♦"..t Quatoma CUCh M MPLIFI **d OR THE MEANINGS OF SHAW, LING, AND TI IN CHINESE MADE PLAIN BY INDUCTION. BY JOHN CHALMERS, A.M., OF THE LONDON MISSEONARY SOCIETY. VC] O AISTTOIST: E-SHING, PRINTER, S AI-HING-K AI. HONGKONG : LANE, CRAWFORD & Co. SHANGHAI : KELLY & WALSH. 1876. v^ CHAPTER I. JNTRaDUCTORY. Suggestions — Simplification — Encouragement — Chinese Idiom — Method— Weighing Evidence Page 1 CHx\PTEE 11. WHAT WE WANT. Spirit — Soul and Spirit — Spirituality^ Genius, Intellect — God, gods, spirits 8 CHAPTER III. FIRST SENSE OF SPIRIT — " SHAN." S//an emotional — S/ian-tmnff — Tsing-sJian — Shan of the dead — Our Spirits 13 CHAPTER IV. SECOND SENSE OP SPIRIT — "LING" AND "SHAN." Perfection — Genius — Ling in the Book of Poetry — Ling in the Book of History — Ling in the Tso-chuen — Your ling — Intelligent and foolish — Body and Spirit — Materialism . 33 CHAPTER V: FURTHEll ILLUSTRATIONS. The Book of Rites on SJian of in^w—SJian in the Universe — Pantheism — Poetical and figurative uses of s//«/^ 33 CHAPTER YI. THIRD SENSE OF SPIRIT "LING", "SHA'N", AND "TI." Spiritual and intelligent men — Spiritual and intelligent things — Things that are gods — Worshipped beings — Evil spirits and possession 4^ CHAPTER YII. HEAVEN, "Tl", AND "SHANG-TI " Objections ansucred — Lord of Heaven — Ruler — Emperor — Con- clusion ~ 36 Note A, Historical <-n !NoTE B, Antiquity or Books ............. .i>i' Ebuata. Page 8, line 20, for is a only read is only- „ 14, „ 26, „ (167 7iote) „ {P'ei-wan-yun-fu, char- acter Mt j^assim) ,, 17, „ 31, „ (259, 317 „ (209—217 „ 23, „ 20, „ shan „ s/ia?i" „ 37, „ 30, „ called „ call THE QUESTION OF TERMS SIMPLIFIED. GHAPTEE I. INTRODUCTORY. It has long appeared to me that the question of terms for God and Spirit in Chinese has been rendered ten-fold more complicated and difhcnlt of settlement than it need be by the manner in which almost every writer has treated it. I by no means plead innocent in this respect. I have felt the temptation to discuss irrelevent topics, and raise side issues, to take advantage of a neighbour's shp at one point, and run off into a dense fog at another, to play in fact at the game of terms, instead of simply trying to elucidate the question in the interests of truth. Suggestions, At the outset I would throw out a few suggestions for our guidance, the propriety of which will be universally apparent. 1. Let us not raise side issues as if this momentous question were merely a game to be played out between you and me. I am nothing, and my party is nothing, in comparison with the truth in the matter before us. 2. Let us not settle the question by playing off one of our opponents against another, or by quoting one 2 THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. ap'ainst himself. The argiimentum ad hominem lias been exhausted. We all err at times. 3. Let us not charge each other with dishonesty, or wilful bUndness. It is not becoming. ''Charity covereth a multitude of sins." Simplification, The following are some of the ways in which it seems possible to simplify the Question of Terms. 1. A knowledge of " dead languages " is not necessary. Of course I do not mean that an extensive acquaintance with languages ancient and modern, and with Comparative Philology, would not be helpful, but to insist upon such quahfi- cations is only to pu^ off the settlement of the ques- tion indefinitely. 2^t is not necessary to- read up Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Eoman, and all other mythologies and cosmogonies. Whether Chinese notions and speech run parallel or contrary to those of any other nation on certain points may be left to be settled afterwards. 3. We may for the most part steer clear of the higher metaphysics, of ontology and the like, which only a small portion of mankind can enter upon with any satisfaction. 4. Questions as to the grammatical character of the word "God" in our mother-tongue, whether it is generic or par- ticular, absolute or relative, which have puzzled the Avisest heads, and still puzzle them, may be left alone. T). The merits of the question do not turn upon the amount or prevalence of sound theological know- ledge among the heathen Chinese. There may be found not a few persons in Christian countries who know little about God besides the name, and super- stitious people too wdio worship images and saints. On the other hand the wisest of us, as Bishop Boone truly said, ''can form but very inadequate concep- ENCOUKAGEMENT. 3 tions of God." But through all the grades of know- ledge, from the grossest ignorance up to the inspir- ation of an apostle, the name holds good for universal use. We may presume that, before the first sentence of the Bible was written, clear notions about creation were not generally prevalent ; but we must also pre- sume that* among the people for whom it was written ''Elohim" meant "God" even before they were aware that He ''created the heavens and the earth." 6. Finally a good knowledge of our own Language, and of our English Bible, with sturdy Anglo-Saxon common sense, is all that is needed on the one -part, while on the other part the mind must be bent on Chinese only, without any foregone conclusions. Encoiiragement, I am writing specially for missionaries, and my reason for writing at all just now is because my name has been put forward, without my consent, as a member of a committee on the Question. I write for younger men, at the request of several who take a deep interest in the subject. The older men I cannot presume to in- struct. But to the young men who '' are strong," I say, Come to the consideration of this subject free from foregone conclusions. Do not settle the question a priori ; and do not suppose that it is settled for you. It is not settled. And it is a shame and a reproach to ihe whole missionary body that it remains as it is. Do not content yourselves with the triteremark that there is much to be said on both sides. This is only another device of the enemy for putting off the happy day of union. It is just as incumbent on the young- man who arrives in the field to-day to set about settling this question, as it was incumbent on 4 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. Boone or Meclliurst, Williams or Legge. That they and their contemporaries and successors did not settle it, and have not settled it, only makes ai)i)arent the necessity of some change of method. You have to thank them for much ; though indeed it is not strange if you feel at times inclined to blame them for this. Nevertheless they have by their labours placed you on a vantage-ground from which you can attack the difficulty with far better prospects of overcoming it than they had. They have facilitated wonderfully the acquisition of Chi- nese, so that you can with comparative ease learn to read the context of passages where the, as yet, unknown terms occur. Let these be to you as X, y, z, — unknown quantities. Then by the help of those who have gone before you, get the ability to read purely native literature without referring to a teacher or a Dictionary at every point. Let all Ibreign-made Chinese books, all versions of the Bible, all Tracts and Treatises on Christianity, be to you non-existent as far as this question is con- cerned. Their evidence, so long as it is self-con- tradictory, is null. Chinese Idiom, The field of Chinese litera- ture is of vast extent and highly cultivated. AVhat- ever may be thought of Chinese style or idiom, it is a thing established. We might as well expect to change the course of nature, as to change the idiom or usage of the Chinese Language. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament did not violently change the usages of the Greek Lan- guage, and if they had sought to do so they could not have succeeded ; for even to this day their style is tested, and approved or condemned, by the METHOD. 5 standaixl of classic Greek ; or, if not that, at least it is tried by the previously existing standard of the Hellenistic dialect. But if any one thinks that the appreciation and the influence of classic or cultivated style in Chinese is evanescent, and may be disregarded, let him reflect upon the esteem in which classic Greek and Latin, that is heathen Greek and Latin, are held even at the present day after eighteen centuries of Christian culture ; and let him reflect again, that the hold which Chinese Literature has upon this great people is immensely greater than that which either Greek or Latin had upon the nations of Europe at the beginning of the Christian' era. Christianity did not kill out the taste for classic Greek and Latin, and he is a bold prophet who says that Christianity, even with western civilization, railways, and telegraphs super- added, is going to crush out Chinese Literature. Whoever acts on such a supposition is not wise. IletJiod. The field of Chinese Literature, as I have said, is immense ; and I do not profess to have explored a tithe of it ; but only to have made incursions into it here and there, where varieties of subject and of style invited. As a preparation for the present essay, I have, in the course of a few weeks, made a selection from a small and imperfect library, with the occasional help of the P'ei-icaii' yun-fii, of nearly 600 passages tending to throw light on the meaning and usage of the Terms. When the point to be established was important, or one on which there exists difi'erence of opinion, I selected many examples, and where no diSerence of opinion exists, I was content with one or two just to complete the view of native usage. It 6 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. must therefore be distinctly understood, that a multi- tude of examples of one use of a word does not, un- less so stated, signify that as many examples could not be found of another, where only one or two are i^iven. I have no notion of securing the preference for one common usage to the rejection of another that is also common, by a triumphant production of one or two hundred more examples. The curious (juestion whether Dr. Williams gives most examples of slian for " god " or of shan for '* spirit " does not tend to good. The Chinese tradesman hangs up a lantern at his shop door every day with "reverence shan " on it, and there are perhaps few days on which he does not make some remark about his own or an- other's tsing-slian, " good spirit." How can we de- cide the case by a majority of instances, when, on both sides, they are numerous as the sand ? The List of examples and quotations from native books I have decided to print as an Appendix, and they are numbered for convenience of reference. I shall al- ways give the number of each sentence referred to in the subsequent pages, so that the reader may turn to it at once. There is a certain order and method aimed at in this List, which will appear from the English headings, but if individual sentences seem here and there out of place, it must not be supposed tliat the force of my argument is dependent on the arrangement, so that finding some fault with that Avould upset it. Weigliiufj evidence. As to the comparative value of evidence on the immediate points at issue, I place (1) first, the usage of well-known and approved Chi- nese writers, (2) next, the definitions given in native books, (3) third, the observations of good foreign WEIGHING EVIDENCE. 7 Sinologists, and (4) last of all, what native teachers who know our views may tell us. Definitions in native books, especially in philosophical books, some- times conflect with usage, and with one another, in. which case they are of little or no value. Foreign definitions may be used to confirm an inference from native usage, but are utterly worthless on the opposite side ; and taken by themselves are of little account. A good native teacher is a valuable assistant so long as he does not know one's motive for consulting- him ; but the moment he knows his employer's mo- tives and wishes, he is the most prejudiced of all wit- nesses. He is ingeniously untruthful. Colloquial usage, unless where the colloquial is in print and of strictly Chinese origin, belongs to the third or fourth class of evidence. At best it is but hearsay or second-hand. Arguments involving two or three logical steps, and drawn from single definitions of several words found anywhere, are not only feeble, but often vi- cious, or else rediculous. THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. CHAPTER II. WHAT WE WANT. Spirit. Ill the English Language the Avorcl Spirit, as regards its variety of meanings, ma}^ be compared to the word Light. 1. Light is some- thin f/ belonging to and forming an integral part of something else; as, "the light of the sun." 2. Lio'ht is simply a quality, in which sense it is either an adjective or a substantive (=briglit or brightness) ; as, "a light and airy room," "a thing of light and life." 3. A Light is something luminous ( ^a luminary, a taper) ; as, "God made two great lights," "he called for a light." This usage is called metonymy. 4. Light is spoken of as a distinct essence ; as " God said. Let there be light, and there was light." Then, in this sense. Light is a subject of science, and there are two theories about it ; according to the corpttsmdar theory it is really an independent essence ; but according to the nndulatory theory it is a only a (juality or condition of undulation of something else called a medium. If the former theory be true the more scientific meaning of light is the first. Light is then a tiling. If the latter theory be the correct one, then the second meaning is the more correct, or scientific. Light then is a quality. The analogy between tlie above and what fol- lows is almost complete ; and the reader will excuse SPIEIT. 