3IS 
 C6M3 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND 
 
 MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID 
 
\" 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE RIGHT HONOUEABLE 
 
 THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY ; 
 
 ON THE 
 
 PANTHEISTIC AND ON THE BUDDHISTIC TENDENCY OF THE 
 
 CHINESE AND OF THE MONGOLIAN VERSIONS OF 
 
 THE BIBLE PUBLISHED BY THAT SOCIETY. 
 
 By THE Rev. S. C. ^LAN, M.A., 
 
 OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND VICAK OF BROADWINDSOR, DORSET. 
 
 tuhu : 
 
 BELL AND DALDY, FLEET STREET. 
 
 1856. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 WALTON AND MITCHELL, PRINTERS, 
 
 WARDOUR ST., OXFORD ST. 
 
^S5 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I TAKE the liberty of addressing you — the Presi- 
 dent OF THE British and Foreign Bible Society, on 
 a subject of importance connected with that Society, and 
 relating to China. I wish to draw your Lordship's at- 
 tention to a matter of far greater moment than bales of 
 silk, or chests of the fragrant leaf from the Bo-hea hills ; 
 though it be about the Middle-Kingdom. I come to 
 plead the cause of the Chinese Version or the Bible. 
 About two years ago, I happened to visit the Depo- 
 sitory of the Bible Society, for the purpose of making 
 extracts from a manuscript, most kindly placed at my 
 disposal by the Committee of the Society. During a 
 conversation with one of the Secretaries, I then heard 
 for the first time of the long and weary ^^\\t that had 
 lasted for years among Missionaries in China, and among 
 their friends at home, as to which of the two terms Shin 
 or Shang-Te, should be used as a rendering for God, 
 in the translation of the Chinese Scriptures. I heard also 
 at the same time, that no member of the Committee of 
 
 n A 2 
 
the Bible Society was able to decide the point ; and that 
 therefore, the Society was driven to refer it to Mission- 
 aries in China ; some of whom advocated one term, while 
 others strongly urged the claims of the other. So that, 
 in fact, the Bible Society was either divided on the sub- 
 ject, or, perhaps, indifferent as to the result. 
 
 I had no opportunity of hearing more about it, until 
 some months after \ when an anonymous pamphlet, pub- 
 lished in this country, and called ^'SJtin v. Bhang -Te ; or. 
 Antagonistic Versions of the Chinese Scriptures" etc., fell 
 into my hands. This pamphlet, which professes to give 
 an impartial review of the controversy, is written by a 
 member of the Bible Society of thirty years' standing, 
 who urges that Body in the strongest and most partial 
 terms, to decide in favour of the word of his own 
 choice. Shin, as a rendering for God. But, although 
 the writer admits that he is " the only person in England 
 capable of giving a determined exhibition of an opinion 
 on the subject," his arguments appeared to me so faulty, 
 and the way of putting them so weak, that I felt great 
 regret so important a question as the one discussed, 
 should be left in such hands and be treated in such a 
 manner. And I thought, that, if it were possible to 
 make the question rest — not on mere opinion — but on 
 the only foundation on which it ought to rest, namely, 
 on matter of fact, it would both contribute materially to 
 the spread of true Christianity in China, and also do 
 service indirectly to the cause of the Bible Society ; by 
 settling the only course to be followed on sound prin- 
 ciples, in reference to this important question. 
 
I then began to study the matter as deeply as 
 the Chinese authorities I had at hand would allow. 
 These, however soon demonstrated — for their evidence 
 can be called by no other term — on what side the truth 
 lies. And I was not long in coming at the deliberate 
 conclusion, to which I adhere, that, to hesitate in the 
 choice of the proper term for God in Chinese, can pro- 
 ceed from no other source whatsoever, than from either 
 ignorance or prejudice ; two very common accidents, I 
 regret to say, among those who are intrusted with the 
 spreading of Christ's kingdom among the heathen. 
 
 But, since the Chinese term for ' God ' is intended to 
 render the Hebrew and the Greek originals, I also inves- 
 tigated, as a matter of course, the etymology and the real 
 nature of the Hebrew and Greek terms for God, used in 
 the Bible. And I thus brought together in the small 
 volume, " Who is God in CJiina, Shin or Shang-Te .^" etc., 
 irrefragable proofs of the meaning of the originals, and 
 of corresponding terms in Chinese ; each severally, and 
 the whole collectively borne out by a great number of 
 examples, purposely quoted in order to assist Missionaries 
 in their studies, which they mostly follow at a distance 
 from books of reference ; as well as in order to shew, 
 that this question is not one of mere opinion ; but that 
 one side of it only can be right ; I mean that which 
 rests on facts. My work is, of course, not free from 
 defects ; but they are accidents in it only. For, as to 
 the matter of the work — as to the ground upon which I 
 stand, and as to the facts I bring forward to shew, that 
 Shang-Te is the only Chinese equivalent for ' God,' and 
 
6 
 
 that Shin, is only ' spirit/ Salfioyv, and practically Deity, 
 I challenge refutation. And moreover, I add fearlessly, 
 that to deny those facts, argues on the part of him who 
 does it, as I said before, either ignorance, or it may be, 
 prejudice. For scholarship is not a matter of opinion ; 
 it rests on proofs, that are incontrovertible. This asser- 
 tion, I am well aware, might appear arrogant and con- 
 ceited under other circumstances; but in a matter of 
 such importance, it is necessary to take a decided stand. 
 And in so doing, I am borne out not only by my own 
 intimate conviction of the merits of the case ; by the 
 repeated thanks I have received for my work from some 
 of the oldest and ablest missionaries, all strangers to me ; 
 but also by the concurring witness of all competent judges 
 in China and in England. 
 
 Having thus succeeded in establishing on a more 
 solid ground than had, in some respects, been done be- 
 fore, the fact, that one term only, out of the two pro- 
 posed, is a correct rendering of the word ' God,' as it is 
 used in Scripture, I naturally informed the Bible Society, 
 that I would gladly supply at cost price copies of my 
 work, for gratuitous distribution among their Agents and 
 Missionaries in China. 
 
 In answer to my application, I received, to my great 
 astonishment, the following letter from the Rev. W. 
 Meller, Foreign Editor of the Bible Society, dated Wood- 
 bridge Rectory, April 26, 1856, — 
 
 " Dear Sir, 
 
 " I have to inform you that the Committee did 
 
not feel that they should be justified in purchasing any 
 copies of your publication, as this can hardly be re- 
 garded as a defence of any principle adopted by the 
 Bible Society. In the difficult controversy which has 
 for sometime engaged the Missionaries in China, the 
 Committee of the Bible Society have forborne to pro- 
 nounce any decision as to the merits of one view or the 
 other, considering that they must be far less competent 
 to form a judgment, than Missionaries resident in the 
 country ; and they have therefore aimed at holding the 
 neutral ground, of being ready to aid the publication of 
 the Word of God, with either one term or the other, as 
 any adequate number of English Missionaries might 
 apply for such aid, supported by the societies with which 
 they are connected." 
 
 It is to this laxity of principle in a matter of this 
 kind. My Lord, that I wish, in particular, to draw your 
 attention. But in order that you may be able to appre- 
 ciate fully the extent of its bearing, and of the conse- 
 quences involved in this want of decision on the part of 
 the Bible Society, I must briefly tell you the state of 
 the case, fully made out in detail in the work above 
 alluded to. 
 
