The Missionary Force and the Chinese
Church
XVIII
BEGINNINGS OF THE MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE--
THE TAI-PING REBELLION AND THE LATER
DEVELOPMENT
THE first definite knowledge of the true God appears
to have come to China with some Jews who are said
to have entered the Empire in the third century.
Conjecture has long been busy with the circumstances of that
ancient migration. That the colony became fairly numerous
may be inferred from the fact that in 1329 and again in 1354,
the Jews are mentioned in the Chinese records of the Mongol
dynasty, while early in the seventeenth century Father Ricci
claimed to have discovered a synagogue built in 1183. In
1866, the Rev. Dr. W. A. P. Martin, then President of the
Tung-wen College at Peking, visited Kai-fung-fu, the centre of
this Jewish colony, and on a monument he found an inscription
which included the following passage:--
``With respect to the religion of Israel, we find that our first ancestor
was Adam. The founder of the religion was Abraham; then came Moses
who established the law, and handed down the sacred writings. During
the dynasty of Han (B. C. 200-A, D. 226) this religion entered China.
In the second year of Hiao-tsung, of the Sung dynasty (A. D. 1164), a
synagogue was erected in Kai-fung fu. Those who attempt to represent
God by images or pictures do but vainly occupy themselves with empty
forms. Those who honour and obey the sacred writings know the origin
of all things. Eternal reason and the sacred writings mutually sustain
each other in testifying whence men derived their being. All those who
profess this religion aim at the practice of goodness and avoid the commission
of vice.''[64]
[64] Martin, ``A Cycle of Cathay,'' p. 275.
Dr. Martin writes that he inquired in the market-place:--
``Are there among you any of the family of Israel?'' ``I am one,''
responded a young man, whose face corroborated his assertion; and then
another and another stepped forth until I saw before me representatives
of six out of the seven families into which the colony is divided. They
confessed with shame and grief that their holy and beautiful house had
been demolished by their own hands. It had for a long time, they said,
been in a ruinous condition; they had no money to make repairs; they
had, moreover, lost all knowledge of the sacred tongue; the traditions of
the fathers were no longer handed down and their ritual worship had
ceased to be observed. In this state of things they had yielded to the
pressure of necessity and disposed of the timbers and stones of that venerable
edifice to obtain relief for their bodily wants. . . . Their number
they estimated, though not very exactly, at from three to four hundred.
. . . No bond of union remains, and they are in danger of being
speedily absorbed by Mohammedanism or heathenism.''[65]
[65] Martin, ``A Cycle of Cathay,'' pp. 275, 276, 277.
There is something pathetic about that forlorn remnant of the
Hebrew race. ``A rock rent from the side of Mount Zion
by some great national catastrophe and projected into the central
plain of China, it has stood there while the centuries rolled
by, sublime in its antiquity and solitude.''[66]
[66] Martin, p. 278.
In his Life of Morrison, Townsend reminds us that the Christian
Church early realized that it could not ignore so vast a
nation, while its very exclusiveness attracted bold spirits. As
far back as the first decade of the sixth century (505 A. D.),
Nestorian monks appear to have begun a mission in China.
Romance and tragedy are suggested by the few known facts
regarding that early movement. Partly impelled by conviction,
partly driven by persecution, those faithful souls travelled beyond
the bounds of the Roman Empire, and rested not till they
had made the formidable journey across burning deserts and
savage mountains to the land of Sinim. That some measure
of success attended their effort is probable. Indeed there are
hints in the ancient records of numerous churches and of the
favour of the great Emperor Tai Tsung in 635. But however
zealous the Nestorians may have been for a time, it is evident
that they were finally submerged in the sea of Chinese superstition.
A quaint monument, discovered in 1625 at Hsi-an-fu,
the capital of Shen-si, on which is inscribed an outline of the
Nestorian effort from the year 630 to 781, is the only trace that
remains of what must have been an interesting and perhaps a
thrilling missionary enterprise.
The Roman Catholic effort began in 1293, when John de
Corvino succeeded in reaching Peking. Though he was elevated
to an Archbishopric and reinforced by several priests,
this effort, too, proved a failure and was abandoned.
Two and a-half centuries of silence followed, and then in
1552, the heroic Francis Xavier set his face towards China,
only to be prostrated by fever on the Island of Sancian. As
he despairingly realized that he would never be able to set his
foot on that still impenetrable land, he moaned: ``Oh, Rock,
Rock, when wilt thou open!'' and passed away.
But in 1581, another Jesuit, the learned and astute Matteo
Ricci, entered Canton in the guise of a Buddhist priest. He
managed to remain, and twenty years later he went to Peking
in the dress of a literary gentleman. In him Roman Catholicism
gained a permanent foothold in China, and although it
was often fiercely persecuted and at times reduced to feebleness,
it never became wholly extinct. Gradually it extended
its influence until in 1672 the priests reported 300,000 baptized
Chinese, including children. In the nineteenth century,
the growth of the Roman Church was rapid. It is now
strongly entrenched in all the provinces, and in most of the
leading cities its power is great. There are twenty-seven bishops
and about six hundred foreign priests. The number of communicants
is variously estimated, but in 1897 the Vicar Apostolic
of Che-kiang, though admitting that he could not secure
accurate statistics, estimated the Roman Catholic population
at 750,000.
It is not to the credit of Protestantism that it was centuries
behind the Roman Church in the attempt to Christianize
China. It was not till 1807, that the first Protestant missionary
arrived. January 31st, of that year, Robert Morrison, then a
youth of twenty-five, sailed alone from London under appointment
of the London Missionary Society (Congregational). As
the hostile East India Company would not allow a missionary
on any of its ships, Morrison had to go to New York in order
to secure passage on an American vessel. As he paid his fare
in the New York ship owner's office, the merchant said with
a sneer: ``And so, Mr. Morrison, you really expect that you
will make an impression on the idolatry of the great Chinese
Empire?'' ``No, sir,'' was the ringing reply, ``I expect God
will.''
The ship Trident left New York about May 15th and did
not reach Canton till September 8th. For two years Morrison
had to live and study in Canton and the Portuguese settlement
of Macao with the utmost secrecy, dreading constantly that he
might be forced to leave. For a time, he never walked the
streets by daylight for fear of attracting attention, but exercised
by night. His own countrymen were hostile to his purpose
and his Chinese language teachers were impatient and insolent.
It was not till February 20, 1809, the date of his marriage to
Miss Morton, that his employment as translator by the East
India Company gave him a secure residence. Still, however,
he could not do open missionary work, but was obliged to present
Christianity behind locked doors to the few Chinese whom
he dared to approach. In these circumstances, he naturally
gave his energies largely to language study and translation,
and in 1810 he had the joy of issuing a thousand copies of a
Chinese version of the Book of Acts.
Seven weary, discouraging years passed before Morrison baptized
his first convert, July 16, 1814, and even then he had to
administer the sacrament at a lonely spot where unfriendly eyes
could not look. At his death in 1834, there were only three
Chinese Christians in the whole Empire. Successors carried
on the effort, but the door was not yet open, and the work was
done against many obstacles and chiefly in secret till the treaty
of Nanking, in 1842, opened the five ports of Amoy, Canton,
Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai. Missionaries who had been
waiting and watching in the neighbouring islands promptly entered
these cities. Eagerly they looked to the great populations
in the interior, but they were practically confined to the
ports named till 1858, when the treaty of Tien-tsin opened
other cities and officially conceded the rights of missionary residence
and labour.
The work now spread more rapidly, not only because it was
conducted in more centres and by a larger force of missionaries,
but because it was carried into the interior regions by
Chinese who had heard the gospel in the ports.
The Tai-ping Rebellion soon gave startling illustration of the
perversion of the new force. Begun in 1850 by an alleged
Christian convert who claimed to have a special revelation from
heaven as a younger brother of Christ, it spread with amazing
rapidity until in 1853 it had overrun almost all that part of
China south of the Yang-tze-kiang, had occupied Nanking and
Shanghai, and had made such rapid progress northward that it
threatened the capital itself. It was the most stupendous revolution
in history, shaking to its foundations a vast and ancient
empire, involving the destruction of an almost inconceivable
amount of property and, it is said, of the lives of twenty millions
of human beings.
If this great rebellion had been wisely guided, it would
undoubtedly have changed the history of China and perhaps, by
this time, of the greater part of Asia, for it proposed to overthrow
idolatry, to unseat the Manchu dynasty, and to found an
empire on the principles of the Christian religion. So nearly
indeed did it attain success that if it had not been opposed by
European nations, it would probably have attained its object.
But the weight of their influence was thrown in favour of the
Government. The American Frederick T. Ward and the
English Charles George Gordon organized and led the ``Ever
Victorious Army'' of Chinese troops against the revolutionists.
