The fourth objection against the use of Shin, to which Dr. Boone alludes, is that the human spirit is sometimes designated by this term. Dr. Boone does not deny that such a use of Shin is met with, but he suggests that it occurs especially in medical authors, from whom he thinks the philosophers took the idea; and says that it is not in common use among the people. We have in the Inquiry, pp. 92,103,104, adduced a number of instances from native authors, in which the word Shin is used in the sense of the human spirit; not one of which, as far as we know, is extracted from medical books; and the theory that Shin means spirit is not derived from such sources. On page 97 of the Inquiry, an extract is given from the Li Ki, in which Confucius explains the Kwei Shin, or spirits generally, as derived from, and identical with, the soul and anima of man, particularly at death; at which period, says the commentator, the body and spirit separate, when the subtile essence of the spirit expands, and mounting aloft, becomes a Shin ling) spiritual intelligence. Nanheen, in remarking upon the words of Confucius (see Inquiry, p. 99) says, "Using the words (Kwei Shin) with reference to the human body, then the soul and spirit constitute the Shin, while the anima and the substance constitute the Kwei." Chú fútsz' also (p. 100) says, that "With regard to man, the grosser fluid is the anima, which constitutes the fulness of the Kwei, and the breath or spirit is the soul, which constitutes the fulness of the Shin." And much more might be adduced to the same purpose, so that the use of Shin for the human spirit is not derived from medical books, but from the classics, and from the Confucian school. As to the assertion that the word Shin, in the sense of the human spirit, is not in common use among the people, we can only say, that our experience of the matter goes to prove the very reverse of this; and almost every Chinese whom we have asked, as to whether he possessed a Skin, has readily replied in the affirmative, adding that if he had not a Shin, or spirit, he could not continue alive. There can be no doubt that the word Shin is commonly used in the sense of the human spirit, numerous instances of which we have already given, and, if necessary, we could bring forward many more. Dr. Boone suggests, that such use of the term has grown out of the pantheism of one class of the Chinese philosophers: we will not at present enter on the question of Chinese pantheism, as it would lead to a wider discussion than the limits of this paper will allow; we merely observe, that pantheism was extensively maintained by Grecian phi losophers, who considered ɛos to be diffused through and connected with the fo rav, or universal nature; and yet we never find, in any Greek writer, the human spirit denominated os; we can not understand, then, why the Chinese should, in consequence of pantheistic notions, apply the word Shin to the human spirit. On the other hand, we conceive that the word Shin was first applied to the human spirit, and then to the ki, or spiritual energy, supposed to pervade nature; which, instead of resembling the Oog of the Greeks, is more fitly represented by their Yun, the breath of nature, or anima mundi of the ancient philosophers, which was supposed to pass through all lands and seas, heights and depths. Dr. Boone thinks, that the application of the word Shin to the human spirit amounts to no more than the poetical expression, "The divinity that stirs within us," sometimes employed by western writers for the human soul. This, however, goes on the supposition that the word Shin is originally of the same signification with the word divinity, and that when employed to designate the human spirit, it is used in a metaphorical sense, or in an extravagant manner; and rarely applied to such a subject, except by poetic license;—all of which we have shown not to be the case. On the contrary, we have given abundant evidence, that Shin, when used to designate the human spirit, is employed in its natural sense, in nowise overstrained, and in sober, every-day writing. There is, therefore, in the use of Shin for the human soul by Chinese writers, nothing either forced or figurative;-no elevation of the humanity, nor depression of the divinity, in order to bring them to a temporary level, but the term in such connection is used properly and correctly, because it means spirit, and spirit only.-We may remark in passing, however, that in the quotation to which Dr. Boone refers, "the divinity that stirs within us" is most probably not used for the human soul at all. It is taken from Addison's Cato, and runs as follows: "Why shrinks the soul Back on herself, and startles at destruction? 'Tis the Divinity that stirs within us, "T is Heaven itself that points out an hereafter, Here the question is asked, Why does the soul abhor the thought of annihilation? It is, says the poet, because God has, by some inward impulse, discovered to it a future state of being. It would seem that the divinity' in the third line is the same with the ་ heaven' in the fourth, namely the Supreme Being: also that 'the stirring within' mentioned in the one sentence, is the same sort of thing with the 'pointing out an hereafter,' alluded to in the next; while the soul in both is the party affected and wrought upon, in being aroused to a presentiment of a future state of being. This is the view taken of the passage by Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary; who, under the word 'Divinity,' gives, as the second meaning of the term, "God, the Deity, the Supreme Being, the cause of causes," quoting this very passage, ""T is the Divinity that stirs within us." Thus in the passage under consideration, according to the views of the great English lexicographer, "the divinity that stirs within us" is not used for the soul, but for God. Dr. Boone says, that " our use of Shin to render og, whether referring to a true or false god, can never be misunderstood, from the existence of this limited use of the word Shin to designate the human soul by the writers mentioned above." To which we reply, that the use of the word Shin to designate the human soul is not limited, and not confined to medical, or a few philosophical writers, but occurs every day, and pervades the whole literature and language of the people. We contend also, that such constant use of the term Shin for the human soul by the Chinese, will be very likely to lead to a misunderstanding, were we to employ it to designate God, because