 The Chinese hold that there are in Nature, two prin- 
 ciples, male and female, positive and negative, weak and 
 strong, high and low, superior and inferior — which they 
 term the Yang and the Yin. The combination of those 
 two principles constitutes Nature ; which is vivified by 
 male emanations of the Yang, said to reside in the sun, 
 
8 
 
 which is called for that reason, Tae-Yang " the Great 
 Yang ;" and by female influences, of the Yin, said to 
 dwell in the moon, which for that reason also is called 
 Tae-Yin or "the Great Yin." And the emanation of 
 both those principles chiefly from the two great lumi- 
 naries respectively, is called Shin, that is. Spirit. 
 
 This Shin, or Spirit, of both those principles in ge- 
 neral, but of the Yang in particular, is said to pervade 
 the universe, and to give entity to the various objects of 
 creation ; in all of which it dwells. This, however, does 
 not happen at random ; for this Shin is expressly sent 
 down from heaven by Shang-Te, the Supreme Ruler, 
 who is heaven personifled ; and who, like " Heaven" and 
 " the Most High " in Daniel and elsewhere in Scripture, 
 is One and alone, Pather, Lord, Supreme, good, just, and 
 all-powerful ; a judge and a rewarder of men, both high 
 and low. 
 
 Shin, then, which, from its nature is a collective 
 noun, corresponds obviously to aninia mundi of the Latin 
 philosophers ; to '^vyj) tov Koaf^ov, BaLfjLcov of the Greeks ; 
 and practically, to a vague, indefinite Deity. It is also 
 said of the spirit of man and of beasts, whether good or 
 bad ; and it is also liable to lose its energy. 
 
 Since, however, Shin pervades all objects in nature, 
 the Chinese have singled out a good number of them, 
 as objects of worship, for the sake of the Shin, or Spirit, 
 which is supposed to inhabit them. And each of those 
 objects, is thus called a Shin — practically, and familiarly, 
 ' a god.' They constitute the Pe-SJdn (hundred) ' mul- 
 titude of Shins ' of Chinese polytheism. 
 
9 
 
 Some Shins, however, are worshipped, not under a 
 visible form ; as for instance, the Shins of the four quar- 
 ters, &c., and their worship takes place last of all ; for 
 some of them are not even held to be gods at all. But 
 the worship of Shang-Te occupies always the first and 
 most solemn position in the ritual observances of the 
 Chinese nation ; and none but the Emperor, who is 
 Shang-Te's eldest son, has a right to offer a sacrifice to 
 him. 
 
 Some of the Protestant Missionaries seeing on the 
 one hand, Shang-Te, one, alone and supreme, ignorantly 
 identified him with Jupiter ; and would none of him on 
 that account. And, on the other hand, seeing the 
 Chinese worship their many Shins or ' gods,' said at 
 once : we will translate God by Shin, which means 
 'gods'; thereby falling, evidently, into a grievous error 
 of judgment and of doctrine. Lest I should be sup- 
 posed, unwittingly to mistake or to misrepresent them, 
 I will quote the words of the American Bishop Boone 
 on the subject :* " This is not a question which demands 
 much depth of learning. Plain common sense is all that 
 is needed. If it be admitted that the Chinese have many 
 gods — and Dr. Medhurst himself has said, ' That it is 
 more easy to find a god than a man in China ' — then it 
 cannot require a greater amount of learning to ascertain 
 by what name they call them, than to ascertain by what 
 name they designate the genus man." 
 
 This reasoning, however, shews, in fact, little ' com- 
 mon sense'; for it refutes itself. It argues that because 
 
 * Shift V. Bliamj-Te. — p. 5. 
 
10 
 
 ' a man/ and ' men,' leave correctly on the mind the 
 generic idea of ' man/ therefore ' a god ' and ' gods/ 
 works of men's hands, or at least, ' idols,' give the 
 generic idea ' God,' with w^hich however they have, in 
 fact, naught in common ; since God is alone of His kind ; 
 and they are not. The generic idea of ' a god ' and 
 ' gods' is, obviously, ' a thing worshipped,' whatever it be, 
 good or bad ; call it ' a divinity'; and if Bishop Boone's 
 idea of God be that, then his reasoning is correct. But 
 we may well wonder and grieve at such a sentiment on 
 the part of one who has the charge of souls ; especially 
 when this reasoning, which is carried on against the 
 idiom of the Chinese language as well as against true 
 doctrine, is made the ground of strong and bitter party 
 spirit among the Christians in China. 
 
 Other Missionaries of better understanding, who be- 
 lieve in the Personal God of Scripture, and who thus 
 distinguish between Him, His Spirit, and His other 
 personal attributes, and who do not think that because 
 God is Spirit, therefore Spirit is God — adopt as equiva- 
 lent for the Scriptural God, the one Personal God of the 
 Chinese, Shang-Te. Of these are all the best Chinese 
 scholars, such as Dr. Medhurst, of Shanghae ; Dr. Legge, 
 of Hong-Kong ; Mr. Milne ; and, as Dr. Medhurst writes 
 to me, " all the English and German Missionaries, who 
 nearly are at one on this subject. The Americans, and 
 not all of them, still hold out for Shin as the generic for 
 God." And with them, this question of Shin for God, 
 appears to be, as a friend of mine in Her Majesty's service, 
 lately come from China, tells me, — more like the watch- 
 
11 
 
 word of a party, kept up with bitter animosity, than as 
 the result of an indwelUng conviction on tlie part of 
 those who hold it. 
 
 The question then resolves itself into this: Those among 
 the Protestant Missionaries who believe in One Personal 
 God, adopt very properly for Him, Shang-Te ; and 
 they also use idiomatically Shin, for His Spirit. While 
 those who do not appear to believe in a Personal God, 
 but only in a Deity, and that too of a collective kind, 
 adopt Shin, Spirit, for God ; and in so doing, they not 
 only perpetuate among the Chinese both Polytheism and 
 Pantheism ; but as a matter of course, they render their 
 translations of Holy Scripture, unintelligible to the 
 Chinese. As for instance, when they tell them of SJdn- 
 tche Siting' Shin, 'the tloly Spirit of Spirit,' varied 
 occasionally with " Shin4che SUng-Fungy the holy- 
 wind of Spirit, and other like incomprehensible or 
 contradictory terms, for " the Holy Spirit of God ;" and 
 for other personal attributes when predicated of ' a Spirit' 
 only, and not, as they are in the Bible, of a Personal 
 God. 
 
 I will only bring forward one out of many testimonies 
 to the real acceptation of Shin, from a very great scholar, 
 Mr. A. Remusat, who, long before this controversy as- 
 sumed its present importance, wrote in a note to his 
 edition of the Chung-yimg of Confucius, ch. xvi. 3 : *' Rien 
 de plus obscur que ce qui est dit des Kioei-SJiiu dans 
 les livres Chinois." " On pourrait cependant conclure 
 du passage qui nous occupe que le sentiment de Confucius 
 sur ces esprits (Shin), se rapprochait beaucoup du Spi- 
 
12 
 
 nosisme et des idees exprimees dans le faraeux passage 
 de Seneque, si souvent cite." Qucest. Nat., ii., ch. xlv. 
 " Eundem quern nos Jovem intelligunt (altissimi homines) 
 custodem rectoremque universi animum ac spiritum, mun- 
 dani hujus operis dominum et artificem, cui nomen omne 
 convenit. Vis ilium fatum vocare? non errabis. — Vis 
 ilium providentiam dicere ? recte dices. Vis ilium natu- 
 ram vocare ? non peccabis. — Vis ilium vocare mundum ? 
 non falleris," etc. 
 
