Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

permission, Mr. Editor, I will offer a few criticisms on some of the principal positions taken by Messrs. Douglas, Talmage, and Enquirer.

A chief point made by Dr. Douglas, was that Dr. Williams "actually gives the translation 'spirit' to about one half of the examples [of the use of Shin] adduced in his great Dictionary;" and Dr. Talmage wrote to vindicate this statement, and even undertook to add to it. I do not propose to enter the list, in counting up the number of times that Dr. Williams has translated Shin either this or that. This question is not to be settled by authority merely as such, but by the thorough discussion of words and principles. As for Dr. Williams, I know whereof I affirm, when I say, that he does not admit that shin means "spirit," in the sense of an invisible, living intelligence, in any example he has given. Nor is his position self-contradictory. He would probably explain something as follows:-A translation need not be a philosophical explanation of the process by which words and phrases have been formed. Chinese philosophy is and ever has been pantheistic, and this pantheism has spread to the mass of the people, and embedded itself in the language. They believe that all life is a part of the shin-the universal soul-the God of pantheism. Hence they apply it to the human soul, as well as to animals, believing especially, that quick perception, excited feelings, and wrapt attention, are manifestations of the indwelling shin. We in the west do not ordinarily, refer these things to any divine essence in us, but simply to the mind itself, and this simply because the sources of our language have not been pervaded to any extent with pantheism. When a lexicographer defines words and phrases of one language in those of another, he gives-not the literal meaning of the words, according to the usage of the language from which he is rendering, but-the equivalent meaning, according to the usage of the language into which he is rendering. Hence in rendering the various phrases given under the word shin, Dr. Willliams gives simply the equivalent sense, according to the usage of the English language; and it is both unphilosophical and unfair to assume a literal rendering, and draw conclusions from it, as to Dr. Williams' understanding of the word shin. Thus we see how Dr. Talmage's heavy closing shot, "Shin sometimes must be translated 'spirit,' and cannot possibly be translated 'God,'” is after all more powder than ball.

"It is

Dr. Douglas says: "It may well be expected, that the ideas of a heathen people will be more accurate and definite, in regard to 'spirit' than in regard to 'God."" This declaration was doubtless inspired by the similar one made by Dr. Medhurst many years ago, viz. much more likely that they (the Chinese) should have a generic for 'spirits,' than a generic for 'gods.'" These assertions may sound plausible, but they will not bear examination. The very reverse of them is the truth. Worship is an instinct, not dependent on intellectual culture or philosophy. All men in all ages have had objects of worship, which they have called gods. No nation or language has ever existed; at least none has ever reached any degree of development, without a word for "God;" and as almost all heathen nations have had many gods, they have had a generic word for "god." The idea of spirit is a philosophical generalization. All men speak of gods, of

demons, and of souls; but all men have not by any means classed the three in one, as spirits. It is very doubtful whether any nation ever did it, without the aid of divine revelation. Even the Greeks, with all their love of philosophy, and their metaphysical acumen, used pneuma, when referring to a living being, only of the human soul, and they had no one word which they applied as a classifier to all spirits. This usage of pneuma, as the generic for "spirits," came through the agency of Judaism and Christianity, and the same is true of spiritus in Latin. If "god" be taken to mean "the true God," and "spirit" be taken for "the human soul," it may perhaps be affirmed, that the ideas of a heathen people will be more accurate concerning the latter, though certainly not more definite. But if the words be used generically as by Dr. Medhurst, and as is contemplated in this whole question, then assuredly it is far more likely, that a heathen nation will have the word for "god," than the word for "spirit." The force of this a priori argument, is all against those who have invoked it. That China should be without a generic word for "spirit," is quite credible, and in keeping with the history of other heathen nations; but that she should be without a generic term for "god," is incredible, and contrary to the history of all other heathen nations. A great deal of fallacious arguing on this question turns on this very point. It is assumed that the Chinese must necessarily have a generic word for "spirit," and that because shin is used in such a (supposed) variety of senses, and especially in abstract senses in which we use "spirit," it therefore certainly means 'spirit." This is in fact about the sum and substance of most of the arguing that shin means "spirit,"-than which nothing could be more inconclusive. Such promiscuous mixing up of the matter may serve to confuse, and so to silence objections, but it does not conduce to a clear and discriminating judgment.

