offered up his own body as a sacrifice and accomplished the work of our redemption; then sacrifices were done away with.

From the time of Yaou and Shun who lived about two thousand years after our first ancestor Adam, until now, there are four thousand years; during all this time sacrifices have been continually offered; and the later we come down, the further have men departed from God; until they do not even know God, but imagine that there are many gods; that man himself may become a god; wherefore there are those who sacrifice to gods, ancestors and such like who have nevertheless lost the original meaning of sacrifice. Finally, as regards dignity, man and God are as far apart as heaven and earth; how can man's word be compared to God's word, or man's commands to His? How can man's books be compared to God's Books? Ought not God's words to be heard more than man's? Ought not God's commands to be obeyed more than man's? Ought not God's Book to be believed more than man's? What then is there contrary to propriety in dispensing with these sacrificial rites?

II. The object for which sacrifices were instituted.

It was said that the object of sacrifices is to requite one's original source to the most remote limit. Let me ask then whence does the body come? From our ancestors. Whence do all things come? From heaven. Whence did our ancestors come? Was the first generation of ancestors self-existing? Whence did heaven come? Is heaven self-existent ? Now people only know that all things come from heaven, but they do not know whence heaven comes, nor where the most remote limit is. Not knowing their origin how can they requite it? Not knowing the most remote source of all things how can they trace it? If you really want to know your origin and the most remote source of all things how will you learn it? Only by examining the Bible. The Bible teaches that man, heaven, earth, and all things were created by the one God (E). What greater primeval source than this can there be? Moreover the Scriptures say, that this Supreme Ruler exists from everlasting;-that before heaven and earth, He was, myriads and myriads of years ago. What limit can be more remote than this? When you know this Supreme Ruler, then you have found the original source of all things, and may requite your origin; then you comprehend the remotest limit and can trace back to it. If you only sacrifice to your ancestors or to heaven, and do not serve God, not only do you not requite your origin,-you really blaspheme it; not only do you not trace back to the source, you cut it off. Why then must you perform these sacrifices?

III. The rites pertaining to sacrifices.

We said that sacrificial rites have definite degrees; and that the

more the order of these degrees is transgressed, the greater is the impropriety. The common people may not offer the sacrifices pertaining to scholars, because scholars are greater than the common people; the scholar may not offer the sacrifice of the high officer, because the high officer is greater than the scholar; the high officer may not offer the sacrifice of the prince because the prince is greater than the high officer; the prince may not offer the sacrifice pertaining to the emperor, because the emperor is greater than the prince. Thus it may be seen that the order of high and low, honourable and mean, may not be violated; to do so is to be guilty of impropriety, this is especially true of the rites. of sacrifices, so that of the nine kinds of offerings presented to the emperor, that for the purpose of sacrifice is the first; and of the nine models for economy, that referring to sacrifices is the most important. Let me inquire which is greater,-God or man? You will certainly say God is greater; let me ask again, which is greater God or ancestors? You will certainly say God is greater. Which is greater God or the myriads of things? You will certainly say God is greater. Now after sacrifices have been offered to men, ancestors, and the myriads of things, what rites can be employed to sacrifice to God? The difference as to greatness and excellence between God, and man, ancestors, and the myriads of things, is immeasurable; to sacrifice then to men, ancestors and the myriads of things, is to place them on a par with God. What disorder! What usurpation! What impropriety! But not only so,— men even cast off God altogether; this is to add impropriety to impropriety. Sacrifices without propriety are of no advantage; what necessity then is there for performing them?

IV. The things of chief importance in sacrifices.

We said that the things of chief importance in sacrifices are virtue, filial piety, reverence and sincerity; hence it may be seen that sacrifices destitute of these are useless; neither the gods nor our ancestors will accept of such sacrifices. Let me then inquire,-is there such a thing as perfect virtue and perfect filial piety? Is there such a thing as complete reverence and complete sincerity? Such perfection is not to be found in the present day, even in ancient times it was unknown. It is not to be found in foreign countries, nor even in the Middle Kingdom. There is a common saying, that even the "sages have failings;" it is needless then to speak of ordinary men. From this it may be seen, that not only the sacrifices of ordinary men are useless, but I fear that those even offered by the sages, are also unprofitable. Better then not to sacrifice at all.

V. The advantages to be derived from sacrifices.

We said that these are four, viz: gratitude, love, reverence and harmony. With so many advantages, sacrifices would appear to be

most important and indispensable. But let me ask, whence comes a grateful, loving, reverent, peaceable disposition? Do sacrifices produce it, or did it exist before sacrifices were offered? If it depends upon sacrifices, then the advantages derived from these are not small; if this disposition was already present, then sacrifices depend upon it not it upon sacrifices; what advantage then is there in offering sacrifices? What man is without love and reverence for his ancestors? Can it be said that only those who offer sacrifices possess these virtuous feelings? Moreover a grateful, loving, reverent disposition is not an empty thing. Constantly to remember our ancestors' goodness and suffering, and to follow their good examples and not dare to do anything wrong, this is true gratitude and reverence and love; the mere offering of sacrifices is manifestly unreal. As for a peaceable disposition, still less does this spring from the offering of sacrifices. On the contrary, on account of such sacrifices much discord arises. How many are there who fight and go to law on account of these things, leading to the destruction of their property and the loss of their business! What advantage then is to be derived from these sacrifices?