 But that is not the God of the Bible. And if it be 
 asked how such a term as Shin could ever be thought a 
 fit substitute for God, it must have originated in igno- 
 rance of the language, and it must be kept up by pre- 
 judice. For of the American missionaries who are now 
 almost the only left in favour of Shin, Dr. Medhurst 
 writes to me : '' In argument, I think them fairly beaten ; 
 but the obstinacy of the human mind will not allow men 
 to give up a long-cherished opinion, so long as there is 
 the shadow of a reason to hold on by. The English 
 Bible and Missionary Societies have coincided with us in 
 opinion, and the recent resolution to issue a million New 
 Testaments with Shang-Te throughout for God, and 
 Shin for Spirit, will go well nigh to defeat the object of 
 our opponents to get up a usus loquendi in favour of their 
 term." This desirable and important object, however, 
 would be both hastened, and, in a great degree, secured 
 by the timely decision of the Bible Society in the matter. 
 Eor it certainly appears from Mr. Meller's letter, that 
 Dr. Medhurst was under a false impression ; and that 
 the Bible Society has not yet " coincided in opinion" with 
 
13 
 
 him and his learned associates, as to the choice of the 
 proper term for ' God/ 
 
 It is, then, My Lord, for a Personal God, and 
 against a collective Deity only, — as a fit object of 
 Christian worship for the Chinese, — that the Bible So- 
 ciety has been repeatedly called upon to take a decided 
 stand. And it is upon this simple, and yet all-important, 
 question, that the Bible Society has hitherto refused to 
 avow itself; pleading its inabihty to form a judgment, 
 and, at the same time, professing its readiness to uphold 
 either side. In other words — and to look at it as it seems 
 to be — the Bible Society appears to care little for the 
 result ; whether the Chinese worship the God of Chris- 
 tians or continue Pantheists, or Polytheists ; so that a 
 certain amount of copies of the Bible be printed and 
 circulated, in order to swell the number of their returns. 
 
 For, admitting the fact, probably true, that among 
 their managing members there is no one able to form an 
 opinion on this subject, which involves a knowledge of 
 Chinese, not usually cultivated in England, why does 
 not the Bible Society abide, as it professes to do, by the 
 opinion of competent judges? And why does it not 
 frankly admit a principle, instead of prefering to be car- 
 ried about with every wind of doctrine in this respect ? 
 willing, rather, with the same hands to scatter food and 
 poison indiscriminately? For, on the one hand, the 
 Bible Society co-operates in the publication of the million 
 copies of the New Testament, which are being issued with 
 Shang-Te for God ; and on the other hand, it reprints in 
 this country copies of St. Luke and of the Acts of the 
 
14 
 
 Apostles, according to the partial and incorrect version of 
 Dr. Morrison. It is indeed ' partial/ for while acknow- 
 ledging Shang-Te to be " God and Supreme God/' and 
 "Shin, or ' gods,' to denote a sort of spirits like the Roman 
 genii or the Greek dsemons," Dr. Morrison, nevertheless 
 and most unaccountably, renders the God of the Bible, 
 by this very word Shin, which he rightly tells us is only 
 an inferior deity.* It is true that this edition of St. 
 Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles was issued in this 
 country in 1845; but it is evident from Mr. Meller's 
 letter to me, that the Society would be ready to defend 
 this publication at the present day ; as far, at least, as 
 Dr. Morrison's contradictory use of Shin and of Shang- 
 Te is concerned. Thus, in fact, the Society counteracts 
 with one hand what the other hand attempts to do. 
 
 I well remember the late respected Secretary of the 
 Bible Society, the Rev. Mr. Brandram, saying to me, 
 while shewing me over the warehouse of the Society : 
 " We are neither learned nor literary men here ; we print 
 books and circulate them"; and I recollect being struck 
 at the time with, to my mind, the strange incongruity 
 between such an admission on his part, and the heavy 
 responsibility that rests on the Society as a Bible So- 
 ciety ; not, indeed, set apart, but self-established, for the 
 diffusion of the Word of God. Since, unquestionably, 
 the responsibihty of the Society, which is none the less 
 for being taken in hand propria motu, lies, not in the 
 number of copies printed, sold, or distributed, but, 
 
 * See his Dictionary, vol i., p. 163; iii., p 539 ; and i., pp. 178, 
 
 804. 
 
15 
 
 rather, in the quahty of those copies ; in the faithful 
 manner in which the word of God is transmitted through 
 them. 
 
 But, as matters stand at present, one might ahuost 
 ask, What does the Bible Society understand exactly by 
 the Bible. Since, assuredly, there is a limit to human 
 alterations of the sacred text, beyond which it ceases to 
 be the record of God's Truth. 
 
 For we see that, as regards the milhons in China, 
 the Bible Society appears indifferent as to what version 
 is published. A version may have Shin, 'deity or spirit;' 
 or it may uphold Shang-Te, the Supreme God, as Mis- 
 sionaries think best. The Society is pleased to abide by 
 their verdict, whatever it be ; whether correct, prejudiced 
 or ignorant. For some of them, we see, cannot even 
 understand that God is not, and cannot be, a generic 
 terra, since He is alone of His kind, and therefore has 
 no sort of connexion with ' a god ' and ' gods,' called 
 such only by figure of speech, and not for any quality of 
 godliness inherent in them. And that to make Him 
 who alone is, to consist only in the abstract or generic 
 idea presented to the mind by, and gathered from, ' a 
 god ' and ' gods,' the work of men's hands, that are not, 
 is truly to sin against His awful majesty. But, however 
 grievous this error be as regards ourselves, it is increased 
 a thousandfold when forced upon unsuspecting heathen, 
 against reason, and in contradiction to the very meaning 
 of the words of their language. For in this we may 
 follow the insurgents, who, being Chinese, write their 
 language idiomatically. They use Shang-Te, as Yaou 
 
]6 
 
 and Shun did four thousand years ago, for God ; and 
 they also adopt Shin for spirit, according to its real and 
 only meaning. For our versions of the Bible should be 
 in the idiomatic language of the nation for which they are 
 made ; and not, as is too often the case, in a dialect of 
 our own. 
 
 Moreover, this peculiar choice of our own terms, often 
 implies grave consequences in doctrine. I will pass over 
 the Romish versions of the Bible, sanctioned and dis- 
 tributed by the Bible Society, which have repeatedly been 
 alluded to by others ; although I do not understand how 
 a version that implies the substitution of the Virgin Mary 
 for Our Lord Jesus, even in one instance, can be more 
 justifiable on principle, than a Socinian or an Unitarian 
 version. But I will at present advert to another version, 
 which is not less important because it is less known ; I 
 mean to the Mongolian New Testament,* translated by 
 Messrs. E. Stallybrass and W. Swan, many years resident 
 in Siberia, and published in this country by the Bible 
 Society in 1846. 
 
