignantly repudiated); is an unhealthy, life-sapping growth, not to be fostered, but got rid of, if life is to be saved.

There, at St. John's College, China is, so far as now appears, the practice of signing "the cross at each presentation of the cup and with each piece of bread;" and that practice means that there is taught there a view of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper directly opposed to the clear utterances of this church, and which was one of the most vital points the Reformers felt they had to oppose.

Either Mr. Graves must modify Mr. A.'s statements, and more explicitly than he has done define the doctrines taught at St. John's, or a large portion of the church will remain dissatisfied, and the charge of Ritualism and Romanism continue to be brought by those who feel it a vital duty to maintain the standards of this church and the Reformation. [16/17] And what is more, contributions will largely he, designated for other fields, and this, the favorite, hitherto, will lose.

It is all very well to raise the pious cry, "It is time that the church should cease speaking. of high and low and all that and set itself to the work of converting China. But the church is profoundly interested in what she is converting China to. She is not to forget that she is "the pillar and ground of the truth," and that as such it is her duty to guard the essentials at least of the truth as it is in Jesus. Whether the doctrine of the Holy Communion as taught at St. John's College is to be regarded as erroneous every one must judge for himself, but I suppose it will be conceded that is not transubstantiation which constitutes the prime offence of the Romish view and makes it heaven wide from the Protestant or Anglican, but it is the doctrine of the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ for sins. Transubstantiation in itself is rejected as an absurdity; the doctrines with which it is associated and which it is made to subserve are what make the vital issue. While to some transubstantiationism may be the distinctive feature of the Romish view, other some think they can see the essence of that view, and therefore the thing to be uncompromisingly opposed where transubstantiation is left out. I trust matters at St. John's will be more definitely explained.

BROOKEVILLE.

NO. 6.

MR. KIMBER'S LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

LETTER FROM MR. KIMBER.

NEW YORK, September 24, 1883.

MR. EDITOR,

Since so much has been published in your paper upon the China Mission from the Rev. George H. Appleton, which the Rev. E. H. Thomson (for twenty-five years a missionary to China) and the Rev. F. R. Graves (also a China missionary) [17/18] have shown to be clearly based upon misunderstanding and want of knowledge, it seems only fair to let the Rev. William J. Boone, president of the Standing Committee, speak for himself as to the use of colors.

In a recent letter Mr. Boone writes in response to criticisms that had gone to him in private (i.e. unpublished) letters.

"China is not the United States, and men here dress in red and blue hoods in winter, and purple and brown coats, and in pink, light blue, green and purple trousers and gowns of silk in warm weather. Hence our simple Church colors in altar-cloths and stoles seem as nothing in comparison with the general brightness of color. Our white is Chinese mourning, and hence a bit of color seems to relieve the surplice in the native eye, and is liked outside of all Church controversies. Tell any friends this, and they will see the matter in a different light, perhaps, and that we do not follow Rome as to seasons, as with us red is festive and white Good Friday color. Surely this should appease all doubts.

Respectfully yours,

JOSHUA KIMBER,
Secretary, &c.

No. 7.

MR. SAYRES' LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

LETTER FROM MR. SAYRES.

SHANGHAI, China, July 22, 1884. [So in copy.--Ed. S.C.]

MR. EDITOR,

The letter of Rev. Mr. Appleton, dated Shanghai, July 20, which you published in due course, and which contained certain statements in regard to the conduct of the services at St. John's College, has called forth other letters from various sources, more particularly from gentlemen connected with the mission and its control, which letters, taken [18/19] together, are not unlikely to be misread, and to cause in some minds an honest bewilderment as to the question of fact,

It is on this question of fact that I deem myself bound in common honesty to speak, seeing that my name has been mentioned in the matter.

I, therefore, assert that Mr. Appleton's statements as to the conduct of the services at St. John's, in his letter of July 20, are true to the letter, and that he read them to me at the time to insure correctness.

I do not here wish to go into the question of ritual on its merits, but simply to corroborate Mr. Appleton's statements, for however much we may differ as to our opinions and beliefs, we cannot afford to allow any misunderstanding as to facts.

Furthermore, while I do not feel inclined to be too ready to define my position in religious matters in public, nor to make any confession of belief to those whom it does not concern, yet I have never had any desire to conceal my principles, nor do I see any reason why I should seem to do so.

I, therefore, would here take occasion to say that I am in sympathy and accord with the Catholic movement, and gladly accept the term "ritualist." I hold this position from deliberate convictions. If the church does not wish me here the proper authorities may be appealed to for my recall; but so long as I am here I must hold, practice and teach what I believe to be the truth. Furthermore, I may as well state clearly and plainly while I am on the subject, that were I in charge of the services at St. John's College, in, place of Rev. Mr. Boone, the present chaplain, I would introduce other practices to bring the services up to what I believe they should be in order to teach fully, completely and roundly the whole faith of the church.

My position in, all these matters is well known to all the members of the China mission as well as the Foreign Committee.

One word more, Mr. Thomson writes that he has been informed on creditable authority that I have over my own signature, stated that I have no preference for an ornate ritual. I am quite sure there is some mistake about this, I do not recollect that I ever wrote anything that could have such an interpretation, and to remove any doubt on the [19/20] subject I here state that on the contrary I do prefer most decidedly an, ornate service as a reference to a letter of some three years back in the Spirit of Missions will prove.

I am very sincerely and faithfully yours,

WILLIAM S. SAYRES.

NO. 8.

EDITORIAL, "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

THE letter we print on our outside from Mr. Sayres, of China, does him credit. He will not have our correspondent, who told what they were doing at St. John's College, Shanghai, found fault with; he told the truth. And Mr. Sayres confesses he wants Catholic customs in China. We had thought this church was catholic; because protesting against errors neither catholic nor biblical. This is our opinion. Now if Mr. Sayres wants to introduce a ritual'of which this church knows nothing, then he is not catholic, but a self-willed man, who, going outside the Prayer-book, gets up what he thinks is catholic, but which-is not. What is catholic? One would suppose the New Testament was if any book was. One would suppose if this church of ours was a true church she too was catholic; and if Mr. Sayres is teaching doctrine; not in the Bible he is, not catholic, and if he is using a ritual not in the Prayer-book he is not catholic. So it would strike plain men. But catholic to the so-called Catholics is mere nose of wax, to be turned hither and thither, up or down, just as these men have fancies!--And when their fancies are gratified, they wipe these soft noses of theirs and exclaim what a catholic nose I have! Alas! for our foreign missions, to have poor heathens introduced into the mysteries of the proper colors for Easter, while they know not Christ nor the salvation offered by him.

[21] No. 9.

MR. APPLETON'S LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

ABOUT THE CHINA MISSION.

ASHI-NO-YU, Japan, Nov. 3, 1883.

I have not seen the replies to my letter about St. John's College, and shall delay any formal answer until I can read them, I have just heard, through a friend, of these letters. When read I will decide as to the propriety and expediency of speaking further.

Some one (I hear) has suggested the withdrawal of support from the China mission. I am not ready to endorse that view: I am, however, forced to say that had I known all that I now know I could not have consented to go to China at that time. Being a member of the China mission I shall remain. Why then write about it? The answer to the question is all that I can say now.

1. I have reason to know that on the faith of my first and mistaken view of the case a scholarship (or part of one) was granted, to be known as the "Rev. Benj. E. Reed" scholarship. I have equally good reasons for believing that it would not have been granted where any tendency toward ritualism was present.

2. I have had more than one letter expressing satisfaction at the absence of marked ritualism in China, and I know that I am responsible of such opinions.--My first letter from China would naturally lead to such construction.