Most significant of all, the leaders of the rebellion itself, freed
from the restraint which foreigners might perhaps have exerted,
quickly discarded whatever Christian principles they had started
with and rapidly demoralized the movement at its centre by
giving themselves up to an arrogance, vice, and cruelty which
were worse than those of the government they sought to overturn.
Mr. McLane, then United States Minister, truly
reported to Washington:--
``Whatever may have been the hopes of the enlightened and civilized
nations of the earth, in regard to this movement, it is now apparent that
they neither profess nor apprehend Christianity, and whatever may be the
true judgment to form of their political power, it can no longer be doubted
that intercourse cannot be established or maintained on terms of equality.''
The recapture of Nanking in 1864 marked the final turning
of the tide, and in an incredibly short time the whole insurrection
collapsed. The rebellion, vast as it was, is now after
all but an episode in the history of the great Empire. But the
fact that any man on such a platform could so quickly develop
an insurrection of such appalling proportions significantly
suggests the possibilities of change in China when new movements
are rightly directed.
Freed from this gigantic travesty of its true character, the
growth of Christianity in China became more rapid. The
following table is eloquent:
1807 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 communicants
1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ``
1834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ``
1842 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ``
1853 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 ``
1857 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 ``
1865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 ``
1876. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,515 ``
1886 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,000 communicants
1889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,287 ``
1893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,093 ``
1887 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,682 ``
1903 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,808 ``
The number of Protestant missionaries is 2,950, of whom
1,233 are men, 868 are wives and 849 are single women. Of
the whole number, 1,483 are from Great Britain, 1,117 from
America and 350 from continental Europe. Other interesting
statistics are 5,000,000 adherents, 2,500 stations and out-
stations, 6,388 Chinese pastors and helpers, 1,819 day-schools and
170 higher institutions of learning, twenty-three mission presses
with an annual Output Of 107,149,738 pages, thirty-two periodicals,
124 hospitals and dispensaries treating in a single year
1,700,452 patients; while the asylums for the orphaned and
blind and deaf number thirty-two.
It will thus be seen that Christian missions in China are
being conducted upon a large scale. It would be difficult to
overestimate the silent and yet mighty energy represented by
such work, steadily continued through a long series of years,
and representing the life labours of thousands of devoted men
and women and an annual expenditure of hundreds of thousands
of dollars.
True, the number of Christians is small in comparison with
the population of the Empire, but the gospel has been aptly
compared to a seed. It is indeed small, but seeds generally
are. Lodged in a crevice of a rock, a seed will thrust its
thread-like roots into fissures so tiny that they are hardly
noticeable. Yet in time they will rend the rock asunder and
firmly hold a stately tree. Now the seed of the gospel has been
fairly lodged in the Chinese Empire. It is a seed of indestructible
vitality and irresistible transforming power. It has taken
root, and it is destined to produce mighty changes. It was not
without reason that Christianity was spoken of as a force that
``turned the world upside down,'' though it only does this
where the world was wrong side up. It is significant that the
word translated ``power'' in Romans 1:16, ``The gospel is
the power of God,'' is in the Greek the word that we have
anglicized in common speech as ``dynamite.'' We might,
therefore, literally translate Paul's statement: ``The gospel is
the dynamite of God.'' That dynamite has been placed under
the crust of China's conservatism, and the extraordinary
transformations that are taking place in China are, in part at least,
the results of its tremendous explosive force.
The scope of this book does not permit an extended account
of the missionary movement in China. It has been given in
many volumes that are easily accessible.''[67] Nearly all of the
Protestant churches, European and American, are represented
and their missionaries are teaching the young, healing
the sick, translating the Word of God, creating a wholesome
literature, and preaching everywhere and with a fidelity beyond
all praise the truths of the Christian religion. Self-sacrificing
devotion and patient persistence in well-doing are written on
every page of the history of missions in China, while emergencies
have developed deeds of magnificent heroism. Men and
women have repeatedly endured persecution of the most virulent
kind rather than forsake their converts, and a number ``of
whom the world was not worthy'' have laid down their lives
for conscience' sake. There are few places in all the world
that are more depressing to a white man than a Chinese city.
The dreary monotony and squalor of its life are simply indescribable.
Chefoo is usually considered one of the most attractive
cities in China, and the missionaries who reside there
are regarded as fortunate above their brethren. But even a
brief stay will convince the most sceptical that nothing but the
strongest considerations of duty could induce one who has
freedom of choice to remain any longer than is absolutely
necessary. Yet for forty-two years, missionaries have lived
and toiled amid these unattractive surroundings, their houses
on Temple Hill in the midst of the innumerable graves which
occupy almost every possible space not actually covered by the
mission buildings and grounds. But steadily the missionaries
have toiled on, with faith and courage and love, and they are
slowly but surely effecting marked changes. One by one, the
Chinese are being led to loftier views of life and while the old
city still continues to live in the ancient way, hundreds of
Chinese families, amid the numerous population outside of the
walls and in the outlying villages, have begun to conform
themselves to the new and higher conditions of life represented
by the Christian missionaries.
[67] The reader is referred to ``The Middle Kingdom,'' Williams;
``Christian Progress in China,'' Foster (1889); ``Story of the China Inland
Mission,'' Guinness; ``China and Formosa,'' Johnston (1897);
Record of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of
China held in Shanghai, 1890; Report of the Ecumenical Missionary
Conference held in New York, 1900; ``Mission Problems
and Mission Methods in South China,'' Gibson; ``Mission Methods in
Manchuria,'' Ross; ``Women of the Middle Kingdom,'' McNabb;
``Among the Mongols,'' Gilmour; ``East of the Barrier,'' Graham; ``In
the Far East,'' Guinness; ``The Cross and the Dragon,'' Henry; ``From
Far Formosa,'' Mackay; ``Dawn on the Hills of T'ang,'' Beach; ``China
and the Chinese,'' Nevius; ``Our Life in China,'' Mrs. Nevius; ``Life of
John Livingston Nevius,'' Nevius; ``Rex Christus,'' Smith; ``John
Kenneth Mackenzie,'' Bryson; ``Princely Men in the Heavenly Kingdom,''
Beach; ``James Gilmour of Mongolia,'' Lovett; ``Griffith John,''
Robson; ``Robert Morrison,'' Townsend; ``With the Tibetans in Tent
and Temple,'' Rijnhart.
Several schools, a handsome church, a hospital, the only
institution for deaf mutes in China and a wide-reaching itinerating
work, are features of the mission enterprise in Chefoo.
The visitor will be particularly interested in Dr. Hunter Corbett's
street chapel and museum. The building is situated
opposite the Chinese theatre and is well adapted to its purpose.
Dr. Corbett and a helper stand at the door and invite passers-by,
while a blind boy plays on a baby organ and sings.
The chapel, which holds about sixty or seventy, is soon filled.
Dr. Corbett preaches to the people for half an hour and then ad-
mits them to the museum which occupies several rooms in the
rear. It is a wonderful place to the Chinese who never weary
of watching the stuffed tiger, the model railway and the scores
of interesting objects and specimens that Dr. Corbett has collected
from various lands. Then the people leave by a door
opening on the back street, another service being held with
them in the last room. Several audiences a day are thus
handled. It is hard work, for the men as a rule are from many
outlying villages, unaccustomed to listening and knowing nothing
of Christianity. But Dr. Corbett speaks with such animation
and eloquence that not an eye is taken from him. Few
are converted in the chapel, but friendships are gained, doors
of opportunity opened, tracts distributed, men led to think,
and on country tours Dr. Corbett invariably meets people who
have been to the museum and who cordially welcome him to
their homes. He declares that after thirty years' experience,
he thoroughly believes in such work when followed up by
faithful itineration. Seventy-two thousand attended the chapel
and museum in the year 1900 in spite of the Boxer troubles.
The chapel is open every day, except that the museum
is closed on Sundays, and the attendance is now larger than
ever.
After dinner, we strolled down to Dr. Nevius' famous orchard.
It is a beautiful spot. Here the great missionary
found his recreation after his arduous labours. Yet even in his
hours of rest, he was eminently practical. Seeing that the
Chinese had very little good fruit and believing that he might
show them how to secure it, he brought from America seeds
and cuttings, carefully cultivated them and, when they were
grown, freely distributed the new seeds and cuttings to the
Chinese, explaining to them the methods of cultivation. Today,
as the result of his forethought and generosity, several
foreign fruits have become common throughout North China.
But the orchard is deteriorating as the Chinese will not prune
the trees. They are so greedy for returns that they do not like
to diminish the number of apples or plums in the interest of
quality.
At sunset, I made a pilgrimage with Mrs. Nevius to the
cemetery, where, after forty years of herculean toil, the mighty
missionary sleeps. We sat for a long time beside the grave, and
the aged widow, speaking of her own end, which she appeared
to feel could not be far distant, said that she wished to be buried
beside her husband and that for this reason she did not want
to go to the United States, preferring to remain in Chefoo until
her summons came.
