MR. SHEPPARD, EVOLUTION, ETC.

To the Editor of

"THE CHINESE RECORDER.”

DEAR SIR: The Rev. G. W. Sheppard's ably expressed article on the Christian Apologetic for China, in the December number, contains some good things, such as the insistence on the fact that being a Christian involves not merely a mental acceptance of Christian doctrine, not merely a change of opinions and worship, but a change of living, and as the statement of belief we believe in the trinity and Christ's place therein, in His miraculous birth and in the historicity of the New Testament miracles, in His true humanity.' Now in view of such expression of belief, which in this day cannot but do us good, and this insistence on practice which should help to make us careful, it may, especially in view of your having already criticised one conclusion in the article, seem ungracious to offer any further criticism of it. But its seeming assumption that the modern evolutionary view of creation. . . now held by modern thinkers in the West,' is the true view of creation which the Chinese Christian preacher should be taught, seems to me, though unable myself conscientiously to hold to the old orthodoxy, to be fraught with such a serious issue that I venture, at the risk of being thought narrow, to oppose this assumption. The specific word for bara is used some seven times in Gen. i, 1 to ii, 4. "Thirty-five times in Genesis i we have the Creator moving,

acting, speaking, making, blessing, creating.”* And some nine times we are told that this, that, and the other brought forth after its kind. But evolu

tion as generally understood involves the admission that one kind evolves something of quite another kind. Yet it may be objected on the one hand that the creation story of Genesis is descredited by science, and on the other hand that it is contrary to historical development, that, to quote Mr. Sheppard's words, it now seems probable that the monotheistic conception only gradually dawned even upon the minds of the Jews. That Jehovah was the only God, the Lord of the whole earth, appears to have been apprehended chiefly by the later prophets.' As to the former, the arguments which Professor Huxley brought against the Genesis record were all answered at the time, some sixteen years ago. And even Prof. Huxley said: There is no one to whose authority on geological questions I am more readily disposed to bow than that of my eminent friend Professor Dana,' and Prof. Dana's decision was: 'I agree in all essential points with Mr. Gladstone and believe that the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord.'† In his book 'God's Living Oracles' Dr. A. T. Pierson says: The science of comparative anatomy is only about 100 years old. Comparative anatomy shows an order in the animal creation, from

·

* Dr. E. W. Bullinger in his paper, Things to Come," March, 1904.

† Sir R. Anderson, "The Bible and Modern Criticism," p. 118.

the lowest forms to the highest, rather than reversely; the question of rank among vertebrate animals being determined by the proportion of brain to the spinal cord. In fish it is 2 to 1; in reptiles, 22 to 1; in birds, 3 to 1; in mammals, 4 to I; then in man it takes a leap, and the proportion is 33 to 1. No common sense would have shown that the fish belongs below the reptile, or the reptile below the bird. Yet thousands of years before comparative anatomy took rank among the sciences, Moses followed the correct order of classification in this story of creation.' In confirmation of this Dr. R. Jamieson says: The order followed on the fifth day was the creation of water-animals first, next amphibious and other animals, and then birds.' The mammals and man clearly came on the sixth day. The seeming exception to the scientific order lies in the English mention of creeping thing' on the sixth day, but a glance at a Hebrew lexicon tells us that the word in question is a generic term, including all the smaller land animals, and used only once of water-animals (Ps. c, 25), the word that unquestionably means creeping things being that used in v. 20, which is again so defined in Lev. xi (vv. 21, 23, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44). Genesis i, then, seems to show a progress from the simplest to the highest order of being in accordance with science, and this is consistent with separate acts of creation, whereas evolution, 'the theory that organic life has developed from simpler to more complex forms in obedience to universal natural law,' does away with all creation of living beings. At any rate this is true in regard to

