Does any sane man imagine that the Church could cease to be missionary and remain a Church? It has been well said that the Christian nations might as well face the utter futility of any hypothesis based upon the supposition that they can remain away from the Orient. The occurrences of recent years have made changes in their relation to the world which they can no more recall than they can alter the course of a planet. It is idle for doctrinaires to tell us from the quiet comfort of home libraries, that we should ``keep hands off.'' We can no more keep hands off than our country could keep hands off slavery in the South, no more than New York could keep hands off a borough infected with smallpox. The world has passed the point where one-third of its population can be allowed to breed miasma which the other two-thirds must breathe. Both for China's sake and for our own, we must continue this work. If this is true in the political and commercial realms, much more is it true in the religious. Chalmer's notable sermon on the ``Expulsive Power of a New Affection'' enunciates a permanent principle. When a man's soul is once thrilled with the conviction that he has found God, he must declare that sublime truth, ``To doubt would be disloyalty, To falter would be sin.'' I confess to a feeling of impatience when I am told that all missionary plans for China must be contingent ``upon the settlement of political negotiations,'' ``the overthrow of the Empress Dowager and her reactionary advisers,'' ``the reestablishment of the Emperor on his rightful throne,'' ``the continuance in power of Viceroy Yuan Shih Kai,'' ``the mainte- nance of a strong foreign military and naval force in China,'' ``the thwarting of Russia's plans for supremacy,'' and several other events.