Lai Sàm, a brother-in-law of Leung A-fah, who was the first Native Protestant preacher of Christ in connection with modern missions to China." Dr. Speer's successors in the work, following it up most earnestly and faithfully, have been Rev. A. W. Loomis, D.D., Rev. I. M. Condit, J. G. Kerr, M.D., and Rev. A. J. Kerr. These with the exception of Dr. Kerr, are still in California, in charge of the work in San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose and other places. At some of these places are Chinese churches with a goodly membership. Successful work for Chinese women has been carried on by the Woman's Board of Missions, and a pleasant Home has been established for them in San Francisco, where thorough instruction in Christian doctrine is given.

The Baptist church was next in the field. Rev. J. L. Shuck, who had been a missionary in China, established in 1854, a chapel for the Chinese in Sacramento. He continued his work until the civil war. Rev. R. H. Graves, D.D., of Canton, while on a visit home, in 1870, re-commenced work for the Chinese in San Francisco. Rev. J. Frances, Rev. E. Z. Simmons, and Rev. J. B. Hartwell, now in charge at San Francisco, have continued the work until the present time. In 1874, Rev. E. Z. Simmons started a work in Portland, Oregon, which has grown into a church of 70 members, is largely self-supporting, and sends generous contributions for the work in China. This mission has also an unusually successful work in Demarara, commenced by a Chinese preacher, Mr. Lau Fuk. He was at first supported by Rev. Geo. Müller of Bristol. The church there has now 270 members. It is self-sustaining and sends money annually to China for Mission work. The amount raised last year for church purposes was over $3,000.

The Episcopal Church had a Mission in San Francisco in 1855 and 1856 under the care of Rev. E. W. Syle. We believe the work has been continued in connection with a native agency, but are not able to give particulars.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1868, opened a Mission in San Francisco, which is now, and has been from the beginning, under the efficient superintendence of Rev. O. Gibson, D.D., who had been for twelve years a missionary at Foochow. A large Mission House has been built, a flourishing school kept up, an encouraging work for women carried on, and a church established. Schools have also been opened in Oakland and other places.

The Congregationalists have also been carrying on missionary work for the Chinese in San Francisco, and other places through the American Missionary Association, and in connection with local churches. Their work is superintended by Rev. W. C. Pond, and instruction and preaching in Chinese are by a native agency. During the present year they have had in all 15 schools in operation.

The United Presbyterians have had a mission in Los Angeles since the beginning of 1878. Two years earlier, the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions had commenced the work, but they afterwards sold their property to the United Presbyterian Board with the general understanding that their work there was also transferred to that Board. Rev. J. C. Nevins, who had just returned from Canton, and who spoke the Chinese language, as few have ever been able to do, took charge of the work. The result has not been exactly what had been anticipated. The so-called "Chinese Young Men's Christian Association," to which we shall refer again, encouraged by some local support, set themselves in stubborn opposition to Mr. Nevins' work from the beginning, to their own exceeding detriment, if their real object was to gain, or disseminate a knowledge of Christian truth. They thus cast from themselves the best opportunity they could then find, or are likely soon to find, of obtaining such knowledge. If we may judge from those who have come back to us here in Canton, Mr. Nevins is doing a most excellent work in the way of careful Bible instruction. No Chinese have ever come to us from any quarter more thoroughly versed in Biblical knowledge than two who have returned from his instruction at Los Angeles, to be efficient helpers in our work here. We shall be glad to have many more of the same kind.

This view of what is being done for the Chinese, in the United States, would not be complete without referring to the fact that the opposition to them in California has recently been the means of scattering them far more widely through the country. This scattering is doubtless better for them, and enlarges the opportunity for doing them good. It has given rise to the establishment, during the past few years in all the principal cities, where they are, of Sabbath Schools and evening schools for their benefit. This work will doubtless increase more and more. The statistics for New York may be given as a specimen of other cities:-No. of schools 13; scholars enrolled in three months 670; Average attendance 350; No. of communicants 25. The numbers for Brooklyn closely approximate to one-half of those for New York.

