1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
597
that this author knew that He who gave the law at Mount Sinai, and who is the alone object of worship of the Jews, the Romanists, and of all Europeans, was no mere spirit; and yet he calls Him all through this section the Shin of heaven. In other parts he calls Jesus, when spoken of as an object of worship, by this name Shin: e. g. the 6th Section, at the 39th page :-" Those who enter the religion of Jesus, do not sacrifice to any other god (Shin), they do not make offerings to their ancestors, but regard Jesus as the Savior of
the world." Also Section 2, p. 7.,
惟
+
HZ,
HAME, "they do not sacrifice to ancestors but Luh-shi (Logos?); that is, Jesus is the only god (Shin) they serve."
These quotations from the work of the lieut.-governor of Fuhkien, who is admitted to be a very accomplished writer, are of importance, not only to prove that the word Shin is, in some cases at any rate, used in the sense of god and not spirit; they are also very important to rebut some assertions of Dr. Medhurst contained in his recent pub- lications.
In the Letter to the Protestant Missionaries at the Five Ports, signed by himself and five others, he asserts that the use of shin to render
og in the N. 'T. would render "the whole work unclassical and con- temptible,"
," "provoke the ridicule of every well informed Chinese;" that “it would spoil the work for any efficiency to others;” “ produce monstrous difficulties for us to struggle against,” “involve an ab- surdity;" and above all, "throw obstacles in the way of the reception of the truth on the part of the Chinese."
That, under all the circumstances of the case, Dr. M. and his friends, to carry a particular point should have had recourse to such rhetoric as that above quoted, is very much to be regretted. Dr. Medhurst has been for thirty years a student of the Chinese language; he is known to be an excellent scholar, and he might justly expect that his opinions on any matter respecting the Chinese would have great weight, not only in Europe and America, but also with his missionary brethren in China, especially those recently arrived. This should have bound him to particular carefulness in the statements of the facts of this great case which he put forth to the public, and to the exercise of much caution in the expression of his opinions. Instead of this, his statements concerning the facts of the case have been so contra- dictory (no notice being given to the reader of these contradictions), and many of the opinions expressed by him are so manifestly the result of irritation, not of calm judgment, that we must warn him not to be surprized if, in China at least, and among his missionary brethren,