the extreme form in which some (e.g., Charles Darwin) modern scientists are said to have held the theory. As to the uncertainty of the data the theory rests on, it is sufficient to note that such an one as Prof. Tyndall wrote* 'Those who hold the theory are by no means ignorant of the un certainty of their data, and thus only yield to it a provisional assent.' To come to the suggestion that history shows a progress from polytheism to monotheism. Dr. J. C. Gibson in his book on Mission Problems and Mission Methods, in that part in which he discusses carefully the Imperial worship of Shang Ti, says: In China at least the conception of God has not risen gradually from lower to higher levels. We find it in the earliest ages already at its highest development, and whatever changes have been introduced later into the Chinese conceptions of God, have been of the nature of a degradation rather than a development of the idea. . . It is not unjust to say that idolatry is a comparatively modern development of Chinese religious life.' Just as Dr. Gibson contends that the worship of Shang Ti is a worship of one God, so, if my memory serves me rightly, it has been centended that the Egyptians worshipped originally but one God. If this is so, then we have two of the oldest civilisations known going from good. to bad and not vice versâ. Sir W. M. Ramsay in an article in the Contemporary Review last year said: Wherever evidence

*See "Things to Come," March, 1904.

I think the quotation I read nearly eight years ago was from Wilkinson's Egyptians and occurred in Hyslop's Two Babylons.

As quoted in the September, 1907, Review of Reviews.

exists, with the rarest exceptions, the history of religion among men is a history of degeneration, and the development of a few Western nations in inventions and in civilisation during recent centuries should not blind us to the fact that among the vast majority of the nations the history of manners and civilisation is a story of degeneration.... Beginning the study of Greek religion, as a follower of Robertson Smith and Maclennan, and accepting the Totemist theory as the key of truth, I was forced by the evidence to the view that degeneration is the outstanding fact in religious history and that the modern theory often takes the last products of degeneracy as the facts of primitive religion.' Such a testimony from such a traveller and writer should surely carry great weight. What adequate basis is there, then, in face of the First Commandment, for attributing the monotheistic conception among the Jews to the the later prophets? But why trouble oneself about evolution? The reason lies in the thorough divorce from faith in the case of those who come to hold the theory in its extreme form, as for example the notorious Mr. R. Blatchford, who says in The Clarion: The Bible declares that God created the heavens and the earth and that He created them in six days. It declares that He made the sun and moon after He had made the earth*.' But he who heartily accepts the theory

*What Gen. i, 16 says, however, is by no means necessarily that God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, but only that He appointed them to their light bearing office on that day, for the word used is not bara, create, but ysah (ty) which can mean ordain, appoint.

of evolution believes all this to be untrue. The Bible declares that God created man in the likeness of His own image. But he who heartily accepts the theory of evolution believes this is not true. As to the fall. There never was any fall, never could be any fall according to the evolutionists. Evolution assumes a long slow rise. Now if there never was a fall, why should there be any atonement ? No, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for and nobody to atone. Man has never sinned against God. In fact the whole fabric of the Christian faith is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no fall. There was no atonement.* Believing that there was a creation, that there was a fall, that there is an atonement, the substitutionary death of Christ, I feel bound to contend against the theory of evolution, at any rate in its extreme form. Whether it is possible to hold a Christian theory of evolution, within certain clearly defined limits, which is consistent with Genesis i, as Sir Robert Anderson says he does, I am not very clear. But this theory is surely not 'the modern evolutionary view of creation which sees the world not as a thing once made, but as still being made,' it is not that theory' now held by modern thinkers in the West,' who must be held to include even non-Christians, to which Mr. Sheppard refers. And it is against the modern theory which is inconsistent with Genesis i. that I have ventured to write. Yours sincerely, FRANK MADELEY.

SIANFU, SHENSI.

*See "Things to Come," February,

1904.

TERMS AND NAMES IN THE REVISION OF THE BIBLE.

To the Editor of

"THE CHINESE RECORDER." DEAR SIR: The letter from Pastor Kranz in the January number of the RECORDER, and your editorial note upon it, raise the whole question of terms in the Conference revision of the Chinese Bible, and with terms one may bracket names.