 We have just heard, of Pantheistic Scriptures for 
 China, and of Romish Bibles for Europe ; but what 
 shall we say to a Buddhist Bible for the High-lands of 
 Buddhism in Central Asia ? And yet, I fear it is so. I 
 say, " I fear " only ; for, as I have not within reach the 
 means of ascertaining it so fully as with regard to the 
 Chinese terms, I venture my remarks on this subject, 
 more as hints, than as positive assertions. 
 
 * It is a great pity that edition was not, like the Old Testament, 
 printed in the Mongolian, instead of the Mandchu character. 
 
17 
 
 The translators had to clioosc one of two terms for 
 God in MongoKan, Tegri and Burchan ; and tlicy chose 
 Burchariy after Dr. Schmidt, who had previously translated 
 the Old Testament and parts of the New, into Mongolian 
 at St. Petersburgh. Whatever be the etymology of the 
 term Burchan — whether originally from Buf/h, Bug, 
 (as if from Bhaga, " worshipful,' Tor BuhJ, and Chanj or 
 Khan J ' king ' or ' prince ' — certain it is that in all the 
 classic works in Mongolian to which I have access, Bur- 
 chan, denotes Buddha, and no one else.* 
 
 As of old in Ariyana, we notice, among the Tatar 
 tribes that have embraced another absolute religion, like 
 Buddhism or Islamism, a very common feature in such 
 changes ; that is, the original term for God applied by 
 the new religionists, to inferior deities only, out of hatred 
 or spite. Thus, for instance, in the Zend-Avesta, the 
 daevaSy originally the good devas of Brahmanism, are 
 always taken in evil part; like the good hat^wv and 
 SaifjLov€<; of Greece, that never were spoken of in after 
 ages but as evil spirits. In like manner in this very in- 
 stance, the introduction of Buddhism into Mongolia 
 brought in the term Burchan, Buddha, as expressive of 
 him who is the highest object of their worship ; while 
 the original term for God, Tegri, is used only for inferior 
 deities, as I have shewn. f Burchan, or Buddha, is 
 Tegri-yin Tegri, ' God of Gods,' and even Khormuzda 
 or Indra is styled 2'egri, like the rest. Thus too, the 
 Tatars who embraced Islamism, and with it the faith in 
 Allah the God of the Qoran, call God by that name, and 
 
 * See Appendix I. f Sec Appendix I. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 apply the original Tatar word Taiiri, or Te^ri, to false 
 gods only. j5'.y., in the good Turkish version of the 
 New Testament, published by the Bible Society at Paris, 
 in 1827, we read, in Acts xvii. 18, bu gharib TaHrilerun 
 ikhbar idijisi gorunur, " he seemeth to bring tidings of 
 strange gods " ; and also xiv. 11, that the gods Tanriler, 
 etc. But in St. John x. 34, 35, "I said ye are gods," etc., 
 we read very properly, didumki siz illahlar siHiZy etc. 
 
 We gather from this, 1) that, the use of Burchan, or 
 Buddha, for God, in a translation of the Bible, is very 
 questionable indeed ; and 2) that the use of this term 
 Burchan in the plural, Burchad, for ' gods,' in the Old 
 and New Testaments, is not idiomatic, if Burchan is re- 
 tained for the true God. In that case Tegri would be 
 more correct ; after the example of the classic Mongolian 
 writers above quoted. 
 
 But since the translators had the choice of the word 
 Tegri, of pure Tatar origin, and in use for ' God ' previous 
 to the introduction of Buddhism into Mongolia, it seems 
 a pity that they did not adopt it. Por both from its 
 etymology and from its constant use in most of the Tatar 
 dialects, it is not liable to the same objections as the term 
 Burchan, which applies especially to Buddha, in the 
 Buddhist country of Mongolia.* 
 
 We find then, that in all versions, except the Mongo- 
 lian, intended for Buddhist countries, the translators have 
 adopted the least objectionable term for ' God,' in order 
 to avoid the chance of connecting in any way the idea of 
 the God of the Bible with ' the God ' of the Buddhists ; 
 
 * See Appendix II. 
 
19 
 
 that is, Buddha himself. Whereas in MongoHan, in 
 which there is the choice of the term Tcgri, a far bettor 
 equivalent for ' God ' than deva^ or phdra, or j^hrd, it 
 has been left aside, and Biirchan has been chosen instead, 
 though not without misgivings as to its propriety ; for 
 Dr. Schmidt writes, on the heading of his version of the 
 Old Testament, Yahoiva-Burchan-u hagotchin tis-tamenf, 
 " the Old Testament of Jehovah-Buddha," words which 
 can convey but a very incongruous idea of the original 
 to the Burjats, for whom those words were intended. 
 And here we must remark the strange fact, that among 
 the Kalmuks, whose tongue is a dialect of the Mongo- 
 lian, from which tribe they differ in religion, the supreme 
 epithet Bur chart is used by, I believe, the same trans- 
 lator. Dr. Schmidt — to denote 'false gods,' while Bedu'i^ 
 applied to God. Thus, in St. John x. 35, we read, Te 
 dediiyin nogod mun gemen hi ogidemui, " I have said ye 
 are like a class, or sort, of dedus (gods)" ; while we find 
 in Acts xiv. 11, "the gods," etc., rendered by Borgad 
 inu giimuni dursu, etc., " the Burchans (the gods) like 
 men," etc.; and ver. 15, "turn amidic dedu-du to the 
 living God," etc. So nearly allied are the Mongols and 
 Kalmuks in race and in language, that at one time it 
 was thought possible to make one version of the Bible do 
 for both. And yet we now find the term Biirchan, Bud- 
 dha, used in these two sister-versions, made to mean in 
 the one, ' the true God,' and in the other, ' a false god' 
 only ! Surely, this seems to shew either carelessness or 
 inaccuracy on the part of the translators. 
 
 As regards the relative use of Shang-Te and of Shin 
 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 in Chinese, it is entirely different from that of Burchan 
 and of Te^ri in Mongohan, Shang-Te answers exactly 
 (as I have shewn at great length in Who is God in China?) 
 to 0609, and Shin to hal^iwv ; while Burchan corresponds 
 to Zev<^, and Tegri to Oeo?. In Chinese writings there 
 are no absurd legends about Shang-Te, as there are 
 about Buddha. It is impossible to read a page of a 
 Buddhist book without loathing the very thought that a 
 term used to designate Buddha should be applied to our 
 God. Not so, however, with either Swayamhhur-Bha- 
 gavdn in archaic Indian lore, or with Shang-Te in the 
 oldest works in Chinese. The ideas conveyed to Brah- 
 mans and to Chinese by their respective terms, may well 
 be modified or otherwise rectified by Christian teaching 
 to convey an idea of the God of the Bible. Shang-Te, 
 for instance, is one and the same from everlasting; his 
 seat is in Heaven, from whence he looks upon the affairs 
 of men. He appoints Emperors and deposes them ; he 
 rewards and punishes ; he commands and enforces obe- 
 dience ; in a word, he does upon the earth what he 
 pleases — always for good. And as regards the Self- 
 Existent and Worshipful Being of Brahmanical faith, we 
 read of him repeatedly in Indian classics, as for instance 
 in this passage of the Laws of Manu, ch. i., written b.c. 
 cir. 1200. 
 