9 me, if lie does not tliank me, as we proceed, for being a little particular about this illustration. We will suppose that the account of Light is un- derstood and admitted. Then, we go on to give the plan of this essay. I. A SpmiT is something belonging to and forming an integral part of a living being; as " the Spirit of God", ''the spirit of man"; in which sense the word is more or less personal. II. Spirit is simply a quality; as, ''a man of spirit ;" in which sense it is not personal. III. A Spirit is a spiritual being ; as " God is a spirit " (which expression becomes altered in all our minds to "God is pure spirit"), ''they supposed that they had seen a spirit," " Sir Spirit, I doubt I do nick-name you, for those of your kind (they say) have no sense" (sensation. Queen Elizabeth fo Lord BurleighJ, " several energetic spirits resident at Amoy" fCJiina MailJ. This usage is, strictly speaking, what is called meto- nymy. The whole Being, the entire person, is included in the word which primarily denotes only a part. IV. Spirit is spoken of as a distinct essence; as, " The Egyptians are men and not God; their horses are flesh and not spirit." This usage di- rectly suggests the inquiry, " What is spiiit?" And then we have as before, in the case of Light, two theories, the one, that spirit is really a distinct es- sence, in which case the philosophical account of it approaches to the first meaning; the other, that it is only a mood, or mode of activity of matter, which approaches to the second meaning. Here we come on the verge of higher metaphysics, a land of extreme 10 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. indefiniteness, and interminable mists. Spirit be- comes either personal or impersonal, and we cannot tell in many cases wliicli sort is meant. From each of tlie above leading meanings there branch off any n umber of different shades of meaning and figurative uses. "Spirit" has 21 meanings in Webster, and "Light" has 26. I mention this only to make it more clear that they belong to the same class of Avords. AVe have at present little to do with the figur- ative meanings, and we shall deal only with the broader distin'ctions here pointed out, chiefly under the three following heads. I. Sotel and Spirit. The word " soul \ seems primarily to coincide with " spirit" in the first sense as referring to man, but only to man, and in its sec- ondary uses it is much more restricted than " spirit." AVhether " the soul of man " is identical with " the spirit of man " is an open question. It must be ad- mitted however that the soul, if not a different thing from the spirit, is the same thing viewed in a different aspect. The idea of spirit is decidedly finer or purer, and more subtile than that of soul; and whether we accept the tripartition of human nature into " body soul and spirit " or not, we cannot dispense with eitlier word in this connection. The German mis- sionaries, if they do not all hold the doctrine of tri- partition, are all so familiar with it that they probably never fail to seek at an early period for the best terms by which to express "soul and spirit" in Chinese. As there is no controversy about the word for soul, I may state here that hvim (36) alone (not lm(j-lw:unj is the word almost invariably used in Chinese for the soul of the livinsr. The other word SPIEITUALITY, GENIUS, INTELLECT. 11 f^oh (40) presents a still grosser conception with which nothing in our language coincides. We may for dis- tinctions sake call it the ''shade." But in our systems of psychology the word is superfluous. The combina- tion ling-hwim (233-324) is also sanctioned by usage but not common. We shall return to this by and by. II. Spirituality, Genius, Intellect, The three words, spirituality, genius, and intellect (intelli- gence,) all denote uncommon or variable qualities of the heart or mind and come under our second mean- ing of spirit. The first is primarily the most compre- hensive, referring to the aflPections, the emotions, the. tastes, and the thoughts. It is now, however, much confined to a religious use, and refers specially to the ■affections. Genius (not tlie personified Latin Genius) has generally no reference to the affections. In other respects it is much the same as the first. Intellect or intelligence refers only to the tastes and thoughts, and says nothing about the affections or the emotions. In religious teaching we want especially the equival- ent of the first of these words. III. God, gods, spirits. The word "God" whether it be in the singular or in the plural, mani- festly does not belong to the same class with the words ''Light" and " Spirit," which have so many and divers meanings and shades of meaning. " God" is held rigidly to one sense, and the only real distinc- tion is that of '-true God" and "false god." The question " What is God ?" is also of a different nature from "What is spirit?" The former does not take us directly and unavoidably into the domain of meta- physics. There is one step remaining, and by that one step Theology maij pass into metaphysics ; or she may save herself and wisely stop short after replying. 12 THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. '' God is a Spirit." Altliough tlie definition of '' o-od" specially adopted by one side in the discussion before us, '' a worshipped im^," is novel and faulty, •' God" is certainly either the name of a JBeinff, or of only ojie class of heiif(/s, under our third meaning of " spirit." All spirits are not gods. "Wlien taken as the name of a class (generically, if you please) — ''i^od," ^'gods" — it is hke ''luminary" under the word "Lio'lit." All hghts are not luminaries. Luminary is soon defined : it is a light of heaven : — the sun, moon, and stars are luminaries. We define it by saying, " It is a light.*' But the ulterior question -' What is light ?" is of a different sort. It takes a great deal of science to answer that. So we can define " God" as above, but we cannot go a step farther and define " spirit." Let this be distinctly understood and borne in mind. The tcord " GocV is outside of pure metaphjsics. The tcord "Spirif is inside of pure metaphjsics. We define God to be a Spirit, and if our definition is accepted there is no more to be said. But the ulterior question ''What is a Spirit ?" perplexes us. We simply cannot answer it. And it is around this word that the battles of metaphysics have to be fought over and over again without end. We must accept the ex- istence of spirit as an ultimate fact. Our analysis can go no further. To say, " Spirit is God, or such a being as God, or angel, or man," is to souhd a retreat. You then evidently give it up. If we select a w^ord which means " spirit " and use it for " God " we put the nltimate idea (spirit) in the place of the pjemdtimate (god) ; and leave it no longer possible to say " God is a Spirit." We can only say " Spirit is Spirit" (490). SHAN. 13 CHAPTEU III. riUST SENSE OF SPIRIT SHAN. Shan stands at the head of this chapter by virtue of its prevalent use, as will be understood by glancing over the first 200 examples in the Appendix. Lhig occurs a few times, but its mean- ing is as yet indefinite. With shan it is different ; w^e can ascertain its meaning from the multitude of examples, quite near enough to the truth for all l^ractical purposes. I know there is a theory that shan ought not to be used for '' spirit " but exclu- sively for " God ", " gods "; but we have nothipg to do with any theory just now. It will perhaps appear as we proceed with our examination of facts that shan is legitimately as well as habitually used by the best Chinese writers for ''spirit"; and, if so, I have already pointed out that such a habitual usage cannot be abolished by any power on earth. More- over it is extremely undesirable, even in a theolog- ical point of view, to abolish this usage, because it will presently appear to us all, if I am not very much mistaken, that there is no other word in the language that comes near answering to "spirit." Shan of course only approximates in all its usages to the English word. It is probably true that no two words either in the same language or in different languages are perfectly synonymous. We should remember this. And I have one other general • { TIIK QUESTION OF TEiniS. ro:n:irk to make, namely, that it is not necessarily any desecration of a word that is used for " God " «M- •' i^nds ". nor need it be reckoned a sin or .a heaMienish error, to use it at the same time with an ^Mitirely different reference. All depends on the n iture'of the word. I may call a man " the Lord", though I must not call him " God." And how are we to discover the nature of a word except by inquiring for what purpose it is used ? I do not mean to deify the man whom I call ''my Lord", nor does tlie Chinese mean to deify himself when he says " my spirit is high" (183). The theoiy referred to takes another shape, namely, ^hat etymologically the word ■slum contains in it the idea of divinity. But if any part of the etymological contents of a word is entirely lost, it is to all intents and purposes the same as if it had never been there. Li the expression just quoted, .^Iiau-km ''high spirit", or, according to English idiom, "high spirits", there is ever present the mystic, metaphysical idea described in last chapter, but not a trace of divinity, Shan emotional, I find in the Chinese Language feelings of pleasure and pain, emotions of fear, sorrow, joy, excitement, and the like, ascribed to the sin (63), lieart or mind, to the liwun (36), soul, and to the >^in(j (167 note), nature. I seek for another word which in common usage takes turns with these in representing that sensitive, emotional, excitable sonie- fhing that is witliin us all. Other words like foil (6^), shade, ¥i, air (impersonal, spiritual substance, 5-21) may be found as the subject of emotions, but they are rejected by common consent as unfit to re- present "spirit." Tsing, essence (alone 58, 81, 86, not in combination as tsinf/slian) and ling (alone SHAN EMOTIONAL. 15 73, 82, .119, not in combination as sing-lhigj are sometimes the subject of motions, but not of feelings or emotions in a living man. I have been particular about ling in this connection, and have faithfully ])ut down whatever tended to illustrate the use of the word. There is just one instance oiling (alone 167) being " pleased "; but it is a sort of exception which greatly confirms the rule. In the first place, tlie ])as3age copied verbatim from the P'ei-ioan-yun-fii is in all respects so obscure that, without a reference to tlie History of Han from which it is taken, it is im- ])03sible to punctuate it; and in the second place, it is thought necessary to add a note of explanation, that " pleasing ling means pleasing the emotional and intelligent nature." Sing-ling is a well established combination (35, 158). Ling is therefore perhaps used elliptically for sing -ling. ^ In the latter passage quoted (158) the reason for adding ling to sing^ nature, is stated to be that man's nature is most ling, intelligent, and thus a contrast is brought out be- tween " nature", and " stupefaction " by drink. If hereafter a case can be made out for ling as signifying the spirit of a living human being, either in the sense of the fluctuating " animal spirits " or of the emotional spirit common to all men, which *' returns to God who gave it" or "goes upward" at death (226 — 228), what I am now saying in behalf of slian for '' spirit " may be so far set aside, but not otherwise. I do not simply siy what follows, I hold up before the eyes of readers who know Chinese the facts. The slum of a living human being is capable '■'•' Eeferring to the original it appears that " pleasing-?/;/^ " was reaUy a name of a rank in the emperor's harem, ="pleasers of his inajesty ". IG TIIE QUESTION OF TERMS. of suffering, is frequently wounded or broken (1 — 16), toiled, weary, or sorrowful, in bitterness, or in afflic- tion (17—38). It may be sick (39). It may be ['rio-litened or stunned (4l — 54), bewildered, foolish, ()rl}esotted (21,54—02). It is sometimes stirred by feelings of pity, wonder, longing, or impatience ((33_"7'2). At other times it wanders in dreams, fancy, reverie, or madness (74 — 80). It may be wasted, or squandered by dissipation or over-work (83).. But again it is restored, quieted, comforted, brightened, made free (84 — 129). It is occupied and attentive ( 130 — 138). It is then cared for, cultivated, re- freshed, solemnized, or harmonized, or has tone given to it(139 — 164.) It has emotions of joy, being elevat- ed, elated, or even overflowing with pleasurable ex- citement and eagerness (166 — 186, 209). It will perhaps be noticed that among the above instances, which all refer to living men and women, nothing of a strictly moral character or of affection, as love or hatred, is ascribed to shan ; but a reference to Cnidens Concordance will show that the same is tlie case with '' spirit ". AVords like ''bad", '' good", '' love ", " hate ", are rarely if ever used in speaking of the human spirit. Such terms are reserved for uther kinds of spirits which we shall come to by and l)y. AVliere we say " a man has a bad spirit" (dis- ])osition), the Chinese would probably not use shan {hat sec 193). Shan-mhuj (135, 199—208, 513). I have put down over ten ex%mples of slian-ming is connection with the spirits of the living, though the sense is often that of a special quality, in order to call atten- 1 ion to the fact that this combination is far. from. ])cing the exact equivalent of "the gods". It is TSING-SHAK 17 necessary in every case to observe the connection be- fore even loosely translating it by any term denoting objects of worship. The first sentence is from C/uc- tsze on Mind, and he says, " From first to last the mind in its constitution and function, though there are contained in it, it may be, both what is true and what is false, both what is right and what is wrong, is in real- ity all alike the mystery of shan-ming inscrutable." Must we always bring in " th^gods " in such cases as this ? or, does not the philosopher rather mean the in- scrutable mystery of spirit which has been already pointed out ? Here is another sentence (204) : — '* The ears and eyes attend to their own duties, and^the sJiau' ming keeps its dwelling " ix, the spirit keeps its place within (537). I am not going to translate all the passages, but please look at them, my brethren, be- fore you make up your minds irrevocably that sJia7i- ming is equivalent to '' the gods ". Can the shadow of a reason be given for not translating this term by "spiritual intelligence", singular or plural as the case may be ? If we do so it becomes at once evi- dent how it is that the Chinese worship the "spiritual intelligences " that are outside or above them, and at the same time have "spiritual intelligence" within. Worshipping a heing does not alter the nature of the word used to indicate that heing. In the last sen- tence quoted (208) the mystic word has received, as often it does, a more mystic explanation, upon which the laconic remark of my Chinese assistant is " The more explained, the less understood ". Tsing^sha^ (259, 317, 228—231, 474, 509, 513, 514, 516, 526). Of all combinations oishan and another character probably tsing-shan is the most common. Yet it is not so very common in books as IS THE QUESTION OF TERMS. its constant use in colloquial might lead us to ex- pect. I have a few remarks to make on this expression, all of which are justified by the Chinese (quotations. 1. Tsing-shan and slum alone, when used for the spirits of human beings, are in general the same. The former term is a little more vague in form than the latter, owing to the extreme am- biguity of tsing, but this is compensated for by the distinction which it serves to make between the liuman spirit and other spirits. The addition of a syllable which means almost anything or nothing (essence, subtilty, fine, &c.) becomes useful in this way. 2. Both terms, sJian and tsing-shmi, vary in meaning from the most concrete and personal sense of soul, to that of a mere feeling of health and animation which we call " good spirits." 3. In this last sense, the usual colloquial one, tsing serves the purpose of a qualifying adjective, as in example (213) where the writer " Arose from sleep and felt in good spirits." Here tsingsJian is like shan-Jcau ''in high spirits" (182, 183). 