2. Another department of mission work in which Dr. Douglas took great pleasure was the training of native agents.

In the system of united classes with the students of the English Presbyterian Mission and those of the American Mission he undertook training in music and latterly also an exegetical class. But this was only a small part of the work he did among the students. When in Amoy, he was every day out and in among them in our training institution and, in particular, he made a point of regularly taking evening worship with

A part of this worship consisted in carefully reading the Old Testament in course, a work for which he was especially fitted by his accurate knowledge of the Chinese written language and his intimate acquaintance with the text of Scripture both in Chinese and in the original tongues.

He has left in connection with the mission a training institution originally built at his own expense, fourteen students at present under training and twenty-three native preachers in active employment.

Those who have as students and preachers been specially connected with him keenly feel his loss. Many have bitterly sorrowed for him with tears. And no wonder. As was remarked in reference to the affection for him shewn by Christian Chinese by his deathbed,-" He lived for the Chinese and died for the Chinese, they might well love him."

3. The work of which I have already spoken was quite sufficient for the strength of any one man. But by a strict economy of time Dr. Douglas was able also to overtake a great deal of more strictly literary work. Soon after his arrival in China while staying in Amoy or travelling by boat he carefully read most of the Chinese Classics and made himself minutely acquainted with the Chinese text of the Holy Scriptures. He thus acquired a very accurate knowledge of the Chinese written character, but other engagements prevented him from ever reading much native literature. Most of the time he could spare from direct mission work was given to the preparation of his Dictionary of the Amoy Vernacular. No one can examine it without seeing it to be a work involving an immense amount of toil. For fourteen years he continued to collect, revise and correct materials for it. But he never allowed it to interfere with his active mission work. Day after day, hours that ought to have been given to sleep or relaxation were devoted to it. While journeying in the mission boat it was his constant companion. From every source materials were looked for. The vocabularies of his predecessors in the mission field were utilised. Native dictionaries were ransacked.

Wherever he went his note book was in his pocket ready to receive any new expression, and each expression thus obtained was afterwards submitted to three or four native teachers, and to mission preachers from different localities to ascertain with accuracy its variations of meaning, and the extent of country over which it was current.

This dictionary is the work by which he will be best known outside the limited circle that know and can appreciate his more directly evange

listic labours and their results. As a vocabulary of the language spoken in the Chang-chew and Chin-chew prefectures little can ever be added to it. Its one want is the Chinese characters corresponding to the various words. This was a want Dr. Douglas hoped to supply if he had lived. His reason for omitting them was that in the case of many words in the Amoy vernacular the pronunciation has been so much changed that it is difficult to determine from what particular character a word has sprung. Often the character could be identified only by tracing its pronunciation through several dialects. Many copies of his dictionary have his list of characters filled in by the hand, but he deferred printing it until it should be as complete as possible. It was during a second visit home that his dictionary was printed at which time he also received from the University of Glasgow the degree of LL.D.

Besides the dictionary, Dr. Douglas' only other publication is a Chinese tune book on the tonic sol fa system, in which the Chinese numerals up to seven are employed as symbols.*

A commentary on the second Epistle to the Corinthians was left by him in a considerable state of forwardness, and may yet be published.

As a member of the committee for conserving the text of the Chinese Scriptures and preparing materials for a future revision, he has, I believe done more than any one else has yet done towards preparing such materials, and had he been spared to see revision undertaken his assistance would have been invaluable.

But the Master saw that his work here was done. Incessant labour had undermined Dr. Douglas's constitution, and made him old before his time. Of those who saw him this summer at Shanghai certainly none unacquainted with the fact would have set him down as not yet fortyseven years old. Probably most would have been inclined to add twenty to that number. During the past few years he has not been strong and has in appearance aged rapidly. This spring his health was weak, but when advised to go home after the Shanghai Conference should be past he put off the suggestion for another year. His visit to Shanghai, (where he was elected one of the Chairmen of the Conference), he much enjoyed, and feeling himself greatly improved in health, he, at its close came right back to Amoy; although we had hoped he might extend his trip to Japan. During the six weeks he was with us after his return, he seemed in wonderfully good health and in excellent spirits. In the mission work he took as active a share as ever, and the last two Sabbaths he spent on earth were spent at inland stations involving land journeys in very hot weather.

The cholera epidenic which was raging among the Chinese seemed to be a good deal on his mind, but simply in the form of pity for the suffering, and he himself continued in good health and spirits. On the evening of Wednesday 25th July, he was as usual present at the weekly

* Dr. Douglas also composed a number of hymns in the Amoy vernacular, which are included in the hymn book used there.

Dr.

English prayer meeting. On Thursday morning he had to get up about four o'clock, but went immediately to bed again, and it was past six ere the symptoms of cholera began clearly to manifest themselves. Manson was immediately in attendance but from the first his case seemed to be hopeless. By eight o'clock he was in a state of collapse and continued so till twenty minutes to six in the afternoon when his spirit returned to God who gave it..