The scene was very beautiful as the sun set and the moon
rose above the quiet sea. Standing beside the grave of the
honoured dead and under the solemn pines, the traveller gains
a new sense of the beneficence and dignity of the missionary
force that is operating through such consecrated lives of the
living and the dead.
XIX
MISSIONARIES AND NATIVE LAWSUITS
IN considering the effects of the operation of this missionary
force, we are at once confronted by the complaint of
many Chinese that missionaries interfere on behalf of their
converts in lawsuits. This complaint has been taken up and
circulated by foreign critics until it has become one of the most
formidable of the objections to missionary work. The difficulty
will be understood when we remember that, though the Chinese
are not a warlike people, they are litigious to an extraordinary
degree. The struggle for existence in such a densely populated
country often results in real or fancied entanglements of rights.
So the Chinese are forever disputing about something, and the
magistrates and village headmen are beset by clamorous hordes
who demand a settlement of their alleged grievances. Naturally
the Chinese Christians do not at once outgrow this national
disposition. Whether they do or not, their profession of Christianity
makes them an easy mark for the greedy and envious.
Jealousy and dislike of the native who abandons the faith of his
fathers and espouses ``the foreigner's religion'' frequently
hale him into court on trumped-up charges and the notorious
prejudice and corruption of the average magistrate often
result in grievous persecution. The terrified Christian naturally
implores the missionary to save him. It is hard to
resist such an appeal. But the defendant is not always so
innocent as he appears to be, and whether innocent or guilty,
the interference of the foreigner irritates both magistrate
and prosecutor, while it not infrequently arouses the resentment
of the whole community by giving the idea that
the Christians are a privileged class who are not amenable
to the ordinary laws of the land. When, as sometimes happens,
the Christians themselves get that idea and presume upon
it, the difficulty becomes acute. Speaking of the Chinese
talent for indirection, the Rev. Dr. Arthur H. Smith
says:--
``It is this which makes it so difficult for the most conscientious and
discreet missionary to be quite sure that he is in possession of all the
needed data in any given case. The difficulty in getting at the bottom
facts frequently is that there are no facts available, and, as the pilots say,
`no bottom.' Every Protestant missionary is anxious to have his flock of
Christians such as fear God and work righteousness, but in the effort to
compass this end he not infrequently finds that when endeavouring to
investigate the `facts' in any case he is chasing a school of cuttlefish
through seas of ink.''[68]
[68] ``Rex Christus,'' pp. 103, 107.
An illustration of this occurred during my visit in Ichou-fu.
A magistrate who needed some wheelbarrows sent out his men
to impress them. The rule in such cases is that only empty
barrows can be seized. But the yamen underlings found the
father of a mission helper with loaded barrows at an inn, stole
his goods and forced him to pay them a sum of money for the
privilege of keeping his barrows. The helper complained and
Dr. C. F. Johnson yielded only so far as to write a guarded
letter to the magistrate simply stating his confidence that if the
magistrate found that injustice had been done, he would
remedy it. But that letter brought the missionary into the
case and he found himself forced to see it through or ``lose
face'' with the Chinese Christians and especially the helper
who was the son of the man robbed. He soon discovered,
moreover, that the wronged man was telling contradictory
stories about the value of goods stolen and the amount of
money he had to pay to save his barrows. The situation
speedily became embarrassing and the sorely-tried missionary,
though he had acted from the best of motives and in the most
conservative way, vowed that he would never interfere again
in such disputes, as irritation and harm were almost certain to
result.
I asked Sir Robert Hart whether in his opinion a missionary
should seek to obtain justice for a persecuted man or should
remain silent? He replied:--
``Intervention in matters litigated ought to be absolutely eschewed. Let
the missionary content himself with making his disciples good men and
good citizens, and let him leave it to the duly authorized officials to
interpret and apply the law and administer their affairs in their own way.
Individual Christianity has as many shades and degrees as men's faces.
There are converts and converts, but even the most godly of them may
give his neighbour just reason to take offense, and the most saintly among
them may get involved in the meshes of the law. In such cases let the
missionary stand aloof. There is, too, such a thing as hypocrisy, much
better let the schemer get his deserts than hurt the church's character by
following sentiment into interference. You ask what is to be done when
there is persecution to be dealt with? First of all, I would advise the
individual or the community to live it down, and, as a last resort, report
the fact with appropriate detail and proof to the Legation in Peking for
the assistance and advice of the minister. `Watch thou in all things,
endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy
ministry.' ''
It is customary for the friends of Protestant missionaries to
answer the critic's charge of interference in native lawsuits by
stating that it does not justly lie against them, but only against
the Roman Catholics, the rule of the Protestant missionaries
being to avoid such interference save in rare and extreme cases.
Mr. Alexander Michie, however, declares that Protestant missionaries
are not entitled to such exemption, and that, while
they may not interfere so frequently as the Catholics, they
nevertheless interfere often enough to bring them under the
same condemnation.[69]
[69] Address in Shanghai, 1901.
There are undoubtedly cases of imprudence, but after diligent
inquiry, I am persuaded that the Protestant missionaries
as a class are keenly alive to the risks of interference in native
lawsuits and that they are increasingly careful in this respect.
They feel with the Rev. J. C. Garritt of Hangchow that ``the
most important form which prejudice has taken of late is the
belief that foreigners aid or at least countenance their converts
in the carrying of lawsuits through the yamens, or in the
business of private settlement of disputes, and that if we can
only practically demonstrate to the public that we are not in
that business, we shall have overcome one very serious obstacle
to our work.''
``The policy of the Chinese Government during the past
few years has been to avoid trouble by letting the foreigner
have his own way whenever possible. More than once the
Chinese official has said in substance to non-Christian litigants:
`You are right and your Christian accusers are wrong; but if
I decide in your favour the foreigner will appeal the case to the
Governor or to the Peking foreign office and I shall suffer.'
Such things are charged, justly or unjustly, to the account of
both Protestant and Romanist.''[70]
[70] The Rev. Dr. L. J. Davies, Tsing-tau.
A broad induction as to the facts has been made by the
Rev. Dr. Paul D. Bergen, President of Shantung Protestant
University. He wrote to a large number of missionaries representing
all Protestant denominations as to their practice and
convictions regarding this subject. Seventy-three answered
and Dr. Bergen tabulated their replies. As to the results of
the concrete cases of intervention cited, fifty-three are reported
to have been beneficial, twenty-six are characterized as doubtful,
four as mixed and sixty-seven as bad. This leaves the
remaining cases ``suspended in the air,'' and Dr. Bergen conjectures
that ``perhaps the missionary felt in such a confused
mental state at their conclusion, that he was quite unable to
work out the complicated equation of their results.''
``But surely the result that only fifty-three cases are reported
to have been of unmistakable benefit, while sixty-seven are set
down as resulting in evil, ought to give us thought. In short,
in the yamen intercession in behalf of prosecuted Christians,
it is the deliberate opinion of seventy-three missionaries that, as
a matter of personal experience, sixty-seven cases have wrought
only evil, while only fifty-three have been productive of good.
The balance is on the wrong side. We must decide, in view
of these replies, that there exists in general rather a pessimistic
opinion as to the advantages of applying to the yamen in behalf
of Christians.''
Summing up briefly the results of this inquiry, we note the
following points, which will embody the views of a very large
majority of the Protestant missionaries of experience in the
Empire:--
``First,--That it is highly desirable to keep church troubles out of the
yamen, but that there are times when we cannot do so without violating
our sense of justice and our sense of duty towards an injured brother.
``Second,--Official assistance is to be sought in such troubles only when
all other means of relief have been tried in vain. Always seek to settle
these difficulties out of court.
``Third,--When official assistance is requested, our bearing should be
friendly and courteous in the spirit, at least in the first instance, of asking
a favour of the official, rather than demanding a right.... We
should be extremely careful about trying to bring pressure to bear on an
official.
``Fourth,--In the presence of the native Christian, and especially of
those chiefly concerned, as well as in our own closets, we should cherish
a deep sense of our absolute dependence on heavenly rather than on
earthly protection, and remind the Christians that, as Dr. Taylor has so
tersely put it, their duty is `to do good, suffer for it and take it patiently.'
``Fifth,--Only in grave cases should matters be pushed to the point of
controversy or formal appeal.
``Sixth,--Christians and evangelists should be solemnly warned against
betraying an arrogant spirit upon the successful termination of any
trouble.
``Seventh,--Previous to the carrying of a case before the official, let the
missionary be sure of his facts. Each case should be patiently, thoroughly
and firmly examined. Receive individual testimony with judicious reserve.
