Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 518

480

Medhurst's Inquiry.

Ser.

k'he; and we call upon those who contend against our so using the word to prove that it does not mean spirit. This we know they can never do; we there- fore rest secure in our point, and demand from the Bible and Missionary So- cieties their sanction and aid, in employing the word Shin, according to its legitimate sense. The only argument, if it can be called one, which we have heard, against our employing Shin for spirit, is, that Shin is the only term which our opponents can find in the language for God. If such be the case, and if, as we have proved, it means spirit, they ought to abandon the use of it in the former sense; because they never can maintian that there is but one spirit, without outraging truth at every step they go. If it be really so, that they can find no other terin in the language for God, they ought to transfer the word, and not seek to promote the cause of God of truth by "uttering what, according to the meaning of the term, as used and understood by the Chinese, amounts to a falsity."

Further, (on page 49) he speaks of the "miserable choice those have made, who, in order to establish their practice of using Shin for God, have abandoned that term in the sense of spirit, and adopted one which is far inferior to it, in the sense intended; and (on page 59.) adds yet again,

"It may be, that some of those missionaries who have argued so persever- ingly for the adoption of Shin as a translation of Theos, may be led, when they see its greater applicability to represent Pneuma, and the utter inade- quacy of other terms to supply its place in the latter sense, to relax their former advocacy, and taking refuge in the transferred term for Thros, adopt Pneuma. In this, however, we are by no means sanguine. One of the ad- vocates of Shin in the sense of God has said, “ This word we must use to ren- der Elohim and Theos, malgré all objections." Another says, "This is a sim- ple matter of fact, to be determined not by arguiments, not by long quotations from ancient works, though these have their use in illustrating the subject, but by the hearing of the ear." The holding of such language, with refer- ence to a question of philology, which can only be determined on the authori- ty of standard works, utterly discourages those who may expect to produce conviction in the minds of their opponents. It shews that they have resolved on a certain course, in spile of evidence, and take the matter out of the field of argument altogether.'

For ourselves, and for others who have taken any part in this con- troversy, we can say, with all sincerity and truth, there is no unwilling- ness to receive evidence, and no wish to take the matter out of the field of argument. No one we presume will dispute Dr. M.'s right to utter his sentiments in any language and in any manner he prefers, but all such declarations, as those above, will stand as mere matters of opinion. Our opinion is that no one of those, whom Dr. Medhurst calls opponents, has resolved on a certain course, "in spite of evid- ence;" and furthermore, we are of opinion, that if Dr. Medhurst has anywhere given us “the radical and essential meaning of Shin,” it is not in his Theology of the Chinese, nor in his last Inquiry, but in his translation of the Shú King, where in somewhat more than “ three- eighths of the passages," in which Shin occurs, he has translated it gods.