4. Tsing- sJian is used for the spirit after death as well as before (228 — 231, 514). Chu'tsze says, the tsing- shan goes up as an "air" to heaven (474). But he says elsewhere that tsing is the " shade " and slian is the soul, and that the former goes down- ward, and the latter upward at death (519—521). So then, according to Chu-tsze, tsing'shan may be either one thing, namely, a human spirit that goes upward to God; or two very different things with different destinies. "Who knoweth ?" ("Eccl. III. 21.) Sha7i of the dead. I have acted on the sug- gestion of Confucius (See Analects XI. 11.), and SHAN OF THE DEAD. 19 taken up first what we know most about, the liv- ing. We have seen what place sAan holds in the living man. When he dies the same usage con- tinues uninterruptedly. At the moment of death, it is the shmi that passes away (218). Immediately the shajt returns to its original source (221), or the shan ascends to the ninth heavens (226). Be- reaved friends however see the sha?i of the dead in their dreams and have converse with them (233, 235). Sometimes the shan can be summoned back by magic art (237). Sometimes the dead come of their own accord in bodily shape and tell that their shan are not at rest (239). Observe all this is quite independent of, and antecedent in the order of nature to, any peculiar custom of sacrificing to the dead. Whatever remains of activity or life without distinction of class or character is called shan (420, 522). As remarked above, it is also called tsing-shan. According to the school of Chu- tsze, it is just the tsingshan of the dead that their descendants are supposed to worship (526). I say "supposed'' because it is painfully evident that Chu-tsze encourages the sham worship of beings that he does not believe have any personal or conscious existence (228, 521, 523, 528, 55 tra- ordinary swiftness. 4. Ling, Let us now take leave of shan for a lime and concentrate our attention on ling. In IVequency of use and variety of meanings this word is subordinate to shan. It does not occur very often in the classics. "We shall ciive here all the cases we find in Dr Legge's published Volmnes, including the Tso-chuen, and avail ourselves of the Translation to bring out the meaning. The references will enable any one to consult the original. Of course a trans- lation must be such as to make sense. The reader LING. 25 may try to substitute the word spirit in each case, for Dr. Legge's translation of Un(/, and judge if it will fit, especially if it will fit in the sense of " soul and spirit '*, for no other would be of any avail. For antiquity and gemiineness, anything that comes down in the form of poetry^' ought always to be preferred to prose ; it has something like or- ganic life in it. Let us therefore begin with the Booh of Poetry, or, as it has been otherwise well named, the " Old Ballad Book ". The Translator's equivalent for ling will be always put in italics. Ling in the Booh of Poetry, "When the good rains had fallen'' I. iv. YI. 2. " The marvello7fs tower". ''The marvellous park". "The marvel- lous pond " III. i. VIII. The child came in to the world without giving any pain " shewing how icon- derfiil he would be" (the first cultivator of grain). III. ii. I. 2. "Glorious Avas his fame; brilliant, his energy!' (Woo-ting's). IV. iii. V. 5. Ling in the Booh of History, '' I did not slight your plans, I only used what were lest of them ". IV. vii. Pt. iii. 7. " Of all creatures man is the most highly endoiued. The sincere, intelligent, and perspicacious among men becomes the great sovereign". V. i. Pt. i. 2. [Chinese Note (539). " Intelligent is also ling. The sage possesses before me that of which I have the seeds in common with himself, and among intelligent heings fling J he is the most intelligent {lingj ".]. " The sovereigns of our Chow for their great goodness were charged with the work of God." V. xiv. 13. " The first cause of his evil course was his internal misrule which made him unfit to deal toell with the multi- ^' See Note B at the end of tliis essay. 26 TIIE QUESTION- OF TERMS. tudes "; but, *' Our kings of Chow treated well the mukitudes". V. xviii. 5. 9. *' Among the people of J\Ieau, they did not use the poicer of good, but the restraints of punishments ". V. xxvii. 3. Ling in the Tso-chien. " By the good infiuence of his lordship, I have no serious hurt". V. 28. " I venture to depend on joux powerful imfluence, to complete the victory of my army ". VII. 12. ''I will remember your kindness. VIII. 3. *'Bythe poicerful influence of your ruler I find myself", a stranger, safe among you. VIII. 16. ''The marquis of Ts'e invaded Lae, the people of which sent to bribe the chief eunuch of Ts'e with a hundred choice horses and as many oxen. On this the army of Ts'e returned. From this the reader "might know that '' the above marquis "was indeed ling '^ {Ling was his posthumous title). IX. 3. The continued success of certain negotiations " is to be ascribed to your lordship's powerful influence^'' IX, 11. "If by your" (his ministers') " «^^^^c^''' I come to die a natural death, pray, call me after-- wards, "Z^ (562), or Le (223).'' IX. 13. " If by your" (his ministers*) ^' powerful influence I preserve my head and neck, &c." X. 25. " Now I wish by the blessing and powerful inflttence of king Ch'ing to repair the walls, &c." Ch'ing had built the walls some centuries before. X. 32. My ruler now wishes to seek the blessing of the duke of Chow, and desires to beg the help of the power of the Tsang family.'' XII. 24. There is nothing in the Four BooJcs to be added to these examples of the use of ling ; and in all probability the radical meanings of the word are exhausted as far as it is applied to Living men. LING. 27 Let US take them in the order in which they occur. (A) -'Good," '*best," ''goodness/* ''well, ' "the power of good," *' good influence,'* " kindness ": — these all suggest a powerful leaning of the word to virtue's side, so to speak ; and there is no mistake about it, for the commentaries and Dictionaries quite agree that Ung has the meaning of " good " (561) ; the first example from the Poetry requires some meaning of the kind, " rains " in their sea- son can only be good, kindly, useful rains ; and most of the other phrases are complimentary, amounting to "by your favour ", though stronger than that. But the evidence that " good '' is an essential part of the meaning of ling^ and not an occasional or metaphoric sense put upon it, is that when it is used in a concrete way, that is to denote the being of which it is a quality, it is never quali- fied further by an adjective meaning either good or bad. A good ling would be a tautology, and a bad Ung would be a contradiction in terms. There are certainly no " bad ling " or " evil ling " in na- tive books. Nothing immoral or malignant is ever imputed to a ling. I cannot produce evidence of this, and must content myself with asking those who think otherwise, or adopt another usage, to produce their authority. But now, granting that *' good " is an inseparable element in the meaning of ling, I here observe further that neither " spirit " nor shan has any such element of good in it ; and on this we have, on the one hand the evidence of Wehster's Dictionary^ and on the other the passages quoted in the Appendix (443 — 463). Thus far then shan coincides \nth *' spirit," and ling is different from both. 2S THE QUESTION OF TERMS. (B) "Marvellous", "wonderful":— these ex- pressions must be elliptical, and we must supply the quaUty, either " goodness " or some of those that follow, which excites marvel or wonder. At first sight this seems to resemble a meaning of slian which is well known, " inscrutable "; but there is perhaps no respect in Avhich the antithesis of the two Avords comes out more strikingly than in this. In ancient times there were towers called " ling towers", and others, it seems, called " slia^i towers ". The difference is explained with reference to the men that liad them built. The one f^lianj resembled heaven in its intrinsic depth, the other fling J resembled earth in its superficial adornment (550) — he was "a remarkable man ". In this respect, heaven, however bright it may be to look at, corresponds to fynij the obscure and unfathomable which is slum, and earth corresponds to {ming) the bright and mtelligible which is ling (551). In a metaphysical point of view, shan must always take the precedence of ling (563), be- cause it expresses the profoundest mystery of spiritu- ality. It is specially the attribute of sages, perfect men, who are supposed to be in intimate communion with the universal Spirit (552 — 556). But it is also an attribute of every man. Even the most foolish (251) and the most depraved (199), that is those who liave least ling, and creatures lower in the scale than man also (520, 530), are shan, and have a shan in them. And there is not a shadow of blasphemy or heresy in this, viewed in the light of the Bible ; because shan is not and can never be the same sort of word that "god" is. Do we not read of the " s])irit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth"? Atid is that not a mystery?. It is surely LING, 29 a tiling unfaihomable. And it is a widely different thing' from the marvellous sngacitv flwgj displayed by S3in3 of those beasts, as apes f. r example (56S). This is ling^ and it is contraste 1 with the stnpii'ity of othin- animals. Bat shan is life, fire, spirit (539 — 544). A horse that in swiftness seems to fly and not touyh the grv)und is a ^A.^m-horse (314), also marvel- lous in his way, but different from the apes. He has spirit. The ('hinese would not describe him as ling. A soldier who never turns his back un the enemy, but cuts his way through their ranks, has ^/^///^-courage (312, 313). So we should say, "he \i'c\i5spirir\ And the Chinese wouhl no more think of describing him as having lim/, than we should of praisinu* his sagacity or intelligence, or his kindly disposition. Look at that poor pheasant eagerly pecking up irrains of food along the meadow till Bu Idealy it treads on a snare and is caught. Its spirit {sh(jp)i) was in full force, but it was *' not good " (184). No more is that man's high spiritual con- dition good whD has drunk a hundred cups at a sit- ting (185); or that of the other, who audaciously plunges into a swollen stream and attempts to swim across it (186). All these have shan, but with a deficiency of ling, (C) "Energy" is the translation given of ling is one passage in the Book of Foetn/, ''Energy'* is closely allied to courage. But of course it is mental energy that is meant, or else ''powerful in- fluence " as in other passages. " There is no spiritu- al excitement imputed, though of course it is im- plied, by ling, when denoting " " influence" or "ment- al effort". "Pure intellect" {/m-ling, 573, 574, 575) would not likely manifest any "power" or "in 30 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. fluence '. There is is always a spirit behind, that is, an emotional nature ; and every manifestation of ling, is an effect of slum, as ling itself is a quality of the shan or soul. This is very much the difference between the words ; shan is a cause, Iwg is an effect. (D) '* Highly endowed '\ " intelligent ". — Here we come to one of the household words of China, '' Man is the ling of all things "; and ling has the cur- rent colloquial meaning, for the phrase in the Book of History and the colloquial usage are inseparably connected, losing-ling (" smart, apt, clever *'. Wil- liamsj, ming-ling ('*smart intelligent, quick of appre- hension ". 76.), ling-pien ('' quick at perceiving,'' " the pith of a machine ". lb), are expressions about which there is no mistake. Does a Chinese student then understand when he reads the sen- tence, *' But man of all things is ling^\ that man is here said to be "spiritual"* above all things ? We know that "smartness" is an effect of spirit, but it is a very outward and visible sign, having a very remote con- nection with any inward and spiritual grace. I am not trifling. I mean what I say ; *and I beg my brethren to reflect upon it. We want to speak about the most inward and vital things, about the heart and affecti«»ns, and the spirit of a man which is the candle of the Lord ; and shall we set aside shan, the only word in the language which seems to penetrate the inmost soul of a man (502) in favour of an out- ward, obvious, unmysterious term like ling ? I>o not the commentators tell us that ling here is equivalent to the two words, "intelligent and perspicacious **, which immediately follow ? And do we get any ** In a Tract on the Name of God in Chinese whicli I published 13 years anjo, I translated -/iVi^ by " spiritual;" but there is reason to doubt this renilerin;jj, though iu a loose way of speaking shan and Hng are interchanged. LING. 31 Aearer to the mystery of our being, when we reflect upon the sas^e bein^- the " most intelHgent of human intelliofenres"? (557). How very different in ten- dency from this is the expression of Chwang-tsze, re- ferring to the same class of men, but gazing inward upon their souls, " they are the spiritual among spirits ", and as a result of this they '' are capable of more subtilty " than others! (500)'. Or take the following, and here I present t^ the friends of chi- shaft for God a far better part of a senten<*e than any that has been produced hitherto on that side : •' There is a Perfect Spirit in heaven, wlio is the Lord of creation ; and the spirit of the sa^fe" (our word for saint) '' is the fountain of truih. The Spirit is one " (367). Whatever defects of doctrine any one may discover in this '' form of words ", the words we want are unniistakeably here. Compare, ''But he that is joined unto the Lord is one Sjrlrit". 