^ l\ I "V i ^ 
 
 REPORT 
 
 
 ■' i. 
 
 ■“lo 
 
 
 
 THE CHINESE VERSION. 
 
 The Committee to whom it was referred to examine and report in relation 
 to the most proper Chinese term, whereby to translate the Hebrew and Greek 
 words employed in the Bible for God, gods, and spirit, respectfully report as 
 follows : 
 
 They have carefully examined such publications and written documents 
 prepared in China on this subject, as they had access to. of which the following 
 is a list : 
 
 1. Dr. Medhurst’s Inquiry, published in 1848. 
 
 2. Bp. Boone’s Essay, of the same year. 
 
 3. Dr. Medhurst’s Reply to the Essay, of the same year. 
 
 4. Dr. Legge’s publication in defence of the use of Shaugte. 
 
 5. Rev. Mr. Doty’s on the proper term to be employed, advocating 
 Shangte. 
 
 6. A printed letter, signed by Drs. Boone and Bridgman, addressed to the 
 Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 7. Several manuscript letters, and among them one of forty pages, from 
 Bp. Boone to the Rev. Dr. Brigham. And lastly, 
 
 8. Seventy-eight pages of the Bp.’s Defence of his Essay, published in the 
 Chinese Repository ; the remaining sheets of this publication not having yet 
 reached this country. All these productions, except the first three, are of the 
 present year. 
 
 In a former report on this subject, made to the Committee on Versions, 
 and accepted by the Board of Managers at their meeting in March, 1849, the 
 sub-committee, by whom it was prepared, remarked, that they had access to no 
 other sources of information than the first two of the above mentioned publica- 
 tions ; consequently their report was less definite than under other circum- 
 stances it might have been. They were, therefore, compelled to say, “ that 
 after a careful examination of those productions, they had not been able to form 
 
2 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 jjl^ikci'ded opinion as to ■wiiich of the words or phrases proposed ought to be 
 adopted f’ feeling jj^ry properly, that, in the predicament in which they were 
 placed, “ it would be presumption in them to express a decision in favour of 
 any one of the terms'^ in question, “ to the absolute exclusion of the others.” 
 The striking discrepancy, both of statement and argument, appearing in “ those 
 works, left them no other alternative.” Access to the other productions which 
 have subsequenfi^' appeared, would now, most probably enable them to speak 
 with more decision. 
 
 In making such use of these documents as might prepare your committee 
 >0 form any settled judgment on the merits of the controversy, they have ex- 
 perienced no little embarrassment. This has arisen in part, from the fact that 
 they have been obliged to take many of the statements of the respective writers 
 on their own authority, not being in a condition to subject them to the test of 
 personal knowledge or observation ; and in part also from the extraordinary 
 change of opinion shown in the same authors at different times and in different 
 circumstances. Your committee feel bound to say, that those gentlemen, who, 
 for some years past, have advocated the use of Shangle, or some other term, 
 in opposition to Shin, (for several have been proposed,) did, themselves, during 
 many years, employ this very word to express Gorf, whether true or false; 
 whereas, the defenders of Shin, have invariably maintained that this is the 
 only word in the language which can properly be employed, and have unwa- 
 veringly adhered to this view, ever since they were led to abandon the use of 
 Shangte, which they found, when they entered on their missionary labours, had 
 already been substituted in place of the earlier employed Shin. Your commit- 
 tee could not but think, too, that the subject of discussion had been somewhat 
 embarrassed by much learned disquisition, thereby involving it within the 
 mazes of Chinese metaphysics and philosophy, not to say unintelligible logo- 
 machy ; while the development required would rather seem to be the general 
 feeling of the popular mind, and the common usage of the great masses of the 
 nation. 
 
 The various Chinese terms which have been proposed as best suited to 
 translate the original words for God, in the Bible, are Shangte, Te, T’een Te, 
 T’een Choo, Aloho or Eloah, transferred from the Hebrew, and Shin. We 
 submit for your consideration, a few brief remarks on each of these. 
 