 " This universe was as yet in darkness, imperceptible, un- 
 definable^ undiscoverable by reason, indiscernible, as if it 
 were altogether asleep.^^ 
 
 " Then He who exists by Himself (Swayambhur-Bhagavan) 
 the Most High, who is Himself imperceptible. He made this 
 
21 
 
 universe, composed of great elements, perceptible. He, the 
 Almighty, shewed Himself and dispelled the gloom." 
 
 Whereas the Buddhist legends and absurd stories 
 told of Buddha are of a very different nature. And the 
 bare fact of a * succession of Buddhas ' is alone sufficient 
 to render such a term as Btirchan, applied to Buddha 
 only, an unfit equivalent for the God we worship. 
 
 Those suggestions, My Lord, are only by way of 
 shewing that the heavy responsibility of a Bidie-Society 
 is not wholly discharged by the mere expensive printing 
 and publishing of numerous copies of the Bible. It is 
 easy, and, so far also, convenient, to lay the burden of 
 that responsibility on the shoulders of others, be they 
 missionaries, agents, or others, not official members of the 
 Bible Society. But experience teaches us that this only 
 tends to multiply versions, some of them more or less 
 faulty, and that, after all, the responsibility of those mani- 
 fold versions still continues to rest with the Society that 
 publishes them. 
 
 Considering then, on the one hand, the great evil that 
 follows from the lax principle of the Bible Society in de- 
 clining to exercise any control over the translations of the 
 Bible published wholly or in part at the expense of the 
 Society ; — and, on the other hand also, the great good 
 that would result from a firm adherence, on the part 
 of the Society, to sound principles of translation, one 
 cannot help deeply regretting that so influential, so 
 liberal, and so benevolent a Body, should not feel 
 jealous of such high prerogative. If, in the important 
 
22 
 
 case of the Chinese version, the Bible Society would 
 awake to its heavy responsibility as a Bible, and not a 
 mere Book, Society, and either listen to the repeated 
 warnings of the ablest judges, such as Drs. Medhurst 
 and Legge, Mr. Milne, and others ; or choose from among 
 her members men able to pass a just and sober judgment 
 on the quality of the versions published, instead of ignor- 
 ing the subject altogether, the Society would at once raise 
 its character, and rise in importance as an instrument for 
 good at the present time. The objectionable nature of 
 the term Shin, and the just claims of the term Shang-Te, 
 as equivalents for ' God ' in the Chinese Scriptures, have 
 both been made as plain as they can possibly be to all 
 who are open to conviction, by common sense, by sound 
 argument and, especially, by proofs. Why, then, does 
 the Bible Society, upon which the whole responsibility 
 rests, prefer to plead ignorance of facts, or incapacity to 
 judge of proofs made plain, rather than adopt the course 
 open to bold and candid men, the choice of right, be 
 the result what it will ? 
 
 It appears from the latest accounts that the American 
 Bible Society and the American Missionaries alone, and 
 not all of them even, adhere convulsively to the Deity 
 Shin, against reason and against language. For I hear 
 from one of the ablest men in China, who is an old resi- 
 dent there, under date Feb. 5th, 1856, that " several Ame- 
 ricans are wavering in their adhesion to Shin. I read to 
 one of them your remarks, that no one with a competent 
 knowledge of the original and Chinese languages could 
 arrive at their conclusion" (that Shin is God). "He 
 
23 
 
 seemed to admit that the best of the argument was with 
 us ; but rather pooh-poolied the subject as of small im- 
 portance. This is the way with a good many of the 
 younger men among them. They ' rather guess ' that 
 their seniors are wrong, but are not prepared to take an 
 independent course of their own. What you say is too 
 true, that many come into the mission-field, unfurnished 
 for the work before them, and incapable of that mental 
 application to the study of the language, which is abso- 
 lutely necessary in order to constitute one a workman 
 that needeth not to be ashamed. In the meantime, 
 while the S/iin men are doing little in preaching, and 
 some of them are fagging away upon a new version of 
 the Scriptures, of w^hich the parts that I have seen are 
 in the style of the ' Old Paths,' — equally rugged and un- 
 intelligible ; the New Testament in the Shanghae version 
 is going abroad far and wide through the country, ac- 
 companied largely with the preaching of the Gospel. 
 Churches of Chinese are being gathered, many of whose 
 numbers are characterized by an appreciation of the 
 truth and an energy of character which lead me to hope 
 that ere the end of the present century, Christianity will 
 have gained a positive footing in the Empire." 
 
 We see, then, that even Americans, who had pledged 
 themselves to ' the Spirits,' Shin, begin to waiver in 
 their adherence to them ; so that, in truth, their actions 
 need not influence those of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. For w^e may think that since, in their revision 
 of the Authorized Version of the English Bible, the 
 American Associations have not nuich improved it, they 
 
24 
 
 are not likely to be more successful in Chinese, as we 
 have just heard. The Bible Society, then, not only may, 
 but ought to, take a stand worthy of the cause it pro- 
 fesses to embrace, and of the means at its disposal, inde- 
 pendently of men's opinion, and for the sake of right and 
 of good alone : instead of placing that very cause in jeo- 
 pardy, by a want of Christian honesty and of manly 
 spirit, which her supporters have a right to expect. 
 There now exists a version of the Bible in Chinese, pub- 
 lished at Shanghae, which although not perfect, may 
 rank in excellence next to the Authorized Version of 
 the English Bible, for style and for accuracy. The path 
 of duty then is plain and open before the Bible Society, 
 in declaring that it will from henceforth issue that ver- 
 sion only, and no other. 
 
 Let us put this responsibility upon the lowest ground 
 — that of self-interest. We have heard of countless reams 
 of paper wasted, and of thousands of public money laid 
 out to little or no purpose, in abortive, and therefore 
 useless versions of the Bible ; and I have myself seen 
 boxes of the Society's books wasted at stations where 
 they could be of no use. If the Bible Society profess 
 only to print and to publish Bibles, irrespectively of their 
 intrinsic merit as versions, even then, it ought from a 
 feeling of honest pride and of self-sufficiency, aim like 
 the Elzevirs of the Stephens of old, at stamping its pub- 
 lications with a character for accuracy and excellence. 
 
 If, however, we rest the claims of the Bible Society 
 on a higher ground — philanthropy, the very name of 
 which excludes all petty considerations of self-love and of 
 
25 
 
 self-interest of any kind — still is the Society's errand to 
 do good unto men, and not harm. But it is not doing 
 good unto them, to offer them one good version of the 
 Bible with the right hand, and to hold out another that 
 is injurious with the left. It is not doing good to the 
 Chinese, to vote even a million copies of the New Testa- 
 ment to teach them to worship their God and our's ; and 
 at the same time to print thousands of copies of the same 
 book, to teach them to worship a Deity, which is neither 
 our God nor their's. Especially, when this is done to 
 please both parties ; thus from want of a timely decision, 
 pleasing neither. 
 