Be not easily blinded by appeals to the emotions. Be especially
ready to receive any one from the opposition, and give his words due
weight. Do not be too exclusively influenced by the judgment of any one
man, however trusted.
``Eighth,--In the course of negotiation beware of insisting on monetary
compensation for the injured Christian. In greatly aggravated cases this
may occasionally be unavoidable. But should it be made a condition of
settlement, see to it that the damages are under, rather than over, what
might have been demanded. It is almost sure to cause subsequent
trouble, both within and without, if a Christian receives money under
such circumstances.
``Ninth,--When unhappily involved in a persecution case with the official,
we should remember that we are not lawyers, and therefore make no
stand on legal technicalities, nor allow ourselves to take a threatening
attitude, although we may be subjected to provocation; we should be
patient, dignified and strong in the truth, making it clear to the official that
this is all that we seek in order that the ends of justice may be satisfied.
``Tenth,--It would be well on every fitting occasion to exhort those under
our care to avoid frequenting yamens or cultivating intimacy with
their inhabitants, unless, indeed, we feel assured that their motive is the
same as that animating our Lord when He mingled with publicans and
sinners.''
A widely representative conference of Protestant missionaries
issued in 1903 the following manifesto and sent copies in
Chinese to all officials throughout the Empire:
``Chinese Christians, though church-members, remain in every respect
Chinese citizens, and are subject to the properly constituted Chinese
authorities. The sacred Scriptures and the doctrines of the church teach
obedience to all lawful authority and exhort to good citizenship; and these
doctrines are preached in all Protestant churches. The relation of a missionary
to his converts is thus that of a teacher to his disciples, and he
does not desire to arrogate to himself the position or power of a magistrate.
``Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that unworthy men, by making insincere
professions, enter the church and seek to use this connection to
interfere with the ordinary course of law in China. We all agree that
such conduct is entirely reprehensible, and we desire it to be known that
we give no support to this unwarrantable practice
``On this account we desire to state that for the information of all that:
(a) The Protestant Church does not wish to interfere in law cases. All
cases between Christians and non-Christians must be settled in the courts
in the ordinary way. Officials are called upon to administer fearlessly and
impartially justice to all within their jurisdiction. (b) Native Christians
are strictly forbidden to use the name of the church or its officers in the
hope of strengthening their positions when they appear before magistrates.
The native pastors and preachers are appointed for teaching and exhortation,
and are chosen because of their worthy character to carry on this
work. To prevent abuses in the future, all officials are respectfully requested
to report to the missionary every case in which letters or cards using
the name of the church or any of its officers are brought into court.
Then proper inquiry will be made and the truth become clear.''
The policy of the British Government on this subject was
clearly expressed by Earl Granville in his note of August 21,
1871, to the British Minister at Peking:
``The policy and practice of the Government of Great Britain have been
unmistakable. They have uniformly declared, and now repeat, that they
do not claim to afford any species of protection to Chinese Christians
which may be construed as withdrawing them from their native allegiance,
nor do they desire to secure to British missionaries any privileges
or immunities beyond those granted by treaty to other British subjects.
The Bishop of Victoria was requested to intimate this to the Protestant
missionary societies in the letter addressed to him by Mr. Hammond by
the Earl of Clarendon's direction on the 13th of November, 1869, and to
point out that they would `do well to warn converts that although the
Chinese Government may be bound by treaty not to persecute, on account
of their conversion, Chinese subjects who may embrace Christianity,
there is no provision in the treaty by which a claim can be made on behalf
of converts for exemption from the obligations of their natural allegiance,
and from the jurisdiction of the local authorities. Under the creed
of their adoption, as under that of their birth, Chinese converts to Christianity
still owe obedience to the law of China, and if they assume to set
themselves above those laws, in reliance upon foreign protection, they
must take the consequence of their own indiscretion, for no British authority,
at all events, can interfere to save them.' ''
The policy of the United States Government was stated with
equal clearness in a note of the Hon. Frederick F. Low,
United States Minister at Peking, to the Tsung-li Yamen, dated
March 20, 1871:
``The Government of the United States, while it claims to exercise, under
and by virtue of the stipulations of treaty, the exclusive right of judging
of the wrongful acts of its citizens resident in China, and of punishing
them when found guilty according to its own laws, does not assume to
claim or exercise any authority or control over the natives of China. This
rule applies equally to merchants and missionaries, and, so far as I know,
all foreign Governments having treaties with China adhere strictly to this
rule. In case, however, missionaries see that native Christians are being
persecuted by the local officials on account of their religious opinions, in
violation of the letter and spirit of the twenty-ninth article of the treaty
between the United States and China, it would be proper, and entirely in
accordance with the principles of humanity and the teachings of their religion,
to make respectful representation of the facts in such cases to the
local authorities direct, or through their diplomatic representative to the
foreign office; for it cannot be presumed that the Imperial Government
would sanction any violation of treaty engagement, or that the local officials
would allow persecutions for opinion's sake, when once the facts are
made known to them. In doing this the missionaries should conform to
Chinese custom and etiquette, so far as it can be done without assuming
an attitude that would be humiliating and degrading to themselves.''
The question is one of the most difficult and delicate of all
the questions with which the missionary must deal. On the
one hand, every impulse of justice and humanity prompts him
to befriend a good man who is being persecuted for righteousness'
sake. But on the other hand, sore experience has
taught him the necessity of caution. The pressure upon him is
so frequent and trying that it becomes the bete noire of his life.
The outsider may wisely hesitate before he adds to that pressure.
The citations that have been given show that the missionaries
themselves understand the question quite as well as
any one else and that they are competent to deal with it.
XX
MISSIONARIES AND THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS
THE relation of the missionary to the consular and
diplomatic representatives of his own government is
another topic of perennial criticism. Some European
Governments have persistently and notoriously sought to advance
their national interest through their missionaries. France
and Russia have been particularly active in this way, the
former claiming large rights by virtue of its position as ``the
protector of Catholic missions.'' The result is that the
average Chinese official regards all missionaries as political
agents who are to be watched and feared. Dr. L. J. Davies, a
Presbyterian missionary, says that he has been repeatedly asked
his rank as ``an American official,'' whether he ``reported in
person'' to his ``emperor'' on his return to his native land,
how much salary his government allowed him, and many
other questions the import of which was manifest.
The typical consul and minister, moreover, find that no
small part of their business relates to matters that are brought to
their attention by missionaries. Sometimes they manifest impatience
on this account. One consul profanely complained to
me that three-fourths of his business related to the missionary
question. He forgot, however, that nine-tenths of the nationals
under his jurisdiction were missionaries, so that in proportion to
their numbers, the missionaries gave him less trouble than the
non-missionary Americans. In answer to an inquiry by the
Rev. Dr. Paul D. Bergen, of the Presbyterian Mission, seventy-
three missionaries, of from five to thirty years' experience, and
representing most of the Protestant boards, reported a total of
only fifty-two applications through consul or minister. The
Hon. John Barrett, formerly Minister of the United States to
Siam, writes: ``Let us be fair in judging the missionaries.
Let the complaining merchant, traveller or clubman take the
beam from his own eye before he demands that the mote be
taken from the missionary's eye. In my diplomatic experience
in Siam, 150 missionaries gave me less trouble in five years
than fifteen merchants gave me in five months.''
Doubtless some diplomats would be glad to have the missionaries
expatriate themselves. In the United States Senate
the Hon. John Sherman is reported to have said that ``if our
citizens go to a far-distant country, semi-civilized and bitterly
opposed to their movements, we cannot follow them there and
protect them. They ought to come home.'' Is, then, the
missionary's business less legitimate than the trader's? Is a
man entitled to the protection of his country if he goes to the
Orient to sell whiskey and rifles, but does he forfeit that protection
if he goes there to preach the gospel of temperance and
peace?
Critics may be reminded that missionaries are American citizens;
that when gamblers and drunkards and adventurers and
distillery agents in China claim the rights of citizenship, the
missionary does not forfeit his rights by a residence in China
for the purpose of teaching the young, healing the sick, distributing
the Bible and preaching the gospel of Christ, particularly
when treaties expressly guarantee him protection in the
exercise of these very privileges. It is odd to find some people
insisting that a dissolute trader should be allowed to go
wherever he pleases and raising a tremendous hubbub if a hair
of his head is injured, while at the same time they appear to
deem it an unwarranted thing for a decent man to go to China
on a mission of peace and good-will.
While the individual missionary is, of course, free to
renounce his claim to the protection of home citizenship,
such renunciation is neither necessary nor expedient. There
is not the slightest probability that our Government will require
it, and if it should, the public sentiment of the United States
would not tolerate such an order for a week. No self-respecting
nation can expatriate its citizens who go abroad to do good.
The policy of the United States was indicated in the note of
the Hon. J. C. B. Davis, acting Secretary of State, to the
United States Minister at Peking, October 19, 1871.