 I. Shangte. — Your committee cannot recommend the use of this term, for 
 the following reasons : 
 
 1 . It is allowed on all hands to mean, either the Ruler on high, or the 
 Supreme Ruler. It is, therefore, rather a title of office and authority, than in- 
 dicative of Deity. Did it express eternity of being, it might be employed as 
 L’Eternel, in the French Bibles; but there is no proof that Chinese writers 
 have ever predicated this attribute of Shangte. 
 
 2. It is applied by some to the five Tes or rulers of the five regions or 
 quarters, as well as to the supreme Te or ruler. In its meaning of ruler. 
 
REPORT. 
 
 3 
 
 whether supreme or inferior, it would be inadequate to expre.ss the sense of the 
 first commandment, and of all similar places in the Bible. The translation 
 of the commandment might read thus : “ And the Supreme Ruler said, thou 
 shalt have none other Supreme Rulers but me.” The declarations of Isaiah* 
 might be to this effect: “There is no Supreme Ruler beside me;” “I am 
 Supreme Ruler and there is none else.” This would be the translation, if the 
 highest meaning of Shangte were adopted. In this case, the Chinese poly- 
 theist or idolater need feel no difficulty in obeying this law of God. He may 
 willingly grant that the universe contains only one Supreme Ruler in this 
 sense, and yet worship hundreds of other objects, inferior rulers presiding over 
 distinct departments. If a lower meaning be attached to the term in the lat- 
 ter clause of the commandment, it interdicts having any other rulers than the 
 Supreme ; a disorganizing doctrine, not likely to meet with respect or tolera- 
 tion within the limits of the celestial empire. 
 
 3. Another reason for objecting to the use of Shangte is, that, however 
 ^ the word may be understood as denoting the Supreme Ruler by the more 
 
 enlightened and philosophical part of the nation, it is certainly the designa- 
 tion of a material idol, an object of worship by the mass of the Chinese. 
 And there is incontrovertible evidence, that the utmost clearness of exposition 
 as to the spirituality of the divine nature and attributes, is -wdiolly incompe- 
 tent to draw off the common mind, long besotted by the grossness of idolatrous 
 usage, from attachment to and reverence of this idol, this material Shangte. 
 There is danger even, that this idolatry not only will not be discouraged, but 
 will be considered as positively taught and inculcated by the use of Shangte, 
 as the Chinese now apply the word ; and even its advocates admit, that they 
 must accompany the term with very^careful instruction, to guard against a 
 misapprehension of the meaning which alone is intended by them. 
 
 4. Another reason which compels us to reject this term is, that the Chinese 
 Emperor is addressed by this title . We know that among the Romans, in a 
 corrupt and irreligious state of society, the title tuum numen, and others of a 
 similar sort, were applied to the head of the empire ; but we cannot regard 
 this fact in any other light, than as opposed to the rightful claim of the one only 
 and true God, who declares that he will not “ give his glory to another.” For 
 these reasons, ainong others, your committee cannot recommend the use of 
 Shangte. 
 
 II. Te. — This term will not do. It means ruler, and is undoubtedly a 
 designation of office. It may designate the Supreme Ruler, (and thus be iden- 
 tical in meaning with Shangte,) or some other ruler of limited power and dis- 
 tinction. The objection already urged against the use of Shangte in connec- 
 tion with the first commandment, and other similar places of Scripture, applies 
 with equal force to this term. Moreover, it is stated, in the February number 
 of the Chinese Repository for 1849, that “no native writer has ever exhorted 
 
 * Isa. ilv. 21. ilvi. 9. 
 
4 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 his countrymen to sacrifice to or to worship any class of beings called Te ; 
 and, on the contrary, no Christian writer, in his zeal against polytheism, has 
 ever warned his fellow men in China against the worship of the Tes.” As 
 “ a title denoting office,” it is said to be “ used to designate some human em- 
 peror, a hundred or a thousand times in Chinese books, to where it is used 
 once to designate any invisible being.” This, therefore, cannot be regarded as 
 a suitable term whereby to express God. 
 