We turn to the Sandwich Islands. Work for the Chinese there was commenced some years ago by Rev. S. C. Damon, D.D., who, in connection with his other pastoral duties, has always taken a deep interest in these people. Some three years ago, his son, Mr. F. W. Damon, took charge of the work, under appointment of "The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions."* Since then he has visited all the plantations where the 20,000 Chinese on the island of Hawaii are employed. He is assisted by some good native help, and the work is on a very satisfactory basis. * [Under appointment by the Hawaiian Board of Missions, assisted pecuniarily by the A.B.C.F.M. Editor Chinese Recorder.]

A fine chapel has been built at Honolulu, to which the Chinese subscribed liberally. There are some 300 Chinese Christians on the island. Besides doing much in the way of self-support, they have sent generous contributions for the work in China.

The Australian Conference of the English Wesleyan Church has a mission to the Chinese in that country, which is under the care of Rev. C. Youngman. We are not able to give details.

The Presbyterians of Australia have also a mission to the Chinese there, formerly superintended by Rev. D. Vrooman. We suppose that since his departure, native agency has continued the work of preaching in Chinese, but we have no recent information.

The Presbyterian Church in New Zealand has appointed Mr. A. Don, to work for the Chinese there. He has entered upon his work, with much zeal, and last year succeeded in getting a good chapel erected for the Chinese, to which they subscribed liberally although very few are as yet Christians.

From the fact that Christian books, in the Chinese language, have been sent for from British Columbia, we know that Christian work for the Chinese inmigrants has been inaugurated there, but we are not aware how extensive it is.

Rev. Geo. Piercy, formerly a missionary in Canton, has commenced work in London and has a school of 25 pupils one of whom has applied for baptism.

Work too has been commenced for the Chinese in Japan of whom there are about 4,000. This land though not yet on the list of Christian countries, bids fair to be placed there soon. A Chinese Sunday School was commenced in Yokohama in 1882, by Mrs. M. White. She had as co-laborers Mrs. H. Loomis, Miss Porter and Miss Winn. An intelligent Chinaman, who understood English, also gave assistance. A school for teaching English has since been established, and Dr. Fuan Chin, a Christian Chinaman, who has lived ten years in California, is employed as a teacher. A resident Chinese merchant gives his presence at the religious services and substantial pecuniary aid. Mr. Chin, a native preacher formerly connected with the Presbyterian Mission of Canton, and a man of excellent ability, gives good assistance at the meetings held on Friday and Sunday evenings. The work, commenced by private enterprise, has recently been taken up by the Union Church. We hope the Chinese may catch something of the blessed influences that seem of late to have impressed so powerfully many of the Japanese.

The above account answers very much the question-What ought to be done for the Chinese in Christian lands? Only let the good work go on increasing more and more. Begun a little more than thirty years ago, it is already so extensive as to give much pertinence to our next inquiry.

(To be continued.)

ASIA RECONSTRUCTED FROM CHINESE SOURCES.

By T. W. KINGSMILL

MR. R. E. H. PARKER does me the honour of a notice in the Chinese Recorder, Jan.-Feb. 1885, p. 32. He says, "Mr. Kingsmill's translation of the Shih (Sic) Ki Chapter on Ta Yüan in the local Asiatic Society's Journal for 1879, though it contains three or four unusually serious mistranslations, and several over sanguine philological identifications, is not so very bad a production after all."