But if it be said, all this arises from not offering them with a true heart; given a true heart, sacrifices will certainly be beneficial; I reply. Even with a true heart, sacrifies are still of no use. Why? Because after death, our ancestors if virtuous, go to a good place and do not need our sacrifices; if not virtuous, they go to a bad place and cannot partake of our offerings. What is the use of such empty forms? Who knows anything of our good intention? Or if it be said, "Never mind whether the ancestors be present or not, only satisfy the dictates of your own conscience "; I answer, if I have only to satisfy the dictates of my own conscience, why should this depend on the offering of sacrifices. Shall it be said, that my heart can be satisfied with these sacrifices but not otherwise. Formerly Hway-veng-kong said. It is better scantily to support the living, than to offer rich sacrifices to the dead. And the proverb says, "It is vain to make a feast before the coffin;" which also indicates the uselessness of sacrifices. Such are sacrifices to the ancestors. Are not sacrifices to the gods such also?

VI. The rules to be observed in offering sacrifices.

We said that sacrifices must not be continuous, lest they become wearisome; and must not be negligently performed, lest they become cold and formal. Hence the observance of the annual, monthly, and daily sacrifices, and those of stated times, great festivals and special occasions, cannot be considered either continuous or lax; but exactly correspond to the teaching of the "Doctrine of the Mean." But the "Doctrine of the Mean" also says,-"Serve the dead as you do the living; serve the departed as you do those who remain." Since it is

said, In the observance of the annual, monthly and daily sacrifices, and those of the festivals and special occasions, this is clearly to serve the living in a different way to the dead, and the departed in a different way to those who remain. The "Doctrine of the Mean," doubtless does not say they must be served in exactly the same manner, only in a similar manner; but even so, how great is the difference! For instance, a son in nourishing his parents, is he only to nourish them at these stated times and on these formal occasions; and may he omit this duty at other times? Or a minister in serving his prince, is he only to serve him at these stated times and on these special occasions, and may he omit to do so at other times? How then in sacrificing to ancestors and the gods can it be regarded as sufficient, to do so only at these stated times and on these formal occasions? Happily the gods and ancestors do not depend upon your sacrifices, otherwise they would but swallow hunger and eat famine, and would long ago have been starved to death. Hence it may be seen, that to consult the pleasure and convenience of the sacrificer, sometimes offering before, sometimes after the proper time,-sometimes offering at a distance in the wrong place, all this violates the teaching of the "Doctrine of the Mean."

VII. The gods to whom sacrifices may be offered.

The number of gods to whom sacrifices ought to be offered in this country, according to the Sze tin is very great. Before I discuss the merits of this question, let me first ask how many gods are there? Mencius says "Heaven has not two suns, nor the people two kings.' The words of the Le ke are very similar, "Heaven has not two suns, earth has not two kings, the state has not two princes, a family has not two heads." We see then that in a family there is but one master, in a state only one prince, in heaven only one sun. If there were two suns in the heavens, heaven and earth would be thrown into confusion; if there were two masters in the house, the house would be overturned; if there were two emperors in a state, the state would be in rebellion. Now in this country the gods are very numerous; there are gods celestial and gods terrestial, gods of the hills and gods of the waters; the myriads of things has each its own god; even men may become gods. Are the gods then so many? No, there are not so many. And yet sacrifices are offered to all of them! Ought this to be so ?

Besides God is God; man is man; the myriad of things is the myriad of things; all are not of the same class, the difference of degree is ten-thousand-fold. If you say that the myriads of things may all be reckoned as gods, that men may be reckoned as gods, this is placing god and man and the myriads of things on the same level. Is this

correct? Even in the same class there are different degrees. As for instance, a father and son are of the same class, but a father is a father, a son, a son; the son may not call the father brother. Again an emperor and his minister are of the same class, but the emperor is emperor, the minister is minister, may the minister call the prince brother? One word more; most of the gods have been deified by the emperor; the emperors are men, if the gods are dependent upon men for their deification, the gods ought to sacrifice to men, not men to the gods. Is this so? We may therefore know, that the Sze tin, which enjoins sacrifices to heaven and earth, the five elements, the five gods named before, the six honorable ones, the hills and streams, the ancients, to tombs and ancestors, is really erroneous and the sacrifices a mistake. As to sacrificing to evil spirits and hobgoblins, worms, animals, grasses, trees, flowers, all kinds of grain and the myriads of things, this a still greater error, and the sacrifices a still greater mistake.

To sum up before the reception of the Gospel, sacrifices appeared to be of some use, but after its reception, they are seen to be of no advantage whatever. Just as to a man travelling on a dark night without a ray of light; if he can get but a little light from a lantern. it is of great use, even the light of a firefly is some good; but when the sun arises, of what use is the lantern? Or again, suppose a blind man unable to see the road, or feel his way, if he could get a staff to assist him it would be a good thing; but when his eyes were enlightend of what use would the staff be? Sacrifices are just like this before the Gospel came to man, sacrifices like a lantern or a staff, appeared to be of some use; when the Gospel comes they are seen to be valueless. Not only are they of no use, but they are really impious and offensive in the sight of God. Yet though we thus speak, unless the Holy Spirit opens men's hearts ten thousand words will be of no use. It is only when the Holy Spirit opens men's hearts, enabling them to see plainly and discern clearly, that they will naturally and without hesitation cast away these sacrifices and change their customs.

JOURNEY THROUGH HUNAN, KWEICHOW AND
SZECHUEN PROVINCES.

BY CHAS. H. JUDD.

SOME OME account of a journey lately taken through the provinces of Hunan, Kwei-chow and part of Szechuen may, perhaps, be of use to some of the readers of the Recorder. I enclose a list of places and distances which might be of use in future journeys taken by others. My brother-in-law (Mr. J. F. Broumton) and myself with three native Christians composed our party. My brother-in-law, with two natives,