Dr. Douglas asserts that, "it is a matter of comparatively inferior importance, whether or not a word can be found, that may comprehend the whole range of objects of worship." The truth of this assertion is not admitted. On the contrary it is far more important, that such a term should be found, than that one should be found, which, while it may be "used alone when speaking of 'God,"" can only be so used. The reason is, that in the former case we have a term, which, while it serves to designate the true God, and so enables us to clothe him with the proper attributes, at the same time serves to cast out and dethrone all false gods. But in the latter case, your term only enables you to set up a new god, or to exalt an old one in the midst of many others, who remain undisturbed. Your term does not suggest any opposition of true and false, nor enable you to bring the two into comparison. This is the capital defect of Shang-te, and the capital excellence of Shin. Dr. Douglas asks, which is the more important in such phrases as, "God created the world;""Worship God;" &c. Let me ask, which is the more important, in the more fundamental words, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," "The gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens." In introducing Christianity into China, we are waging a war of extermination on all false gods, and we must have a common word on which the battle of true and false may be waged.

Dr. Douglas urges that those who use

Shin for "God," are

biassed in their judgment of its meaning, as they are already committed to its use for "God," while those who use Shang-te for "God"

are perfectly impartial. It seems to me there is considerable bias in such a statement. The question involves a word for "spirit," as much as it does a word for "God;" hence those who are committed to the use ofshin for "spirit," are just as much biased as to its meaning, as those who are committed to its use for "God." In arguing against Shin for "God," Dr. Medhurst once said, "besides we must have shin for Spirit.

Dr. Douglas takes special pains to mention the name of Dr. Martin, as using Shang-te for "God," as distinguished from those who use Shin. This statement conveys a wrong impression. Dr. Martin has in his books occasionally used Shang-te, as also ± T'een-choo, but his common usage in preaching is Shang-choo, and also Shin; while he always uses Shing Ling for "Holy Spirit," and would by no means be willing to use Shing Shin, as he believes, as firmly perhaps as any one in China, that the proper meaning of shin is "god." So that in regard to the vital point of this discussion, viz. the meaning of shin, the "weighty name of Dr. Martin" is all on the other side.

After

Enquirer uses language which fairly implies, that those who use shin for "God," do by the sheer force of authority, drill their disciples into using one word in the sense of another. He says, "I grant that the word [shin], may be so explained, that the man who is anxions to become a Christian, may at length, even by the use of the word Shin, have true conceptions of the Being he worships. A teacher, for example, may instruct his pupil to call a river a mountain. many a lesson he may get him accustomed to call it by that name; but in his inmost thought, the word 'river' has peculiar ideas associated with it, which may be transferred to no other;" &c. Now I protest against the use of such language as this, as unbecoming the spirit of this controversy. It is not doing as you would be done by. The thing which has impressed me more than any other, in regard to the use of Shin for "God," is the perfect spontaniety and accuracy with which the Chinese Christians use it. I have heard hundreds of Chinese Christians-who never heard of this controversy, and who have had absolutely no drill in the use of terms-use this word Shin for "God" and for "gods," times without number; but I have never in any case, observed a shadow of evidence, that the speaker was using other than the spontaneous and natural idiom of his own language. The native pastors and assistants use it much more frequently than the missionaries; and this although, so far as I know, they have never had any instruction on the subject, nor have they ever been criticized for saying shang-te or teen-choo. Last year Mr. Chalmers of Canton published in the Recorder, a card, stating that he had posted up a certain notice in his chapel, giving liberty to his assistants and others, to use whatever term they wished. This certainly did not give a very favorable impression of the liberty previously enjoyed in that chapel. It sounded very strangely to us in this province (Shantung), where Chinese assistants have always been at liberty to use whatever terms they wished.

[ocr errors]