1 Cor. VI. 17. (E) " Influence' , " powerful influence ". — Most readers must have begun to suspect that the word Im^ in Chinese covers a wider ground than any English word we can translate it by. Such is un- doubtedly the case. We cannot even put the above meanings into one phrase, much less express them all in one word. If we call it *'gool intellectual and perceptive abilities ", or more vaguely " good abilities", the notions of ''marvellous" and of *' in- fluence " are excluded. Sometimes the Greek word nous has been introduced into this discussion, but nous "njind", "thought", "intelligence", is far too narrow for shan ; and at the same time, too concrete for lifig. We speak of " keeping a thing in mind ", but no body keeps any thing in lincf. On reviewing the above meanings of the word, and coming last of all to ''influence", especially when we know what an 32 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. amount of occult " influence" is attributed by the Chinese to spiritual beings, tos^bosts, \o fmii/'Shui, as well as to living men, we are f )rcibly reminded of another word found in Mark V. 80. and else- where : — " virtiie had i^one out of Him ". AVe are not however to take ling as denoting the putting forth of virtfie fdmmmisj. It is the " power " itself. "Influence" fwjiuensj is quite a different sort of word ; it could never assume a concrete sense as "intelligence", "power", and ling do. It is here, however, where ling seems to mean " influence ", that it cpmes near to the meaning of shan, and it appears that the influencing Spirit of God might be expressed by the one term as well as by the other. No doubt the "powers'' above or the " invisible intelligences *' may be said to influence men, or le/e 1 things to men. Ling is used in this connection ( 4;:35). But the passages where Heav- en reveals, and shai influences (432, 433), are more plain and more common. To influence ling (i.e. intelligent beings) is also more common, than for men to be influenced by them. Men influence intelligent beings(436, 437, 390), and perhaps the influence is reciprocated, but nothing is taught by this of the primary meaning of the word ling. There are other expressions like permeating shan, or being in communication or rapport with shaji, permeating ling, entering into shau, and en- tering into ling ; which are lor the most part a little obscure. Only, we can understand entering into the spirit of a thing (294 — 301), not entering into the god. Your ling. We have seen that "your//^^" means "your goodness,*' " your powerful influence", INTELLIGENT AND FOOLISH. a3< or ''your intelligence". I have now to remark, in order to remove all doubts about the sense of ling being always of the complimentary kind, that as a general thing no Chinese speaks of his own ling. It is only in foreign-made books that we find " my ling " — "- my ling hath rejoiced." Liike I. 47. Will any of those who adopt this rendering produce from native literature an instance of ngo- ling, or of ling-loJi ? I have not found such an instance ; and most probably if found the reference will be to the soul or ling-hwipi^ after death ; or ngO'ling may be found with a negative, ngo-pitJi- ling, " I am not intelligent '*, a phrase quite ac- cording to propriety. I am sorry that this again is a case in which it is impossible to adduce evi- dence ; but I throw the onus prolmidi on the other side. Meantime I can produce cases of ngo-shan by the score. Will the authority be produced for ling ? I mean something more than an isolated sentence. Or will native usage still be defied ? Intelligent and foolish. Ling is frequently found in antithesis with words meaning foolish, or stupid (158, 223, 322, 564—567, 575, 578). Bodg and spirit, Shan is not found, like Mng, in antithesis with foolish, but with form (22, 37, 38, 69, 80, 92, 103, 107, 142, 194, 197, 218, 311), with body (31, 76, 77, 150, 101, 283), with parts of the body (28, 65, 118, 153, 177, 39, 58, 96, 136, 113, 144, 190), and with outward appearance (79). Maierialism, There are multitudes in China who hold that the soul of man is not a spiritual ' substance distinct from the body, but that it is the result of the organization of matter in the body (558). With such people, and Chu-fu-tsze 34 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. is one of them, though the old words slian^ ling, and hwun-p'oli are retained, they all tend to iden- tity of meaning (523, 524,527, 528, &c). They are all only what might be called a " spiritual in- telligence inside the air " (524), the word ''air'' in this case corresponding to the word meditim in the uudulatory theory of light (528, 576). Where- ever the phenomena of intelligence flingj are recognized, as in man (558) or in an idol (576, 577), the existence of slian, in what we call the l)ersonal sense, as a being or essence, is denied. Those who follow the popular belief that there is a "ruling spirit '' (558) in man, do not indeed distinguish its substance from " air,'' or primary matter, and most people do not inquire into this subject at all. But the more spiritual of thinking men define ling differently from the materialists. The former say, ''Ling is the essential brightness of the spirit," that is, a quality of the spirit (559, 560). This definition agrees with what we have found to be the usage, and with various definitions of ling by itself as '' intelligence and perspicacity '' (557), ''understanding" (578), "knowledge" (513), '^ consciousness " (575).* But the latter say "Evolution is slian and reversion is hwei (521) ; this (kind of movement) is ling, and also the soul '' (516). Hence, with them, " soul ", " spirit ", and "intelligence " are very much the same (5()1). It is for Christian Missionaries to choose be- tween the spiritualistic and materialistic defini- tions. A rare, very rare, use of ling, intelligence, by metonymy for the soul of a living man is possible. *•' Intclligentia est mentis acies. Cicero. THE BOOK or EITES ON THE SHAN OF MEN. 35 CHAPTER V. rUETHEE ILLUSTRATIONS. This Chapter is interposed here in order to illustrate further the usage of shan. It consists chiefly of notes made years ago, and the longer quotations are not all given in the Appendix to the present essay. I. The Boole of Bites on the Shan of men, " When Confucius was in Wei he took notice of people attending a funeral and exclaimed, ' What a good manner of mourning they have ! It is quite a model. Remember it my children.' Tsze-kung said, 'What is good in it ?' Confucius replied, ' They went as if eager after something. They returned as if in doubt.' Tsze-kung again asked, ' Would it not be better to hasten home to perform the seven days' ceremonial ? ' But Confucius said again, ' Eemem- ber it mj children.' " Kung Ying-tah says, on the above passage, " The fihal son mourns the parent left behind, and does not know whether his shan is coming back after him or not ; therefore he does not feel inclined to go home and seems as if in doubt. Tsze-kung's idea was that wdien the burying was done, then the shan-ling required to be tranquillized. Why should they not hasten home to perform the sacrificial rites and give rest to the shan ? But the mourning for the parent was the radical feeling ; and the sacrifice ZG THE QUESTION OF TERMS. of peace to the shau was merely ceremonial. There- fore Confucius did not admit his objection/' Confucius said, " Treating the dead as dead, is contrary to humanity, and not to be done. Treating the dead as alive, is contrary to knowledge, and also not to be done. Therefore there are made for them bamboo implements, but not complete; earthen- ware, but without finish ; wooden articles, but with- out planing ; harps and organs, but not tuned ; and bells, but not hung up. These are called ' bright implements ', importing that they (the dead) are shan-ming " {i.e. that their spirits are alive and in- teUigent, not all dead as hoei, ghost, would signify 522). Chinese Note, — '' To serve the dead as if they were alive is the strongest feeling of their children. But the way of shan may be different from the way of men. The libation immediately after death ap- proaches to treating them as men, but the funeral approaches to treating them as slian, , So that, in the whole service of the dead, everything is as it were midway between the state of man and the state of shan!' When the head of a house dies, according to the Booh of Bites, the process of laying out and dressing the corpse is commenced in the same posi- tion the person occupied when alive, because, it is said, the filial child cannot bear to regard the parent as dead (that is, says Ying-tah, the child cannot bear to treat the parent as a shan, and to turn his head to the north, which is the direction of darkness wiiither the ^o'si-shan goes). Afterwards by two or three separate movements the corpse is transferred to the place where it is to be till the funeral, and SEAN IN THE UNIVERSE. 37 these movements are said to denote the gradual passing of the dead to (the state of) shan. Is there any more of divi7iity in this word sliau than there is in the word " spirit " in the following : — '' Rest, rest, perturbed spirit " ? Achilles sacri- ficed to the " soul of the miserable Patroclus,'*' which came to him in distress, twelve young Trojans be- sides four of his horses and two of his dogs, at the funeral pyre. Iliad XXIII. 65. But, had such pracuces any tendency to make the word (psuche) *' soul," assume the meaning of " god " ? II. Shan in the Universe, Shan is used, in speaking of the Universe, either personally or im- personally, in strict accordance with idiom, as each man thinks. Since this word means, in man, eHher an enduring essence which is more or less personal, or mere excitement, it follows that, in using the same word to express their c mjectures about the Universe, the Chinese may legitimately use it either personally or impersonally. Emerson tises the word spirit quite legitimately when he says, " One mode of divine teaching is the incarnation of the spirit in form — in forms like my own " fThe OversoulJ, "We can scarcely say the same however of the use of " God " by this author when he affiims, "0 my brothers, God exists. There is a soul at the centre of nature, and over the will of every man, so that none of us can wrong the uni- verse" fSjnritual LaiosJ. His definition of what he is pleased at times to called God is precisely the same as Chu-tsze's definition of Shang-ti — *' Thus is the universe alive. All things are moral. That ^oul^ which within us is a sentiment, outside of us is 38 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. a laic. We feel its inspirations ; out there in history we can see its fatal strength. It is almighty. All nature feels its grasp. It is in the world, and the world was made by it. It is eternal but it enacts itself in time and place " fCompensationJ . There are many of our countrymen who think with Schleiermacher that it is a mere matter of taste Avhether we believe in a personal or an impersonal God. But we cannot take any such men into our counsels. I have not met with any missionary who holds this opinion ; and I think it wiU be universally admitted that what is spoken of as "it/' in the above quotation is strikingly different from *' the Jehovah of the Bible/' And, far more than that, it is different from the common usage and definitions of the word " god." Persons who hold opinions like Emerson's can only treat the word " God" in two ways. They must cither exclude it frum their discourse altogether, or use it in a sense entirely different from that which is understood by the mass of mankind. This latter they may do as a matter of taste ; or out of deference to popular belief, because they are afraid of seeming liatly to contradict the Sacred Books. The same thing is done with Shang-ti in China, whether that term should be translated by " God " or by '' Jove." There is indeed one other way, not often followed in Christian countries, though Emerson follows this too, namely, to speak of "God" or "Jove'* as a result of evolution. fSee Parallel 8. helowj. Mr. Watters says with perfect correctness of Lau^ /«j^'s philosophy, " Tao, then, is something which existed before heaven and earth were, before Deity was, and which is, indeed, eternal" (page SBAN m THE UNIVEKSE. 3^ 36). If it was ** before Deity,'' a fortiori it was before God. '' Deity '* is not the word we w^aiit. We want a personal God. Ten years ago, before any of Mr. Watters' Articles on '' Lao-tsu^^ had appeared, in one of which he says, ** the soul of Lao-tsu may have transmigrated into Emerson ", I had collected a number of parallels between that American author and Hwai-nan-tsze, who flourished a century be- fore the Christian era, and was Tauistic. But indeed there is a great deal of the same sort in all Chinese philosophers. If the doctrine of a per- sonal God, tiersits an impersonal, is to be seirled by a majority of votes, the philosophers of China I fear wi^l turn the scale against us. But what I wish to observe is, that the use of '' spirit " (or *' mind") by Emerson corresponds exactly to *^he use of shan by the same class of thinners in China ; and that both usages are perfectly idiomatic. We recognize in both words the same amount of vague- ness, not put into the words by these writers, but found in them. The vagueness belongs to the words as a part of their nature. I give only a ''ew^ examples ; the parallelism might be carried out to any extent. Parallel 1. ** The universe is one man's body, all it con- tains is one man*s work. Therefore heaven and earth cannot frighten him who understands nature, miracles cannot deceive him who can judge of the fitness of things. Hence the sage geos a knowr ledge of distant things from things near, and all varieties become unity. The men of remote an- 40 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. tiquity united their shan with heaven and earth (the universe), and were free men of their age." Hwai-nan-tsze § VIII. '' There is one mind common to all individual men. Every man is an inlet to the same and to all of the same. He that is once admitted to the right of reason is made a free man of the whole estate. What Plato has thought he may think, what a saint has felt he may feel, what at any time has befallen any man he can understand. Who has access to this universal mind, is a party to all that is or can be done, for this is the only and sovereign agent." Emerson — History, Parallel 2. " The mind is the lord of the body, and shan is the mind's precious thing." Hioai-nan-tsze § VII. " Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own minds." Emerson — Self Reliance, Parallel 3. " If you cannot restrain yourself, then give way. If you give way your slian will not resent it.'' Hwai-na^i'tsze § XII. "Accept your genius, and say what you think.'' Emerson — Spiritual Laws. Parallel 4. '• The purer essence of the mind may by its shan influence men, though it may not be able to teach them." Hicai-nan-tsze § X. PANTHEISM. 41 '' Who has more soul than I masters me though he should not raise his finger. Round him I must revolve by the gravitation of spirits. Who has less, I rule with like facility. Emerson — Self-Reliance, Tarallel 5. " He whom demons will not dare to vex, and on whom the slian of mountains and streams will not dare to send calamities, is most noble " (the nobility of perfect virtue). Hwai-nan-tsze § IX. " All the devils respect virtue." Emerson — Spiritual Laws, Parallel 6. " To enter into the mystic sympathy and per- fect blending of slian, and to roam in the place where hands and hearts are all emptiness — where there is no connection with material things, is what a father cannot teach his son. The musician's art by which he expresses ideas, imitates things, and images slian, as his fingers dance over the chords, is what a brother cannot impart to a brother" (See 287). Hwai-nan-tBze § IX. " Why insist on rash personal relations with your friend? * * Leave this touching and clawing. Let him be to me a spirit " (210). Emerson — Friendship . " One class live to the utility of the symbol ; esteeming health and wealth a final good. An- other class live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the poet, and artist, and the natu- 42 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. ralists, and the man of science. A third class live above the beauty of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men. The first class have common sense, the second taste, and the third spiritual perception." Ibid — Prndence, Parallel 7. " The universal mind is diffused through every- thing. Man gets it, and it is man's mind. Other creatures get it, and it is their mind. Trees and plants, birds and beasts communicate with it, and it is the mind of trees and plants, birds and beasts. It is all one universal mind." Chu-tsze — On Heaven and Earth. "All creatures partake of the (impalpable) ether of the whole. Man has it correct and com- l)lete, so he stands with his head erect. Beasts have it in a partial manner, and so their heads are in a horizontal position. Plants again have their heads in the ground and their tails straight above.'' Hid, " These appearances indicate the fact that the' universe is represented in every one of its particles. Everything in nature contains all the powers of na- ture. Everything is made of one hidden stuff, as the naturalist sees one type under every metamorphosis, and regards a horse as a running man, a fish as a swimming man, a bird as a flying man, a tree as a rooted man." Emerson — Compensation. Parallel 8. " Tan " (an abstraction) ** seems to have been before Xr fSliavg-fiJ. Lan-tsze{iSQ). PANTHEISM. 