``The rights of citizens of the United States in China are well defined
by treaty. So long as they attend peaceably to their affairs they are to
be placed on a common footing of amity and good-will with subjects of
China, and are to receive and enjoy for themselves, and everything appertaining
to them, protection and defense from all insults and injuries.
They have the right to reside at any of the ports open to foreign commerce,
to rent houses and places of business, or to build such upon sites
which they have the right to hire. They have secured to them the right
to build churches and cemeteries, and they may teach or worship in those
churches without being harassed, persecuted, interfered with, or molested.
These are some of the rights which are expressly and in terms granted to
the United States, for their citizens, by the Treaty of 1858. If I rightly
apprehend the spirit of the note of the Foreign Office, and of the regulations
which accompany it, there is, to state it in the least objectionable
form, an apprehension in the yamen that it may become necessary to curtail
some of these rights, in consequence of the alleged conduct of French
missionaries. This idea cannot be entertained for one moment by the
United States.''
This position was given new emphasis by the note sent by
Secretary of State John Hay to the Hon. Horace Porter, United
States Ambassador to France, in response to a communication
from the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris in 1903.
In this note Mr. Hay said:
``The Government holds that every citizen sojourning or travelling
abroad in pursuit of his lawful affairs is entitled to a passport, and the
duration of such sojourn the department does not arrogate to itself the right
to limit or prescribe.''
The governments of continental Europe have repeatedly
shown themselves quick to resent an infringement upon the
treaty rights of their subjects who are in China as missionaries.
The Hon. Thomas Francis Wade, British Minister at Peking,
wrote to Minister Wen Hsiang in June, 1871:--``The British
Government draws no distinction between the missionaries and
any other of its non-official subjects.'' This sentiment was emphatically
reiterated by Earl Granville in a note from the foreign
office in London to Mr. Wade dated August 21, 1871:
``Her Majesty's Government cannot allow the claim that the missionaries
residing in China must conform to the laws and customs of China to
pass unchallenged. It is the duty of a missionary, as of every other British
subject, to avoid giving offense as far as possible to the Chinese authorities
or people, but he does not forfeit the rights to which he is entitled under
the treaty as a British subject because of his missionary character.''
But while this is the only possible policy for a government,
it is surely reasonable to expect that the persons concerned will
exercise moderation and prudence in their demands. The
China Island Mission does not permit its missionaries to appeal
to their Government officials without special permission from
headquarters. Many missionaries of other societies would
probably resent such a limitation of their liberty as citizens.
But as the act of the individual often involves others, it might
be well to make the approval of the station necessary, and,
wherever practicable, of the mission. Nine-tenths of the
missionaries do not and will not unnecessarily write or
telegraph for the intervention of minister or consul. But the
tenth man may be benefited by the counsel of his colleagues
who know or who may be easily acquainted with the facts.
The American Presbyterian Board in a formal action has expressed
the wise judgment that ``appeals to the secular arm
should always and everywhere be as few as possible.'' It is
not in the civil or military power of a country to give the
missionary success. In the crude condition of heathen
society, the temptation is sometimes strong to appeal for aid to
``the secular arm'' of the home government. Occasions may
possibly arise in which it will be necessary to insist upon rights.
Nevertheless, as a rule, it will be well to remember that ``the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through
God,'' and that ``the servant of the Lord must not strive, but
be gentle unto all men.'' The argument of the sword is
Mohammedan, not Christian. The veteran Rev. J. Hudson
Taylor holds that in the long run appeals to home governments
do nothing but harm. He says he has known of many riots
that have never been reported and of much suffering endured
in silence which have ``fallen out rather to the furtherance of
the gospel,'' and that ``if we leave God to vindicate our
cause, the issue is sure to prove marvellous in spirituality.''
The critics have vociferously charged that after the suppression
of the Boxer uprising, the missionaries greatly embarrassed
their governments by demanding bloody vengeance
upon the Chinese. It may indeed be true that among the
thousands of Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries in
China, some temporarily lost their self-control and gave way to
anger under the awful provocation of ruined work, burned
homes, outraged women and butchered Chinese Christians.
How many at home would or could have remained calm in
such circumstances? But it is grossly unjust to treat such
excited utterances as representative of the great body of
missionary opinion. The missionaries went to China and
they propose to stay there because they love and believe in the
Chinese, and it is very far from their thought to demand undue
punishment for those who oppose them. They sensibly
expected a certain amount of opposition from tradition,
heathenism, superstition and corruption, and they are not disposed
to call for unmanly or unchristian measures when that
trouble falls upon them which fell in even greater measure on
the Master Himself.
It is true that some of the missionaries felt that the ring-
leaders of the Boxers, including those in high official position
who more or less secretly incited them to violence, should be
punished. But they were not thinking of revenge, so much as
of the welfare of China, the restoration to power of the best element
among the Chinese, and the reasonable security of
Chinese Christians and of foreigners who have treaty rights.
Many missionaries feel that there is no hope for China save in
the predominance of the Reform Party, and that if the reactionaries
are to remain in control, the outlook is dark indeed,
not so much for the foreigner as for China itself. The men
who were guilty of the atrocities perpetrated in the summer of
1900 violated every law, human and divine, and some of the
missionaries demanded their punishment only in the same
spirit as the ministers and Christian people of the United
States who with united voice demanded the punishment of the
four young men in Paterson, New Jersey, who had been
systematically outraging young girls.
Nevertheless, as to the whole subject of the policy which
should be adopted by our Government in China, I believe that
it would be wise for both the missionaries and the mission
boards to be cautious in proffering advice, and to leave the
responsibility for action with the lawfully constituted civil
authorities upon whom the people have placed it. Governments
have better facilities for acquiring accurate information
as to political questions than missionaries have. They can see
the bearings of movements more clearly than those who are
not in political life and can discern elements in the situation
that are not so apparent to others. Moreover, they must bear
the blame or praise for consequences. They can ask for
missionary opinion if they want it. Generations of protest
against priestly domination, chiefly by Protestant ministers
themselves, have developed in both Europe and America a disposition
to resent clerical interference in political questions.
This is particularly true of matters in Asia, where the political
situation is so delicate. The opinions publicly expressed by
the missionaries as to the policy, which, in their judgment,
should be adopted by our Government and by the European
Powers have included not only many articles of individual
missionaries in newspapers and magazines, but formal communications
of bodies or committees of missionaries. Conspicuous
examples are the protests of missionaries assembled in
Chefoo and Shanghai in 1900 against the decision of the
American Government to withdraw its troops from Peking, to
recognize the Empress Dowager and to omit certain officials
from the list of those who were to be executed or banished, and,
in particular, the letter addressed by ``the undersigned
British and American missionaries representative of societies
and organizations that have wide interests in China to their
Excellencies the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the
United States accredited to the Chinese Government.''
These actions were taken by men whose character, ability
and knowledge of the Chinese entitle them to great weight, and
who were personally affected in the security of their lives and
property and in the interests of their life-work by the policy
adopted by their respective Governments. All were citizens who
did not abdicate their citizenship by becoming missionaries,
and whose status and rights in China, as such, have been
specifically recognized by treaty. All, moreover, expressed
their views with clearness, dignity and force. From the viewpoint
of right and privilege, and, indeed, political duty as
citizens, they were abundantly justified in expressing their
opinions.
On the other hand, there are many friends of missions who
doubt whether formal declarations of judgment ``as missionaries,''
on political and military questions, were accorded much
influence by diplomats; whether they did not increase the
popular criticism of missionaries to an extent which more than
counterbalanced any good that they accomplished; whether
they did not identify the missionary cause with ``the consul
and gunboat'' policy which Lord Salisbury charged upon it;
and whether they did not prejudice their own future influence
over the Chinese and strengthen the impression that the mis-
sionaries are ``political emissaries.'' In reply to my inquiry as
to his opinion, Sir Robert Hart expressed himself as follows:--
``As for punitive measures, etc., I have really no personal knowledge
of the action taken by American missionaries, and hearsay is not a good
foundation for opinion. It is said that vindictive feeling rather than tender
mercy has been noticed. But even if so, it cannot be wondered at, so
cruel were the Chinese assailants when they had the upper hand. The
occasion has been altogether anomalous, and it is only at the parting of
the ways the difference of view comes in. That what was done merited
almost wholesale punishment is a view most will agree in--eyes turned to
the past--but when discussion tries to argue out what will be best for the
future, some will vote for striking terror, and others for trusting more to
the more slowly working but longer lasting effect of mercy. I do not believe
any missionary has brought anybody to punishment who did not
richly deserve it. But some people seem to feel it would have been wiser
for ministers of the gospel to have left to `governors' the `punishment of
evil-doers.' For my part, I cannot blame them, for without their assistance
much that is known would not have been known, and, although numbers
of possibly innocent, inoffensive and non-hostile people may have been
overwhelmed in this last year's avalanche of disaster, there are still at
large a lot of men whose punishment would probably have been a good
thing for the future. One can only hope that their good luck in escaping
may lead them to take a new departure, and with their heads in the right
direction.''[71]
[71] Letter to the author with permission to print, July, 1901.