Being reduced at once to a state of great weakness, Dr. Douglas was unable to give any instructions about his affairs, nor did he send any message to any one from his sick bed. To speak was difficult for him, and the little he said all had reference to his trust in God. To one who quoted the promise "Cast thy burden upon the Lord and he shall sustain thee," he replied with great emphasis "He does sustain," and then after a pause, "perfect peace." To another who gave him a "text," he replied "my 'text' for next Sunday was to have been, 'the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.'" One of the native pastors having called, he did not at first observe him, his eyes apparently having become dim, but, being told he was present, he in broken sentences addressed him (in Chinese) "Ah! Iah sian-seng......be always ready......for the Lord's will......here we may be of use in the church......to be with the Lord is far better." The eagerness with which amid much weakness these words were spoken was very remarkable. It seemed to give him joy that he was able with his dying breath to witness a good confession to a brother presbyter of the Chinese Church-that church to the edification of which his life had been given.

Dr. Douglas's death leaves a blank which will be felt by the missionary community all over China. What a blank he has left among us his fellow labourers in Amoy cannot be expressed in words. "The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

DEAR SIR:-

Correspondence.

Those Thirty Essays.

Your correspondent in the May number of the Recorder makes statements which need correction. He supposes that there was a public meeting of missionaries at Foochow, in which the meaning of the term Shin was discussed. No such meeting was ever held. In a private talk between two missionaries it was proposed to give out the theme "Shangti nai Shin" and offer prizes to the best native essayists. The business was finally and definitely arranged by three missionaries. Messrs. Wolf, Hartwell and S. L. Baldwin. The others had no voice in it, were not even consulted, and most of them knew nothing whatever about it, till the essays were handed in for examination. I mention this simply to show how very informal the transaction was. As Rev. S. L. Baldwin was in a better position than myself to know the facts, I have asked him to give them. This is his reply:

"In answer to your inquiries in regard to the correctness of the statement of Rev. C. W. Mateer, in the May-June number of the Recorder, concerning the essays on "Shangti nai Shin," I have to say.

1. I have no doubt that Mr. Mateer intended to give the exact facts in the case, as he received them from me.

2. He is mistaken as to the question (whether the use of Shin for spirit was correctly understood by the Chinese Christians) being raised "at a meeting of the missionaries in Foochow." I said that it came up during the week of Prayer." Mr. Mateer probably got the impression from this that it was a matter of public discussion--whereas it was only a matter of private conversation between Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Wolfe, after one of the meetings of the week of Prayer.

3. It was not Mr. Hartwell who "proposed a few changes" but a native preacher who had assisted in examining the essays. Mr. Mateer's sentence on that subject seems to imply that Mr. Hartwell wished to put into the essays before publication the use of Shin with a meaning that the authors did not use it in. No one who knows Mr. Hartwell would for a moment think it possible for him to propose such a thing. Neither did the changes proposed by the native preacher go to the extent implied by Mr. Mateer. He must have raisunderstood me on this point.

4. Whether the essays are essays on "the spiritual nature of God,” as they ought to be if Shangti nai Shin" means "God is a Spirit," or whether they are essays on the Divinity of Shangti, or what is properly the subject of them, all can judge for themselves by reading such of them as have been published.

5. My conversation with Mr. Mateer was a private one, in answer to questions propounded by him. I did not know that he intended to publish it; but I do not complain of his doing so. I am willing that all facts bearing on the subject of terms shall be published to the world, and have such effect as properly belongs to them. am sure Mr. Mateer desires nothing else, and will be very glad to have the corrections I have here made in regard to his statement published.”

I

This statement from the pen of our good brother puts the history of the essays in a proper light. We very heartily thank him for it, as it shows how entirely groundless are the remarks of Mr. Mateer, which seem to imply a defect in Mr. Hartwell's moral sense in the matter of the essays..

ers.

This disposes of the 'history,' but some of us at Foochow think that we may fairly claim to be heard on the subject of the essays written by our own native preachThe idea of giving out such a theme originated with Mr. Hartwell, and was probably due to a desire to ascertain whether the Chinese have a correct conception of spirit, as this term is understood by western Christians, who believe in the Biblical teachings on the subjects. But most of the essayists failed to see the point, which very naturally led him to think that the text should be more clearly defined, as Mr. Mateer very correctly states in one part of his paragraph. Some of the essayists were doubtless influenced by previous conversations with missionaries on the term question; and all, with few exceptions, went into a discussion about false gods, as they had been accustomed to do in their chapels. This seems to be the staple of many of the essays.

Of the thirty essays handed in, one half were put aside by the examiners as being comparatively worthless. These I have not seen. The best fifteen were arranged in the order of supposed merit and prizes adjudged to the first three only. One excellent essay, marked No. 4, was from Amoy and came too late for competition.

I have examined with care these fifteen papers, but do not design to discuss at length their literary or theological merits, nor to use them as decisive evidence in the term question, as some rashly attempt to do. That question must be settled on far broader and more exact principles than any which these essays furnish. Let me attempt to show simply and very briefly how the essayists use Shin, as interpreted by immediate subject and context. The pages of the Recorder will not admit of a minute examination of all the phrases where the term occurs. I confine remark to a few generalisations and quotations, as the result of investigation, the word “God” in English standing for Shangti in the text.

