« PředchozíPokračovat »
reference is the same. Dr. Boone, by varying the term in the sene rence, has endeavored to make the commandment thus rendered, bear against civil obedience in what we conceive an inconsequential
For an answer to the other objection urged by Dr. Boone against the use of Ti as the translation of Elohim, because it would not exclude from religious worship multitudes of beings who are rorshiped by the Chinese, we reser our readers to the remarks on page 94 of the Inquiry.
On the subject of I Shángti, and † Tienti, Dr. Boone remarks, that “ Neither of these phrases is the appellative name of God in Chinese ; and the use of 7" ienti could only be advocated on the ground that it was a title of the chief God.” In reply to this, we refer to pages 164-168 of the Inquiry, wherein it is shown that Tienti is used by the Chinese literati for various spiritual intelligences, besides the Supreme in their estimation, while the Tánists employ in, not only for the Supreme Being, but cousider it as generic for a large class of beings treated by them with divine honors. The Budhists also designate the God #tjo Sakya by che appellation T*ienti. 'Thus it appears that Tiinti is not the litle of the chiet' God, but an appellative for Divine beings generally, on which grounds the use of it is advocated.
The remarks of Dr. Boone on page 87, have already occupied our attention in the Inquiry, pages 35, 67, and 84. We merely refer now to his query, “ what would be thought of the English translate of who should use the word king as that whereby to render Elohim into English? and yet king is not more commonly used as the title of the ruler of the English nation, than Ti is as the title of him who rules over the Chinese people.” To this we reply, that had the word king been used by English writers unqualified and alone, for God by way of eminence, and other invisible intelligences having some share in the management of the world, as has been the well known practice of the Chinese, we should then liave been warranted in using that terin as the translation of Elohiin, because it would have conveyed to the English wind the idea which Elohim was ille tended to convey; indeed, we should have been necessitated to use il, if the English had no other term by which to convey the natural idea of God. But allow us to ask, what would have been thought of the nglis. translator who should use the word spirit to render Elohim into English? And yet spirit is not more commonly used for invisible utelligences of every kind buch high and low, good and
bind, mong the English, than Shin is among the Chinese; while it is admired by those who plead for the use of Shin, that it is never used by any Chinese writer four God xa7' foxriv.
After suinming up the arguments in favor of Shin, Dr. Boone concludes by saying that " whatever objections may be urged against the use of Shin, must be answered by the exigencies of the case, and this word must be used to render Elohim and Osos malgré all objections.” This pleading of the exigency of the case as answer 10 every argument appears to us a tacit admission, that the objections against Shin can not be otherwise met. It surely could not have escaped the mind of Dr. Boone that the exigency of the case must be very strong indeed to weigh against all and every objection, and that the exigency of the case could be pleaded on one side as well as the other. Should we say that Ti, and its corresponding terms, are the only words which the Chinese language affords 10 express the idea of God xai' išoxriv, and that therefore it must be used to render Elohim and @ens, in spite of all objections, we are persuaded that Dr. Boone would not readily yield assent to our assertion.
Dr. Boone's statement, that " he would, if he could, remodel the literature of the country, and forbid the employment of Shin for the human soul,” is equivalent to an admission that it is necessary to reinodel the literature of the country, in order to establishi his point. If so, then it must appear evident to every attentive observer that he has chosen a wrong terın, which he can not carry without turning the Janguage of China upside down. “But we must,” he says, “take the Chinese language as it is, and only use the best term it affords us, it being the only medium through which we can make the Chinese acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures.” In this we entirely coincide; but this is very different from remodeling the literature of the country as before intimated. To make ourselves intelligible to a people, we must use their language as they are accustomed to em. ploy it; all departures from this role will only ensure the defeat of our own object. To use Shin for God xai' goxov is a departure from this rule; to use Ti and its corresponding terms for God by way of eminence, and other invisible beings having an agency in the government of the world, is not; therefore we prefer the latter.
The objection which, in Dr. Boone's estimation, has weighed most with the missionaries against Shin, is, that "it is used for so many conteinptible deities, that it seems almost a contamination to call Jehovah by a name that is common to such beings.” This, however, has had little weight with us. Our objection against the term
is that it means spirit in every instance, and God by way of eminence, in none.
In this, then, it differs entirely from Ogos or Deus, which terms, though they were employed for Priapus, Sterentius, &c., were never used for the human spirit, and were frequently employed for God by way of eminence. Let the advocates of Shin divest it of the former, and prove that it is used for the latter by sufficient classical authority, and we will gladly adopt Shin, notwithstanding it may be used for the whole turba Deorum, down to the very lowest and most insignificant Divinity.
Art. II. Anecdotes given by Chinese authors to inculcate a moral
or to illustrate human conduct. The man who was anxious about his trou-hundredth birthday.
An old man, both rich and honorable, whose sons and grandsons filled his hall, had a large crowd of guests assembled around his door to congratulitte him upon his hundredth birthday ; but he knit his eyebrows as if he was unhappy, till the crowd asked him what he was grieving at amidst the general joy. “I am not anxious about anything," said he; "only I was thinking that on the anniversary of my iwo hundredth birthday, there will be many hundreds and thousands more guests, and how shall I be able to remember them all ?"