Wisely or unwisely--the former, I venture to think--the
interdenominational conference of American mission boards having
work in China, held in 1900, declined to make representations
to our Government on questions of policy during the Boxer
uprising. They necessarily had much correspondence with
Washington regarding the safety of missionaries during the
siege, but when I inquired of Secretary of State Hay as to the
accuracy of the later newspaper charges that mission boards
were urging the Government to retaliatory measures, he promptly
replied: ``No communications of this nature have been received
from the great mission boards or from their authorized
representatives.''
But let us hear the missionaries themselves on this subject.
An interdenominational committee, headed by the Rev. Dr.
Calvin W. Mateer, prepared a reply to this criticism, which has
been circulated throughout China and has received the assent
of so large a number of missionaries of all churches and nationalities
that it may be taken as representing the views of fully
nine-tenths of the whole body of Protestant missionaries in the
Empire. This letter should be given the widest possible currency,
as expressing the views of men who are the peers of any
equal number of Christian workers in the world. It is dated
May 24, 1901, and, after discussing the question of the responsibility
for the Boxer uprising, the letter continues:
``With reference to the second point--that we have manifested an unchristian
spirit in suggesting the punishment of those who were guilty of
the massacre of foreigners and native Christians--we understand that the
criticism applies chiefly to the message sent by the public meeting held in
Shanghai in September last.
``1. It should, in the first place, be borne in mind that the resolutions
passed at that meeting were called for by the proposal of the Allies to
evacuate Peking immediately after the relief of the Legations. It was
felt, not only by missionaries but by the whole of the foreign residents in
China, that such a course would be fraught with the greatest disaster, inasmuch
as it would give sanction to further lawlessness.
``2. Further it must be remembered that, while suggesting that a satisfactory
settlement `should include the adequate punishment of all who
were guilty of the recent murders of foreigners and native Christians,'
it was left to the Powers to decide what that `adequate punishment'
should be. Moreover, when taking such measures as were necessary,
they were urged to `make every effort to avoid all needless and
indiscriminate slaughter of Chinese and destruction of their property.'
``3. By a strange misunderstanding we find that this suggestion has
been interpreted as though it were animated by an unchristian spirit of
revenge. With the loss of scores of friends and colleagues still fresh upon
us, and with stories of cruel massacres reaching us day by day, it would
not have been surprising had we been betrayed into intemperate expressions;
but we entirely repudiate the idea which has been read into our
words. If governments are the ministers of God's righteousness, then
surely it is the duty of every Christian Government not only to uphold the
right but to put down the wrong, and equally the duty of all Christian
subjects to support them in so doing. For China, as for Western nations,
anarchy is the only alternative to law. Both justice and mercy require
the judicial punishment of the wrong-doers in the recent outrages. For
the good of the people themselves, for the upholding of that standard of
righteousness which they acknowledge and respect, for the strengthening
and encouragement of those officials whose sympathies have been throughout
on the side of law and order, and for the protection of our own helpless
women and children and the equally helpless sons and daughters of
the Church, we think that such violations of treaty obligations, and such
heartless and unprovoked massacres as have been carried out by official
authority or sanction, should not be allowed to pass unpunished. It is
not of our personal wrongs that we think, but of the maintenance of law
and order, and of the future safety of all foreigners residing in the interior
of China, who, it must be remembered, are not under the jurisdiction of
Chinese law, but, according to the treaties, are immediately responsible to,
and under the protection of, their respective Governments.''
The reply rather pathetically concludes:
``It is unhappily the lot of missionaries to be misunderstood and spoken
against, and we are aware that in any explanation we now offer we add
to the risk of further misunderstanding; but we cast ourselves on the forbearance
of our friends, and beg them to refrain from hasty and ill-formed
judgments. If, on our part, there have been extreme statements, if individual
missionaries have used intemperate words or have made demands
out of harmony with the spirit of our Divine Lord, is it too much to ask
that the anguish and peril through which so many of our number have
gone during the last six months should be remembered, and that the whole
body should not be made responsible for the hasty utterances of the
few?''
A perplexing phase of the relation of missionaries to their
own governments develops in times of disturbance. Should
missionaries remain at their stations when their minister or consul
think that they ought to withdraw to the port where they
can be more easily protected? Should they make journeys
that the consul deems imprudent or return to an abandoned
station before he regards the trouble as ended? This question
became acute in connection with the Boxer outbreak when mis-
sionaries sometimes differed with ministers or consuls as to
whether they should go or stay. On the one hand it may be
urged that missionaries are under strong obligations to attach
great weight to the judgment of their minister or consul. If
they receive the benefits and protection of citizenship, and if
by their acts they may involve their governments, they should
recognize the right of the authorized representatives of those
governments to counsel them. The presumption should be in
favour of obedience to that counsel, and it should not be disregarded
without clear and strong reasons.
But the fact cannot be ignored that, whatever may be the
personal sympathies of individual ministers or consuls, diplomacy
as such considers only the secondary results of missions,
and not the primary ones. Government officials, speaking on
missionary work, almost invariably dwell on its material and
civilizing rather than its spiritual aspects. They do not, as
officials, feel that the salvation of men from sin and the command
of Christ to evangelize all nations are within their sphere.
Moreover, diplomacy is proverbially and necessarily cautious.
Its business is to avoid risks, and, of course, to advise others to
avoid them. The political situation, too, was undeniably uncertain
and delicate. The future was big with possibility of peril.
In such circumstances, we should expect diplomacy to be anxious
and to look at the whole question from the prudential viewpoint.
But the missionary, like the soldier, must take some risks.
From Paul down, missionaries have not hesitated to face them.
Christ did not condition His great command upon the approval
of Caesar. It was not safe for Morrison to enter China, and for
many years missionaries in the interior were in grave jeopardy.
But devoted men and women accepted the risk in the past, and
they will accept it in the future. They must exercise common
sense. And yet this enterprise is unworldly as well as worldly,
and when the soldier boldly faces every physical peril, when
the trader unflinchingly jeopardizes life and limb in the pursuit
of gold--I found a German mining engineer and his wife living
alone in a remote village soon after the Boxer excitement--
should the missionary be held back?
If, however, after full and careful deliberation, missionaries feel
that it is their duty to disregard the advice of their minister or
consul, they should consult their respective boards and if the
boards sustain them, all concerned should accept responsibility
for the risks involved.
But if missionaries do not permit governments to control
their movements, they should not be too exacting in their
demands on them when trouble comes. The Rev. Dr. Henry
M. Field once said:--
``A foreign missionary is one who goes to a strange country to preach
the gospel of our salvation. That is his errand and his defense. The
civil authorities are not presumed to be on his side. If he offends the
sensibilities of the people to whom he preaches, he is supposed to face
the consequences. If he cannot win men by the Word and his own love
for their souls, he cannot call on the civil or military powers to convert
them. Nor is the missionary a merchant, in the sense that he must have
ready recourse to the courts for a recouping of losses or the recovery of
damages. Commercial treaties cannot cover all our missionary enterprises.
Confusion of ideas here has confounded a good many fine plans
and zealous men. It is a tremendous begging of the whole question to
insist on the nation's protection of the men who are to subvert the
national faith. Property rights and preaching rights get closely entwined,
and it is difficult to untangle them at times, but the distinction
is definite and the difference often fundamental. By confusing
them we weaken the claims of both. And when our Christian preachers
get behind a mere property right in order to defend their right to preach
a new religion, they dishonour themselves and defame the faith they
profess. To get behind diplomatic guaranties in order to evangelize the
nations is to mistake the sword for the Spirit, to rely on the arm of flesh
and put aside the help of the Almighty.''
That is, in my judgment, stating the case rather strongly.
Doubtless Dr. Field did not mean that governments would be
justified in discriminating against missionaries and he would
probably have been one of the first to protest if they had done
so. He was addressing missionaries, reminding them that they
could do in liberty what the governments could not do in law,
and exhorting against any disposition to depend unduly upon
the sword of the secular arm. At any rate, he was a devoted
friend of missions and as such his words are deserving of
thoughtful consideration.