 III. T’een Te. — Neither can your committee recommend the employment 
 of this phrase, which simply means heaven’s Ruler ; nor 
 
 IV. T’een Choo, which merely signifies Lord of heaven. The same reason 
 applies in both cases. The application made of these terms is not universal. 
 They are not used of gods or objects of worship in general ; and the authority 
 which they denote, is too limited in reference to Jehovah, the true God, who 
 is Lord of heaven and earth, universal Ruler of all things visible and in- 
 visible. 
 
 V. Aloho or Elo.'vh. — Your committee are not satisfied of the propriety of 
 introducing this oriental term. In the first place, they can see no suffieient 
 reason for such a transfer. In the second, it conveys no thought to the Chi- 
 nese mind, and must be explained by some other intelligible word or phrase. 
 But if such an expression can be found, it would undoubtedly be better to em- 
 ploy it at once, than to use it merely as an exegetical medium, whereby to in- 
 terpret a foreign term transferred into the language. One of the authors before 
 mentioned states as follows : “ The most common opinion among those who 
 have heard this name, so far as I have learned, is, that it is the proper name 
 of some new Buddhist deity. It only makes the confusion worse to tell them 
 that Aloho is the name of Jehovah ; one unmeaning name explained by an- 
 other.” 
 
 VI. Shin. — This word appears tobe, on the whole, the most suitable term 
 that can be chosen. It is not exactly what is desired, but is probably the best 
 word that the language affords. The vagueness and generality with which it 
 is applied constitute the most important objection to it. It seems to be em- 
 ployed to denote whatever is regarded as spiritual or partaking of spirit ; and 
 is even used to express spirit and energy “in heaven, earth, hills, rivers, wind, 
 and thunder.” It is used also for the manes of the dead, elves, fairies, hob- 
 goblins, and almost all invisible powers. Its original idea is said to be, and 
 may be, that of spirit; but it is agreed, on all hands, that this is the name 
 universally applied by the Chinese to the multifarious objects of their worship. 
 The term has occasioned much discussion. One party may, perhaps, consider it 
 as expressive of supposed divine power, or some other divine attribute ; the 
 other maintains, that spirituality of nature and character is all that it indi- 
 cates, and all that it predicates of the beings so called. Still, it is a matter of 
 
REPORT. 
 
 5 
 
 fact, that they are the only objects of Chinese worship. There is therefore we 
 think, more reason to use this term in order to translate the word for a Being 
 or beings of whom the most prominent representation given in the Bible is, 
 that the former alone ought to be and the others were adored and worship- 
 ped, than any other term that the language affords. Even if the original idea 
 and the classical meaning of the word be that of spirit, it is certain that, in 
 common parlance, it is constantly applied by the people to the material idols 
 which they worship, as well as to the beings whom these idols personate. And 
 this is precisely analagous to the use of the word god. in the Old and New 
 Testaments. For example, in Gen. xxxi. 30, 32, wc read, “ Wherefore hast 
 thou stolen my godsV' — “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods and in 
 vs. 34, 35, the word is commuted for “images,” in the Hebrew teraphim. In 
 Gen. XXXV. 2, 4, Jacob commands his household to “put away the strange 
 gods" and accordingly, “ they give unto him all the strange gods which 
 were in their hand.^’ Thus also the narrative, in Exod. xxxii. 1-4, shows 
 that the god referred to, which was the golden calf, was made of golden 
 rings, while it was doubtless intended to represent Jehovah, for it is said 
 to be the God “'that brought them out of Egypt,” and “a proclamation 
 is issued of “a feast to Jehovah.” In, I. Sam. v. 7, Dagon is called the 
 god of the people of Ashdod, although it is the image that had fallen before 
 the ark which is meant. And in Isa. xliv. 10, 15, 17, the word god is used 
 for the idol ; as in Acts xix. 26, it denotes the image of Diana. This usage 
 probably arose from transferring the name of the supposed deity to the visible 
 and material representation of him. But the reason of the usage is of little or 
 no importance. The fact of the application of the term to such representation 
 is undeniable ; and in this respect the Chinese usage is exactly analagous. 
 All the objects of their worship from the highest to the lowest, whether 
 viewed in their supposed mysterious spirituality, or in its various material 
 personations however contemptible and disgusting, are called and worshipped 
 as Shin. This is a comprehensive term. In a Chinese ode, the speaker 
 relates the religious acts he had performed in order to avert a calamity that 
 threatened ruin : — “ The drought is great, and the heat intense. We have not 
 ceased to offer sacrifices. To the gods above [celestial], to the gods below 
 [terrestrial], we have made offerings. There is not a god [S/iin] we have not 
 honoured. Hautsih (our ancestor) is not able, and Shangte does not come 
 down to our relief.” The Chinese commentator on this passage puts into the 
 speaker’s mouth the following language : — “ I seek assistance from Shin. 
 There is not a Shin to whom I have not exhausted the way of honouring and 
 reverencing him.” He speaks of “ the Shin of the ancestral temple,” and 
 says, “of the Shin saerificed to in the kiau sacrifice, there is none more to be 
 honoured than Shangte.” Here we have Shin as the general name of all the 
 beings worshipped, and Shangte distinguished as the chief of this very class. 
 To this we would beg leave to add another quotation : — “If the ruler on high 
 [or supreme ruler, Shangte] be a god [SAm], then he cannot be deceived j but 
 