the natural sense of the word Shin being spirit, the Chinese reader would be very likely to apprehend that we were speaking about spirits, when we intended to speak about gods, while the use of the term Shin in connection with a possessive pronoun, or other noun, to whom it is said to belong, will necessitate its being understood of the spirit, and not the god of the individual. This leads us to notice Dr. Boone's answer to the 5th objection to Shin, viz. that if Shin is used for God, there is great danger of being misunderstood, when the god of a deceased parent, or the god of any one is spoken of. This objection we conceive to be of primary importance, and to have been very inadequately replied to by Dr. B. He says, "there can be no doubt that Shin is often used for the manes of the dead, who are regarded by the Chinese as proper objects of worship;" and owns that "the objection has much weight if we translate literally the Shin of Abraham;" adding that "there would be much danger" of the Chinese misunderstanding the phrase to mean the manes of Abraham, "until the Christian usage of the word should have taught them better." Here we conceive Dr. Boone has himself offered evidence that Shin must be understood in the sense of spirit. The question is about the meaning of the term Shin in the estimation of the Chinese. Dr. Boone says that it is the appellative name of God; we say, that it means spirit. We refer t the usus loquendi of the people, to settle the sense in which they understand it, and we find that, according to such usus loquendi, it means, in certain connections, the manes of a dead man. We all know that the manes of a person must be understood to mean the spirit, and not the god of that person. The conclusion is, that the term in such connection means spirit, and not god. Dr. Boona himself acknowledges that there is much danger of its being understood of the manes by the Chinese, until the Christian usage of the word shall have taught them better:-intimating, of course, that the Chinese usage of the word is different from the Christian, and that if Christians persist in using the term in their way they will use it in & way different from the Chinese, and that the Chinese will misunderstand them. In writing for hundreds of millions of people, who are scattered over a territory of five millions of square miles, into only seven hundred of which Protestant missionaries can penetrate to explain themselves; the absurdity of using terms in a sense which the missionaries understand, and which the Chinese must misunderstand, will appear obvious to every one who reflects on the subject. Indeed Dr. Boone himself acknowledges that there is much danger of this, until the Christian usage of the word shall have taught the Chinese better. The phrase teaching them better, implies that they are now doing wrong, which they must be instructed not to do. The impropriety supposed is an impropriety of speech. But where is the impropriety, we would ask, in using a term, which they understand in the sense of spirit, to denote the spirit of a deceased person? Do not the Scriptures speak of the spirits of just men made perfect, and say, When the dust returns to the earth as it was, the spirit returns to God who gave it? If we choose to use their word spirit for God by way of eminence, when they never do so, we can hardly charge them with impropriety of speech for using their own word spirit in the sense of spirit, merely because we wish it to be appropriated solely to God. But we may here anticipate an objection, with reference to a statement in the Inquiry, page 78, that "6 we should discountenance the use of the word Ti for an emperor just as much as the apostles would have done the employment of sog before xaicap, or Divus before Augustus and suppose it may be urged, that the advocates of Shin are in like manner at liberty to discountenance the use of 78 VOL. XVII. NO. XIE Shin for the manes of a deceased person. To which we reply, the cases are entirely different. The apostles found the Greeks using the word sos for God by way of eminence, as we find the Chinese using the word Ti, in the same sense; thus their adoption of Osos, and ours of T, to express God by way of eminence. is sanctioned by the classical usage of the people among whom we come; and we could very easily point out to the Chinese, as the apostles might have done to the Greeks, the impropriety of employing a word, which they themselves had used for the Supreme, to designate a numan being, however exalted. The advocates of Shin, however, do not find the Chinese using that term for God by way of eminence, while they do find them employing it for spirits of every kind, they can not, therefore, on the ground that the word Shin has been used for the former, interdict the Chinese from employing it in the latter, sense, because the restriction of the general term Shin, spirits, to the specific idea of god, is entirely an invention of foreigners, with which the Chinese have nothing to do. · The way in which Dr. Boone proposes to obviate the difficulty arising from Shin being understood in the sense of manes, is, we conceive very unsatisfactory. He says, "all danger of mistake may be removed by translating the Shin who protected Abraham, Isaac, &c The God of our fathers' may be rendered," he says, "the Shin who protected our fathers,' or, the Shin whom our fathers worshiped.'' Thus an unwarrantable circumlocution must be employed, in these and such like cases, or else the use of Shin endangers a serious misunderstanding If so, then it is evident, that a wrong term has been selected, and that those who use it are employing it in a sense in which the Chinese do not understand it. Supposing the term Shin to be the appellative name of God, as Dr. B. contends, then there could be no danger of mistake if we used it, when speaking of the God of Abraham, &c.; so also if Shin really were the appellative name of God, the Chinese themselves would be necessitated to employ a circumlocut when speaking of the Shin of Wan wáng: the Shin of Yu, or the Shin of Kwánti, in order to prevnt their readers misunderstanding the term in such circumstances, as meaning the God of Wan wáng, &c. They ought, under such circumstances, to have said, that the Shin here spoken of is not the Shin whom Wan wáng worshiped, or who protected Wan wáng, but the spirit that animated him when alive. and which existed in the disembodied state after his death. But they do nothing of the kind; and on the contrary, employ the terin, |