43 '' Tail gives spiritual existence to demons and F'l*s'' fShang-ti's) . CJiwang-tsze (484) . " One ever-present ling J' ^ Note on Chwang-tsze (485). '' The mind has its motion and its rest. In it- self it is called (the power of) Change (alternation ^). Its Law is called Reason. Its operation is called sJian^ Chi-tsze — On Mind. *' Shan is the operation of Ti " {Shang-ti). Yih'lcing, Comm, (488). " The Universe has three children, horn at one time, which re-appear under different names, in every system of thought, whether they be called cause, operation, and effect ; or more poetically Jove, Pluto, Neptune ; or theologically, the Father, the Spiritf^ and the Son ; but which we call here the Knower, tlie Doer, and the Sayer." Emerson — The Poet. Parallel 9. " Therefore the ^o^i-shan of my own shan, of my object of worship, and of the system of nature, are all one and the same." Notes on the Doctrine of the Mean. " The superior man performs worship all in and for himself ; therefore the highest worship is spiritual {shan). The highest worship is spiritual {shan) and the vulgar make it double " (suppose a distinction between subject and object), " therefore they cannot attain to it." Han-Fei'tsze § XX. ^•'■'This expression reminds us of A^07^s, but it is notChwang-tsze's own. tObserve '' operation " takes the place of " spirit " and of shau. 4i THE QUESTION OF TERMS. " Ineffable is the union of man and God in every act of the soul. The simplest person, who in his integrity worships God, becomes God ; yet forever and ever the influx of this better and uni- versal self is new and unsearchable ; ever it inspires awe and astonishment. Emerson — Tlie Over-soul. Nothing can be more obvious than that the word 5^6^;^ in the above Chinese examples corres- ponds to the " soul," "mind," " spirit " and "over- soul " in Emerson's writings — not to "God" which he brings in occasionally by a kind of poetical license, or as a metaphor borrowed from the lan- guage of theology. Parallel 10. " There are 10,000 slum in the human body. If a man receives spiritual essence and nourishes his body, inhales air and refines his form ; then the 10,000 slian will each hold its true place. But if not, the glorious garrison will fade away — the 10,000 slian will die." Biographj of Genii — Pang-tsu (417). " The 10,000 slian are one slian!' Ts'i'tiu'tsze (389). Tauist Books speak of the " The slian of the eyes, of the nose, of the month, of the tongue, of the teeth, &c., &c. The slian of the human body are so many, it is impossible to count them." " The 84,000 individual downy hairs all turn into protecting slian, but one slian in the heart rules them all." Hwang-fing-Ujig Kiai (416). POETICAL AND FIGURATIVE USES OF SHAN, 45 '* Every line we can draw in the sand has ex- pression ; and there is no body without its spirit or genius." Emerson — The Poet. III. Poetical and figurative uses of slian. The last quotation brings us near to a branch of the sub- ject on which it is needless to dwell, further than to call attention to the wonderful agreement between slian and "spirit or genius." An artist first attains to expression with his pencil, and then he gets, by another stage, the very sha^i of it (290). The slian of a person is communicated to his portrait by an artist (243 292). The same is done in drawing a picture of a bamboo or any object in nature (291). Chwang-tsze puts into his writings the slian of Lau- tsze (292). Music can express the slian (293). When a person imitates another's performances to the life it is called a " ^/m;^ resemblance " (310). A poet describes the slian of hope (307), or "the slian of smiting upon his breast and winging his hands " (grief or despair 548). A man whose fea- tures are not like another's, but whose expression or manner occasionally remind you forcibly of the other, is like him in sliani^ 311). An artist who has attained to the mystery of his art is slian-miati, spiritually mysterious, i.e, has a genius inscrutable to others (309). And his peculiar faculty or genius fslianj cannot be imparted to any. It is like the faculty or genius {slian) of the eye for seeing which cannot be communicated to the ear or to any other organ of the body (287). A magical doctor could see the shan of a disease, before there were any symtoms, and remove it (319^). 46 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. CHAPTEE VI. THIRD SENSE OF SPIRIT LING, SHAN, AND Tl, When it is said, " The shan of Heaveu settles in the sun, as the sJian (spirit) of man settles in the eye ", the parallelism leaves it impossible to suppose any metonymy in the case. So also, when we read in the Booh of Poetry (III. iii. 5), '' The great moun- tains sent clown shan '' (430), taking the native commentary, and not the translation, as our guide, we understand that these mountains sent down " their spiritual influence and harmonious air ", or else " the harmonious air of their spiritual intel- ligence ''. In short the ling of the mountains, in the sense in which many missionaries use the word, '' their spirits, descended." Again, w^hen in the Confucian Analects, ''the T'ai Mountain is said to be " discerning" (III. 6), or "the moun- tains and rivers " capable of discerning the colour of "a calf" to be offered to them in sacrifice (VI. 4), and the commentators tell us that " the shan of these mountains and rivers " are referred to ; we can understand that shan is the same as *' spirit " or " soul.'' This usage is very common. All beings, from Shang-ti down to the smallest material object that the eye can see (a hair for example 415, 416), have spirits (shanj. But now we come to another usage of this word, the usage about which all the controversy is. Heaven itself, LING, SHAN, AND TL 47 those mountains and rivers themselves, men, beasts, birds, fishes, insects, stones, and, most common of all, graven images themselves are called shan. It is about the first and last of these, Heaven and graven images, that practically our inquiry is concerned. The objects of worship of the Chinese generally speaking are Heaven, Heav- en and Earth, their ancestors, and images, made mostly in the form of men and women. They do indeed habitually burn insense and make bows and gesticulations in the open air and into the void ; but the objects then are so vague, that, though called shan, or hwei-slian, or hwei, they scarcely come under the class of beings which we call " the gods."" As a rule an object of worship of any note or definiteness has an image and a temple. This then is what we call " a god " or '' an idol '', and the Chinese call it a shan. And the contention of tliQse whom I, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, seek to lead into another way of think- ing, is that, since the Chinese speak habitually of Heaven and Earth, their ancestors, and their idols as shan, the first great object of the Christian missionary ought to be, to convince them that the entire usage of this word from the earliest dawn of their history down to the present time, in all its diversities of application and in all its ramifications in their literature, is founded on ignorance, error, and sin; that the word properly means "god"; and that having never known the true God they have never used this word in its true and proper sense. In short all shan hitherto known in China, according to this view, are '' false shan,'^ while the word, as an adjective, means divine ; and, as an 48 THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. impersonal noun, deity or divinity. They do not state their argument precisely as I have done ; but their translations of the Scriptures and daily accumulating volumes of Hymns, Discourses, Tracts, &c. are my authority for saying, they want to throw this word out of the Chinese language in every sense except that of God, gods, and divine. Even tsing-shan cannot be used in such a place as Judges XV. 19, "his spirit came again and he revived ", but the " spirit " has to be expressed by tsing'Jc'i, '^ subtile breath." And all this follows quite naturally; for the Christian religion and theology cannot be taught with a word for God which may, at the same time, be correctly used for the human soul, or spirit. Sjnritiial and intelligent men. Shan is used by metonymy for "spiritual men'' (324, 326, 327) ; feV^^isused by metonj^my for " intelligent men " (320, 321, 322, 325, 340) ; and Ti is used by metonymy for the Emperor of China, the vice- gerent of Heaven. The last statement will be discussed in next chapter. The other two will probably not be disputed. Shan is used where we should say " genius " in the personal sense. One man is a "flower-genius '' because he excels in the cultivation of flowers (328) ; another is a " tea- genius '* because he wrote three volumes on tea (329), a third is a " genius of strong drink " be- cause of his extraordinary capacity for it (330). These are metaj)horic uses of shan which decide nothing as to its being " god " or " spirit." Spiritual and intelligent things. To this class I refer the grosser kind of things which are so de- signated. To the vulgar mind aerial beings are SPIEITUAL AND INTELLIGENT THINGS. 49 pure spirits. Of course it is only a question of de- gree, where there is no recognition of spirit as an essence entirely distinct from matter. Let us not shrink from the fact. Every body, be he Jew or Gentile, who has not clearly made up his mind, that ''a spirit" is a being independent of matter and distinct from it, so that he would be a complete per- sonal being if all that is called matter (air, ether, and imponderable media included) were annihilated, must think of God himself as in some respect mate- rial. That many excellent and pious men have done so, is, I think, easily ascertained. The confounding of air with spirit has been all but universal among mankind ; e.s. tsing-h'i above. The present para- graph has nothing to do with *' trifles light as air." Things of the grosser kind seem to be more frequently called ling than shan. I can only explain this on the groand that, ling being merely a quality, the metonymy is more obvious than in the case of sJian, which may denote an etherial substance, without any figure of speech. Hence to speak of mankind in general as shan would cause confusion of ideas and suggest something of an etherial nature perhaps belonging to our bodies; whereas shang-Ung, ''liv- ing intelligences," is a common designation of men (320). Hence also the firmament is called ''the round intelligence '' (343) the nine heavens, " the nine^ intelligences" (344) ; the moon ''the shady in- telligence'* (345). A gigantic being who tore as- su/ider with his hands the heavens and the earth at the command of Shang-ti is called the " big intelli- gence " (346). Heaven, Earth, and Man are called '' the three lmg'\ or " the three slan (350). The ^un, moon, and stars are also " three ling " (349) oO THE QUESTION OF TERMS. The four ling are the unicorn, phoenix, tortoise, and (U'agon (351). The five ling are five creatures of different colours representing the five elements (352). Then, long before there were shan of clay and wood (idols 356), there were "grass-Zm^" (354), a sort of rude figures anciently used at funerals. And, not only is the soul of the dead called ling, but the material things, in or near which the soul is supposed to hover, are included in this name (355). In all these cases the metonymy is evident. It is not so clear how- ever when it is said that a Tauist's bones, that do not decay, are shan (spirit 357). It seems as if the bones might " turn all to spirit", as the angel told Adam he might do, in Paradise Lost. Here I must again give a few parallel passages to illustrate the more concrete use of sha^i. Parallel 1. " That which, when it would be small, becomes like a moth or a grub, when it would be large, fills the world ; when it would ascend, mounts on the airy clouds, when it Avould descend, enters the deep ; whose transformations are not conditioned by days, nor its ascending or descending by seasons, is called slum (496). Kimn-tsze,^ " For spirits when they please " Can either sex assume, or both; so soft "And uncompounded is their essence pure, " Not ty'd or manackled with joint or limb, " Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, " Like cumbrous flesh ; but in what shape thejr choose, SPIEITUAL AND INTELLIGENT THINGS. 51 '' Dilated or condensed, briglft or obscure, '' Can execute their airy purposes, " And works of love or enmity fulfil.'' Paradise Lost I. Tarallel 2. "No sTian is left uninvoked." Booh of Poetry, The spirit of draught is described as a man three feet high, naked, and having his eyes in the crown of his head. All sorts were propitiated in time of distress (448, 457). " all ye host of heaven ! earth ! What else ? And shall I couple hell ? Hamlet, Parallel 3. " When Hwan prince of Ts^e (B.C. 685—642) was on an expedition against the north, at Ku-chuh, he saw a man of a foot high, with clothes, cap, and ornamental cuifs, running before his horses. Kwan- chung said, ' This is the shaii of the mountain. Its name is Yii-rJi, When a usurping prince arises it appears.' " Shih-i-hi, ''Dr. Percy tells us that the existence of fairies is alluded to by the most ancient British bards, among whom the commonest name was that of ' spirits of the mountains.' " Brand's Popular Antiquities, Parallel 4. '* The carp, as soon as its scales number 360, is caught and carried away by dragons ; but if every year a sJian be placed to guard it, it cannot be car- ried away. This sJian is a tortoise " (358). Shih'i-M, 52 THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. " A spirit called the hahy one, in the Isle of Man, cut down and gathered in the meadow-grass which would have been injured if allowed to remain exposed to the coming storm." Brand, Instances like the above could be multiphed to any extent. There is not a fairy or ghost story in our language, but might be matched with a Chinese one in which the subject is sMn. Things that are gods. Some one has quoted the passage in which it is said certain people's " god is their belly," as showing the extensive generic use of "god" ftheosj. Here is a parallel case of ti, used figuratively:—" In a dry year, the earth-dragon ; and in pestilence, the grass-dog (figures made to remove the evils) are ti (gods) for the time being " (859). Worshipped heings, I have quoted passages to show that ti, shan, and ling in many combinations referring to objects of worship are synonymous or nearly so. The Supreme Ti, the Supreme Shan, and the Supreme Ling, all mean, or may mean, the God of Heaven (360 — 366). Let none of my brethren be alarmed or offended, as if I meant to say that the Chinese know a great deal about the God of Heav- en, which they are supposed a imori not to know till we tell them. I wish to afl^m nothing as to the amount of their knowledge; and no man can be more deeply convinced than I am of their need of teaching. Eut these teims, in some connections, all mean the Most His'h. Chi-shan means the same in the passage quoted (367), though it is rather pan- theistic. The next following expressions, referring to the firmament, are of a somewhat iiiaterial nature (368 — 372). It must also be noticed that shan and WORSHIPPED BEINGS. 