Moral. How silly thus to borrow trouble !
Deducting troo taels a night. There was a kind old man, who took pleasure in charitable acts, who one wintry night saw a man sheltering himself under his eaves, and invited him into his house. A glass of warm spirits cheered hiin up, and he remained through the night, but owing to the snow the host made him stay that day and the next, when the weather clear.
As he was about to go, he hegged of the old man the loan of a knife; taking it up, he said to him, “ We did not know each other before, but I am going to destroy this body in order to requite your great kindness." The old man much surprised, stopped hin; " You would greatly injure me by such a deed, for to have a man die in my house without any reason will waste twelve taels or more money, besides all the trouble.” The rogue replied, “I avail of your suggestion; it will not be well to have so much annoyance, just
get the twelve taels for me, and I will go." The old inan, greatly provoked, aroused the whole neighborhood with his objurgations, but in order to appease him, gave six taels, sighing as the wretch was going, "Who would have thought I should ever meet such an unconscionable man ?" "You do'nt call yourself unreasonable,” rejoined the chap, “but say that I am so; now if you had but a good heart, you would not only have kept me the three nights, but would not have deducted two taels for every night I stopped here, from what I should have cost you if I had used the knife."
Moral. We regard this man as very ungrateful thus lo requite the kindness shown him, but how many people there are in the world like him! Men are placed in positions of power, honor, influence, and emoluinent by imperial bounty, who never thiuk of the favors they have received, but requite these benefits by injuring the people, destroying their properly, and weakening the authority of the monarch. Parents rear their children with infinite labor, anxiety, and expense, and how often these sons regard thein as enemies, and embitter their declining years with unnatural ingratitude.
“Leaving me only that noretched beggar." Cháng and Lí were once walking together, when seeing a rich old man coming in his sedan with many slares, Cháng pulled his companion aside within a doorway to hide themselves, saying, “The man in that sedan is my near relative, and if I do not retire from his presence, he will needs get out of it to salute me, which would be very troublesome and inconvenient to him.” Lí replied, “Of course, then, you ought to step aside.” Going on, in a little while, they saw a man on horseback, followed by many runners, whose dress and cap were well arranged; and Cháng again pulled his friend aside into a doorway, observing, “The gentleman on horseback has been my intimate friend from boyhood, and if I meet himn it will cause him great trouble, for he will certainly stop and get off his horse to salute nie.” “To be sure, then, you ought to withdraw," said Lí. They then both went on, and soon saw a beggar, with tattered garments and torn cap, bowling out as he came up. Lí, pulling Cháng, and turning aside into a doorway, said, “This miserable beggar is my near relalive and intimate friend, and I wish to avoid him, for if he sces me,
he will not be at all ashamed of me." This surprised Chang, who said, “ Why do you
have such sort of friends?” Lí said, “You pick out all the rich and good for your friends, and leave only the enıpty handed beggars to annoy me; what else can I do?"
Moral. This general practice of currying favor with the rich, and inducing men to despise the low is very mean: how much more base, when persuns lie about it!
The man who wishell to he changed into a father. An old rich man called his debtor to his house and told him, “ You barebacked beggar, you've nothing with which you can pay me ; swear to me how you will repay me in the coming world, and I will burn the account, and not ask for anything." The inan said, "I should wish to be changed into a horse, that your honor might ride m2 till I had paid the whole debt." Upon this, the old man assented, and taking up the bill burned it. Another one of his debtors, coming in afterwards, and saying, “I should like to become an ox, and plough the fields, or drag the trarrow for my lord till my debt was cancelled," he likewise burned his account. Sometime aller this, one of his largest debtors remarked to him, that he should like to be changed into his father that he might liquidate his debt.
“ You mnt only owe ine considerable inoney, which you will not repay," said the old inan, rather provoked, buit
you also wish to urge me lo depart from right; what justice is there in this ?" “ Just hear me," rejoined the man ; I owe you a great amount, and instead of being metamorphosed into a horse or an ox in the next world to repay you, I wished much rather to become your father; the care and labor of a life, without regarding myself, might perhaps accumulate many fields and houses, which I should not think of enjoying myself, but would joyfully give them over to you. Would not this be seitling
Moral. When persons have spendthrist children, who dissipate their wealth like "boiling water or melting snow," such conduct as this old man's is explainable ; but it is painful to see an old man growing so foolish.
A dumb man speaking. A certain beggar feigned dumbness, and begged for alms in the streets and markets, pointing with one finger to his clap-dish, and with the other hand to his lips, grunting, Ah! Ah! One day he got two cash, with which he bought whiskey, and drinking it up. said, “Give me a little more whiskey." The rumseller said, “ You come in here constantly, and have never been able to talk; how is it you can speak 10-day?" "I got no money other days, what should inake me lalk; but I got two cash 10-day, and now of course I can say something."
Moral. Money nowadays will enake most men speak.
Brothers cultivating a forle together. Two brothers were partners in cultivating the same field, and when the line of harvest came, and the younger was about dividing