 But, let us put the duty of the Bible Society upon 
 the only ground on w^hich it ought to rest — the highest 
 of all — that of giving liberally to mankind the Word of 
 God — pure and unadulterated. Can this office be un- 
 dertaken lightly and thoughtlessly ? Can a conscien- 
 tious and responsible body of men devolve upon others, 
 indiscriminately, the awful responsibility of seeing that 
 the Word given is the Word of God, and not, as it 
 may be, partly the ' word of man.' We see by repeated 
 examples that it is a vain thing to trust entu'ely to the 
 opinion of this or of that man only, in versions of the 
 Bible ; for * many men have many minds' ; while the 
 Bible has only one. This then should be left to be 
 ascertained not to one or two individuals, who look at it 
 through the coloured medium of their own, more or less 
 partial mind; but this sense of the Bible, if made out by 
 Missionaries abroad should, at all events, be sanctioned 
 by as rigid an inquiry as is practicable at home ; ere the 
 
26 
 
 Society takes upon itself the awful responsibility of 
 issuing that particular version as a correct image of the 
 original Word of God. For after all, the versions pub- 
 lished by the Bible Society, wholly or in part, become 
 wholly or in part fruits of that Society. And they are 
 estimated neither for their size nor for their colour ; but 
 for the flavour of their wholesome and ripe estate. 
 
 And the good done in the Earth by the influence of 
 the Word of God, does not depend on the number of 
 copies of it, so much as on the blessing of God that may 
 rest upon that Word. One copy of the Bible blessed of 
 God to one poor ignorant man, will have done more 
 good ultimately, than hundreds of copies printed and 
 sent about without sufficient care in the due discharge of 
 this important office ; and, therefore, with little well- 
 grounded hope of blessing from on High upon that work. 
 For God's promise abideth still. It is still as true as in 
 the days of the prophet that : "As the rain cometh down 
 and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, 
 but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and 
 bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to 
 the eater : so shall my Word be that goeth out of my 
 mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall 
 accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in 
 the thing whereunto I sent it." 
 
 It is impossible. My Lord, that with such a promise 
 as that, the millions of copies of the Bible that have been 
 hitherto circulated by the Bible Society, should have 
 had no greater result in good, if they had all been pre- 
 pared in a devout spirit and with proper care ; and then 
 
27 
 
 sent forth, not as shipments of goods, but as the Word 
 OF Life, on its solemn errand to save the World. Ac- 
 cording to God's gracious promise, His Word cannot 
 return unto Him void ; but it must " prosper in the 
 thing vi^hereunto He sent it." Not otherwise. And it 
 cannot be said to go forth as His Word, when sent by 
 the same hands in a double form, as in the case of the 
 Chinese Scriptures — each form contradicting the other. 
 For both cannot be right ; and therefore both cannot be 
 the Word of God ; since one teaches God as He is ; and 
 the other teaches Him as He is not. 
 
 In speaking of so solemn an errand as that of giving 
 the Bible to the heathen, one may well be in earnest. 
 Let the Bible Society then, look well to it. It is not a 
 matter of little or of no moment, which may be done 
 to-day one way, and to-morrow another way, at the 
 whim of Missionaries to whom the matter is carelessly 
 referred by men too little mindful, perhaps, of the heavy 
 responsibility that rests upon them. No. Eor we know 
 and see, that all Missionaries are not capable judges in 
 matters even of their own province. But it is a ques- 
 tion which involves, in general, the highest principle ; 
 and which, in this particular case, is a question of life 
 or death to the Chinese. It is whether they are to 
 be taught to believe in God as we, and they, do ; or 
 to be forced against the evidence of their own tongue, 
 and of their highest authorities in literature, to adopt 
 as creator of the w^orld, a Deity only, wdiich, they know, 
 emanates from the sun that shines on them, and is one 
 with their own animal spirits ! Surely that is no boon 
 
28 
 
 to those poor helpless heathens, sitting in the shadow 
 of death, and in that gloom, feeling after God if haply 
 they may find Him. It is not shewing an earnest love 
 for their real welfare to give them at once two Bibles 
 and two Gods, caring little which of the two they choose. 
 It is sowing among them with one hand wheat, and with 
 the other tares. It is planting, not so much a Christian 
 Church, as a nursery of future sects and heresies, in the 
 still benighted empire of China. 
 
 And this is also, and of course, no question of Church 
 party, since the Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
 ledge ; the London Missionary Society ; the Wesleyan 
 Society ; the Loo-chooan Missionary Society ; the Chinese 
 Evangelization Society ; and I believe, also, the Church 
 Missionary Society, — all deliberately side together for 
 Shang-Te. It is a question of giving to the heathen the 
 Word of God as much as we can, pure and unadulterated. 
 Before this awful task, all sects and all parties ought to 
 disappear like stars in the bright light of the morning 
 sun. It is a work of the truest philanthropy, that should 
 be carried out on the broadest principles of the love of 
 men. But there can be no real philanthropy without 
 sound principles ; and no principle is sound which pro- 
 fesses as the Bible Society does in the case of Chinese 
 Scriptures, to abide equally by either side ; that is, in 
 truth, by neither. For doubtless and consistently with 
 such a rule of action, if the Society were applied to for a 
 grant to publish Romish copies of the Chinese Bible, 
 with neither Shang-Te, nor Shin, but with T'heen-Choo 
 in it, for ' God,' its aid would be granted. 
 
29 
 
 I would, therefore, respectfully lay before Your Lord- 
 ship the very great danger, and the grave consequences, 
 of this, I may say, want of principle on the part of the 
 Bible Society. It is a mistake, I apprehend, to suppose 
 that it does more good by thus halting between two opi- 
 nions, in the clearest evidence of right and wrong for any 
 one who will open his eyes and see ; for, of course, there 
 is no describing colours to men who will not see. We 
 know what the holy Apostle says of a double-minded man, 
 how "unstable he is in all his ways." And we also 
 know, from experience, that such a want of consistency on 
 the part of a public body, made up of many men and of 
 many minds, carries with it the germ of its own dismem- 
 berment. Union is strength, and union implies principle. 
 But where no fixed principle is avowed, as it appears 
 clearly from Mr. Meller's letter to me, we must expect 
 disunion. 
 
 The Bible Society, therefore, cannot wonder at men 
 of principle, quite independently of the form of Church 
 to which they may belong, withdrawing themselves from 
 a Society that follows no definite line of action ; and 
 w^iich is ready to publish the best, as well as the worst, 
 version of the Bible at the same time. 
 
 This cannot be done with impunity : for, however 
 much or little we be responsible to men, to Our Master 
 we stand or fall ; and His blessing does not rest on the 
 tares knowingly or carelessly sown in His field. For the 
 same showers that fall to bless the good grain and cause 
 it to grow for the final harvest, fall as a curse on the 
 weeds heedlessly scattered over the earth, and prepared 
 
30 
 
 only for their own destruction. This would matter but 
 little in a private undertaking : but when the seed sown 
 is the Word of God, the field the World, and the reapers 
 the Angels at the last day, surely we ought to pause ere 
 we set our hand to the w^ork, lest we should be found 
 wanting in our beginning and condemned in our last 
 result. 
 