53 ling have a strong tendency to be plural and to in- clude too much, especially 5/M/^ (363) — "the spirits of the souls that are above." Observe also the difference between sha7i and ling in the explanation of '' high intelligences ", namely, ''the spirits of heaven that have intelligence", as if some might be without that quality (lingj. All three words are used in the plural with equal freedom. I should say, the four terms, shang-ti, ti, shan, and ling have all more or less of a plural use. There is no question about the last two, and not so much about the second, But the first, sliang-ti, has also decidedly a plural use. In the Clioio Ritual, sliang-ti alone is generic (378), and an epithet has to be added to distinguish the Highest One. With the Tauists "all the shang-ti of heaven'' are thirty-two or thirty- six (381, 382). This is not a mere poetic license, as "thethirty-six^?^A-A^M;^^''(384)appearsto be.' The use is fully established inTauist Books (388). There are also not a few shang-ti whose names are well known (383). Then, if we want a word with a still wider scope, we have "ten thousand ti ' (388), and "the host of /^" (392), by only drop- ping the sliang. Is this not generic enough ? On the other hand, there is ling also quite as compre- hensive as shan itself for objects of worship, not indeed in such common use, but still usable. It is my serious conviction that to adopt ling for ob- jects of worship would be less injurious than to adopt slian, because the former is not nearly of such frequent occurrence in other senses nor so varied in its uses as the latter. But it is not practicable to adopt either. Again, in Canton and other places, it is well known iYL^ipu-mJi is quite as commonly used 04 THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. for objects of worship as shan, and pu-sah has th^ great advantage of being confined very much to that sense. Is not common usage for objects of worship utterly inadequate to j)rove a word equi- valent to " god or gods "? Our word "idol" would denote very much all the objects of worship of the Chinese people of the present day ; but we know well "idoF' is not the same sort of word as "God." Neither is "spirit" the same sort of word. If there ever really was a race of Red Indians who wor- shipped " the Great Spirit/' it would have been necessary probably for missionaries to substitute some other term for " Spirit ", as Great One or Great Being, in order to relieve this word for its proper use in the Christian theology. This is at all events the case mth slum; whatever strong- reasons any one may see for using it for " God " and " gods ", in translating the Bible and teaching Christianity, there are far stronger for retaining it for " sphit "; because, to use a familiar phrase, there will be a dead lock, if the right native word is not available for spirit. Evil spirits and possession. As, at the outset of our investigation, we found sha^i alone good for the spirit of a living man, so now, at the close, we take leave of all other terms but this. There are no evil ling, unclean ling, or possessions by ling, in my collection. If I had found such I would liave put them in. Will my Christian brethren trust me thus far? Then, as for shan, look at the l^assages quoted, and, if they are insufficient, I will bring double the number on a few days warn- iug. There are evil slum, malignant shan, wicked shan^ lewd shan^ fierce shan, scorching shan, pesti- EVIL .^PIBITS AND FOSSEoSION. 55 lential sJian, and unclean shan (442—453). There are shan whom people run against innocently and unawares, and who thereupon inflict upon them every kind of misery (453, 454). Sin is laid to the charge of 5A^/y?(455), attempts are made to slay them (456), and, failing that, offerings and religious ser- vice are rendered to them, when of course oppro- brious names will be dropt, and flattering titles given to them, but all along they were called shan (457, 458). Shan come sometimes on invitation and take possession of men's bodies, when they lose for a time their personal identity, and the shan act and speak, eat and drink through them, and even get intoxicated, as we read in the Booh of Poetry, the oldest book in China ; the phenomena thefe recorded being precisely the same in nature as modern possession by demons (460). The evil shan at other times come uninvited, without any assign- able cause, and torment people (451). A man when under the power of such shan is called a wizard, and a woman in the same condition is called a witch (462). Possession by ling is something new in Chinese. A "familiar spirit" may be a Icwei, or a shan, but not a ling. 5G ' THE QUESTION OF TERMf?. CHAPTEE VII. HEAVEN, Tl, AND SHANG-TL There are a great many Chinese quotations in the x4.ppendix which have been touched on but light- ly, or not at all. They are put on record as bearings on the subject, for future use, in the belief that they may be helpful towards the Jlnal settlement of the question. I am not aware of having overlooked any passage which tells on the opposite side; and I should like to see some quotations from Chinese authors to prove, for instance, that ling is used for the human spirit ; or that ''mjshan'' is usable for " my God '', or that Ti is any thing difiPerent from what I have represented that word to be. If such passages were before me now, I should be delighted to put them in where they ought to go, so as to complete the evidence on both sides. I might here wind up with the remark, that Shaug-ti for " God " needs no words of recommendation from me. It is the word we find in the language for the Highest. It is not indeed the Jehovah of the Jews, nor the Theos of the Greeks, nor the God of English Chris- tians ; and, at the same time, it is not the Jove of the Romans, or the Baal of the Canaanites, or the Great Spirit of the Red Indians ; but it is the word corresponding to God in Chinese as near as we could wish or expect. Take it and be thankful ; or, if not, find another, the use of which will not render IIEAYEX, TI, AND SHANG-TI. 57 co-operation impracticable, and conference on mis- sion work a mere name for nothing. It must be apparent to any sensible man, without a knowledge^ of Chinese, that between those who freely use the word slum in all the senses' described in this essay, and those who say, " there is none slian but one, that is, God", there can be no effective co-operation or consultation about their work. AVe divide at the very threshold, we contradict each other in every sermon or prayer or hymn we make; our versions of the Scriptures read like two different Books ; the disregard of idiom, in the case before us, is followed up by a general disregard of idiom, and a dislike of what is deemed undue pandering to Chinese taste on the other side. Then, the other side are driven to the Classics and standard literature for confirma- tion of their usage ; and, finding indeed what they want, they are liable to be too much fascinated by ornaments of style, and thus they are impeded in their usefulness, as well as laid open to the charge brought against them. What a waste of power this question has caused and is causing, God knows ; and we are all in our measure responsible for it to Him. Ohjections ansicered. 1. Sliang-ti is, in the usage of the Confucianists, too much like the visible heavens personified. 2. 8haug-ti is, by the Tauists, and by the people generally, applied to various idols, here to Yuh-Jiwang, there to Hiteii-tien, and again to Ktoan-hmg, to one, or two, or more indeed, but not to the whole pantheon. 3. Shang- tl contains in it the idea of supremacy. 4. Shang- ti cannot be used naturally and properly in the plural. 5. By using this term we seem to be taking the chief god of the Confucianists, or the chief god 53 Till': tjCKSTIuN OF TERMS. of ll\c Tauists, to be our God. 0. The second syl- lable of the term is equivalent to Emperor, and de- notes in fact tlie Emperor of China. — That these ob- iections arc founded on facts no one can deny. I object to some of the facts, that is to say, I wish that they were not facts ; but their validity as objections to the term is far from apparent. Let me illustrate this by means of the first objection and the second. The Confucianists were long before the Tauists in their use of this word. Lau-tsze, the, founder of the Tauist system, knew nothing about those idols refer- red to, and probably no one would have been more horrified than himself at the idea of giving such a name to such things. Confucius, on the other hand,. Avho lived about the same time (B.C. 551 — 478), did not initiate the practice of calling Heaven per- sonified Shang-ti, The usage came down with the language from unfathomable antiquity. " Heaven " and Tl and Shang-ti were used almost synonymously,, in the old Ballads^^ which he recited, and which he cherished as perhaps the most precious heritage of antiquity. Grant then for the moment that Shang-ti is Heaven, even if it does not coincide with our theological conception, are not the Tauists just as much in error as if it did? And shall we not join the Confucianists in a holy alliance against ^the blasphemy of calling an image of clay Heaven ? In my humble opinion we might do many worse things; as for instance, we might occupy ourselves in adduc- ing far-fetched arguments against each other, which would be a much more questionable thing than tak- ing the Confucianists' word for God, even it be in Sec Nole K IIEAYEX, TI, AND SIIAXG-TL 59 their mouths a httle like Jove.'*^' I can with great good reason object to the Tauist usage oi Sliang-ti', a course which no one is justified in adopting in legard to the universal usage of sJia'i for spirits whether objects of w^orship or not. The objections brought against Shanff-tiiXYe, as far as I can ascertain them, either objectionable things, or else really recom- mendations to the word. The definiteness,the strong personality of the term, and the fact that it denotes the chief gods of two existing sects, and not of one only, are really recommendations. We can come in between them, and say, ''You are both in a measure wrong. That Being, whom one of you ignorantly makes to be Heaven personified, or the animated Cosmos, and the other still more ignorantly makes to be an image of clay, or the king of Fairy-Land, and at the same time also the god of the North Pole, that Being, whose sacred name you have both profaned by giving it to men, as to Kwan-hmg, and in one of its forms to your emperor, — Him declare we unto you. Not only certain of your own poets, but the universal consent of your wisest men, we can adduce, to shew, that this name, Avhether 7"/ or &hang-ti, means properly Heaven, or ' the Lord of Heaven ', and nothing else. Do not tell us that Slang -ti is the proper name of an idol. It is the most improper of all names that could be named. We tell you, the Almighty has revealed himself, and He has given an authorita- tive command, saying, ' Thou shalt have no other sliang-ti before me.' '' The word is used in the plural. This also is an established usage of the - The name of the Supreme Deity among the Eomans. Webster. GO THE QUESTION OF TEEMS. • Chinese language, and it is obviously an improper usage. But can any one show a good reason for refusing the word because of the obviousness of this, impropriety ? If there were really no impropriety in saying " gods ", then the plural form would be in accordance with the truth of things. Should we not rejoice to find a word for God in Chinese, like Shang-ti, of which the impropriety of a plural use is rather more apparent ; considering that the language has no inflections ; and that " to worship God" and " to worship the gods ", while we use the same name throughout, are not distinguishable from one another ? Just consider it one moment. The Chinese will very soon find out that Ave do not AYorshp Ruen-ticn, or Yuli-hwang, or the Em- peror, or the visible Heavens. We xre liable to be mistaken by very ignorant people and perfect strangers in this way, and we are liable to be teased also by impertinent questioners who know better. But that we do not worship certain visible and very substantial things may soon be known. That is not the difficulty. The difficulty is to let them know what w^e really do Vv^orship ; and, to all but the initiated, " worship shau '', in the light of the ex- position here given of the meanings of slum, must convey a very vague notion indeed. We must ever remember that what we do now, we do, not merely for those at present under our instruction or those to whom we give a Bible or a Tract, but for a great nation and a long future; and the liabil- ity of mistaking Shang'tl for Yiili'liwang is of a temporary, local, and trivial nature, while the teaching of spirit -worship is a radical mistake as to theology, and a deviation from what we are sent LORD OF HEAVEN. 61 here to teach, which may result in very serious consequences. The mistake is of an inward and spiritual kind, and so are the consequences — not easily estimated. Lord of Heaven (379). The term Tien-clm is just one of the Chinese definitions of Ti and Sluing - ti (469,470,478,480). There are many other definitions of Ti, e. g. " Ti is Heaven " (463, 464, 466, 467). " Ti is the Spirit of Heaven" (465), " Ti is the heart or mind of Heaven" (467, 468). ''Ti is the Nature of Heaven " (471). "Ti is Law" (472, 473). " There is not a Shang-ti like the images men make" (474, 480). "There is not a Man (Person) in Heaven who issues decrees as the old hooks seem to say (473) ; nevertheless, in reading those old hooks, it seems impossible to ex- clude altogether the notion of something more than Law, and in order to realize what they mean by the decrees of Shang-ti, or Heaven, we must" (in the private opinion of the speaker, Chu-tsze) '' include the idea of the visible Heaven as that which decrees " (479). In spite of this materialistic tendency of the philosophical interpreters, they iiad long ago made up their minds that "the visible Heaven and Sliang- ti must be distinct," and that ''Shang-tl has no bodilv form " (465—468, 479, 480). The questionings of thoughtful men, of a sceptical nature, which have come down from before the Christian era (475, 476), are deserving of our earnest attention. Compare the two passages here referred to with the xxxviiith chapter of Job beginning at the 5th verse — " AVho hath laid the measures thereof?" Tiien look at the unsatisfactory conclusion of the second questioner, Chv/ang-tsze : — 'Tt seems as if there were a True r;2 THE QUESTION OF TERMS. Hiiler, onlv we c^imoi ^^i dXBi^ personality ' (477). Chwang-tsze does not make use of the personal name '"Slumq-tiJ here, or elsewhere as a rule, just because he could not " get hold of the personality " of the Deity. And Chu-tsze admires his unanswered ques- tions, saying, " Chwang-tsze perceived this principle; the (Euler or) Kuling Power is self-existent, inher- ent, necessary, unspeakable. You must see it for yourself" (478). I give only the sense of the. ori- ginal. " Self-existent " with Chu-tsze does not here refer to a Being but to a Law which Heaven has in itself. The above are a few^ of the answers the Chinese have attempted to give to the question, ^' What is God ?" AVe find among them '' God is the Spirit of Heaven," and ''God is the Uuler or Lord of Heaven." Can there be any hesitancy about pre- ferring the plastic word itself (Ti or Bliang-UJ to the one rigid definition of it fTien-clmJ, "Lord of Heaven ?" Elder. Perfect precision of language is not attainable ; and often, when aiming at precision in one direction, we err egregiously, without perceiving it, in another. Apart from all abstruse discussions about the nature of God, the two words ''lord" fclmj and "ruler" (tsaij are equally concrete and personal, and amount very much to the same thing. To make the two together, clm-tsai, equivalent to • Ptuling Power " is a device of pantheistic or atheistic philosophy. But observe what has been done, on our own part, in this debate about Terms for God. ^ One Chinese definition, of Ti and Sliang-ti ahke, " has been taken and translated into Enghsh as "the Buler of Pleaven/' then cut in two, and the least RULER. 