Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 487

1850.

Tract upon Nourishing the Spirit.

449

delegates of their fellow missionaries to revise the New Testament, should se- parate themselves from the Committee at large, and assert that the insertion of such a term as shin for the translation of theos, will render the whole work unclassical and contemptible, without entering a protest against it. Some of those whom they represent believe skin to be the best word, all things consider- ed; and to designate the revision by such epithets is unnecessary and unseemly.' May I beg of you, Mr. Editor, to explain what you mean by the above paragraph. Have not Messrs. Stronach, Milne, and myself a right to assert what we think to be true? Does the fact of our being delegated by others, or representing others, deprive us of that right? Have we put forth the statement complained of as the opinion of our constituents, for which they are responsible, or as our own? If the latter, what have our constituents to do with it, except to point out its falla- cy, if they can? Some of those whom we represent, you say, believe shin to be the best word, all things considered, and what of that? Some of them think it to be the worst word, all things considered; are not the latter as much entitled to their opinion as the former, and where is the unseemliness of their asserting it, or of our asserting it for ourselves and them? Even supposing that by so do- ing we have to separate ourselves from the Committee at large, where would be the harm of that if we thought the Committee at large in the wrong Surely the men whom you have named, who have been considered by the general sentiment of the missionary body as among those who are the most fit for the work of translation, are entitled to express an opinion on the subject, even though they should differ from all their brethren. But they are not su situated. One of them is sustained by the united voice of the station which has delegated him, and the others by the unanimous opinion of all the mission- aries from the same Society, as well as by the recorded opinion of the British and Foreign Bible Society, that shin is not the most appropriate word to be used as a translation of theos in the New Testament. They do not therefore stand alone. Or do you, by the General Committee, mean the missionaries who a8- sembled at the original meeting at Hongkong, in 1843? Search the records, and you will find that a majority of the missionaries who were then assembled, and who gave the impulse to the movement for revising the Chinese version of the Scriptures, were opposed to shin. But what is it against which you protest? The assertion that "the insertion of such a term as shin for the translation of theos will render the whole work unclassical and contemptible?" Instead of protesting against this, would it not have been better to try and prove that the use of shin as a translation of theos in the New Testament, particularly in pas- sages where theos is spoken of as possessing infinite power and universal dominion, is in conformity with the usages of the Chinese classics. Those classics do speak of such a being: do they designate him Shin? and would not a Chinese classical scholar deem the work, in which such a term was used to designate such a being, contemptible? I again assert it, that the use of shin as a translation of theos in the New Testament would render the whole work unclassical and contemptible. Now prove the converse of the proposition; and if you can not, your protest is unavailing. But after all, you, or those in whose behalf you enter your protest, only believe skin to be the best word, "all things considered:" you say also that against shin, as well as against other terms, strong arguments might be urged. It seems then you do not esteemn your fa vorite terin unexceptionable-that there are strong reasons to be urged against it. And are you then in a position to protest against those who go a little fur- ther than you do, and discard it as a translation of Theos altogether? Permit me to refer you to the exhortation of a “ Brother Missionary," in your number for July, 1848, whose authority you will not question, "This matter is of such grave and solemn import, that I can not conclude without alluding to a precept of great importance in all questions of casuistry, viz, In all doubtful cases

I remain, My dear Sir, Your's faithfully,

WH MEDHURST.

take the safe side

Shanghai, June 11th, 1850

VOL XIX NO

VIII.

67