Whether my views were _misrepresented_, and whether I was charged with seeking a different object from that for which I had asked--I had not asked that the columns of the paper be opened for a fresh "_discussion_ of the matter" which had been "_before Synod_," but "for a _full statement_ of the views of the Amoy Mission," because of "_mistaken impressions_" in "_our Churches_"--the Church will be able to decide as accurately as myself. But I wish to say this much. Your Missionaries do not consider that by becoming Missionaries they lose their rights as _men_, and _Ministers of the Dutch Church_. They have the right to expect that, when away from home, their reputation will be protected. When mistaken statements concerning their views get abroad in the Church, there should be, and we believe there is, a responsible party whose duty it is to correct such statements. At any rate, a paper which professes to be the organ of the Dutch Church, has no right to refuse to the Missionaries themselves the privilege of correcting mistaken statements of _their own views_ and _their own language_, that appear in its columns. The Editor doubtless is responsible for what appears in his paper. He may refuse to publish improper articles, but he may not garble and misrepresent them without incurring reproof. The expense of publishing in pamphlet form corrections of mistakes which appear in the columns of a newspaper, is too heavy a tax to impose on any of the Ministry of the Church, especially on your Missionaries; and, even then, the corrections can be read by only a small portion of those who read the misstatements.