XXI
RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSIONARIES FOR THE
BOXER UPRISING
CRITICS vociferously assert that the missionaries were
chiefly responsible for the Boxer uprising and for most
of the prejudice of the Chinese against foreigners. As
to the general accuracy of this charge, the reader has doubtless
formed some impression from what has been said in the preceding
chapters regarding the objects and methods of foreign
trade and foreign politics. Still, it is but fair to remember that
there are 3,854 missionaries in China, representing almost every
European and American nationality and no less than nine
Roman Catholic and sixty-seven Protestant boards.[72] As might
be expected, the standard of appointment varies. A few
boards, while insisting upon high spiritual qualifications, do
not insist upon equal qualifications of some other kinds, while
in all societies an occasional missionary proves to be visionary
and ill-balanced. But in the great majority of the boards,
the standard of appointment is very high, and while occasional
mistakes are made, yet as a rule the missionaries represent the
best type of Protestant Christianity. They are, as a class,
men and women of education, refinement and ability--in every
respect the equals and as a rule the superiors of the best class
of non-missionary Europeans and Americans in China.
[72] The Chinese Recorder.
Now it is manifest that criticisms which may be true of some
missionaries may not be true of the missionary body as a
whole. As a matter of fact, the average critic has in mind
either the Roman Catholic priests or the members of some
independent society. This is notably true of Michie. Many
of the charges are not true even of them, but of the charges
that I have seen that have any foundation at all, nine-tenths
do not apply to the missionaries of church boards. It is always
fair, therefore, to ask a critic, ``To which class of missionaries
do you refer?''
The clearest line of distinction is between the Protestants
and the Roman Catholics. The latter number 904. They
have been in China the longest. They have the largest following,[73]
and their methods are radically different from those of the
Protestant missionaries. It is not denied that some of the
priests are high-minded, intelligent men and that some of the
Protestants lack wisdom. But comparing the two classes
broadly, no one who is at all conversant with the facts will regard
the Protestants as inferior. I do not wish to be unjust to
the Roman Catholic missionaries in China. Many good things
might be said regarding the work which some of them are doing.
I personally called at several Roman Catholic stations in
various parts of the Empire and I have vivid recollections of
the kindness with which I was received, while more than once
I was impressed by the unmistakable evidences of devotion and
self-sacrifice. It was pleasant to hear many Protestant missionaries
declare that they had never heard a suspicion as to the
moral character of the priests. I did not hear any in all north
China. The lives of the Roman Catholic missionaries are hard
and narrow and they have no relief in the companionships of
wife and children, in furloughs or in medical attendance, for
they have no medical missionaries, while not infrequently the
priest lives alone in a village. Dead to the world, with no
families and no expectation of returning to their native land,
trained from boyhood to a monastic life, drilled to unquestioning
obedience and to few personal needs, their ambition is not
to get anything for themselves but to strengthen the Church
for which the individual priest unhesitatingly sacrifices himself,
content if by his complete submergence of his own interests he
has helped to make her great. With such men, Rome is a
mighty power in Asia. But the sincere, devoted man may be
even more dangerous if his zeal is wrongly directed, and the
question under discussion now is not the personal character of
individuals, but the general policy of the Church. As to
the character and effects of this policy I found a remarkable
unanimity of opinion in China, and I could easily produce
from my note-books the names of scores of credible witnesses
to the substantial accuracy of my position.
[73] 720,540 Roman Catholics--compare p. 223 for Protestants.
Whatever may be said in favour of the Roman Catholics, it
is unquestionable that their methods are far more irritating to
the Chinese than the methods of the Protestants. Led by able
and energetic bishops, the priests acquire all possible business
property, demand large rentals, build imposing religious plants,
and baptize or enroll as catechumens all sorts of people. It is
notorious that the Roman Catholic priests quite generally
adopt the policy of interference on behalf of their converts.
Through the Minister of France at Peking they obtained an
Imperial Edict, dated March 15, 1899, granting them official
status, so that the local priest is on a footing of equality with
the local magistrate, and has the right of full access to him at
any time. Whether or not intended by the Roman Catholic
Church, the impression is almost universal in China among
natives and foreigners alike that, if a Chinese becomes a
Catholic, the Church will stand by him through thick and
thin, in time and in eternity. There are, indeed, exceptions.
Dr. Johnson, of Ichou-fu, told me of a Roman Catholic Christian
who, during the Boxer troubles, stealthily moved his goods
into Ichou-fu, burned his house, and then put in a claim for
indemnity. The heathen neighbours, when asked to pay, informed
the priest. He summoned the man, who confusedly
said that if he had not burned the house, the Boxers would have
done so, and he thought he had better do it at a convenient
time as it was sure to be burned anyway. The priest promptly
decided that he must suffer the loss himself. So the priests do
not always stand by their converts whether right or wrong.
No one, however, who is familiar with the general course of
the Roman Catholic Church in China, will deny that, as a
rule, the priests boldly champion the cause of their converts.
This is one secret of Rome's great and rapidly growing power
in China, and unquestionably, too, it is one of the chief causes
of Chinese hostility to missions. After many years of observation,
Dr. J. Campbell Gibson writes:--
``In the missions of the Church of Rome, they (treaty rights) are
systematically, and I am afraid one must say unscrupulously, used for the
gathering in of large numbers of nominal converts, whose only claim to
the Christian name is their registration in lists kept by native catechists,
in which they are entered on payment of a small fee, without regard to
their possession of any degree of Christian knowledge or character. In
the event of their being involved in any dispute or lawsuit, the native
catechists or priests, and even the foreign Roman Catholic missionaries,
take up their cause and press it upon the native magistrates. Not infrequently
a still worse course is pursued. Intimation is sent round the
villages in which there are large numbers of so-called Catholic converts
and these assemble under arms to support by force the feuds of their
co-religionists. The consequence is that the Catholic missions in southern
China, and I believe in the north also, are bitterly hated by the Chinese
people and by their magistrates. By terrorizing both magistrates and
people, they have secured in many places a large amount of apparent
popularity; but they are sowing the seeds of a harvest of hatred and bitterness
which may be reaped in deplorable forms in years to come.''[74]
[74] ``Mission Problems and Mission Methods in South China,'' pp. 309,
310.
In my own interviews with Chinese officials, it was my custom
to lead the conversation towards the motives of those who had
attacked foreigners during the Boxer uprising, and without exception
the officials mentioned, among other causes, the interference
of Roman Catholic priests with the administration of
the law in cases affecting their converts. In several places in
the interior, this was the only reason assigned.
Said an intelligent Chinese official in Shantung: ``The
whole trouble is not with the Protestants but with the Catholics.
Protestant Christians do not go to law so often, and when they
do, the Protestant missionary does not, as a rule, interfere unless
he is sure they are right. But the Catholic Christians are
constantly involved in lawsuits, and the priests invariably stand
by them right or wrong. The priests seem to think that their
converts cannot be wrong. The result is that many Chinese
join the Roman Catholic Church to get the help of the priests
in the innumerable lawsuits that the Chinese are always waging.
And it is not surprising in such circumstances that Catholic
Christians are a bad lot.'' When I asked the magistrate of
Paoting-fu why the people had killed such kindly and helpful
neighbours as the Congregational and Presbyterian missionaries,
he replied:--``The people were angered by the interference
of the Roman Catholics in their lawsuits. They felt
that they could not obtain justice against them, and in their
frenzy they did not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants.''
The Roman Catholic Mission in the prefecture of
Paoting-fu, it should be remembered, is about two centuries
old, and the Catholic population is about 12,000, so that the
few hundreds of converts who have been gathered in the recent
work of the Protestants are very small in comparison, while the
splendid cathedral of the Roman Church, the spectacular character
of its services and the official status and aggressiveness
of its priests intensify the disproportion. The term Christian,
therefore, to the average man of Paoting-fu naturally means a
Roman Catholic rather than a Protestant.
Perhaps we should make some allowance for Oriental forms
of statement to one who was known to be a Protestant. The
politeness of an Oriental host to a guest is not always limited
by veracity, and it is possible that to Roman Catholics the
officials may blame the Protestants. But such unanimity of
testimony among so many independent and widely separated
officials must surely count for something, especially when the
grounds for it are so notorious. Undoubtedly, there are many
sincere Christians among the Roman Catholic Chinese, but
judging from the almost universal testimony that I heard in
China, the Roman Church is a veritable cave of Adullam for
unscrupulous and revengeful Chinese.
The evidence does not rest upon the testimony of Protestants
alone. If any one will take the trouble to look up the diplomatic
correspondence on this subject, he will find ample and
convincing testimony. February 9, 1871, the Tsung-li Yamen
addressed to the Foreign Legations at Peking a memorandum
together with eight propositions, the whole embodying the
complaints and objections of the Chinese Government to missionaries
and their work in China, and suggesting certain regulations
for the future. This memorandum included the following
paragraph:--
``The missionary question affects the whole question of pacific relations
with foreign powers--the whole question of their trade. As the Minister
addressed cannot but be well aware, wherever missionaries of the Romish
profession appear, ill-feeling begins between them and the people, and for
years past, in one case or another, points of all kinds on which they are
at issue have been presenting themselves. In earlier times when the
Romish missionaries first came to China, styled, as they were, `Si Ju,'
the Scholars of the West, their converts no doubt for the most part were
persons of good character; but since the change of ratifications in 1860,
the converts have in general not been of a moral class. The result has
been that the religion that professes to exhort men to virtue has come to
be lightly thought of; it is in consequence, unpopular, and its unpopularity
is greatly increased by the conduct of the converts who, relying on the
influence of the missionaries, oppress and take advantage of the common
people (the non-Christians): and yet more by the conduct of the missionaries
themselves, who, when collisions between Christians and the people
occur, and the authorities are engaged in dealing with them, take part
with the Christians, and uphold them in their opposition to the authorities.
