fer to the geography of the subject. | &c., instead of giving the personal That has already been worked up, sense which it is obviously intended by Saint Martin, Cunningham and to express, as the equivalent of others; but a note of the results deva in the Buddhist hierarchy. would have been acceptable. While As examples we may refer to pp. however we refer to certain desi- 16, 18 and 50,-"the heavenly Inderata left untouched, we by no dra Shakia,”- "the four heavenly means ignore the merits of what Kings." A doubt forces itself upon the translator has accomplished. us also, as to the exactitude of the He has supplied a version far supe- sentence-"Indra Shakia, in order rior to any that has preceded; for to try the Bodlisata, changed himwhich he is entitled to the gratitude self into a kite and a dove," (p. 16). of all who are occupied with kindred We have less hesitation in pointing studies. We freely admit that we to the sentence on the next pageare in no position to criticize Mr. "a country named Chu-ch'a-shih-lo, Giles' production; and had we the which in Chinese means 'to cut original text by us, we have little off the head.'" Here the words " "in hope of being able to pick any con- Chinese" are not only redundant, siderable holes in his coat. Meantime but actually obscure the meaning. we avail ourselves of the more grate- By what Mr. Giles calls the "Origful privilege of commending what inal Introduction," let not the reader we can appreciate. One thought how- suppose that it was written in Faever strikes us in looking through hsien's time, or by Fa-hsien; original the work; and that is that the editor; for internal evidence shews author frequently mistakes the that it was not penned for thirteen meaning of the character, trans- centuries after Fa-hsien's narrative lating it by "heaven," "heavenly," | saw the light.

A. W.

DEAR SIR:

In giving an account of the Prize essays written at Foochow on the theme, in the May-June Number of the Recorder, I stated that. "Mr. Hartwell proposed a few changes in the essays before publication, so as at least to introduce the use of Shin in the sense of spirit." In saying this I supposed I was stating precisely what my informant told me, but he now writes me that I was mistaken. It was the native preacher of the English Church Mission who proposed the changes, and they were brought by Mr. Hartwell to Mr. Baldwin. I am sorry the mistake was made, and hasten to make the correction. The mistake concerns not the fact that changes were suggested, but the person with whom the proposed originated.

C. W. MATEER.

The above letter arrived after the Correspondence columns were closed. For this reason we give it insertion at this point.-ED.

ON THE TRANSLATION OF "FAITH" AND "SIN" IN CHINESE. BY REV. CARSTAIRS DOUGLAS.

WHILE

WHILE so much attention is given to the discussion of the terms for "God" and "Spirit," it is well to remember, that there are also other theological terms, the translation of which may very probably be improved by the interchange of opinions founded on the experience of so many years. There are two such terms which seem to me to be very frequently mistranslated, namely the Greek "Pistis and " Hamartia," or (as I shall say, to avoid the repetition of Greek words) Faith and Sin. My remarks would apply in the main to the Hebrew equivalents; but for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I omit the consideration of them.

In speaking of "Chinese," I refer of course principally to the literary style. But I believe that my objections to the terms indicated will apply equally to the various "dialects" (or vernaculars, as I prefer to call them), though perhaps in the vernaculars, there may be more variety in the words or phrases best fitted to translate the Greek terms.

The translation of Faith to which I object is, which is extensively used, both in printed books and in speaking, in several parts of China; and which I am surprised to find even in Dr. Williams' Dictionary.

The word has several meanings. As a verb it is generally to believe or to trust; but as a substantive its usual meaning in Chinese literature is not faith but faithfulness. Now I do not mean to propose to change the use off for faith; yet I would remark in passing, that great care must be taken in using it to guard against confusing faith and faithfulness. This mistake was actually made by one of the oldest and most learned of Chinese missionaries throughout a whole section of a standard tract, but he corrected it at my suggestion.

But when the word is added, the ambiguity at once disap

pears, for the combination cannot properly devote anything but faithfulness. Let it be remembered that in the overwhelming majority of cases where f is used as a substantive in Chinese literature, it means faithfulness (of course I leave out of consideration such irrelevant meaning as "news" and "letter)," and that it is only through the influence of its signification as a verb, that it can be used with anything like safety to translate faith.* So soon therefore as it is defined to be a virtuet (), it can only mean the well known cardinal virtue of faithfulness; because faith (whether belief or trust) is not described as a virtue, being simply the act of receiving, from one considered to be faithful, the witness or help which he offers.