 The Bible Society then, must thank itself, and no 
 one else, for the secession of many, formerly devoted, 
 members from its ranks. Many will waive a form of 
 Church, who, very properly, cannot forego principle, or 
 trifle with conscience. Were the Bible Society fully 
 alive to its responsibiUty, — as a Society professing to 
 diffuse the Word or God, free from adulteration ; and 
 were it intent on discharging that responsibility as well 
 and as conscientiously as it can, instead of carelessly 
 devolving it upon others, — it w^ould number many more 
 able, learned, devout, and devoted men than it does. It 
 would cease to consider itself, as its own Secretary ad- 
 mitted, a mere book-making firm ; because it would, as 
 a body, have a good conscience of sacrificing everything 
 to sound and unfiinching principle in the translation and 
 in the circulation of the Bible. There would then be no 
 room for a Trinitarian Bible Society ; the very name 
 of which at once reflects upon the British and Poreign 
 Bible Society for some culpable neglect, if not error, on 
 some vital points of true Christianity. That branch also 
 of the labours of the Foreign Translation Committee 
 of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which 
 is devoted to translations of the Bible, would not have 
 
31 
 
 been called for, side by side, with the large entcrprizc 
 and copious funds of the Bible Society. For assuredly, 
 none but absolute necessity, the result not of opinion or 
 of fancy, but of violence done to principle, could have 
 induced those influential Societies to form themselves 
 apart from the mother-stock. Even individuals must 
 renounce their wish to co-operate with the Bible Society; 
 as for instance, in my own case ; I am forced to decline 
 the offer of £50 made me by that Society, for carrying 
 through the press an edition of the New Testament in 
 Modern Armenian, because I could not conscientiously 
 co-operate with men who avow no fixed principle in 
 their versions of the Word or God ; and who seem to 
 look more to the number than to the truthfulness of the 
 copies published. 
 
 Surely, My Lord, the due discharge of such heavy 
 responsibility on the part of the Bible Society deserves 
 the earnest attention of its members. It is one thing to 
 take in hand a responsibility of this kind, and it is an- 
 other thing to fulfil it as faithful stewards of such a 
 deposit. It is easy for the Bible Society to collect and 
 to grant sums of money for even a million copies of 
 Scripture in Chinese, or in any other language ; for that 
 involves no principle. But it is a culpable neglect of 
 principle, on the part of that same Society, to avow that 
 it is willing and ready to uphold and to distribute two 
 contradictory versions in the same language — one that 
 teaches the truth that " God is Spirit" ; and the other, 
 that proclaims the falsehood, that " Spirit is God." 
 
 It is well, indeed, to be able to distribute largely the 
 
32 
 
 <w 
 
 means of lasting good, and to make it the daily business 
 of life to think of nothing else than the diffusion of the 
 Word of God. But it is better, by far, to keep in this 
 respect a conscience void of offence before God, whose 
 Word we handle, and before man, to whom we give it. 
 So as to be able to say, with St. Paul, that we do it, " not 
 as many, which corrupt the Word of God, but as of 
 sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we 
 in Christ." 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship's obedient humble servant, 
 
 S. C. Malan. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Thus, e.g., in Uligeriln Dalai, ch. ii., we read, ilatchu tegus 
 nogtchigsan Burchan anu, etc., " the supreme-perfect-anterior 
 Buddha^'; and so repeatedly. Also in Altan gerel, ch. xxvi., 
 many times, as Ananda Burchan-u dsarlik-yar tegun tchilerij 
 etc., " in accordance with Buddha's command, Ananda," etc. 
 Likewise in the Dsanglun, ch. vii., we read often the same 
 name of Buddha, with its accompanying epithets ; as well as 
 throughout the legend of Bog da Gesser Khan, and in the annals 
 of Eastern Mongolia, written by Ssanang Ssetsen Tchungtaids- 
 chij published by Dr. Schmidt. 
 
 In those same works, however, we find the term Tegri 
 applied to all gods but Buddha. Thus, for instance, in the 
 Uligerun Dalai, above quoted, we read, Ai, tegri-yin tegri 
 Burchan, " oh ! god of gods, Buddha !" And ibid., di tegri 
 gumun-u tegedu, Burchan-a, " O Buddha ! who art above god 
 and man." Again, ibid., tegri-yin kopegun, "son of God," 
 etc. Also in Altan gerel, ch. xxvii., quoted above, we read, 
 Tegri-ner-on getcher-i toritgel ogdi otchigtchi, " having glanced 
 at the region of the gods without restraint," etc. Likewise 
 in Dsanglun, ch. vii., above quoted, we read, Tegri-ner ergun 
 kondoleged segiktchi bologe, " the gods became the protectors of 
 and held in honour " Buy an oroshiksan, etc. And in Bog da 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 Gesser Khan, also above alluded to, we find very frequently 
 the term Tegri, used for ' a god ' that is not Buddha. Thus, 
 ch. i., we read that of old, and ere Sikamuni Burchan-i 
 Nirwan-u otchegulku orida, " Sakyamuni Buddha had made 
 example of Nirwana,'' Khormusda Tegri Burchan-dur morgusa 
 getchu etchibe, "the god Hormuzd bowed to Buddha and 
 said," etc. 
 
 We gather, then, an additional proof that Bur chart is an 
 epithet especially belonging to Buddha, among the Buddhists 
 of Mongolia, — from the fact that the term Tegri is thus 
 used conjointly with Bur chart. For Tegri is no other than 
 the common Tatar word Tanri, in use among the Uighurs \ 
 or Tafiara, or Tagara, among the Jakutes, in Siberia. This 
 word properly means ^ Heaven,^ and it is also adopted to ren- 
 der God. Thus we find it in Uighur, both for ' heaven', for 
 'God,' and for 'divine;' as e.g., in petitions from the inhabi- 
 tants of Chamul to the Emperor of China : Tanri khakhart 
 serirttchib rteder rrta, " the heavenly Emperor will graciously 
 accept," etc.* And as regards Tanara in Jakutish, we find, 
 in a confession of faith in that language, the expression, 
 Xristos Tagara ola, or better, Kiristds Tanara yola, " Christ 
 the son of God ;"t and, tojort Tanara, " Most-high God ;" as 
 well as Tanara sariarha, " the heaven, or the sky, is clear," 
 etc. J 
 
 In most of the many Tatar dialects which use this word 
 Tanri or Tangri, for the Spirit of heaven, or God, according 
 to their notions, there is also a special word for the visible or 
 material heaven ; as, e. g., in Mongolian, okdargoi ; and in 
 other idioms, kok or kilk, "blue," etc., as in the Tatar of 
 Orenburg. In this language the only word used for God is 
 
 * Klaproth's Spr. u. Schr. der Uighuren, pp. 9, 28, 29. A. Remusat. L. Tar- 
 tares ; lang. Ouigour. I.e. 
 
 f Bohtlingk, Die Spr. der Jahitcn^ Einleii.^ p. 51, 52. 
 X Ibid., Wurterb., p. 90. 
 
35 
 
 Tahri or Tangri ; and it is adopted in the version of the New 
 Testament into that language, published at Astrachan in 1818, 
 in 8vo. Thus, koklu atariur "your heavenly Father,^' and 
 bir Tangri ve jumlehun atdsi, " one God and Father of all,^' 
 Eph. iv. 5, etc.; and even in Acts of the Apostles iv. 11, and 
 in such other passages, ' gods ' is rendered by Tangri-lar, the 
 plural of Tangri ; shewing how entirely this word Tangri is 
 identified, among those tribes, with their idea of God, such 
 as it is. We know not for certain whether or not it has tra- 
 velled westward from China, but it may be a remnant of the 
 Chinese Theen-lij " Rule, or providence of heaven/' 
 
 II. 
 