This undiscriminating enlistment of proselytes has gone so far that
rebels and criminals of China, pettifoggers and mischief-makers, and such
like, take refuge in the profession of Christianity, and covered by this
position, create disorder. This has deeply dissatisfied the people, and
their dissatisfaction long felt grows into animosity, and their animosity
into deadly hostility. The populations of different localities are not aware
that Protestantism and Romanism are distinct. They include both under
the latter denomination. They do not know that there is any distinction
between the nations of the West. They include them all under one denomination
of foreigners, and thus any serious collision that occurs equally
compromises all foreigners in China. Even in the provinces not concerned,
doubt and misgiving are certain to be largely generated.''
The memorandum and its attached propositions are interesting
reading as showing the impression which the Chinese Government
had of Roman Catholic missionary work. The third
proposition included the following statement:--
``They (Roman Catholic converts) even go so far as to coerce the authorities
and cheat and oppress the people. And the foreign missionaries,
without inquiring into facts, conceal in every case the Christian evil-doer,
and refuse to surrender him to the authorities for punishment. It has
even occurred that malefactors who have been guilty of the gravest
crimes have thrown themselves into the profession of Christianity, and
have been at once accepted and screened (from justice). In every province
do the foreign missionaries interfere at the offices of the local authorities
in lawsuits in which native Christians are concerned. For example
in a case that occurred in Sze-chuen in which some native Christian
women defrauded certain persons (non-Christians) of the rent owing to
them, and actually had these persons wounded and killed, the French
Bishop took on himself to write in official form (to the authorities) pleading
in their favour. None of these women were sentenced to forfeit life
for life taken, and the resentment of the people of Sze-chuen in consequence
remains unabated.''
Mr. Wade, the British Minister at Peking, in reporting this
memorandum and its appended propositions to Earl Granville,
June 8, 1871, said:
``The promiscuous enlistment of evil men as well as good by the
Romish missionaries, and their advocacy of the claims advanced by these
ill-conditioned converts, has made Romanism most unpopular; and the
people at large do not distinguish between Romanist and Protestant, nor
between foreigner and foreigner; not that Government has made no effort
to instruct the people, but China is a large Empire.... Three-
fourths of the Romish missionaries in China, in all, between 400 and 500
persons, are French; and Romanism in the mouths of non-Christian
Chinese is as popularly termed the religion of the French as the religion
of the Lord of Heaven.''
June 27th of that year, Earl Granville wrote to Lord Lyons
that he had said to the French Charge d'Affaires:--
``I told M. Gavard that I could not pretend to think that the conduct
of the French missionaries, stimulated by the highest and most laudable
object, had been prudent in the interest of Christianity itself, and that the
support which had been given by the representatives of France to their
pretensions was dangerous to the future relations of Europe with China.''
The Hon. Frederick F. Low, United States Minister at
Peking, in communicating that memorandum and the attached
propositions to the State Department in Washington, March
20, 1871, said:--
``A careful reading of the Memorandum clearly proves that the great,
if not only, cause of complaint against the missionaries comes from the
action of the Roman Catholic priests and the native Christians of that
faith.... Had they (the Chinese Goverment) stated their complaints
in brief, without circumlocution, and stripped of all useless verbiage,
they would have charged that the Roman Catholic missionaries,
when residing away from the open ports, claim to occupy a semi-official
position, which places them on an equality with the provincial officer;
that they deny the authority of the Chinese officials over native Christians,
which practically removes this class from the jurisdiction of their own
rulers; that their action in this regard shields the native Christians from
the penalties of the law, and thus holds out inducements for the lawless
to join the Catholic Church, which is largely taken advantage of; that
orphan asylums are filled with children, by the use of improper means,
against the will of the people; and when parents, guardians, and friends
visit these institutions for the purpose of reclaiming children, their requests
for examination and restitution are denied, and lastly, that the French
Government, while it does not claim for its missionaries any rights of this
nature by virtue of treaty, its agents and representatives wink at these
unlawful acts, and secretly uphold the missionaries. . . . I do not
believe, and, therefore I cannot affirm, that all the complaints made
against Catholic missionaries are founded in truth, reason, or justice; at
the same time, I believe that there is foundation for some of their charges.
My opinions, as expressed in former despatches touching this matter, are
confirmed by further investigation. . . .''
On the same date, Minister Low wrote to the Tsung-li
Yamen:--
``It is a noticeable fact, that among all the cases cited there does not
appear to be one in which Protestant missionaries are charged with violating
treaty, law or custom. So far as I can ascertain, your complaints
are chiefly against the action and attitude of the missionaries of the
Roman Catholic faith; and, as these are under the exclusive protection
and control of the Government of France, I might with great propriety
decline to discuss a matter with which the Government of the United
States has no direct interest or concern, for the reason that none of its
citizens are charged with violating treaty or local law, and thus causing
trouble.''
This tendency of the Chinese to confuse Roman Catholics
and Protestants is further illustrated by the note addressed by
Minister Wen Hsiang to Sir R. Alcock:--
``Extreme indeed would be the danger if, popular indignation having
been once aroused by this opposition to the authorities, the hatred of the
whole population of China were excited like that of the people of Tientsin
against foreigners, and orders, though issued by the Government,
could not be for all that put in force. . . . Although the creeds of the
various foreign countries differ in their origin and development from each
other, the natives of China are unable to see the distinction between
them. In their eyes all (teachers of religion) are `missionaries from the
West,' and directly they hear a lying story (about any of these missionaries),
without making further and minute inquiry (into its truth), they
rise in a body to molest him.''
As for Protestant missionaries, it would be useless to assert
that every one of the 2,950 has always been blameless in
this matter. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that there is
a sense in which the gospel is a revolutionary force. Christ
Himself said that He came not to send peace on earth but a
sword, and to set a man at variance against his father. There
is usually more or less of a protest in a heathen land when a
man turns from the old faith to the new one. The refusal to
contribute to the temple sacrifices and to worship the ancestral
tablets is sure to be followed by a furious outcry. The convert
is apt to be assailed as a traitor to the national custom and
as having entered into league with the foreigner.
To the Chinese, moreover, all white men are ``Christians''
and ``foreign devils,'' and all alike stand for the effort to foreignize
and despoil China. Except where personal acquaintance
has taught certain communities that there is a difference
between white men, the evil acts of one foreigner or of one aggressive
foreign Government are charged against all the members
of the race, just as in the pioneer days in the American
colonies, a settler whose wife had been killed by an Indian took
his revenge by indiscriminately shooting all the other Indians
he could find. Any hatred that the Chinese may have against
Christianity is due, not so much to its religious teachings, as to
its identification with the foreign nations whose religion
Christianity is supposed to be and whose aggressions the Chinese
have so much reason to fear and to hate.
For this reason, the introduction of Buddhism and Mohammedanism
is not parallel, and to base an argument against
Christianity on the alleged fact that the other faiths easily succeeded
in domesticating themselves in China is to confuse facts.
Neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism entered China as an
aggressive propaganda by foreigners. The Chinese themselves
brought in Buddhism, and it spread chiefly because it grafted
into itself many Chinese superstitions and did not oppose
Chinese vices, but rather assimilated them. Why should the
people have opposed a religion which interfered with nothing
that they valued and reenforced their darling prejudices? As
for Islam, we have already seen[75] that it is the faith of early immigrants
and their descendants, that its followers do not propagate
it, that they live in separate communities, are disliked by
the Chinese and are often at open war with them. Christianity,
on the contrary, comes to China with foreigners who
have no intention of settling down as permanent members of
Chinese society, who are classed as representatives of nations
which are regarded as more or less hostile and unjust, and who
preach their religion as a vital spiritual faith which opposes all
wrong, uproots all superstition and aims at the moral reconstruction
of every man. Of course, therefore, Christianity must expect
a reception different in some respects from that which was
given to Buddhism and Mohammedanism.
[75] Chapter VI.
It is the shallowest of all objections to missions that
Mr. Francis Nichols urged in the North American Review
when he insisted that ``the missionary is not engaged to be a
reformer,'' but that ``his mission is to preach the gospel--
nothing more.''