There are sundry other points in the articles referred to, which are open to serious objection, but time and space will not permit me to notice them. I will conclude with one general criticism. The chief weight of Dr. Douglas' argument, as well as that of Enquirer, centres on the point that Shin, on account of its indefiniteness, and the multitude of its uses, cannot be Christianized for "God." Dr. Douglas even goes so far as to say, that "to talk of the possibility of" doing it is "an abuse of language. This line of argument may have some force, as to the difficulties which would attend the exclusive use of Shin, for "God," but it proves simply nothing at all, as to the primary and proper meaning of the word shin, which is the great question at issue. Until this is settled, arguments as to the difficulties in the use of Shin for "God," are superfluous and beside the question. If it means "God" as one of its primary and legitimate meanings, its having other meanings does not by any means make its Christianization for "God" an "impossibility," nor talking of doing it "an abuse of language." It is no uncommon thing for words to have more than one meaning, nor does it hinder their being understood; albeit we do not admit that shin has any meanings or uses, not clearly referrable to the idea of divinity. That there are difficulties in using Shin for "God" is freely admitted; but they arise chiefly, from the want of a definite article, and a singular and plural form in the Chinese language, from the unfortunate fact as also that the Chinese mind and the Chinese language are saturated with pantheism. It is no doubt true, that it would facilitate the communication of Christian truth, especially to outsiders, if a specific term such as Shang-te or Teen-choo, were used in connection with Shin. It is equally true, that it would facilitate the communication of Christian truth, if a generic term such as shin, were used in conjunction with

Shang-te. Such an agreement as this, in which each party should squarely accept the term of the other, would be alike honorable to both parties, and a blessing to the cause we are all striving to advance. C. W. MATEER.

DEAR SIR:

Hangchow Missionary Association.

The meetings of this association held on December 24th, 1876, and January 22nd, 1877, have been occupied in the consideration of the tract San yaou luh.

[ocr errors]

This tract founded on I. Tim. ii. 5, treats of the three most momentous subjects which a missionary can bring before a heathen audience; namely, God, Man, and the Lord Jesus.

After a brief introduction, noticing the universal longing for happiness, and the impossibility of obtaining this without the knowledge of these three great principles, chapter i. treats of the Unity of God; as witnessed to by the unity of the human race, and by the unity of plan in nature. God though God though so highly exalted, yet may be worshipped by all classes of men. But the spirits of the departed, and all created objects of worship, cannot without arrogant and blasphemous presumption, take the place of God. God is a spirit, and omnipresent.

Chapter ii. treats of Man; and in contradistinction to the foolish legends in native books, man's original is described from the inspired narrative of Moses. Man is formed from clay, and need not boast; but his soul is from God, and must not be neglected. Man's fall is then described; and the testimonies to both the high original and subsequent fall of man-to be derived from the unity of the human race, in bodily structure, and in moral sense-are noticed at length. Man's far-reaching thought, language, history, and conscience, are all alluded to. But man is subject to God's wrath, the due penalty of sin; what must be done?

Chapter iii. speaks of Jesus the Sun of Righteousness, whowhen man was in darkness and despair-brought salvation; and being both God and man, joined by a golden cord the riven heaven and earth. The death of Christ, and His great love and merit in suffering for guilty man, are dwelt upon at length and with power. Human instances of devotion are mentioned, but only to show the immeasurable superiority of the love of the Lord Jesus. The necessity for regeneration by the Holy Spirit is then noticed; and an astronomical illustration, showing the peril of severance from God, and the possibility of renewal and restoration in Jesus, closes the argument.

Forms for daily prayers, and for grace before meals, with summaries of Christian belief, follow as an appendix.

This tract is a very popular one with native tract distributors, and generally meets with a ready sale. Its title is attractive; and being written in pure classic language, it is calculated to interest and command the respect of scholarly readers. But it is in a sense too Chinese perhaps, for a Christian author, and too Christian for Chinese readers. Not to speak of the very frequent quotations from the Chinese classics (which provided only that they are accurate and apposite, need no defence), there is one phrase employed which seems too exclusively Buddhistic for use in a Christian tract. Our Lord is said to yin jin kwei e chay. Moreover St. Paul and Nicodemus are introduced as though they were as familiar to the reader as Pe-kan and other Chinese worthies.

The Sonship, and the resurrection of our Lord are not alluded to. Possibly the space allowed to the astronomical illustration, which -however beautiful and striking to western readers, and albeit well rendered and clearly put-must yet be beyond the ken of the great majority of Chinese readers, might have been better filled by these all-important subjects.

HANGCHOW, January 26th, 1877.

SIR:

The Approaching Missionary Conference.

A. E. MOULE.

Many missionaries are now looking forward with great expectation to the approaching missionary conference, and not a few of us hope personally to attend it. We feel grateful for the opportunities it will afford of making the acquaintance of many of our brethren, with whose names and work we have long been familiar, but whom we have never met face to face. We heartily echo the sentiments expressed by

« AnkstesnisTęsti »