63 Significant part of it retained for use — ''Ruler," " ruler." following upon this we have an intermin- able logomachy. On the one hand, there is an elab- orate argumeat to shew that " God " also has the relative sense of "Ruler"; whilst, on the other, this is denied, and a beautiful anjumentum ad hominem appears, to the effect that "ruler" is utterly indequate to express " God." All this is just like taking out one of AVebster's definitions, '' the Sovereign of the Universe ", dropping the latter part of it, and, then seeking, from the uses and meanings of "Sovereign," to determine the nature of the word "God.'' Sover- eign is a relative term, and so also is Lord. But, nevertheless, does not common sense suggest, since the Romanists have chosen this very plirase " the Lord of Heaven", in Chinese, for "God", and not a few Protestants and Anglicans are inclined to follow their example, that the native phrase, Pien-chi-cJm=' fsai, " the Lord and Ruler of Heaven," vv^hen taken entire, is one of the best definitions of God which can be given ? Else, why should the definition be preferred to the very word itself ? Can there be any satisfaction to an ingenuous mind in the main- tenance of such a discussion as this about " Ruler " or " ruler '? If any one lays hold of any inad- vertence or want of precision in my language, and founds a similar argument upon it against the truth, I can only answer him with silence. Ti is not " ruler ", but " Ruler of Heaven.'' Emperor. The modern use of this word or its equivalent, " Imperator," dates from the time of Julius Csesar. The use of Hioang-ti and Ti, for the Sovereign of China, dates from Ts'in Shi, about two centuries earlier. But, the origin of the two titles. H THE QUESTION OF TERMS. the Roman and the Chinese, and their primaiy meanings are quite as,dilierent as the two men just named Avere different the one from the other. Julius C^iesar teas an itnperator, Ts'in Shi was not a ti (either Heaven or God) although he im- piously called himself this. This act of Ts'in Shi raa}^ be made intelligible to all readers hj trans- ferring the account of it given by Sze-ma Ts'ien, in a figure, to Julius Caesar. Suppose that Csesar, in the height of his power, had called together the Eoman Senate, to consult about vdiat title he should assume. The Senators, with fear and trembling, suggest that, according to the veritable traditions of Eome, one of the early kings was styled " Superbus Eex," and that Caesar might assume'that honorable title. But Csesar here in- terposes and says, " Put away the ' Eex,' and retain the ' Superbus.' Then, make a further selection Irom the veritable traditions you speak of. Was not the founder of Eome called ' Deus Deo natus '? Call me therefore 'Superbus Beus " (334). There is not a single point exaggerated in this imaginary illustration. The traditions of China were three or four fold more remote, and fully as incredible, as those of Eome which were put on record as veritable history by Livy. And the credulity of some European scholars who to this day accept without question the statement of the Chinese Booh of History, that the first two sovereigns of China, who reigned 2,000 years before Ts'in Shi, were ''TV; while, during the intervening period of two millenniums, no hu- man being was so entitled, and the name Ti belonged to Heaven alone, is a mystery I cannot EMPEROE. 65 fathom.* Bat I venture here to throw out one mild suggestion, which may lead to profitable reflection. " Emperor '* is a western word, very special in its appUcation, and, as far as I know, never applied to God. It so happens that this word suits our pur- poses in translation, where ti and liwang-ti denote the sovereign of China. But where is our logic, if, after translating the Chinese title in this way, we reason back from our own* translation to the mean- ing of Tl ? Would it subserve the interests of truth to construct another beautiful argumentum ad liom- wem founded on Dr. Legge's translation of the Booh of Hist or ?j, Part I. and Part 11. , referring to the two sovereigns aforesaid as ftij " emperors" far back in ' ' antiquity "? Is the translation inspired ? It would be well to read the Translator's iVo^^^, in this connec- tion, where the uniform testimony of natives is given, that '' Ti means Heaven," that those two men were called ti because their virtue was equal to Heaven, and that the sovereigns of China have been, since Ts'in Shi, called by the same title '' as the vicegerents of Heaven" i.e. by metonymy. Before Tsin Shi the sovereigns of China had been called " celestial kings" (Pieu'wang), but, since his time, the noun (Coelus or Deus) has taken the place of the adjective; yea, even the name of ''the Lord and Euler of Heaven" has been freely given to them. But it should be remembered that the same title is not freely given to any other earthly potentate, or ruler. If the Chinese could have their will, we should not only be still called "barbari- ans," but our sovereigns would receive, instead of - See Notes A and B. It might have been said of Ts'in Shi, as it was said of Domitian, *' Dominum se et Deum primus appeUari jussit." Eutropms, 6^ THE QUESTION OF TERMS. Tiwang-ti, the luuiibler title of *'sons of heaven" ft'ien^ tsze) to intimate their inferiority (464). We laugh at '' the Celestials "; but nevertheless we demand, in our intercourse with them, that a title equivalent to '* the God of Heaven " shall be given to our kings. In conclusion, as I said of slian so I say of ti^ no metaphoric use of the word can alter its radical meaning ; and much less can the abuse of it have this effect. An extensive and impartial examina- tion of the usages of a word seems to me the only lesritimate means of ascertainino^ what its radical meaning, and metaphoric uses or abuses are. My aim has been to find and set forth the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in regard to those three terms, slum, ling, and ti. If I have failed in any particular it will probably be found to liave arisen from taking too narrow a range, and possessing too superficial a knowledge of the Chinese language. Of one thing I am convinced, that a less comprehensive view of the language, and the intro- duction of more ancient western lore, will only pro- mote darkness and confusion. If I am evei* to get new light on this subject, or if any one else is going, to place it in a new and better light, it must be by following out the same line of investigation here pursued more perfectly, and, I can add with a clear conscience, in the same spirit. KOTE A, HiSTOllICAL. imagine yourself in China in the time of Confucius (BO. 56 1 — 478) instead of in the ninteenth century. Very different was China then. It was indeed a very old nation, having more than a millennium of history, some say 1 8 centuries, but very dark in the early parts (311), 1. There were as yet, it appears, no idols in China. 2. In the Old Ballad Book, the only book which Confucius l^equired his pupils to master, '' Heaven," Ti, and Shang-tl were used almost synonymously, and the other objects of worship, parts of na- ture, and souls of men, were spoken of generally Skupok-shan (hund- red spirits). 3. No emperor of China was as yet called Ti. If there ever was a quibble, the quoting of a satyrical Ode (II. vii. X.) against this is one, " This Shang-ti is very shan " refers to the empen^r, but neither Shang-ti nor shan is his title. So also a charming lady is compared both to Heaven and to Ti (I. iv. Ill) . We have all read what the Indian poet styled the Prince of Wales 4 Confucius could not give a credible account of the two dynasties preceding his own for want of documents. There must have been very few Books. 5. But, men then strove hard to make the Booh of History extend back even beyond these dynasties ; and Confucius himself, falling in with the popular craving for a grand origin, imagined he saw far back in antiquity two divine men, whose virtue corresponded to Heaven. 6. In the Confucian Analects, even these two are not spoken of as Ti; and, considering that Mencius, two centuries later, pro- nounced the Booh of History as he had it incredible in many parts,. we riiay suppose that what we have now is by no means the same that was approved by Confucius ; and thus we may acquit him of the charge of styling a human being Ti or Heiven. 7. Since the History of those 18 (jenturies, as we have it now, opens with two Ti, and there are no other beings, but Heaven and these two, counted worthy of such a title, we must conclude that these two were deified, if not by Confucius, then by the writer of the first two parts of the History, and by Mencius. 8. The authoritative publication of the first commandment in the form " Thou shalt have no other Ti besides me," would have had a powerful significance at that time, when the notion was growing up that the first sovereigns of the Empire were Ti. 9. Many sayings were in after ages imputed to Confucius which in all probability he never uttered. It was .said, for example, that he was well aware of the existence of '' five Ti" who reigned C3 in succession in ancient China ; and, further still, of " three August Ones " who reigned before the " five !^^." 10. In uncritical ages, mankind easily believed such inventions, But, strangest of all is the last discovery, that Confucius was well acquainted with a person of the name of P'an-Tcu,*^ who lived and reigned ages before the three and the five ; the fact being that, his- torically, P'an-ku was the invention of a dreamy Tauistf in his dotage, on the tojD of Lo-fau-shan in Kwang-tung, a good thousand miles away from the home of Confucius, and nearly a thousand years after he was dead. This belongs to modern ''Confucian Cosmogony.'^ KoTE B, Antiquity of Books. The Confucian Analects may be taken as the earliest and most authentic record of Confucius' sayings and doings. In that docu- ment we find the following evidence as to Books. 1. The Book of Poetry is quoted correctly (I. xv., viii., TIT. ii.. IX. xxvi., XII. X.) five times, portions of the Book are referred to and correctly described (XVII. x., III. xx., VIII. xv., XI v., XV x IX. xiv., XVII. xviii.) seven times, and the number of Odes' is given' roundly as 300 (II. ii.), nearly correct. Both Confucius and his disciples were quite familiar with this Book, so also was Mencius. They seem to have committed it to memory. 2. The Booh of History is quoted diiferently from the one we have now, and without point (II. xxi., XIV. xliii.), only twice. On the pnly other passage which might be taken for a quotation (XX. i.) Dr. Legge, who did not then think Yaou and Shun mythical but historical emperors (ti), says, " The first five paragraphs here are mostly compiled from different parts of the Book of History. But there are many variations of language. The compiler may have thought it sufficient if he gave the substance of the original in his quotations, without seeking to observe a verbal accuracy, or possibly, the Booh of History, as it was in his days may have contained the passages as he gives them, and the variations be owing to the burn- ing of most of the Classical books by the founder of the Ts'in d3'n- asty, and their recovery and restoration in a mutilated state. We do not find this address of Yaou to Shun in the Booh of History Pt. I., but the different sentences may be gathered from Pt. II. ii. .14, 15, where we have the charge of Shun to Yu. Yaou's reign commenced B.C. 2356, and after reigning 73 years, he resigned his administration to Shun. He died B.C. 2256, and two years after, Shun occupied the throne, in obedience to the will of the people." Reader, you are free to believe all the History of that ancient time if you can. 3. Defective Becords. " The Master said, I am able to describe the ceremonies of the Hea dynasty, but K'i cannot sufficiently attest my words, I am able to describe the ceremonies of the Yin dynasty, but Sung cannot sufficiently attest my words. They cannot do so because of the insufficiency of their records and wise men. If those were sufficient, I could adduce them in support of my words " (III. ix.). That is to say, as it was, no body would believe him ; and no wonder, when he had no documentary evidence to adduce. 4. The Yih is once mentioned (VII. xvi.). Whether Confucius was Superstitious enough to make the remark here attributed to him or not, which I very much doubt, it is evident to every one who examines the Book now called the Yih-hing, that it could not have 70 been iu existence in the time of Confucius. And what did exist even Confucius himself had not studied, and did not discourse about. 0. Bides of Propriety. " The Master's frequent themes of dis- course were, the Odes, the Mistory, and the maintenance of the BwZes of Propriety'' (VU. xvii.), ^Tiat these last were we can only gather from the Analects, because the three voluminous collections of Rules of Propriety are of a much later date than Confucius. Mencius quotes from a Booh of Bules, but not from any of those we have now. It is time for western scholars to give up repeating that the Chow-li, or Bites of Chow, is an authentic book. Even Chu-tsze, who was- fascinated by its really absurd ceremonial, and imagined it must have come down from Chow-kung, was obliged to confess that Mencius could not have seen it : — ^-J^ftyK M jS/fis ^^^*-^^^^'® Worlcs § xxxvii. 579 578 EXPLANATIONS OF LING. 577 576 575 58 574 ^ y^ *4 ft m is: m mm ^M ^ MB * K z ^M* tfii mm z. mm n "lb* ^ # z Z f % AX Z± # ^ g± flic, ifii ^ &. ^ :^ ^ ffij J^l^ ^ # J EXPLANATIONS OF LING. 573 572 571 570 5C9 668 m a ii^ =f ith 4 ^ m m Jg m m MM 'O 6^ s f^ *^ ♦.it is #.35 fi- M S -)i ^ nm^m.: 5C?^X#.. %ifliXtl.. xm ai^ m itb m M MiJ ^ # ?^ ^m^^A^mz i im ^%^mm i.^m^m^- -^ m m %^ ^i m f& m\M.-^ ' Z!^. It M Mki ttA. MS. mm 0^ ^ m itb ii m ji n ^f ^ M ■^ k if ft i^,m.m'> z M> ■ta. ^ M KM.s.ls.\ iifj nl i ;jf^ mm^m ^- ^ #■ ^ @ PI] ;Kn r^- 5t rfB^i i^, ® ^v :;f; m ^ B^it -m K W ^.5|?/t. ili* ^ s ^^ X >'v -til. M # 415 A ^-^ . i^ m.M ^ z. ^. M ^'^^mi^. # ffii -i ^ m m - ^;f B. pj tt =f- T> iii Sr":i\?|.SE ^ 'J^/l ^ 4#j|-(^^ # ».-lL-5g^X n. - - U it ta <& m ^ -.ff ?]■ ^ /f 1^ f.*l M.* f^ ^r^'.f^ 4^. ^'iSi^im m m PJ ^ EXPLANATIONS OF LING. 567 566 565 564 563 562 56 561 A XwL^f^ ^ *m^ Bfti Mj^ IiJ M ^ ^ m B m m mil m •a. m ■til. 4)c mi 55 GEKEKAIr EXPLANATIONS- SCO 559 558 557 OF SING. 556 55'S 554 m m m PI k ^ 1* ^ itt A ^ A s m Z^M^i m z m z # A z m r*ifc ^ A ii ro A m « » m u m ^$tfnzm M,mzfm ± Ag± A^^^it m m ^. 