418
Tract upon Nourishing the Spirit.
AUG.
larly those of a questionable kind. To real men, Mr. Editor, we should not : but would take their character as a guaranty for the uprightness of their inten- tions; but to men who hide themselves, men of no name, and consequently no reputation, we are warranted in ascribing such motives which we have ascribed to them, as those which most probably induced them to conceal their names; let then come forward with their real signatures, and tell us their motives for concealment, when we will believe them. But seriously speaking, Mr. Editor, it does appear to me, that in a great controversy like this, where interests of such magnitude are involved, and where evangelical laborers abroad, as well as Missionary and Bible Societies at home, watching with anxiety the progress of the argument, desire to know, and have a right to expect to be made acquainted with, the combatants on both sides, it is every way undesirable that men should conceal their naïnes. We are not like political parties striving to under- mine each other's influence, and to build up our own cause on the ruin of our opponents; but earnest men, seeking after the truth, in a most important inquiry connected with the translation of the Holy Scriptures for the most po- pulous nation in the world: anything like a wish to fight under a mask, or avoid discovery, is in my estimation unbecoming the occasion.
And now, I have a word to say regarding the conduct of the Editor of the Repository in this affair. As the conductor of a periodical, it appears to me, that he ought, with reference to this controversy, to act impartially, and to make his publication a vehicle for conveying the sentiments of all. He is of course entitled to his private opinion, and is at liberty to express it editorially. But when a question is started in his pages, and statements are made likely to prejudice any of the controversialists in the eyes of the public, he ought to guard such statements, so as to show that as editor he does not sympathise therewith. Still more, when any of the parties implicated defend themselves, it becomes the editor to give them the benefit of his pages, if in those pages they have been represented, or conceive that they have been represented in an unfavorable point of view. To be explicit. In the No. for July, 1848, the Editor of the Chinese Repository published a letter, entitled "A few Plain Questions addressed to those missionaries, who, in their preaching or writing, teach the Chinese to worship Shingtí;" signed by "A Brother Missionary In the course of his letter, the writer asks, “Is not the conclusion irresistible that he who shall worship Shangtí, or shall teach men so to do, is guilty of breaking the first and chiefest commandment of God?" There were those who, when the letter appeared, considered it likely to prejudice the mission- aries who were opposed to the writer very considerably, in the estimation of the public generally, and of the religious Societies who sent them out, in particular. Did the editor approve of the language employed? If not, how came he to admit the letter into his periodical, without qualification or remark? But sup- posing it to have been done inconsiderately; ought he not, in common justice, to have inserted any reply that might have reached him, from any of the par- ties who considered themselves aggrieved, that at any rate, the defense might travel as far as the implied charge? It was six months after the date of pub- lication before the abovenamed letter reached me; as soon as I saw it, I drew up a Reply to the Few plain Questions of a Brother Missionary, and in order to secure its early appearance among my friends, I had it printed under my own eye. A copy of it was sent among others, to the Editor of the Chinese Reposi- tory. Why did he not, if desirous that his readers should hear the other side, give it instant admission to this pages? His periodical had been the medium of circulating the "Questions," and why did he not make it the means of giving equal publicity to the "Reply?" Was the argument badly constructed?
Was the spirit in which it was drawn up blameworthy? Let the public judge. The writer put his own naine to it, and was alone responsible for its contents.
But you will say, all this was done during the absence of the present Editor. B. it so.
I will now cone to some editorial remarks made by the present con- ductor of the periodical in question. In the number for February, 1850, you, Mr. Editor, have appended a few observations to the anonymous letter of 1. NN in the course of which you say; “We are not willing that gentlemen sanding in the position that Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne do as the