It is scarcely necessary to point out that this will be the only chance for rectification that will occur for years to come. On whatever principle the revision is effected, the terms and names now adopted will be imposed upon the Chinese church for a generation, probably until the church itself undertakes a translation of the Scriptures. That so much labour should be expended upon translation, while the important terms are left untouched, is to reduce the value of the result by one-half; in fact, if the terms are not dealt with, the question suggests itself, Why go beyond a revision of the Delegates' version similar to that which we have for King James' version in our present English revision?

The need for rectification of terms is evident to anyone who has taught students from any of our existing versions, Schereschewsky not excepted. Much valuable time is lost in explaining how the present terms do not mean what they seem to mean. Take for example

or 施恩所. Why should the term for prophet not be as selfexplanatory as it is now defective and misleading? and why should the mistranslation in the second term be retained, consecrated though it is in the speech of the church and en

shrined in a beautiful hymn? There's the rub. The magnificent pioneer work of the delegates has welded not a few mistranslations upon the speech of the church in China, and one dreads the reproach of Philistinism when proposing an intrusion into such sacred things. But when the translation in general is subjected to revision, why should one fear a revision of the terms?

Doctrinally, it is important that we should not, if we can avoid it, continue in use a term which fixes a false, or defective, or excessive connotation upon the original word. Take as example Kohen (priest) in the Old Testament, mistranslated

, as if one were to render consistently Chih-hsien as ' Countycoroner,' naming the magistrate from one of his functions. Or again, baptize in the New Testament, rendered by some and by others. Surely we have material enough to hand to allow us to decide lexically which is the correct translation, or select one better than either. Polemics ought not to intrude here. I venture to suggest that the work of revision has now proceeded far enough to show the revisers where the terms in use are defective. The next step is to meet in conference and rectify them.

After the rectification of terms comes the transliteration of names. It is not profitable, if it were possible, to discover what rules guided the delegates in this matter. No system is apparent. We in the south are doubly hampered in our use of the present names. They lack system, and they fail to convey in many cases an idea of the original sound. I do not refer to such names as , where the first character is read zü by

us; we have nor sound here, and so the discrepancy is inevitable. But it is possible to find characters for most of the sounds which will give a reasonably accurate idea of the original sound when read in any of the dialects.

Here too a committee, selected from the revisers and representative of the principal dialects, would be able to arrange for a system of transliteration that would be scientific and reasonably accurate. May we not hope for such relief?

Yours sincerely,

JOHN STEELE.

CONFERENCE ON EVANGELISTIC WORK.

To the Editor of

"THE CHINESE RECORDer.” DEAR SIR: I was glad to note that mention was made in the December issue of the RECORDER of the need of a conference for

the promotion of evangelistic work. I read it with much interest, feeling that it was most timely.

The impression is irresistible that the time is ripe for a greater ingathering than we have hitherto witnessed. But in many places, and, as I believe, in all denominations, there is a painful lack of results.

We all know that what is needed is the outpouring of the Spirit, not only upon those in whom we long to see the change, but also, and more urgently if possible, is this need realized in those who would bear this treasure the life-giving Word-to the unsaved.

It is to be hoped that such a conference as is proposed, will not only result in greatly enlarged plans for the execution of the work before us, but also in very definite, individual help. and preparation for such work. K. L. O.

An English-Chinese Lexicon of Med

ical Terms, compiled by P. B. Cousland, M.B., C.M.

This valuable publication is the work of the Terminology Committee of the Medical Missionary Association of China, done through its Editorial Secretary, Dr. Cousland. Such a work as this, the result of the labours of men who have given many years to the study of the subject, ought to fix with terminological exactitude the vocabulary of

ex

medicine in China. The introduction to this lexicon plains the general principles upon which the committee worked, avoiding transliteration and the coining of new characters and using as far as might be names— existing-in Chinese and suitable for the purpose.

This work is not only the last work on this subject by reason of its thoroughness and the scientific method of its preparation; it is for all accurate work