Essay No. 1, uses Shin 26 times, of which 22 are merely the popular names of idols, gods or worshiped spirits, and such common terms as 鬼神百神天神地祗. Twice we have the verbal sense of deifying, or exalting natural objects and imaginary beings to the place of worship. Once the term is applied to good angels in connection with kuei for evil ones, and once to the spirit or mind of God in the phrase "His spirit is very holy." No. 2, uses Shin 9 times only, of which are in the sense of a spirit in everything, a spiritual essence joined to the material form, as its intelligent moving power. The sense seems to be analogous to that of mind in man. Once in the phrase "the celestial Shin," once in the sense of the Great Cause or Source, the underived Shin, once, in speaking of the classic use of T'ien, heaven, it is said that in reference to its Kung yung it is called Shin. Once, in the sense of spirit, “God is a spirit without form". No. 3, uses Shin 15 times, always in the sense of spirit, or in citing the native misconceptions of

its proper meaning. The essay dwells on the Scriptural idea of God's spiritual nature, and weighs against the false notion of the "necessary dependence of spirit on matter," showing how the doctrine degrades and materialises spirit. No. 4, uses Shin 39 times, of which 3 are in the sense of God as a spirit, and 9 are used in showing that Shin, as a term for the true God, is not comparable to Shangti and that He whom the classics call Shangti is the one creating, ruling Spirit -£¤‡‡2D. In the remaining 27 instances, the essay cites the native uses of Shin, declaring them to be innumerable, mixed and confused TRBÆ. While admitting a slight inadequacy of the term Shangti in one respect, he warmly advocates its use in preference to Shin. No. 5, uses Shin 29 times, of which 8 are names of idols, 7 are applied to God as the self-existent spirit, 4 to God as being spiritual, intelligent in distinction from material forms, 5 to the Spirit of God, 2 to the Holy Spirit: 1 in the phrase "God is Shin," as the theme reads: 1 in citing the native doctrine that the formless spirit depends on the material form for continued existence: 1 in the phrase Man Shinto be disrespectful to God.

This suffices for a numerical estimate of the uses of Shin. The remaining ten of these fifteen essays are like the first five in two respects, (1) in discussing the native uses of the term Shin, (2) in applying it to God directly, or interchangeably with Shangti, as both terms are found in the Christian books which the essayists freely But in one respect these ten are unlike the first five as they very rarely, if ever, speak of the spiritual nature of God.

use.

This meagre review suggests a few points which I will now state.

It was probably the fact, just alluded to, which disappointed Mr. Hartwell. It was not that the essayists preferred Shin to Shangti (which they do not), nor that the essays could be fairly interpreted as evidence on that side.

The essayists dwell largely on the use of Shiu in the classics and show how the ancient doctrine respecting the majesty of Shangti, as Creator and Lord, was gradually corrupted. In doing this the names of false gods are introduced and the single word Shin often stands as a general term.

They also interchange Shin with Shangti for God. They sometimes do this very freely, because they find one term used in some books, and the other term in other books. Can any one furnish a better explanation of the fact that Foochow and Amoy essayists do this so freely? They also use Shin in the sense of a supernatural, inscrutable power, which develops the universe--not Deity or God, but the divine operation. Similar to this, is the sense which Dr. Douglas gave to Shin in parts of the essays. In a letter which he wrote me July 17th, he says "I should be inclined to give some such explanation as this, that Shin, while properly and usually meaning Spirit," does often mean a supernatural being, i. e., a spirit, which being disembodied (or never having had a body), has powers which transcend human powers, and which can act so as to change the usual order of nature."

The best of the fifteen essays use Shin in treating of God's spiritual nature; and all, or the most of them, apply the same term to Him in the sense of Deity. But, in doing this, the best essayists carefully distinguish Shang-ti from "the crowd of Shin," as being Creator, Lord, the Only (God). One essay says that other "spirits" cannot

be mentioned in the same day with Him 若較諸上帝則有所不可同日 語也: Another says "His name cannot be classed with others" TA

, and adds that men's minds will be confused and the character of God degraded by using Shin to designate Him. Besides, the essayists very generally use Shangti as subject in the proposition, and Shin, with other words, as predicate, to interpret the attributes of the subject. It must therefore be borne in mind that, while they evidently use and prefer Shangti as the proper term for the True God, it remains an open question in what precise sense they use the predicate Shin in some of the instances. In my review I cannot claim exemption from the force of this stricture. Others may interpret the essays differently.

The essays give us no new light on the proper meaning of Shin, nor any better evidence than we have long had of its availability or the reverse, as a translation of Elohim and Theos. They use the term as the immediate subject requires, and in such senses as most of us are disposed to accept as genuine-for the human mind or spirit, gods or worshiped spirits, the manes, a genius, a supernatural being or cause, phys cal energy, animation, etc. Some of the essays are good, but I feel neither elevation nor depression of spirits under their influence. So far as I might allow them any weight, it would be rather to strengthen the conviction that a term, so vague and impersonal as Shin (without a qualifying word) always is, will not answer so well for God, as other terms now used.