3. Finding myself mistaken, and having given expression to the mistake, there seems to be nothing left but to give to the public what I believe to be the real state of the case.

In conclusion, if I am the cause of any injury to China I shall sincerely regret it. Beyond this I am not willing to speak until I can see the letters in reply to my own.

G. H. APPLETON.

[22] No. 10.

MR. APPLETON'S LETTER TO THE "SOUTHERN CHURCHMAN."

THE CHINA MISSION.

TOKIO, Japan, November 13, 1883:

MR. EDITOR,

It appears that I must reply to the answers to my letter about affairs at St. John's College. By way of introduction I will say that the tone of Mr. Graves' letter in no way affects me.--However, a word about the form of statement seems called for. In remarking upon my inexperience in the field, I should feel tempted to quote and endorse my critic's words, had he not forestalled this by substantially quoting mine. The first part of my other letter will show that I have anticipated this most natural criticism. But I beg to differ with him as to the propriety of silence. He says there is nothing to conceal. Granted. Then all may be known. If the church was in possession of all the facts about China she is exactly where she was before my letter appeared. If she does not know, she may surely claim the right to learn. Again I am not aware that I have called this or that "ritualism." I have submitted what I believe to be the facts, asking that the induction may justify or condemn the use of the term. The oracular assertion that I will see the necessity of the things of which I tacitly complain is somewhat premature. Nor is the supposition that I am already regretting my "hasty words" correct. A line is drawn between facts and "real facts which qualify and explain them." The explanations given are familiar to me, but I am sorry that Mr. Graves has not thrown more of the "daylight" on the subject. I am accused of ignorance of the language and of the Chinese mind. Both accusations are correct. But surely the elder members of the native clergy are familiar with the Chinese mind, and my observation has led me to think (I may say, to know) that they do not agree with Mr. Graves upon the subject of the necessity or propriety of what is spoken of as "religious prettiness." By the way, what does "mere aesthetic sentiment or religious, [22/23] prettiness" mean? If it means the "beauty of holiness" Mr. Graves and all other Christian men agree that it, is proper and necessary. But if it means the "holiness of beauty," then they do not. Something is said about the propriety of adopting "all that is true in the great catholic revival of to-day." Judging from recent publications this catholic revival seems to be

"Wandering between two worlds, one dead,
The other powerless to be born."

There is no conspiracy in China. So says Mr. Graves. Does he mean that my letter has aimed to disclose a "conspiracy?" If so, I can only say that he has made a very gratuitous assumption, and has gotten out of it just as much as be put into it.

He quotes the practices of those who introduced Christianity into the Roman empire. This is in reference to the teaching of Chinese classics and English as means to the proposed end. Now, if we are to adopt the "new fashion of being old-fashioned," let us be consistent, and appeal, not to the fathers, but to the forefathers.--Go back to apostolic days. It was nothing save "Christ and him crucified." It was the Gospel--"the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." That surely is the idea of Christian missions to-day. Here I am constrained to repeat the offending words, "Impotent classics," and may add, "Impotent English language." Mr. G. has strangely misinterpreted my meaning. He claims that they are potent. For what? To aid the Chinese to the top of the governmental ladder. But do these successful climbers shine the brighter as Christian men when the summit is reached'? There, I take it, is the crucial test.--In speaking of Christian work we must understand the word "potent" to refer to the proper object of mission work, not to political advancement. He says that China is a mighty empire, basing its greatness on (in a great measure at least) the Mencian and Confucian classics. I have not a word to say against this. But did the classics ever lead to the conversion of a soul? Will anything prove potent for regenerating purposes save the gospel of the Son of God when applied by the Holy Spirit?

Mr. Graves thinks that I err in supposing that the truth of Christ can be brought home at once by word of mouth. Let me amend that by adding, "And the printed [23/24] page of Scripture." Thus amended, I am ready to say that I do believe that China, or any other nation, can be converted by this alone; it may not be at once. The whole thing resolves itself into this: Is the gospel alone "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." An affirmative answer to this question certainly settles the doubt about China's needs. With this before us we need be neither neo-phobists nor neo-maniacs. In our efforts to avoid the one error we are not under a necessity to fall into the other.

In Rev. Mr. Kimber's short letter there is a quotation from a recent communication from the Rev. W. J. Boone, and upon the explanations therein given a conclusion is drawn, viz., that I am laboring under a misunderstanding and want of knowledge. Misunderstanding of what? want of knowledge of what? Not of the explanations surely, for I have heard them all. Not of the things actually done. Beyond these I have not spoken. The whole question is, what is done? I know how the Chinese dress. My former letter speaks of the departure from "Rome as to colors." Nor do I for one moment suppose that Rome is followed in other things. Possibly the "great catholic revival" may be the thing followed. I can't say.

Let us now turn our attention to Mr. Thomson's letter. First of all, I adopt one sentence with reference to all who have answered me:--"I am not entering into controversy with him." In a note written from Ashi-uo-yu I stated my reason for writing. As to the declaration of any and all upon the use of colors, special vestments, sign of the cross, etc., I need only say that before sending my letter I read it to Rev. W. S. Sayres and Rev. Y. K. Yen, both of St. John's College. At that time Rev. W. J. Boone was at Chefoo. I do not remember any fault found with the catalogue of facts. Of the schools and chapels outside of the college grounds I cannot speak here. My subject is St. John's College, and I insist upon confining remarks to this point. There is the centre from which the work in China radiates. What is done there, not elsewhere. Mr. T. seems to think that the teaching of English is confined to "those who, are to, pass through a full course in the college." I think he will find himself mistaken here. His P. S. refers to a letter disclaiming preference for an ornate ritual. Let me repeat [24/25] that my other communication was read to Mr. Sayres and to Mr. Yen before it started for the United States.

A few more words and I will close my letter. I am not conscious of any intentions of injustice (though my first critic seems to doubt this)'and with this in view I take the liberty of quoting from a private letter just received from Bishop Schereschewsky:--"There is one thing of which you may be assured, I am not a ritualist, nor in, sympathy with ritualism properly so called, and never have been, and my earnest wish, as already expressed, is that our services should be regulated in accordance with the Prayer-book standard." If this be carried out at St. John's College nobody can ask less or more. Mr. Thomson says that the things to which I have called attention must have been introduced since he left China a year ago. This statement of the time of introduction is accepted as final.

Both his and Mr. Graves' expressions of confidence in the earnestness and devotion of the men in the mission are heartily endorsed by me and by all who know them. My point is simply stated: What is done at St. John's College? Opinions and explanations can never disprove facts, and I have been careful to read my statement to other members of the China mission.

Were I in America I should not hesitate to do all in my power to help on the work in China, only designating to what the appropriations should not be applied. I have reason to hope that my prolonged sickness (which threatened to drive me from the East) is a thing of the past, and I expect to return to Shanghai, by to-morrow's steamer.

GEO. H. APPLETON.

No. 11.

EDITORIAL, "STAR IN THE EAST."

THE appointment by the Protestant Episcopal Church of America of the Rev. W. J. Boone to be Missionary Bishop in this part of China will take everyone by surprise and is not likely to meet the approval of evangelical Christians in the Far East. It is no secret that Mr. Boone's views are, [25/26] ritualistic and sacerdotal in the extreme. His conduct at St. John's College in setting up a huge gilt cross and adorning himself with many-coloured vestments of curious cut has become known outside the limits of the little Chinese congregation it was designed to overawe and has excited some remark among the foreign residents who are interested in religion. A young Protestant missionary lately arrived in Shanghai was recently walking in the neighbourhood of the College and went in to look at the chapel. A gentleman in a long robe showed him round and, after viewing the various Church ornaments, our friend came to the conclusion that he was in a Roman Catholic place of worship. On leaving, therefore, he remarked to the officiating priest that he hoped at least that the principles of Christianity were inculcated there--to which he felt relieved to have an affirmative reply. Mr. Boone's repressive influence in connection with the services at the Church of Our Saviour, Hongkew, has been at times unpleasantly felt by the evangelically disposed worshippers and also, we believe, by the present incumbent. We have already had occasion to call attention to the Romish proclivities of the American Episcopal Mission in China, and the present appointment seems likely to augment them. One result will be, we are fain to hope, that any good men left in the Mission will promptly leave it, shaking the dust off their feet as they do so. When these have been sifted out we scarcely think the remainder will do much harm--at any rate to foreigners. The average of intelligence in this Mission is notoriously low. Those are little minds indeed that are taken tip with Church millinery and posturings when they should be teaching the sublime truths of the Gospel. Beyond Mr. Boone's eccentricities in this direction we never heard that be had been guilty of anything sufficiently important to secure the succession to a Bishopric. But as we have already hinted, the Society is short of able men out here and half a loaf is better than no bread. It is a sad reflection on the proverbial astuteness of Americans that there are fools enough left in the Great Republic to support a Mission like this, but a great increase of folly and spiritual error in the latter days has been prophetically foretold and must be regarded as one of the signs, of the times.

June 6, 1884.

[27] No. 12.

BISHOP BOONE THE SECOND.

To the Editor of the NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.

News was received by to-day's U.S. mail officially confirming a telegram received some weeks since that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. had elected, subject to, the usual, confirmation by the several Dioceses, the Rev. Wm. J. Boone, M.A., as Missionary Bishop of Shanghai in succession to Bishop Schereschewsky lately resigned. The following facts maybe of local interest. Mr. Boone is the second son of the late Bishop Boone, the first Missionary Bishop of the Anglican Church, and who was consecrated so long ago as 1844, since which time many missionary bishops have been sent forth from England and the United States. Bishop Boone was one of the earliest settlers in Shanghai, and with others lived in the Chinese city before any house of the present settlement was built there. Mr. Boone was born in 1846; he was educated in the United States, graduated at Princeton College in 1865, and after the usual theological studies was ordained Deacon in the United States. Soon afterwards he was appointed missionary to China in 1869, and was ordered Priest in St. John's Church, Hankow, by Bishop Williams (now of Tokio) in 1870. He was stationed at Wuchang for some eight years, and then in 1879 was removed to St. John's College and appointed by the Bishop as Dean of the Theological Department, where he has been steadily working for the past five years. Whereas certain absurd reports are believed to be current as to ritualism at St. John's College, it may be well to add that Mr. Boone's election is not only satisfactory to the members of the mission, but is also thus spoken of in the leading Church paper:--"The Rev. Wm. J. Boone, Missionary Bishop elect of Shanghai, is a worthy son of his predecessor in the same office. He is a prudent and trustworthy man, and has the confidence of the friends of foreign missions. The House of Bishops may well be congratulated [27/28] on electing to the office one who is already familiar with the work."

Yours truly,

A MEMBER OF THE MISSION.
(Rev. H. Sowerby.)

No. 13.

BISHOP BOONE THE SECOND.

To the Editor of the NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.

SIR,

It would have been very much more satisfactory to the friends, of missions, particularly those connected with the P. E. Church, had the writer of the letter in your to-day's issue made a positive denial of the existence of ritualism at St. John's College.

It is generally believed by many who have taken an interest in missions and missionaries that ritualism does exist at St. John's College; then for the sake of the mission and in justice to its members let there be made an unequivocal denial of its existence. As "A Member of the Mission" has already resorted to the press in support of Mr. Boone, it would not be out of place,--in fact it would seem a necessity--to act upon the above suggestion, since "A Member of the Mission" has toughed upon ritualism in his letter without denying its existence.

I regret very much that "A Member of the Mission" should have written that "Mr. Boone's election is not only satisfactory to the members of the mission "--without first consulting its members. He would then have had authority to write as he did, if all were in accord.

Yours truly,

SHANGHAI,

JUSTICE. (F. McKeige)
June 13, 1884.

[29] No. 14.

THE RITUAL AT ST. JOHN'S.

To the Editor of the NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.

SIR,

Newspaper, or even private, controversy is of little profit to those directly engaged in it, and of little or no interest to the public generally, especially on Church topics. Therefore I am slow to answer "Justice's cavil on my friend's passing denial of ritualism.

But lest an impression of disingenuousness should be the result of silence, I venture to ask for a brief statement of the facts in "A Member"'s mind. We have a grave and reverent ritual at St. John's. We have no ritualism. The distinction is a real one, and easily understood by those who are conversant with the revival of Church life following on the Oxford movement. I am alone responsible at present for the services at St. John's, but they are conformed to my late Bishop's directions given as lately as last September after direct reference to him, and I have never exceeded what he had officially sanctioned. The hearty approval the Church at home always gave him, and the honour recently conferred on myself, were with full knowledge of these facts. [Was the Church at home in possession of the facts contained in my letter No. 19 dated July 16?]

Yours truly,

WM. J. BOONE.

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE,
June 17, 1884.

No. 15.

THE RITUAL AT ST. JOHN'S.

To the Editor of the NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.

SIR,

I did not expect my letter of the 13th instant to bring forth any extended reply, but simply an unequivocal answer to the report current that ritualism exists at St. John's [29/30] College. That is all my letter called for. Mr. Boone, however, has gone beyond this, and speaks of my letter as "Justice's cavil on my friend's passing denial of ritualism," though in a reperusal of "A Member's" letter I fail to find any denial. In reply, I would state that one of my authorities for the existence of ritualism at St. John's College is not "certain absurd reports," but the Southern Churchman of Richmond, Va., in whose columns have appeared letters from members of the P. E. Church's Mission in China. [See letters 1 to 10.] The first asserts that ritualism does exist at St. John's, and the writer points out wherein it exists. The letters in reply contained "passing denials" of its existence. These elicited a letter from another member of the mission, in which he states most emphatically that the statements contained in the first letter are correct. As far as I am aware I do not think that the existence of ritualism at St. John's had ever been positively and publicly denied until Mr. Boone's letter appeared in your Wednesday's issue. I must confess my inability to draw the hair line between a "grave and reverent ritual" and "ritualism." It is comforting, however, to know that there are Episcopal clergymen who have not yet been able to draw the same line.

The wearing of cassocks, birettas, and varied colours upon different occasions, together with such paraphernalia as a brass cross, a super-alter, etc., certainly leads one to presume that ritualism abides on the premises, unless informed to the contrary. Bishop Schereschewsky, I believe, is as High a Churchman as his office of bishop allows him to be. The term High Church, as it is generally understood among non-ecclesiastics, and ritualism, are synonymous.

Yours truly,

JUSTICE.
(F. McKeige.)

[High Churchism and Ritualism are no more "synonymous" than Evangelicalism is synonymous with Salvation Army extravagances. One may include the other, but does not necessarily do so. As to Bishop Schereschewsky being a High Churchman, we can only say that we have seen him taking part in a dissenting service; which no true High Churchman, far less a Ritualist, is likely to do.--Ed. See my letter No. 22 to S. C., dated July 22, 1884.]

[31] No. 16.

EDITORIAL, "STAR IN THE EAST."

THE remarks contained in our last issue on the appointment of the Rev. W. J. Boone to a missionary bishopric in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America have given rise to quite an extensive correspondence in the columns of the North-China Daily News. To begin with, a contributor who signed himself "A Member of the Mission" wrote in, detailing the various accomplishments and supposed qualifications for the post of the new Bishop, the chief among which seems to be that, in accordance with the American humourist's recommendation, he was very careful in the choice of his parents, being himself the son of a Bishop. If grace were hereditary this might count for something, but we believe the most advanced ritualists only contend that apostolic grace comes down to us through episcopal fingertips, and not by natural succession. This ingenious writer goes on to say: "Whereas certain absurd reports are believed to be current as to ritualism at St. John's College, it may be well to add that Mr. Boone's election is not only satisfactory to the members, but is also thus spoken of in the leading Church paper," &c. To this another correspondent of the morning journal, signing himself "Justice," rejoined the following day: "It would have been very much more satisfactory to the friends of missions, particularly those connected with the P. E. Church, had the writer of the letter in your to-day's issue made a positive denial of the existence of ritualism at St. John's College." The new Bishop himself now comes to the front, and here is an extract from his letter:--

"We have a grave and reverent ritual at St. John's. We have no ritualism. The distinction is a real one, and easily understood by those who are conversant with the revival of Church life following on the Oxford movement. I am alone responsible at present for the services at St. John's, but they are conformed to my late Bishop's directions given as lately as last September after direct reference to him, and I have never exceeded what he had officially sanctioned."

After reading the whole correspondence carefully through we are reluctantly forced to the conclusion that [31/32] there has been a decided attempt at a disgraceful shuffle on the part of St. John's College folks. The first writer, without denying the existence of ritualism, evidently sought to give his readers to understand that the, reports which are not only "believed to be," but are current on the subject were without foundation. This action is quite on a par with another circumstance that recently occurred in connection with the same Mission: An evangelically-disposed member wrote to the Home Board complaining that a large brass cross had been set, up in the Chapel. Mr. (now Bishop) Boone and his friends, on receiving an enquiry on the subject from head-quarters replied that they had not a brass cross on the premises. The fact is, the cross complained was of guilded wood! [See my letter No. 22 to S. C., dated July 22, 1884.] And this from people who have come out to China to teach the natives morality, if not Christianity!! The equivocation in the Bishop's letter, from which we quote, is equally apparent. He says that whilst they have at St. John's a grave and reverent ritual, they have no ritualism, and seems to consider it conclusive evidence that the present order of service was sanctioned by the late Bishop. Now everybody knows that Bishop Shereschewsky was himself a ritualist and would not readily tolerate a service that was not distinctly ritualistic. Taking the correspondence all round it shows up the local members of the P. E. Mission in a very unenviable light and we cannot refrain from expressing a desire that they would all look out for some honest secular employment and cease to hinder the progress of Christ's gospel by mystifying the poor heathen Chinese with their meaningless mummery.

June 20, 1884.

No. 17.

EDITORIAL, "NORTH CHINA DAILY NEWS."

IN closing the correspondence that has recently appeared in our columns upon alleged ritualism practices at St. John's [32/33] College, Jessfield, we may be permitted to offer a few remarks ourselves. Some criticism has been evoked by the assertion of the Bishop-designate that they have there "a grave and reverent ritual, but no ritualism," The expression is, no doubt, ambiguous; but it is clear that what may appear very high ritual to one man is not necessarily so in the eyes of another. It is not so very long ago that a clergyman who preached in his surplice was regarded, and justly, as a Puseyite; now, however, the practice is almost universal, so much so, indeed, that it is by no means the mark of any ecclesiastical party. That the ritual at St. John's is higher and more elaborate than that at Trinity Cathedral may be at once conceded. But we believe we are justified in saying that practices that would be unhesitatingly recognized as ritualistic in England do not carry so much significance in the United States. For instance, the eastward position is assumed, we hear, in nearly all American churches; and though one is lost in wonder at the prominence given to this practice both by its supporters and antagonists--as if it mattered a straw either way--it is only right to draw attention to the different estimation in which it appears to be held in the two countries. The wearing of a cassock is even more trifling; this is, too, done at the Cathedral; and how, we should like to know, is it more ritualistic for a clergyman to wear a black robe under his white one than to expose a pair of black trousers? It is true that, at one time, water was mixed with wine during the Communion service at St. John's; but this was discontinued at the advice of Bishop Schereschewsky, while the altar is far plainer than that at the Cathedral. There need be no secret that the Rev. W. S. Sayres was an avowed and conscientious ritualist; he wore the biretta, and was always anxious to have an ornate ritual; but this gentleman has not taken an active part in St. John's services since last November, and he is now, we believe, no longer in Shanghai. There have never been lights, or incense, or wafers, or confession, in teaching or in practice; and whenever there has been any distinctly ritualistic practice it has, we are assured, always been the unauthorised act of an individual, Besides which, we really do not see what business it is of "Justice" or anybody else who does not attend the services. If a man does not like the services at a certain church, let him go [33/34] elsewhere; surely there is. choice enough, and the ritualist has just as much right to his opinions as the ranter, We say nothing about the charge of misrepresentation that has been brought against the authorities of St. John's simply because we do not know all the facts of the case. But, as we understand the controversy, "Justice" and his friends have been meddling in a matter which really does not concern them in the least, and while we sympathise with a man who is offended by ritualistic practices at a church he is compelled to attend, it is a different thing altogether when a person in no way connected with such an establishment sits in judgment on other men's. consciences. He has simply nothing whatever to do with the matter. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act up to his own convictions, whatever they may be, without troubling his head about other people's. June 23, 1884.

NO. 18.

EDITORIAL, "STAR IN THE EAST."

THE correspondence in the North-China Daily News on the subject of the alleged ritualism at St. John's College, Jessfield--referred to by us last week--has been supplemented by a final letter from "Justice" in which he puts very tersely the points we mentioned as to the peculiar nature of Mr. Boone's disclaimer. That "Justice has made a vigorous and not only justifiable but thoroughly called for attack on the wretched priestcraft which obtains in the establishment mentioned above and which has culminated in the fearful blunder of Mr; Boone's appointment to the vacant bishopric, would be apparent to any one except the Editor of the North-China Daily News. But who ever knew that journal on the side of truth and right? Or who is foolish enough to suppose it would support the cause of those who desire the pure Gospel of the Grace of God? Not we, certainly. We are not surprised therefore to find that "in closing the correspondence," by means of an evidently [34/35] inspired leader, the opportunity is taken of "sitting on" "Justice" and generally pooh-poohing the exposures he has made. It would have been more satisfactory if, instead of the damaging admissions that are made, some positive and authoritative denial could have been given to the allegations that have appeared, but unfortunately this is not the case. The main burden of the whole thing is that it is not the business of "Justice" or anybody else who does not attend the services. This is a contention that we calmly and deliberately deny with all the emphasis in our power. We most distinctly affirm that when a body ostentatiously labelled "Protestant" supports with cash and dignity a number of men who practise covert Popery it is the business of every Protestant, without regard to nationality or denomination, to protest against such a course, to expose its nefariousness and to leave no stone unturned either to alter the name of the offending concern or to make its practices consistent with its professions. This is not a question that concerns Americans alone, much less is it limited to those who subscribe to the mission or to those who attend the services. It is a vital question of public honesty on the part of some who term themselves Protestants but act like Papists--almost like Jesuits--and such a course of conduct inflicts a stigma on all Protestants alike.

This is a principle we have all along maintained and shall maintain. If a man calls himself a Christian all Christians are implicated in his doctrines and practices. If he denies the doctrines taught by Christ, or his practice contradicts them, the sooner he calls himself by some other name the sooner will he be entitled to consideration as an honest man. Until he declares himself as other than a disciple of Christ, his proceedings are the legitimate subject of enquiry by his fellow Christians; such actions have an influence on the whole of Christendom, only modified by the remoteness of the various portions.

The fact is, in ordinary, business a milkman who sells chalk and water for milk would be promptly fined or imprisoned; whereas an ecclesiastic who calls himself a Protestant and lives on Protestant money may teach and practise the rankest Popery nowadays and most people think him a martyr to conscience and make a little hero of him. We do not deny his right to believe and teach [35/36] whatever he thinks right.--Liberty of conscience is sacred in our eyes.--But we do say that religious fraud should be punished, the same as any other fraud: If our morning contemporary had a better appreciation of this, which is after all only a commercial principle known in business as common honesty, we should find it less often on the side of those who dub themselves Christian whilst steadily undermining the bulwarks of Christianity or use Protestant money to further Romish errors.

June 27, 1884.

No. 19.

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE.

To the Editor of the NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.

SIR,

Your leading article of the 23rd ultimo, which is evidently based on information received from the Rev. Wm. J. Boone, contains several erroneous statements which place me before the public in a rather unenviable light, and I hope you will allow me space to correct any false impressions that may have been formed by the readers of the article referred to.

On the 13th of June last there appeared in the columns, of your paper a letter from "A Member of the Mission," in which, after giving Mr. Boone's pedigree, he goes on to say, "Whereas certain absurd reports are believed to be current as to ritualism at St. John's College, it may be well to add that Mr. Boone's election is not only satisfactory to the members of the mission, but is also spoken of in the leading Church paper." The above statements, coming as they do from one clergyman under the sanction of another, I have never seen excelled in point of disingenuousness. The writer has evidently sought to make the public believe that the reports which are current on the subject of ritualism were without foundation. "A Member" cannot be ignorant of the correspondence of members of the mission in regard to, this very matter, no less than five of its members having [36/37] taken part in it. [Appleton, Graves, Sayres, Thomson, and Boone (through Mr. Kimber.)] How then can he write, "certain absurd reports are believed to be current"? This is easily understood when it is known that "A Member" is a candidate for priest's orders and his passing the necessary examination depends in a measure upon the leniency of the Bishop-designate. [Came to China (a Baptist by profession) a member of the China Inland Mission, after remaining in this mission about eighteen months, left and joined the American Bible Society, remained one month, and became connected with the P. E. Mission.] With this in view, one is forced (although unwillingly) to the conclusion that it was a diplomatic move, and not a wish to correct any false impressions.

There are connected with the P. E. Church's mission in China, seven clergymen, including Mr. Boone. I have it upon the very best authority that four are not in favour of Mr. Boone's election and would have preferred someone else. [Sayres, Thomson, Yen, and Locke.] That would leave three (including the Bishop-designate) who approve the action of the House of Bishops.

I am prepared to state, and I do so advisedly, that "A. Member's" letter was submitted to the Rev. Wm. J. Boone for approval before its publication and its appearance in the columns of your paper is positive proof of Mr. Boone being a party to his own eulogy. He cannot plead ignorance as to the opinion of one member of his mission at least, as he (Mr. Boone) has stated over his own signature in words that do not admit of two interpretations, "I never thought * * * * * * * that you could be pleased with my election." [Mr. Thomson told me, when he read my first letter (No. 13) he thought Mr. Yen was the writer, this certainly does not accord with Mr. Sowerby's "satisfactory to the Members of the Mission." (See No. 12.)]

As to ritualism at St. John's, I have carefully reperused my former letters and can find nothing in them that has a semblance to an attack on ritualism. As it has been denied that ritualism exists at St. John's, I will briefly state what has taken and is taking place there, and let your readers draw their own conclusions. In the first place it would be well to point out what constitutes ritualism. Some three [37/38] years ago a conference of prominent ritualists was held its England. There were moderate and extreme ritualists, but all agreed on a basis of six points, which are commonly known as the essentials of ritualism. These are: the vestments, mixed chalice, eastward position, incense, candles and wafer bread. The first and third of these are stilt practised at St. John's; the mixing Of the chalice during service was not discontinued until after 10th April of this year. Why did Mr. Boone allow it to be done after receiving instructions to the contrary from his Bishop last September? I believe the wine and water are still mixed, but before service wafer bread has been used at St. John's, and partaken of by Mr. Boone. I have been informed on the best authority that Mr. Boone has heard confession at St. John's College, and, at the time, he was conducting a retreat. A retreat is ritualistic, not to say decidedly Romanish. The eastward position is not assumed by "nearly all American churches," only those taking that position who are inclined towards High Churchism; and this class is not in the majority. In referring to the cassock, I did not intend to allude to it as worn at services, but to its use as an article of wearing apparel. Mr. Boone wears it at all times while on the premises at St. John's, and to give it a Jesuitical look he has a cross in full view. He and Mr. Sayres are, I believe, the only Protestant missionaries in China who wear it outside of Church services. [Mr. Sowerby I have since learned wears it also.] The question is, why is it worn? Not on account of inclement weather, as it is worn winter and summer, rain or shine, and certainly it cannot be because it resembles Chinese dress.

How the Rev. Wm. J. Boone can say there is no ritualism at St. John's when two of his brother missionaries positively state there is, and two others intimate as much, is an enigma to me. [Messrs. Sayres and Appleton.] I would state here that the Rev. W. S. Sayres did not discontinue taking part in the services at St. John's until after the 10th of April last, although your leader says Mr. Sayres has not taken active past in the services since last November.

Now a word in regard to the last sentence in Mr. Boone's letter. "The hearty approval the Church at home [38/39] always gave him, and the honour recently conferred upon myself, were with the full knowledge of these facts." The facts alluded to are the practices at St. John's. I am in a position to state that the Church at home has not a full knowledge of the management at St. John's. The Secretary of the Board at home is aware of the fact, and if he had published the correspondence in connection with the China mission it would either have led to the closing of the mission or the recall of some of its members.

In concluding I will simply say I am acting for myself solely, and independently of anyone else, with a desire to further the interest of the P.E. Church, of which I am a member.

My family at home have, for very many years been active members of the P. E. Church, and have contributed their mite towards the fund for Foreign Missions. On these grounds alone I have a right to ask for information and expect in reply an unequivocal answer. I do not condemn ritualism, but would like to know if I have been an indirect contributor to its support.

This entire letter has been based on information received at various times from no less than four members of the mission.

I leave the numerous readers of your paper to form their own opinion as to the wisdom displayed by the House of Bishops in electing the Rev. Wm. J. Boone to the Bishopric of China. [I have since learned that the House of Bishops were in possession of all of Mr. Sayres letters received up to April 22, this included No. 24.]

JUSTICE.
(F. McKeige.)

July 15, 1884.

[40] No. 20.

SHANGHAI, June 24, 1884.

MY DEAR MRS. (DR.) BOONE,

I fear our conversation of a few Sundays since has given you the impression that my letter written in reply to Mr. Sowerby's, was not based on reliable information. I am led to believe this, because you stated so positively that Mr. Boone had in his possession a letter from Mr. Sayres expressing his congratulations and giving him (Mr. B.) to understand that his election was satisfactory, indeed, so sure was you that Mr. Boone held such a letter, that you suggested several times, my calling on Mr. Boone and reading the letter myself. [Mrs. (Dr.) Boone has made the same statement to others.] It was impossible to reconcile the friendly expressions in the letter referred to above, with Mr. Sayres' feeling as personally expressed to me.

Mr. Sayres has been communicated with on the subject, and his reply I enclose herewith. I will not comment on it; it speaks for itself. I venture however, to say, that you have been very much misinformed as to Mr. Boone's election meeting the approval of the members of the mission.

I would like to state here, that in replying to Mr. Sowerby's letter, I had not the slightest intention of bringing Mr. B. prominently before the public, but simply to show Mr. Sowerby he could not write such a disingenuous letter without running the risk of being replied to. Mr. Boone, in replying to mine, simply made matters worse, speaking of my letter as "Justice's cavil on my friend's passing denial." (Why could he not have left out that sentence?) This caused my second letter. Mr. Boone, to make matters still worse, has sought protection of the press, the result was an editorial in yesterday's North-China Daily News, which places me before the community in a very false position.

I must confess, Mr. Boone could not have managed anything more wretchedly than he has the correspondence in the North-China Daily News, if he had have tried.

The whole affair is to be deplored, and I regret that an opportunity was ever given to criticise the action of any member of the mission.

Believe me, to be,

Yours sincerely,

FERDINAND MCKEIGE.

[41] No. 21. (Copy.)

To the REV. W. J. BOONE.

DEAR SIR,

I have. been given to understand that you have placed me in a false position, by representing that I have congratulated you on your election to the "Episcopate," that one of our family has said I was "pleased with your election," and have written you a letter, which you have in your possession, in which I "express my entire satisfaction." I have only this day received a letter from Shanghai containing this news, I hasten to write in reply to deny emphatically and distinctly ever having expressed satisfaction or congratulation. To represent me as having done so is dishonest. The only note I wrote you was in reply to yours, announcing to me the fact of your election, a fact which was known to you and to others a month before. I wrote you acknowledging the receipt of the said letter, and expressed a wish and prayer that the work of saving souls and building up the church might be blessed; the words were to this effect. There was not meant to be anything of congratulation or satisfaction in the note. If you have read either of these in the note you have read it wrongly.

If you have the said note in your possession I ask that you exhibit the same publicly, wherever it has been misrepresented, and also send it to me that I may copy it.

I send this letter to Shanghai to be read by the friends mho have written me on the subject, and then posted to you.

Believe me, As ever,

(Signed) W. S. SAYRES.

[42] No. 22.

The contents of this, letter and the newspapers which accompany it (Star in the East June 6, 20, and 27; and the North-China Daily News June 13, 14, 18, 20, 23, and July 16) will no doubt be a surprise and disappointment to you, and all well-wishers of the P. E. Church of America. The seriousness of the allegations made against some members of the mission and the impotent management of St. John's College have made me hesitate going into print. Developments of the past month, however, have convinced me that to remain silent longer would be simply a dereliction of duty.

I have selected the Southern Churchman as a means to place before the Church what has taken and is taking place at St. John's College, because of its known fearlessness in condemning the innovations that are from time to time being made into the Church service.

In order that you may understand thoroughly the correspondence and editorials already referred to, I will have to comment upon each article separately.

The editorial in the Star in the East of June 6 (if its statements were untrue) ought to have brought forth an unequivocal denial from someone connected with the mission, thereby correcting what is the general impression and belief among missionaries, that ritualism does exist at St. John's and that the College is a poorly managed affair at the best. No attention, however, was given the article until June 11, when Mr. Sowerby, over the nom de plume of "A Member of the Mission," sent to the North-China Daily News for publication one of the most disingenuous letters I have ever seen. Mr. Sowerby did not dare to come boldly to the front and say the reports current that ritualism exists or has existed at St. John's are false (not a member of the mission has courage to do so); unable to speak boldly without being guilty of falsehood he resorts to this questionable device. [42/43] "Whereas certain absurd reports are believed to be current as to ritualism at St. John's--(the italics are my own);--it may be well to add that Mr. Boone's election is not only satisfactory to the members of the mission, but is also thus spoken of in the leading Church paper." Every member of the Shanghai mission is aware of the fact that it is believed by outsiders that ritualism exists at St. John's. I have before me the entire correspondence in regard to this matter as it appeared in the Southern Churchman; there are eight letters and two editorials. This of itself is abundant proof that Mr. Sowerby knew that absurd reports were actually facts. If Mr. Sowerby's letter was not an attempt to dodge the truth, then I do not know what to call it. Mr. Sowerby says. Mr. Boone's election is satisfactory to the members of the mission. If I understand the definition of the word satisfaction correctly, it does not harmonize with the sentiments of four of the members of the mission as gathered from them by conversations and letters. Mr. Boone has written to Mr. Sayres, over his own signature: "I never thought * * * * * * * that "you could be pleased with my election." Mr. Locke writes to a member of the mission: "Whether I can "work under his (Mr: B.) oversight remains to be seen." Mr. Yen is not in favour of Mr. Boone's election and does not look upon it with satisfaction. Mr. Thomson has requested me not to ask him the question. Mr. Thomson is in a very delicate position in the mission, and I may say, tied to a policy in which he is not in sympathy, any reform he might choose to make would be construed as an act of jealousy on his part, resulting from his non-election to the Bishopric. I will state here, that Mr. Thomson did not know of the existence of Mr. Sowerby's letter until he went to Mr. Boone and suggested that he (Mr. T.) had better write to the, papers about the election. Mr. Boone then informed Mr. T. the matter was already attended to. Common courtesy, if nothing else, ought to have caused the letter to be shown Mr. Thomson; he being the oldest member of the mission and president of the Standing Committee. [Mr. Thomson has since told me he was only a figure head as president of the Standing Committee.] The originator of the letter knew well that Mr. T. would not sanction such a perversion [43/44] from truth, hence its appearance without his knowledge. If Mr. Boone was not the originator of Mr. Sowerby's letter, he was a party to the statements it contained. When I read the letter, I was astonished at its audaciousness and was puzzled what to do. I knew it was intended to mislead. After giving the matter my careful consideration, I replied suggesting an unequivocal denial, thereby allowing Mr. S. a chance to set matters straight if I had misinterpreted the meaning of his letter. My answer brought forth a reply from Mr. Boone, in which he chooses to call my letter, "Justice's cavil or my friend's passing denial of ritualism"--(the italics are my own.) Mr. Boone denies nothing, but attempts to shuffle around the main question, and instead of clearing matters up, gets himself deeper into the mire.Please note that Mr. Boone assumes the responsibility for the services at St, John's, and they are in conformity with the late Bishop's directions given last September, after reference to him. In my reply to Mr. Boone I speak of the Southern Churchman as one of my authorities, I had reference to the correspondence already alluded to. [See No. 1 to 10.] I have consulted a clergyman and asked him to tell me the difference between a "grave and reverent ritual" and "ritualism," and in reply, he says there is no difference between a "grave and reverent ritual as in vogue at St. John's and ritualism." From what I have heard about Bishop S., I believe him to be ritualisticly inclined. I have asked Mr. Balfour, the editor of the North-China Daily News, what service he referred to in his foot note, he replied, he met the Bishop one Sunday evening at a missionary service, the Bishop took no part beyond being present. [See No. 15.]

The editorial in the Star in the East of June 20 speaks for itself. The portion referring to the brass cross is incorrect, and it will be apologized for. I have called upon the writer of the article and explained the case to him, so please ignore that portion.

I will now call your attention to the editorial in the N.-C. Daily News of June 23. Please bear in mind that the article was based entirely upon information given to Mr. Balfour by Mr. Boone. Mr. Balfour himself is my authority [44/45] for this statement. The editorial states at one time water was mixed with wine during communion service * * * * * * * *, but this was discontinued at the advice of Bishop S. From Mr. Boone's letter I infer this advice was received last September. Why did he allow it to be continued until the 10th of April last, in direct contradiction to his Bishop's wishes? Why was it not stated in the editorial when it ceased? Although the wine and water are not now mixed during service, it is done before. Mr. Sayres writes me from Chefoo June 29: "I have heard him (Mr. B.) say that this (mixing wine and water) has been his custom ever since he was made a priest." Further on we find that Mr. Sayres has not taken active part in the services since last November--(WHY HAS HE NOT?)--questioning the truthfulness of this statement, I wrote to Mr. Sayres and have received his reply: "This is false, I can prove that I took part in administering the communion weekly up to Easter. My diary shows that the last celebration by me was on April 10." A little lower down we are told that there has never been wafers or confession in teaching or practice. I will again quote from a letter written by Mr. Sayres: "I have used wafer bread myself in the chapel at St. John's. It is true that the use of wafer bread habitually is not the custom. But I used it in the latter part of 1881. I had a supply which I obtained from Bishop Scott's mission in Chefoo. Mr. Boone partook of the wafer bread; he made no objection nor protest. I believed at the time, and have still continued to believe, that he decidedly favored the use of the wafer bread * * * * * * * * Had I remained in Shanghai instead of going to Wuchang, should have continued its use indefinitely and I believe with Mr. Boone's full endorsement and consent. As to confession, I think it can be proved beyond any possibility of doubt, at least I have the strongest reasons in the world for saying so, that Rev. W. J. Boone heard confessions in October 1882, at St. John's. I can give names, but do not. Mr, Boone cannot dare to deny this. Mr. Boone had been at the same time conducting a retreat which I myself attended. A retreat you know is decidedly ritualistic." [Mr. Boone calls all this "no ritualism."] The latter part of the editorial is replied to in my letter of July 16 to the N.-C. Daily News.

[46] Editorial in the Star of the East of June 27 speaks for itself.

In calling the Editor of the N.-C. Daily News' attention to several erroneous statements in, the editorial of the 23rd June, I took occasion to criticise Mr. Sowerby's motive in writing his letter, and I have no reason to change my views, but to the contrary, am, convinced of their correctness. In the second paragraph (p. 37), four members of the mission are stated as not being in favour of Mr., Boone's election. Their names are: Thomson, Sayres, Locke and, Yen. Those in favour: Graves (?), Sowerby and Boone (Rev.)

The last paragraph on p. 38 deserves more than a passing comment. It is doubtless the most serious allegation in any of the letters or editorials in connection with. St. John's, I will first quote from of a letter written by Mr. Appleton to Mr. Kimber dated July 12, 1883: "I know that Mr. Boone expects to be Bishop of China in case Bishop, S. sees fit to resign, and I, for one, say that in such case I will resign." Mr. A., in replying to a letter from Mr. Kimber, says: "I never dreamed of such a state of affairs as I find. Is the mission at St. John's a sinecure for, the Boone family? For my life I cannot see the terrible, labor done by any of them. If Mrs. Boone is a missionary, I do not know the definition of terms, though I have not heard of unkind remarks from Mrs. Boone about us; yet I cannot think we have escaped, when well nigh everybody else has suffered."--You will see the force of these remarks before I close.--Mr. A. goes on to say: "It is only necessary to cross them (Mr. B. and family) in something and then comes the storm, and I for one will not stand it. So far as I can see Dr. Nelson was nearer to the truth than I imagined. Mr. Sayres is a ritualist and says so. Mr. Boone is (I cannot see the. difference except in degrees perhaps) a ritualist, but resists the natural deductions from his acts, positively I find myself putting an interrogation, point after all his remarks--(the italics are my own)--it may look uncharitable but facts make me so. I am afraid of people who are constantly excusing their acts," and again he writes "I am not afraid of open and pronounced views be they ritualistic or evangelical, but I do protest against 'being on the fence.' I am not discouraged about missions, but as this mission stands and is likely to stand in the event of such a blow as having Mr. B. as its Bishop, I am [46/47] far from sanguine." Further on, in the same letter be says: I see things that look to me like: offering 'strange fire,' and that was never yet and never can be acceptable to God: He may seem to prosper it for a time, but the result is settled and the end will prove that it was not accepted." In a postscript Mr. A. adds: "The state of feeling in this mission is little short of indignation. Sayres, Locke, Yen, Misses Bruce and. Lawson, and Appleton all have grievances, and I told Mr. Boone that I should resign as soon as I saw my way back to America." In a letter to Mr. Kimber, dated July 23, 1883, 'Mr. A. says: "Mr. Kimber you will be astounded to hear how St. John's College is spoken of in Shanghai, among the remarks I have heard, that it was merely a fat office for some lazy preachers. But it is not strange that such ideas get out when (as with Mrs. Boone) a regular day of each week is set apart as a reception day," and further on he says: "I cannot be under the direction of one in whom I have no confidence and I am virtually so now, for it does seem Mr. Boone is the standing Committee." In another letter dated January 26, 1884, Mr. A. says: I see by the late Advent appeal that of all our work in missions, the China field is in the lead as to results and prospects. I might well asks for data proving this, but being a matter of opinion as to what constitutes progress, I could be, and naturally would be answered by pointing to the educational work at St. John's. By the way, what is this educational work. Take the Theological department, one of the candidates has lately expressed a desire to give up the ministry, and has expressed it very pointedly by applying to the Government Telegraph Co. for employment. The remaining three candidates have (as we have sufficient evidence to prove) gone with him to see how the chances are for their following suite--only they were smart enough not to go so far as he, and to cover their tracks. I leave you to your own thoughts in the deep convictions of our entire theological class--the future native ministry of China. The amount of Bible teaching that is given these college students is rather a negative quantity from what I can learn, and until Mr. Sayres came to the point, the Cantonese department got just as much as they could pick up of their free will and individual research. You can imagine bow much they know or knew of scripture. Now I understand they have a class in [47/48] the afternoon of Sundays. But not long ago Mr. Sayres discovered that a large part of the time was taken up in studying their Chinese. Mr. Sayres tells me that there has been much more serious irregularities in the college than this,--for example Gambling. I cannot say that this is the rule with the boys, but it shows that they will bear closer looking after than they get. The girls school, who is really in charge? Mrs. Boone has told my wife that she is in charge by her husband's appointment, and this means that Mrs. Sayres, who was legally appointed, has been ousted by the authority of one man. Again, to what extent does that management go. I believe it extends to an occasional visit, and to carrying visitors around to look at it. Now I come to a point that I ask special attention to. I see by a: report (Nov.-Dec. S. of Missions) that the thirty-four day schools are constantly visited. By whom? Not by foreign workers, says the report, and why not? I know that one man, Mr. Sayres, has offered to take the supervision if appointed to it, and there it ends. What is being done in these day schools? I do not believe the reporter can tell a thing about it. As to the preaching stations, who knows what the native deacons are preaching? All that is known is guess work knowledge so far as I can discover. The older members of the native clergy are splendid men, I believe, but it has come to my ears that they feel the neglect of those who are supposed to be better acquainted with the methods than they are. It is not that our St. John's College men are burdened with work. I know better than that. Then why this want of foreign supervision. I know from a native worker of this mission that the preaching in the Chapel at St. John's College is practically in an 'unknown tongue,' as the mandarin is used, and is not understood by the Shanghai people. Imagine the benefit." From the extensive quotations taken from Mr. Appleton's letter, you will see that Mr. Kimber has been fully posted as to what has been taking place here and the opinions of some of the mission. Now the question is, what was Mr. Kimber's duty in the premises. In my opinion, if he had have had the welfare of the mission at heart he would have laid the whole matter before the Board, and had instituted a most searching investigation. If Mr. Appleton's statements are true, then Mr. Boone is not a fit person for the management of the [48/49] mission, much less to be its Bishop. Why have the statements in Mr. Appleton's letters not been investigated? and their truthfulness either sustained or refuted, the Church has a right to know how its contributions to Foreign Missions are used.

That there is something wrong in the present management of the mission there can be no doubt, as a comparison of the last three annual reports of the China Mission will show a large falling off of the actual number of members. The figures are 305 for the first year, 279 for the second, and 196 for the last year, deducting pupils and help at St. John's and there remains about 160 members. I think the above figures are exclusive of Wuchang. The above figures do not show much progression in the advancement of Christianity.

I have been informed by one of the members of the mission, that last year there were only sixteen adult Baptisms, and nine of infants, a very poor showing compared with other missions, especially so when it is understood that last year there were six foreign missionaries at St. John. The lack of results may be accounted for perhaps in the inability of any of the foreign members of the mission to speak the dialect of Shanghai, and as Mr. Appleton says, the preaching in practically in an unknown tongue. How can good results be expected in an institution where gambling is carried on unchecked? It is hard to believe such a state of affairs can exist, but an ocular proof is hard to get around.

Religious instruction in the past has seemed to be of a secondary consideration, and very little has been done in the way of christianizing the pupils, everything for English and nothing for Christianity.

Efforts at reform have been made by Mr. Sayres for a long time, but he met with so much opposition that he abandoned all attempts to correct matters and resigned from the Standing Committee last December, all the opposition any of the members of the mission have met in their desire to further the cause to which they have given their lives, has been from the Rev. and Dr. Boone.

Mr. Boone cannot wash his hands of the responsibility in regard to the management at St. John's. He was President of the Standing Committee, and with Dr. Boone controlled the affairs of the mission.

[50] The enclosed copy of a letter (Referred to in preface) to a member of the mission will disclose, what in my opinion is one of the most disgraceful attempts to malign a sister missionary. Can you wonder at the sterility of the China Mission? Can you expect God's blessing to fall upon efforts made in such an atmosphere? Why has not the Board taken action in the matter? True Mr. Thomson was asked to investigate when he came out, he has refused to enquire into the matter. This he has said himself has other letters, although not quite so strong, but all go to show that an attempt was made to ruin the reputation as a virtuous woman. The result of --'s attacks on --, resulted in her almost breaking down in health, one of the best doctors here ordered her home, and she is doubtless there ere this.

There are more irregularities I could point out, but think you have sufficient to understand what kind of a mission the P. E. Church of America has in China.

I believe if the correspondence in connection with the China Mission was published, it would lead to an investigation that would reveal a state of affairs that would be really appalling.

I think a most pertinent question to ask the Home Board would be: Did the House of Bishops at the election of Mr. Boone for the Bishopric of China, know of the correspondence of Messrs. Appleton and Sayres? If not, why were they not informed of it?

I am sure a letter of this character will receive your most careful attention, and if you treat its contents as I hope you will, by drawing the Church's attention to the China Mission and demanding the publication of all correspondence in connection therewith, there cannot be but one result--a searching investigation; let it be impartial, and those who have walked the path of wisdom need not fear. I might say here, that an investigation cannot be conducted by correspondence, it must have a fearless and unbiased man to inquire into matters, such a man is not to be found in China, Mr. Thomson will not act, and then it would hardly be fair to ask a man to investigate the actions of one who in a short time expects to be his Bishop.

In order that you might know who the writer of this letter is, I called upon Mr. Thomson last evening and [50/51] told him I was writing a very strong letter to the U.S.A. in regard to the mission, and asked him to come to my house and I would read it to him, he declined, saying he preferred not to know its contents. I intended to have Mr. Thomson identify me.

In closing I will simply say that I have written this letter of my own free will and accord and without any personal feeling towards anyone. I may add here, that the election of either Dr. Nelson or Mr. Thomson would have been pleasant news to every one who have had the pleasure of their acquaintance. That one or the other was not elected, I think was a mistake.

Apologizing for taking up so much of your valuable time, and trusting that the right may prevail.

I remain,

Yours truly,

FERDINAND MCKEIGE.

Care of China & Japan Trading Co., Limited.

No. 23.

SHANGHAI, August 7, 1884.

REV. D. F. SPRIGG, D.D.,
Editor of the "Southern Churchman,"
Richmond, Va.

DEAR SIR,

I have carefully reperused my letter of the 22nd ult., and can find nothing that I would care to expunge, but much that I would like to add. Having, however, already trespassed so much upon your time, I will simply confirm what I have written.

Mr. Boone, up to the present time, has not replied to my letter of July 16, in the N.-C. Daily News. Mr. Thomsn tells me he (Mr. Boone) will not take any notice of it. How Mr. Boone can take this stand after the promptness he showed in replying to my first letter is a mystery to me, unless my statements are true. Mr. Boone's duty to the Church, as well as to himself, demands that he should come [51/52] to the front and state positively that the allegations contained in my letter are false, nothing short of this will satisfy tint public. Mr. Thomson states that the consecration; will take place on the 28th October next. I would fain hope that something may transpire to prevent the consecration taking place, until the affairs of the China Mission are investigated.

The Church of Our Saviour in the American Settlement has been closed to foreign service; Mr. Appleton had charge of this Church until his withdrawal from the Mission. When he left, there was a good congregation, and fearing that Mr. Boone and Mr. Sowerby would not be able to keep the people. I conferred with Mr. Thomson, and with his approval, I arranged to have services continued with the aid of the Yen. Archdeacon Moule. This arrangement did not meet with the approval of Mr. Boone, and the Archdeacon's services were declined. Two Sundays ago the Church was closed without any public notice appearing in the papers, and those of the remaining congregation who had not beard of the action of Mr. Boone went to the Church, only to find the gate locked. The Mission has been under no expense in keeping the Church open, the congregation paying the running expenses. The friends of the Church have purchased an organ at a cost of over $800, paid for half the expense of repainting the interior, and in various ways shown an interest in the Church of Our Saviour, and it is not to be wondered at, that they feel annoyed at the treatment received, especially when it could have been prevented. Mr. Purdon, one of the leading American merchants here, and myself, have given much of our time to serve the interest of the Church, and we both feel keenly the action of the Mission.

Feeling assured that you will do all you can to remedy anything likely to effect the welfare of the Church,

I remain,

Yours faithfully,

FERDINAND MCKEIGE.

No. 24.

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE,

February 29, 1884.

To the FOREIGN COMMITTEE BOARD OF MISSIONS.
REV. JOSHUA KIMBER, Secretary.

DEAR MR. KIMBER,

In several letters to you during the past six months, especially in one of date August 22, 1883, I have given expression to my dissatisfaction with the management of the Mission in Shanghai.

My words seem however, to have produced very little impression, and I propose therefore to speak more definitely and to the point. In this letter I shall confine myself to the affairs of St. John's College, reserving for another occasion what I have to say on other subjects.

In my letter of August 22, I use the words "gross inability, culpable neglect of plain duties." In my letter of January 29, I say, "St. John's College is a missionary college only in name." These words I used deliberately and with a full sense of the responsibility which I incurred when I used them. I will now give you some of my reasons.

To begin then, habitual gambling for money with cards, dice, and dominoes is carried on by the students in the College buildings. To such an extent is this gambling indulged in, that St. John's Missionary College might with reason be rather called a gambling den.

The College has long had a bad reputation in this respect. While I was in Wuchang, I heard of it from the natives. One man in Wuchang withdrew his son from the College and brought him back home, fearing lest his son should be ruined. He had