But if the influence of the context or of explanations constraiu the reader or hearer, in opposition to the natural sense of the phrase, to understand in the sense of faith, there remains a still more serious objection; for the phrase, thus understood, will inevitably tend to lead to the dangerous error or considering faith as a virtue, so that when we are said to be saved by faith, the idea will be suggested that we are saved by one of our own virtues, that is by our own merit; whereas the true doctrine of Scripture is that faith is simply the outstretched hand by which we receive the full salvation freely offered us in the name of Jesus Christ.

There is still another meaning of possible, which is grammatically as good (at least) as the above, and which I have several times heard actually given by well-educated Chinese, namely "faith (or faithfulness) and virtue," a meaning which is theologically as objectionable as that which I have been attacking.

Thus therefore I trust I have proved, that is quite unsuitable as a translation of faith.

The other word to which I refer is SIN, or whatever be the translation of the Greek Hamartia. The Greek word, as well as the English, is ambiguous. Sometimes it denoted the action, feeling, or character, considered as an evil or wicked thing, or its intrinsically evil nature, in which sense we may perhaps speak of it as wickedness;

* As I have said above, I do not know of any word that could be proposed to take the place of for "faith" as a substantive. But probably it might be well in many cases, especially where a mistake would be most dangerous, to get rid of the difficulty by using the word as a verb. Thus in several places in the Delegates Version of the New Testament is used, e. g. II. Cor. 8, 7. Jas. 2, 14. +I do not forget that has other meaninge besides "virtue;" but in this connexion no other meaning is applicable.

That is to say by Protestants. For the description of faith as a virtue admirably suits the doctrinal system of the Church of Rome, indeed I have observed that they speak of faith, hope and charity as the. But it is dangerous to follow too closely the terminology of Rome in the principal word in the "article of a standing or falling Church."

but sometimes it denotes the relation of the action* to law and punishment, or what is strictly termed guilt.

a very considerable number),

is used to

Now in some Christian books, and by some missionaries (probably express both these ideas. is never used in Chinese literature for sin in the sense of wickedness, but only in the sense of guilt, of course has also other meanings, but to these I need not at present allude. The following are the principal lines of proof.

But so far as I have been able to observe,

t

1. The contrary of is well known to be in the sense of denoting not the action itself, nor the intrinsic nature of the action as good or righteous, but merely the merit which is its consequence; that is, its relation to law and reward. So also its opposite, cannot denote the wicked action or the wickedness of the action, but solely its relation to law and punishment, that is guilt; or sometimes by metonymy penalty. Thus is "to have merit" as the result of good actions, while is "to have guilt," "to be guilty," as the result of wicked actions.

2. The same position is established by observing what classes of verbs are used with, when it is said to come into existence or to be taken away, and what classes of them cannot be used with it.

Now one is never said to do, to commit, or to practice a . That is to say, such verbs as , f,, &c., are never used with.

The verbs that describe the process by which one comes into the position of, all indicate very clearly that is not a thing done by us, but a thing which we meet with or acquire, or which comes upon us, as the consequence of our action. Thus the phrases, 得罪, and 獲罪,are all quite inexplicable if 罪 be looked upon as something done by the sinner, but all fit with perfect accuracy to the idea of the guilt or blameworthiness which the sinner acquires (so to speak), as the consequence of his action. Observe also the exact paralellism with such phrases as 獲恩 and得寵; also compare 獲入 之恩with得人之罪. In the same way 犯罪 is not strictly sto commit a transgression; for never has the sense of "to do," or "to commit," or such like. Its radical meaning is "to rush against' or "come in collision with," which naturally shades into the idea "to encounter that which injures one," e. g. "to get involved in a law-suit," so that the primary idea of is "to involve oneself in guilt," i. e. "to contract guilt." Yet as E from the sense of "strike against," comes also (standing alone) to mean "to offend" or "to

To avoid repetition I shall use the word "action" as if it included the meanings of feeling,' "habit," 66 character," &c.

* has also the sense of work; but that is clearly not the opposite of in any of its significations,