Without seeking to recall the age of Julian and Pauthier I may make a few remarks on this somewhat vague charge. First; as to the general assertion of three or four serious mistranslations, I may be fairly entitled to form an opinion of my own on the ancient language. To knowledge of the modern I make no claim. If the so-called serious mistranslations are really so, I shall be glad to correct them, and will feel grateful to Mr. Parker for the opportunity. The same remark I may extend to the philological identifications. Most of them are amplifications of facts already proved on other authority. It is however regrettable that for the most part our students of Chinese are totally ignorant of the external literature on the subject, and have never taken the trouble to search for themselves the large mass of classical, as well as Indian, Mohammedan and Parsee works bearing on the topic. Dr. F. Hirth, I fear, stands almost alone amongst Chinese scholars as having recognized the necessity of these investigations. When however Mr. Parker compares me in invidious terms with Dr. Hirth it is possible he has not studied the topic sufficiently to see that my researches on the ancient geography of Eastern Turkestan scarcely touch those of Dr. Hirth on Asia west of the Pamîr.

With these remarks I may proceed to clear the ground for future research, by pointing out to Mr. Parker those identifications in my paper which may be considered as absolutely established.

1st. That the Hiung-nû were Turks. Mr. Parker may leave out of his calculations for the nonce my philological proofs in the China Review (Vol. VII. 387). Klaproth so far back as the year 1826 (Tableaux Historiques de l'Asie, pp. 101 et seq.) established the fact. This Howorth (History of the Mongols, I. p. 31) confirms with his great authority. The extraordinary idea of their being Huns originated I believe with De Guignes, a very bad authority, of whom Howorth (O.C. xviii.) remarks, "nor is this portion of De Guignes' work very satisfactory. We have considerably advanced in our knowledge of the period since his day."

2nd. The identification of Yu tien with Khotan. This is due to Abel-Remusat, Histoire de la Ville de Khoten (A.D. 1820).

This is

3rd. The position of Charchan, Shen-shen or Lowlan. due to Col. Yule (Marco Polo, Vol. I. 179; Vol. II. 475); see also Vivien de St. Martin (Memoir Analytique appended to Julien's Voyages des Pèlerins Buddistes, Vol. II. 428).

4th. Ansih and Parthia. This has never been doubtful. The philological identification of with the country of the Arsaks (Arsacidae) is however due to myself.

5th. The Yueh-ti with the Ephthalita. This was proved by Vivien de St. Martin in a review of the destruction of the GræcoBactrian kingdom; and is adopted by all later Orientalists.

6th. The Wu-suns with the Asii or Asiani. For this I alone am responsible, but was led to it by a careful comparison of the Greek authorities, Strabo, Ptolemy and Arrian.

7th. Ta-yüan with Yarkand. I may also claim this, but the careful student will perceive I have only accepted it on the strongest grounds. One error in the paper I may here correct. is not to be identified with the Che-mo-t'o-na of Yuen Chwang. It probably lay to the north of the Salt marsh.

It will thus be seen that the framework of my sketch was already prepared for me; I had only in fact to enter on the labours of my predecessors and clothe the bare skeleton with flesh and blood. Until some scholar arise better skilled than myself in the phonetic equivalents of the ancient language, my philological identifications, confirmed as they are by geographical research, may be ad interim respected.

I am however much indebted to Mr. Parker for his translations from the P'ei-wan-yün-fu, but may proceed seriatim to point out a considerable number of errors. The numbers prefixed refer to the numeration of his paragraphs.

2. Here and elsewhere the unpardonable error of calling the Hiung-nû Huns takes away from the value of the notices. Mao-tun could never have been Matuk; the phonetic value is Vardun or Val-dun. Bactria was a geographical, not tribal name, for the country adjoining the upper Oxus; its name in old Zend was Bâkhdi, whence its Greek appellation. The Greek Kingdom of Bactria was founded B.C. 256 under Diodotus while the ♬ were still in undisturbed possession of Kansuh. The connexion of the Yueh-ti (not Yueh-chi) with Bactria was not till after 176 B.C. There is no racial nor phonetic relation between the two. After the destruction of the Greek Kingdom Bactria was overrun by the

Tokhars and the ♬ Ephthalîtæ, and in medieval times was known as Tochâr-i-stan from the former. I am quite at a loss to surmise what Mr. Parker implies by the Mooz Tagh here; the