1850.
Tract upon Nourishing the Spirit.
455
mit of a hill without designing so to do; in like manner we may keep our minds in perfect stillness, although daily engaged in the arena of public strife. In this way the three religions [of China] may be unit- ed in one, by merely cultivating stillness, and then 可養
our
spirits may be nourished, our virtuous natures regained, and we unite
in virtue with heaven and earth. Some men object and say, it is easy
to talk about being still, but it is difficult to accomplish it, not know- ing that the fault lies in men's unwillingness to remain still.
Note. As Dr. Medhurst calls on us in the introduction to the preceding trans- lation to explain our remarks on page 95, we can not well decline to do so. In replying to his letter, we shall endeavor to confine our observations to the sub- jects he has touched upon, without entering upon the general argument involved in them, of which our readers have already the leading features. We are not quite sure, however, that we have done the Doctor much of a kindness in pub- lishing his prefatory letter.
Dr. Medhurst seems to know whether the Editor is the author of articles in the Repository destitute of any signɔture; and rather smiles at the nameless heroes who have come into the arena of conflict with their visors down, and cyphers for their crests. But as this is a general and allowed usage, we are not careful to inquire who are the authors of all the articles sent us, for we are will- ing to let every one speak, who does so in proper terins. A fair inference is that Dr. Medhurst himself is the writer of articles which he knows so well are not editorial, though without any signature; and we hold that if he is not, it is ra- ther impertinent for him to make the assertion which he has in his letter, and he can choose between a breach of good manners, or writing sub rosa. We do not suppose that any of the writers are unwilling to have him or any one else know their names; and we can not see how this knowledge would make the slightest difference with the force or justness of their arguments. Although we have before been charged with a want of impartiality in this controversy, we have not deemed the assertion worthy of notice, for the simple reason that we have, with one trifling exception, inserted everything on both sides sent us upon this topic, deeming this to be as impartial as was expected. Was it a breach of impartiality to insert the letter signed "A Brother Missionary," in Vol. XVII, page 356, just as it was sent, without note or comment? We think Dr. Med- hurst's zeal in the discussion has rather obscured his ideas of the meaning of the word, if he calls our silence a breach of impartiality; and when as senior wrangler," he took up the cudgels on behalf of those who use Shángtí, and printed his Reply of several pages himself, "in order to secure its early appear- ance among his friends;" was it incumbent on us, because, as well as others of his friends, we received a copy, to fill our pages with it too, when moreover we were never requested to reprint it? It was no fault of our's if the July num- ber of the Repository did not reach Shánghai till December; and we have nothing to do with his printing his Reply; but where is Dr. M.'s candor and courtesy in belaboring us as he does for saying nothing, when he never even refers to Bp. Boone's remarks in Vol. XVIII, p. 97, in explanation of this very article signed A Brother Missionary, which was written and sent us for insertion just as soon as he heard those Questions had given umbrage? Would not that ex- planation travel as far as the original article, and was it not enough to satisfy any reasonable man of its intent? We think it enough to state these facts of the case. His Reply contained no new facts upon the discussion, which made it. worth reprinting, it was written with some asperity, and as it was widely seat- tered, we supposed every one in China interested in it would see quite enough of it without having it over again in the Repository. Our readers would not thank us for reprinting all which proceeds from Dr. Medhurst's pen and press, merely because he sends us a copy. More of our pages have already been occupied with the views he advocates on this question, than with their opposites; there having been 313 pages of the last six volumes taken up with the former, and Vis