 The translators may possibly have been led to adopt this 
 term, Burchan, by noticing that it corresponds to the San- 
 scrit Bhagaviin, ^ worshipful,' applied to the Supreme Being 
 in Buddhist works written in Sanscrit. As, for instance, in 
 the Sandharma pundarlka in the Lalita visfara, and in nu- 
 merous other Buddhist books of the same kind, we read, re- 
 peatedly, te deva : imam asrutapurvam dharman srutwa Bhaga- 
 vato-antika : " those gods, having heard, while standing be- 
 fore Bhagavan, the law unheard before,'' etc. But Bhagavan 
 was borrowed from the oldest Brahmanical works, such as the 
 Laws of ManUy where it is said of Swayamb^hur Bhagavan 
 avyakto, " the worshipful and invisible self- existent God ;" and 
 was applied to Buddha only when, at the advent of Gautama 
 Buddha, b.c. 400, the Buddhist religion prevailed over India. 
 Clearly then, although the Sanscrit terms Bhagavan^ or Siva- 
 
36 
 
 yarnVhu, might be much better equivalents for " God " than 
 the term deva * a god/ because they convey the nearest and 
 best idea of the God of the Bible, found in old Sanscrit, yet 
 those terms become inadmissible for God, in a country, and 
 among people, to which they convey only the idea of the special 
 object of worship called Buddha. I cannot, therefore, but 
 fear lest the term Burcharhy which applies only to Buddha in 
 classic Mongolian like Bchom-ldan-hdas in Tibetan writings, 
 is likely to convey a false idea of God to the Buddhists of 
 Central Asia. It is, in a great degree, as if the Apostles, in- 
 stead of adopting 0eo9, had used the term Zeu?, Jupiter, to 
 denote God, in Greek. Of two terms, originally identical, 
 they chose the one which conveyed no idea of an individual, 
 although it conveyed an idea of a personal God ; because the 
 ideas connected with that individual god Zev^;, or Jupiter, 
 in the mind of the Greek people, would have stood in the 
 way of a correct notion of the only true God, or ©609, whom 
 they preached. 
 
 The case is, I believe, precisely similar in Mongolia. 
 There they have Burchan or Buddha, answering practically in 
 that country to Jupiter in Greece ; and they also have Tegri, 
 which, in meaning and acceptation in classical writings, agrees 
 almost exactly with 6)eo9. The choice, therefore, of the term 
 Burchan, instead of Tegri, seems liable to great objections. 
 
 I believe I am borne out in making the above remarks, 
 by noticing the different course followed in other translations, 
 also for Buddhistic countries. 
 
 Thus, in the Pali version of the New Testament published 
 at Colombo in 1835, by, I think, the Rev. J. Clough, Wes- 
 leyan missionary, we find the term 'God' rendered, rightly 
 or wrongly, by Deva. I say rightly or wrongly, because, 
 although this term Deva has been adopted, not only in this 
 version, but also in the Sanscrit and in most other versions 
 made in languages derived from it — Deva never means God, 
 
37 
 
 but only 'a god.' Examples of it occur in every page of 
 Sanscrit classics, as well as in Pali ; as e.f/., in the Maliawanso, 
 eh. i., 1. 51 sq. Samiddhisumand ndma devo, the (deva) god 
 called Samiddhisumana, Bhuddhdnomatiydyewa, " at the com- 
 mand of Buddha/' took a tree, etc. Devdhi so Ndgadipe, 
 manussdnantare bhave ahdsi, " that god (in a former existence) 
 had been born a human being in Nagadipa/' etc. This defect 
 of translation in using ^ a god' for ^ God/ which, strictly 
 speaking, is inevitable if deva be adopted, is set forth in 
 such passages as these : — Acts xix. 26 ; xvii. 23 ; and espe- 
 cially in 2 Thess. ii. 4, where the want of an article in Pali 
 makes deva ' sl god,' a very unl&t rendering of the original. 
 Be that as it may, the translator chose that alternative rather 
 than adopt one of the many epithets of Buddha, which, like 
 Bur chart in Mongolian, denote the highest object of worship 
 in Pali writings. But he seems to have felt the inconvenience 
 of deva J ^ a god,' judging from the manner in which he renders 
 Gal. iv. 8, " by nature are no gods," — sabhdvato adevdnam, 
 (" him who, or that which) own-naturally (is) not-godlike." 
 
 Likewise, in most of the Cingalese versions of the Bible, 
 none of the epithets of Buddha were chosen to represent 
 ' God'; but the terms deviyauj deviyan-wahanse, and deviyan- 
 hansCj which although plural, are an idiomatically correct 
 appellation of God. Whereas deviyo, adopted in a later ver- 
 sion, is open to the same objection as deva. This shews how 
 difficult it is sometimes to find a suitable equivalent for ' God' 
 among nations that know Him not ; and what excellent judg- 
 ment and learning it requires, not to err on this point. 
 
 The translators of the Bible into Burmese have adopted 
 also a similar course. They have left aside Buddha with its 
 several epithets ; and they have rendered ^ God ' by bhurdy 
 pronounced phard. This word, which bears a remarkable re- 
 semblance to the Egyptian Pharaoh, or Phra, or Phara, is 
 used in Burmese like Deva in Sanscrit and in Pali, for 'a 
 
38 
 
 god_,' and also as an epithet for a great man or ruler, etc. It 
 was adopted also by Romish Missionaries in their Burmese 
 Catechism, printed at Rome in 1786. But as it might be 
 liable to some misconception, whenever *^ gods' (idols) are 
 mentioned in the New Testament, the translators add the 
 word naty which applies to inferior deities in Burmah and in 
 Ceylon. Thus, in Acts xiv. 11, we read, Nat phurd-fho-theej 
 ' the nat-gods,' for ' the gods ;' but in St. John x. 34, 35, 
 theng-Vho thee bhurd pyeet-kyaj "ye are god-s." 
 
 Lastly, in the Siamese version of the New Testament, 
 printed at Bangkok in 1850, by American Missionaries, ^God' 
 is rendered by Phra: Phra:-ong, which corresponds to the 
 Burmese term above mentioned; and which, like dtva, is 
 often applied to great men, to priests, etc. This term has been 
 chosen with preference to Phutta : Buddha, di\ine, all- wise, 
 etc., or even to Phra-Phutti :-chao, "Lord-God-Supreme;" 
 because this is applied to Buddha, in the sacred writings of 
 Siam. 
 
\] 
 
 By the same Author, 
 
 WHO IS GOD IN CHINA,— SHIN OR 
 
 SHANG-TE? 
 
 REMARKS ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF □vt'jn AND OF 0EO2, AND 
 ON THE RENDERING OF THOSE TERMS INTO CHINESE. 
 
 8vo. London: S. Bagster and Sons. 1855. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION 
 OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, 
 
 FROM CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST IT BY RECENT WRITERS. 
 
 mvt 1. 
 
 CONTAINING REMARKS 
 
 I. ON THE MIRACLE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 
 AND II. ON A SPECIMEN OF A REVISION OF THE ENGLISH SCRIPTURES 
 
 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 12nio. London: Bell and Daldy. 1856, 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to the 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 • Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
 days prior to due date. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 MAR 1 5 2001 
 
 12,000(11/95) 
 
TD /i:)4b 
 
 
 ^"po^e<>8 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY