The Washington times., 1901-07-01

at all. II says ln0u Sudll uOl SOFC|
and adds no qualification.
But it is, after all. not the religion OF
the Old Testament which missionaries
are seHt to China to teach. but that OF
the New There are revengeful pas
sages in the writings of David. and
Joshua, and Isaiah, but not In the Cos
pels. The very essence of the teachings
of Christ is opposed to vengeance. DIR.
Reid is supposed to tell, in his teach
ing. the story of one who was all his
life poor, despised and ill-treated. who
met with death more shameful and
agonizing than that inflicted on any
missionary who suffered at the hands
of the Chinese and who, in all his life,
never once told his followers to ayenge
his sufferings or their own. All of mis-
teaching was in the direction of meek
ness, forbearance. remuneration of
worldly goods, doing good in return f.'r
evil. How does this coincide with the
frank statement of DR.. Reid: Person
ally. l regret that the guilty suffered
50 little at my own hands,"
The Chinese have a religion of their
own, although they do not always fol-
low it, any more than other people; and
the foundation of it is the saying.
THAT which ye would not that others
should do to you. do ye not TO them"
1t will be seen that this differs very
little from the commandment which
Christ gave as including all the others
relating to mans duty to man, Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' 1t
has been claimed in extenuation of
missions in China that the negative
form in which the command is put, in
the Chinese version, makes it ineffec-
tive, and that the Christian form of it
is positive, including and adding to the
other. But it looks as if DR. Reid did
not care about obeying even the half
of the commandment which is Chinese.
let alone the other half. To be con-
sistent in his Christianity, he should
certainly reason that as he would not
wish to have people loot his household
goods, he should not loot theirs. Even
Chinese morality would require him TO
go as far as that. To be Christian as
we'll as Chinese in his virtue he should
seek to do to his enemies what he
would wish them to do to him, return
ing good for evil Did he do this? Does
he even claim that he wants to do 1t?
Nothing Of the kind. He only manifests
a wild desire to follow new version
of the commandment. and do other peo-
pie as they have done him.
Taken as it stands, without any in
ferences or comments, this article is
probably the most extraordinary ex-
preston of opinion on an ethical sub
ject ever put forth by man bearing
tie title of doctor of divinity. We
have here the point blank statements
that trained theologians found nothing
in their training whicli led them to de-
eide that it was wrong 20 steal, and TO
sell the things stolen; that after about
four days the comparatively undeveI-
oped consciences of army officers ar
rived at the conclusion that stealing
was not only wrong. but so demoraliz-
ing to law and order that stringent
measures should be taken to prevent
it; that the only thing which stopped
indiscriminate looting by the mission
aries was the action of the o.dcers, and
that all their looting is justified on the
ground that the persons robbed We're
wicked and deserved punishment. how
ever, and whenever, and by whomso-
ever, it might be administered. We
| have also the argument that looting al
ways has happened when cities were
taken, and always will happen. and
that missionaries have therefore right
to loot as other people do. On the same
ground it might be argued that since
unmentionable outrages were commit
ted by some of the soldiers ranging
about Pekin, and inasmuch as such
things were part of warlike usage in the
Middle Ages the missionary had a
right to go out and take part in those
il he liked.
The question aroused by this article
is, what kind OF brand of Christian
ity are we sending over 10 China? Much
money has been spent in propagating
what purports to be the Gospel among
a people who have not asked for it and
do not want it. on the ground that the
New Testament is superior to the
teachings of Confucius, and viii do
them good If they accept it. 1t appears
from the argument of DR.. Reid, how
ever. that he and his confTeres are not
acting according to the teachings Of the
New Testament. and that in time of
stress they behave precisely as uncon-
verted Chinese might do so far as rev.
erence for the rights of property are
concerned. There are numerous in
habitants of the slums of American
cities who are growing up in ignorance
of the laws of meum ct tuum, pc
cause there is not money or interest
enough in the work of regenerating the
children of criminals, TO establish
schools where they may be taught not
to steal, and instructed in trades where
by they can get living without it
| Meanwhile we are sending to China,
where there is already a religion for
| bidding theft, murder, selfishness. i'm
morality, and other cardinal sins, gem
| tlemen who frankly admit their belief
| that they have right to plunder their
| enemies If they happen to need the
| money, and who use the money thus
| gained to distribute among their cen
verts as well as to enrich themselves.
Suppose we were to establish mission
| school in Chinatown and teach the con-
verts that 1t was right for ps or for
them to confiscate the property cf their
| unconverted brethren and sell it, be-
cause the latter were in sympathy with
the Boxer uprising? What is good re-