1 Am z^ % mz m ^w zn mm m GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN. 54 553 562 551 550 54S 6^8 647 546 545 544 543 542 541 m tii # m z Mi m «.^ m m z %i?.n,'^ m M M ^mmmmm mis: ^^ w! m m I* '^ fl mm ZM mm z^ !» to tf Jt -* ^ ^ ■^ ^ i!i % I 540 539 GENEEAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN., 538 537 o36 535 534 AM ^* IB xm .«n.^ 3 M •ifS ^ #. m II Ji ittm A ;W ;tt >vr^ # II* ^ ^1 n'u iSL zm ^^ in ^ ffi 5c * mxzx^^ ^ % & m im m fill % it IE Z ^ OENEEAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAti: 52 532 531 530 ^ * in itk zm A ^ II ^.B pT :fe *ii # nlE.Tn t?ff # >^ ± ;^ a ij iiji 1^ ^ ^ ^ I* = ^ IiJ ZM Z Jt J: ^ ill. M # i * ± I*, tftj K 1 #^ ^m.z T/CiiV mm m m m m Z fill A M. z m ul oz 29 GENEEAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN. 528 527 526 9% W 1i3 j^ ^ft- ^^ m m ± A % « *'I4 # ± K ^ § S ;2 :zr ;^ li|i ^ ^ mn km n n nL^ z m =. S f ^jf ffl ^ Jiif i m M'J # rfnK.i 'lift. ^ W»3?.^ A ^ n f^ m.B ^\>A^^%. ^ ;?> B ^ H ^.#K At ^ J^^.ll # W ^ 0>^ J- ^ n m B^ M>j juiv ii fe -^ si rfi) Ail ^ m ^ ^ ^ trn lit )iii}i.® z.m T M Mil ^ ic U w!tJ 7$ M =f J^ ^ , 7¥ ff^.M e B tuixm%^ ^z^^^.'^ 3£ >ii^ m % "$ ±»H.ffi) ^ '^ ^n f* ;r^ m i/ ^ ;^ pj rfn ^f' ■ji M € S? J,. iEir.ei.g ;&.itk It, 15 # g ;i:- K ffi iat |^m;i?^J1-' jg. ;S ^^ il-jS: w ;5: j'^M H ^. ii!!i :<{H ;^ =f± ^ WA^ffi A jM -& ^^ ^^ GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN. 525 524 523 522 521 50 m ^ p«^ ^ K X 0»^ mz p.^ 31 An .TO m •tfe. @ ^ ^ "^ S H ^.f»f IP w\ It z. m m n z. ^ ^.n z (in ^ZM ^ m MM. m tTn W It m -^ *^ ^ Mil*- WcM-ZM ffii P bI w, ^.e^ It ^' % n m. ffii ^ ffii # rffi B3 A e m m. 49 GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAX. 520 519 518 517 MM M'i A ^Z MM Am 4^ A Z^ HH> Ml mm PI. til. mz ^^jf ^^ zm mm mm MM mM MB. f\m ^Z ZM ft ffij i^ Z mm ^ ;^ ;S X II m. A m z Z mi m m z m ^1 r^\ ft iB It ^ It BM. f^ m m m m ^ ^ ^m y^ iPt.-&.)Pt.# ^tC <^ ^^ 1':^ It.^^-te.. :feMM A m It ^.§ ;S m It B z 9Lmm M»it.-& ^ It ^.it. Ri M 0> ^ ^ w GENEEAL EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN 5ia 515 nm K ^ \>x "^ \>^ % f^ m ii :t.v M (5i p gj s^.ifc m a m u t <; «'*' ^ # .# E .t tl ^ /14 ot 1^ ■\iL,Z - :fe Btl ^-.^ -nt !St $1 A 5^ m ^ M!j .a ^,^ T.t« 6^ M fi^ %% ^R B ^.t m m m ^ ffn >J .^/l^liil :^ w. t. ^ ^ *.* m^iM.M^ ^fi -^ m i&.m m.r^ ifn ^ ff X 5tK ^0 ^.§ ^ A tt 3!^ ^H BM ^'^i m, ^ ^z X * (t ta ti. P ^ -t ^ m * HI :i /Vf ft ^ t?r| It 4^ 43 5.H A. A.^ A^ mm. Bf it. ^% >r*k *r EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN 513 512 511 AS ss^ a Mm z m m ,. z Km^.n<. imMBm m m m p* xmmm tuZ ^ f-*# Al^ mm ;S w^. » \>xm ifi. ^M M ^. m m m i^ ^K ^ # # ;?ft ±. m m ;i^ T iH, 507 ^C^ EXPLANATIONS OF SHAN-Skd'ES. i 506 505 504: 503 502 fi A m z wn^..^'s^ z.m m^fmrn ^1 ^ M if ^ A ^. Hf A lii ^ ^ ^1 P«1 ^ ¥.3i ;'y^ Z, S iiiifi ii mi ¥ B M'j FbI ^ m =fe^ )fi(^ 1^ m m (£ f^ % ifii -f ffii jii$ # rp* ^H 'd^ ^ M M Z ^z.m n m 4'n n n m 45 EXPLANATIONS OF 5/Mi^— HEAVEN AND EARTH. 501 500 499 498 497 496 495 s itl: ^ ^ m iJ-«± ^ im A m g A ifij 7» >'J^ ftM H £ If. ^J'r -^ M {!i! m mw.mB'Mmx^m'^7 -^itmstiE "^ Z^lBi&^W ^i .1 *" ^ !ft # t A JFilll ? ^ zmt^m ■z: ^ m m fi* J^.Hi! # ^' )A * s* -sxiia % Aitim m m. t i"! M * z ^ 1® 3C B :^ l^ll> m ^ ffil r\ m m ^ ± ^^ m m It' T M>J A n u ^» m i 0. fiXrLANATIONii OF SHAN— GOD'S SPIRIT. 493 492(1 492 491 490 44- 489« ^1 m ^ w mm .^ 4^ ■tfe> ■a ^n m f* P^ ^ :^^ ^ 3± ffi] ir It Ji* il ^ ^ ^ ^' X It li ^ g li ffil ^ la J a sS; ip Ih & /S # -a ^. ^ ^ ?^ It. a ^^ ffi tl # # II a * # ^ s 43 EXPLANATIONS OF Tl. 4S0 4SS 487 486 485 484 ^M ) m li^mz ^ ^ Xmi^ m ^M m ^ • -^ ^^ mmu r^ %^. m ^ -^ #»^ mmxzw^m ■:mm fi* % m m ^ mz m M m. i^.-^m 4»m^f- mm tii.% m '.iiy^ ^^ "0 \%, M 11$ m ^ ^/ m^^M^ S ^ & m m^M^ m ^ 7C ^ jll^^ic n M ■a. ^ ^.^m.m m. m X. - itii/pr eis H±. 5^ m ^ ^ m. ■f-. :^ iC rfff m -li.fe^P '$-' z-^ rfij ^ ^# ^ rfij Z^ rfii tB, ^ 433 EXPLANATIONS OF TI. 482 481 430 it mm. mm Tnr. -|- m - ^.+ St ;^L SHI ^:fr4 ^b 0^ 7K it lit A z 'I* w m m ¥. ^ ^ ^. iftx iti:® iW '.Yr » 5ij tt z n m ^ ^ :::>' #^ mz, ■ffi-J'J M ij. ii A d-Z. A3t II -Si 479 EXPLANATIONS OF TI. 478 477 476 % M m Z a: Z. m m iS^ ^ ^ III ^m,x m A.m ^ # li m ± w T^ ±it.zmm. "v ml ^i J mz± ^.±^. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S if P# #. S iri) 1^ ^ ^ #li MMIt-S ^^. ^^;^.^)1 0J5 SJA « ^.jS^ a^ S^^Mt-& M 59 ^ ffii S ^ W. 1^»^^^ It i^J:/^ # ¥. B# Ifc^Q H ^ tt.ffii ¥.^ M% si&g^ m a :S.^ ^■ i# mm.mt^ 59 fe ii )5jf ¥. ^.:fb»^S <^ ^^^.ffiift ;*: A-T^± ^ i^ M bI 5g >«:. S - H :^» @ i^.lfcft pj # ^ Mli>^ % il ± ® li w> ^^^m. s ±m.n% ' ^.ft PS m i )^ft;S X S.itb il.t- «.ia ^ *>' ^B -g fi ;!K ;S :i^ i^.ft B s -F tl m ^ A A ft mM ^mm # # ^ T M ^ m ^. t#.yi lit: ^ #, for ts 0. IE ;^ 2r -fib it M S.31 ^ jfei: K rJt tM ft Jt -f- ^ z zm w m M K A ft^ 3ffl J: *n ® ^#. mm ZM A flii# ^ ^.0!fkfiiiinim$B m ft it m ffi M.^ m I*. $B 7y 319 473 472 t%mo EXPLANATIONS OF T/. 471 470 Mil W± EI >^\ X 469 mi ^ z mm Al\ in ^\ 4C8 m m EXPLANATIONS OF TI. 467 266 465 464 463 % ^ ± - in 5c> ^ (li a, ^ li -for m ^n A Z S<» •IE m>e i^ II -^m.z^ z m 1^ A M A ^ m mi n^k it lis. ;g. 37 EVII- SPIRITS AND POSSESSION. 462 461 460 459 458 457 456 45.'; ^%\ &. ^ B B Tic ^ M fi IE m m m ^m^jfM m m - ss i?»^ ^ ^ iii ^.^ # n §±.7^ ^ m ^ A.w 1$ X i# M li* Si r^ w$.r- ^ ;f: ^ |# $n ^ ,i ^.^.>i I'J 11 fiii ^n f ^ -4^ ^. n~ M MM fs»^ ^^ mmMW B.'M -tfe jn?* f4-^mB,mMM A w$ ^,Z ^ ill. A it'll ^ EVIL SPIRITS. 36 454 453 442 451 450 449 448 447 446 445 444 3TC m w I X fpmxm mm m^mm mm m^h -^ ' ^1 mm M,i^ ij w? ^ ® If ^ ^iS i:{: ^E.^ll ^ - ^1 B m iitmrn I^.^ # ;^ ffii ^E jl f* :^ J|J m m ^M m ^m mm, jp- ■W. BO its' '^ If ^ f Hi te i=- ^ IE pf tariff l>siA ^.. m z if ± HS It 4^A ffii ro ^ jE>^ rSJ rffi ffi) ^ IE ^® ifii MI sa us m m f- m rflj ^ '/i. m' JEtt Mi M 1^ p^i BEINGS SERVED IN CHINA. 34 431 430 429 428 427 426 425 42 i 423 422 421 420 r# mm±WM m m m ^ 419 xxf^mii m m m IE ^1 mm XX f^ W w$ ^> f^ ^ It f^ It ±^ M Hi ^ ^ :^ * mi ^1 rfii m T ?L 0» T :tt ^ S3 GODS, SPIKITS, OE IN\T;S] [BLE 418 417 416 415 414 413 412 411 410 409 408 407 ± mm mm m mm Ml* # I* ^ m It li. m m mM II ^ A 1 ^ #flS It f^?ffi Ift « ^ M t'i 'S izg m. m w E m m^^M •^ It fi,^Jft.^7c.# ¥ ifil ^B ^ jK S m * P - @ *J ^^ -^ ^ * ^ # Ml i& S W f If, ;w ^. If A 15- H m -re i # M tj? -a BEINGS SERVED IN CHINA. 32 406 405 404 403 402 401 400 399 398 397 396 395 394 393 392 ^^W W^ f*M ^® -^ m ^ rf MM mmMxn mm 4V ^ ^ ^ m IE rtti ^q ^^^^ ^ as mz sit f « If ^ ^ # 'it ^ Jii 1 ± ^9 a '^ I* ffij ^ f * ^ J^iil /H* ^ ^ ^ IE M 1^ ^ 3i m aw villi.' ?1 5 « •f- 4- "oTk - Uj M. 3E Z m Z GODS, SPIRITS, OR IN^T:SIBLE 801 390 3P9 3S8 387 ^ ^ t^ f M M$ ^ m ^ 380 ± u^m ^ e 385 II 384 + X *y^ ^ t« m m z ^t< ** Kf ^ ' z j^ PRO <— SIS A IS. 5^ m. # ± ± m ±ili± "A: W BEINGS SERVED IN CHINA. 30 383 382 381 380 y^ — . ±± 379 A ± 1^ ;iia 4' + Hl# ^;f f5 'fi!* 1 is m m ± 1^ m ± A 2r» IE iTii 5^- ±>A T-xm a - ^ Bf ja It 0^ ^.^ w A±. 0H Df ^ f Ql^fi^ 'M xiv «3t ^lE 4n liH ;^ ^ izg /^ i& ;^ m z MB '^G GODS SriRITS, OE INVISIBLE BEINGS SERVED " ' IN CHINA. ; . 374 373 372 371 370 369 368 367 366 365 364 363 362 ± mmm^m. IE MS ^1- /f>L :^£ nt 5^^ ;^•i* iB: 1^ Ba,i/J ^ (gj ta fi „-... i&l^ ffi'S" sf ^ S ^ ^ mum M... M ik m i±. ^u # ± IS Ji ;^ ^1 'fit* -5^ Mrta 23^ ;^ „ f^ s ;S ^ ^ ft' S 7^ ^ -(BT Wii rfii i^ 3Lmm mz zm> A 5^ Zi^. *^ J: ±' ± 5K. Z INTELLIGENT OE SI'IRITUxVL THINGS. 28 :M'A 300 Soi) ± m lit- m mm m 'H' i/B ^ .1$ JPtp i* 'S IE z n n m o"! o-o orO o^l '^'.'rn oOi O'jo :m a ig = B iS # ^ * W M.H ± ^.>^ fil| lis Z ib Jl ?I5» :^ f iU Ik ;^c # m H ^ ^ :^^. # ffi] PG 4-A- m rrx -A iitH 11, IE fiea ^ -. s ^^ ^ A Z :27 INTELLIGENT OR SPIRITUAL THINGS. U9 318 317 346 345 344 343 342 s n g It ^L 111 /3F£» i=j|H* *^f^ i=fi* l7^ ^^^ IIH^ ig ^ 11. ^ ^ id! A ^^m^ M 9 25 1?^ S :i: m>:^ fS ^ fi ;'L ^/.tlh.^ Hi ISM ^ ^ ^ ^c ».H! J± i^.^ mmm % Ift A WlM ffi ^ -Hi ^ # ^ M.:iv 4. ^ € til! ^ m . li S t/p.itji n # fi ± mM •zr ^ ^pI i£ S. *.S i^i -^ W ^.IC 4 M i^ >i ^ K. it!!, ill! Kit 5^ INTELLIGENT OR SPIRITUAL MEN. 2C 311 340 339 338 337 33B 335 334 333 332 331 *m^ n$ f- ^;l!^ n MrmmmMm ^ 7c w M m II iS ^-» Bt ^9 IE ^ 1 ^'-^ M -"-=Jc J :«S. f^ p* ^ ^^ fit) M /§ ^ ST as lit ffc-^^ 3lt 64. '^ m. .'if # fi ^ >b tt Hi # m ± ± ^ )3/f m. 0. it * itE i * ^^ IB S ^ lei ji/f ftyf ^M * II * m T#Pim if j3e ^1 1 ^ IS 1-^ tfi.^B ?i If M ^ ^ INTELLIGENT OR SPIPiITUAL MEN 330 329 328 327 32G 325 324 323 322 321 320 W iji* jpI >f$ w\ # m ± n s m m A ^ mm m 1^^ 21^ gg •m ^ j^ -/^i m ^s 1$ :t^ # ^ a ^h ^-.^ A S //^ ^ m p^ ^^.-^ M • :^ A m\ It m m w m 11 Bf ^ 5^ ^^ CIS. * :^ fr^ to' ;S pan 1 1^ -t&. ^ S. Sim Mm M 15" MM. PPH. ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OE LIFE OF ANY PERSON 24 OR THING. JilS 317 316 315 314 213 312 311 310 309 308 307 306 >!^m m w m it !»: M ^ IE St ii Ml II^ # 'fp si -i iCi' ill ^ ^^ ;A: It Ifc ^M IB fij m " #^> ^6 2l!: itii 1 $ ^ |if # ti ^;i _ _ m M m m ^m ^j.^^m^z'^M pT M ^ It -iw :^ A ?^.^ 1^ G J^ 1i ^ ■W ii*.M. B+ ^ « ».?P # ,i.;f: tll} '^iiiv m ifn 4* m it I'M jjiiji MM 23 ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OK LIFE 305 304 303 302 301 300 299 298 297 296 295 294 293 m MA A% vim. S* ^ 292 4B g i^Diii t± v^ ^ % » ii m fnl 1+ ^ ^ ft* ^ *fc 7n A i=f=» -iu//: >fcA* -.- ^1/. -±f -i^A. S5 ■» ^ :S "^ w ^ ^ R| i^ ^ ^ i^ ^ m -^ S ^n W t ;S -^ itf ^ M i>il jS .« Y* ^x- 4. ^ .V, iS* p.'^.ff ^^ ^li s^ g 111 n n %% -ife s I* A A ^ Pi, #> Jf f$ S #f It 1^ 1$ ^» Oifi. .>s; >a. .g. }S . S ^ it ^."t «! .a ^ ^ ^ ^ a. A 51 z OF ANY PERSON OR THING. 22 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 281 283 282 281 nil m ik M$ M M M am K mm ± m % f^m.\ fi§ # bIJ^ w ffl :^ ^ ffi) Jl i^. -'J^ S ± PI *i^ I* « t if ^ :? Uj mw^mu ik m M.B z m ^M zmm ¥ i$M m ^ I* ^.z # pT 1$ # ^ M>pr ^ m. ffil 70 1^ Hit IE ± m a * ^ *c # ^ ^ m^ II 11 M 1 ft ^^ »r 1^ m SHfc 21 GENIUS, ■\^^SDOM, :.>so -179 278 277 27B 275 274 270 B m 1* z M 00tL 23?^ 272 271 270 mt> 269 2GS *=P» ^=tf* /?fH» pan DtiDi Pen ^r^ ;y;f>v 23S X 11 m M M® ^ #16 ^' )Ti4 p^i *S ISM :^ A3E M ZM ^ ^ z A IE "s^ tig" ^ -^ =. 3E(zg 1:1 #^¥ sea Jn fiea 3E m. m FOWERS OF SPIEIT OR M 20 2 67 266 265 264 263 263 261 260 259 258 i'- >=!=* >=fH* /=7=* yiUL m m MSi m 54. tI3 Xl# p# p ^ ft It ?i ^*D mm *>^ as Ma H ii ^ 5 K f$ # IS M is m m m # ^f .at} ®.w V A ^ -a. M A Z m ffmz ^ M ^ Z m M mm mm uz z m fi^ 10 GENIUS, WISDOM, POWEKS OF SPIRIT OR MIND. 2r,3 2d2 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 m .^. m ft ^ * * tC yu f?n mm^mmm m m 244 243 242 241 mm m m- mm lb « m % i± % m. m 1* % AA ^. l(jJ It I'. JSHi A A ■tfc. :r^ ■ESr 31- II an W ^ SI? UtJtt 5IIP fHilS'* 19 m m Ml SPIRITS OE SOULS OF THE DEAD. 24:0 Z JiiiH 239 238 237 236 205 234 I* M M ^ 18 233 232 m\ mm K (SI 'M\& m m « 'iw ^*t ^1 (^ Ift i? m ;? 5& ^m^ fi^.M S ^ rfij ^^ ^.a.W m\ i^ ^ i\:i^ it ^ ^ ^ s-ji A.#m s, m iw. rfii Tfc n^ 1m Z z. SFIEITS OE SOULS OF THE DEAD. 2^51 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 1$ ^ .ff- lip ^W Mm)& m 3e ^ii ^iff mc' la ■db KZ. ^ nn Mi. ifc^ le m mz ± m ^.t: 5c p^ i^ ^ mzmMmm MM m. m. MM IB m m SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVING. 16 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 m m m M o m m ^ itt: ^ fe im * im ^ mm ^ it M ^» ^^ »^ It Mil WMnx'^ ^# i#Bi ^ TO *. ^ f$ *7S Mm rfij Ht> ^ §1: Wini ^^* ^ KH «& iUii lEl ^ ^ ^ f^ ^ 7^ Bi s m ^h T- « -t^ MM m ^ Ef k>^> ^- III. •ta. ^ 15 SPIRITS OR SOUT.S OF THE LIVING. 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 m o S ^ m m -"■*"" ^ ^ m Kx^ Ha. m m M 5! t' it SB .-tt z ^ M m Hh * w$ t^ m ?fii ^v -^^ m ^ m '^' zitpm %$ m m IE * SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVING. 192 14 19S197 196 195 154 a:^ M 153 191 190 169 f* A mm^Mm "^ -r- m ^1 um # M ^ 1* m X mmm w s A m ±-b^ m z ^■^M # %^m m n fa ^ IS. ^ Wut^ id^ fill, -r f ^ 0Jii! iS> K *^ W jit yc if. fit Mm nz mm ®# I z\ m 'IS MA 13 SPIRITS OB SOULS OF THE LIVING. 183 1S7 18G 185 18i 183 182 181 180179 178 177 176175 If m Mi jpi» ^ ^* n ^n ^ i^m^ mmm n ^± # ^S5 mm mm ifli= s 'ffl^ n ^ i# i# ^ ;ii!ji ili ft si ^ If ^& #: n m m u mmnm m ^ n 3E mm ■dl )i ?|5 jjif + ^# # i^ i# if ;p -^ s E ^* A :m ^ m ii tf iw •/P. If. SPIKITS OE SOULS OP THE LIVING. 12 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 'It M n^ Mi ipijj M ^li* 11^ n$ n^ 1$ Mmm m fii ma^ M m ^ nm^ mm m ^^ « # M t>s n n m nf. n -^ 4 f 1 vi nil II ffn -fer M ^ g J jB it.vi li ^E m m m ^. rrn 110 II 1^ # pT § 5c ^ jiil M m m m 3E tt: |# S li T w^nm^mm t^t # "sr ^€ m 1i 3t l!|J /^> a «^ m sin /idt; p^^ ^i^ 11 SPIEIT3 OR SOULS OF THE LIVING. 160 159 loS 157 15G 155 154 ]63 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 EM # # ;1* 11 M m W '^ mM m mm^ fi] w # l# §1 m mm m a] S Jjtt ^li^ll at. i' ->& 1^ l!^. jili i -^ m /If # ¥ iSl :^ # I* ^ 5 ^ iti] IE l^m E B^ & *I ^ i* ® \i\mm M •* )li$ ^ JL « ^ 3i ;45: 5i # ffii i).*^ j>.^ 1$ ^ m^^ ^ II » iiiii' S )ili}i g di 5?/ ^ E If|«» spiErrs OE SOULS of the living. 10 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 m m Ji tt -fill ^l+il i* tSliTi^^ilBf mm. m^ ft mmm %ii?m^m 'i^t± mm a il W # ^ fi ^# m. iu IE z T ,iii$ ^ M'J if ■tfc. A iH S' A m 9 SPIKITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVING. 130129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120119 118 117 116 m s* jpi WP mmmM mmm $ft ^ ■tli Ji pT T> ^ zmmm ^ mmmm it. ^;f rffi MM ■di B'J -f§ effi M ^ j5^ >#. iift ^ :^ /^^ ]p^ pfP ^^ /H IS ^ 1 f I? Jliifi w 'If m IB* A Z ± SPIRITS OE SOULS OF THE LIVINa. 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102.101 MB^^ mm m^ m m m m ^ ts W;7 p5^ w # m n mm mB m m m n # # Mm%$m m m ^ iK m m m ^c^ rfs wi m m ¥ ^ jvi^ m M * mMz^:^^m mM m ^> A z mm aE m SriMTS OE SOULS OF THE LIVING. 100 00 OS 07 0(5 0-' 04 03 02 01 00 80 88 87 SC, i# m m m m m W W W '^/ m M. BS '^i^ i5?i» # m lu Ms |i^ M ^ 'pT # ^ ^ m f# TBI ^ ^ ffl ii® ^ m m ® %^ Ht ^» ^^m §141 CI E fip f ^ M. liil lit if t^ i^ m B m ^. m ^ic 1 llB) m z H ffij ft Z it. SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVINa. S5 8i 83 82 81 SO 79 78 77 70 75 74 73 72 mm^^^ Wi M n m ?s ?ii m ill ^ M w '^ s ^if Hi ft -|g| I f^ ^ ± Sir PO xTC *^^ ^rh "^ z^-* « IL §E I*. ^ ^ s PS 1.1 m m. fe li ^ 1N->iii mm. W il m ^mmm'^w ^^^ #1 rfii>> J^ It iL m M SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVINa. 57 56 55 54 53 53 51 50 49 48 47 40 45 44 43 # ^ ,#. ' iiiiji 11 f I m ^ m # M $t ® ;Tii M. W: (I* Jjtif ?t P# Pt M >^§i^iJX;J*¥l1^if 7? IS ^ # fig l3£ ^ ;li$ tfli ^ f fir 11 is V'^ ^- m MB If 5 It* w Mi #^ ^7C ifii «K ^ It® n m ± ft. T ig. w. SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THB LIVING, 42 41 40 39 im i|.* ^ ;W 37 36 ,'!5 34 33 32 31 30 2!) Hi* » # 1i « M T? nil W M ^"^W tt m » I* m If i# ^ It m '^ "*■ II « mm le i# # ^ i# |i i# ^ ^ # 51) A iiip ^ ^ JS i« -tH P^ W M I? i* ft i: 1^ :i: # S S J* k * ^ m M ^ « m. i^?P ^ SPIRITS OR SOULS OF THE LIVING. 28 27 2G 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 1ft 17 16 15 14 tl H^ ^f A ft ^ ^ 'It ^ ;ii I* m ^ # 4^ 1^^ + WI^^ jiiiti s ^ ^ # ^ ^ t: I* ^ © ^ * ft m rfei> 1 SPIRITS OE SOULS Or THE LlVINa. 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 p^ p3^ p3F p5^ p ^ .s- *«= g p»j ^> W rti f i ft^ 'It m ii5 M %$ v@ M mm i^ir^j ; m mm mMnm "m ^ m\M&m ftU rfii 14^ US fi rS )^;f fi m^mM. •W :# '?^ ii ^ ^ m ifc^ 4|J B -g-iij SI s* (It IE Mm m ^^ o itk -r ifi Si * V 1/ A 000 117 594 2 •^^