6 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 if he be not a god [S/tin], it would be of no use to pray to him.” In confir- 
 mation of the view naturally drawn from the language of these passages, your 
 committee request special attention to an extract from a geographical work 
 very lately published in China, by the lieutenant-governor of the Fuh-keen 
 Province, who is said to be one of the most accomplished writers of the pres- 
 ent time : — 
 
 “ In very early antiquity, Persia and India both served the [Ho Shin] god 
 of fire. Palestine, that is, Judea and the countries to the west thereof, served 
 the [Teen Shin] God of heaven. Those who served the god [Shin] of fire wor- 
 shipped the rising sun, or, igniting wood, they worshipped towards it. The 
 people conceived, that if there was no fire to cook things, they could not live ; 
 if there was no bright sun, then in the universe nothing would be visible. 
 The idea originated from a desire to recompen.se the root ; it was not a depra- 
 ved god [Shin]. 
 
 The worship of the [Teen Shin] God of heaven commenced with Moses, in 
 the reign of Wuh-ting [B. C. 1720-1691], in the early part of the Shang dy- 
 nasty. He pretends that the [Teen Shin] God of heaven descended on Mount 
 Sinai, and delivered the ten commandments for the instruction of the world. 
 The Sabbath of the seventh day from this had its origin. This delivery of the 
 law was one thousand and several hundred years before the birth of Christ. 
 
 In China, from the time of the five dynasties [A. D. 907-959], there has 
 been a temple to the [Yaou Shin] lAO Godj also a temple to Hoo Yaou and 
 Ho Yaou.” 
 
 But it i^ said that the adoption of Shin will introduce absurdity into the 
 translation ; that, in some cases, where the utmost degree of seriousness is 
 intended, the effect will be ludicrous.* \Ve do not pretend to pronounce a 
 decided judgment in reference to the necessary usage of a word, in a language 
 of which w'e are wholly ignorant ; but, judging from the analogy of other lan- 
 guages, we presume that the difficulties which do really exist in such cases 
 may be obviated by paraphrases. ^Ye are no advocates for these as a substi- 
 tute for translations ; but we have no doubt that there are occasions when it 
 is absolutely neeessary to resort to them. This has been done in our English 
 translation, and sometimes, we incline to think, without sufficient reason. 
 Much rather is it allowable in the case under consideration. 
 
 It is said, too, that although Shin is the word which designates all the 
 objects of Chinese W'orship, still it does not designate them as gods, or as in 
 any degree partaking of divine character. This honour is restricted to one of 
 the Tes, and he is worshipped by none but the Emperor. All his subjects, 
 profanum vulgus, are prohibited from the enjoyment of this honour under pain 
 of death. ‘‘All Shin are regarded as deriving their authority from this great 
 Te, as being subject to him and accountable to him, not as inferior gods to a 
 superior god, but as ministers and servants to their sovereign and lord.” It 
 would seem then, according to this statement, that God, or a god, is not wor- 
 
 See Dr. Legge’s Defence, p. 8. 
 
REPORT. 
 
 7 
 
 shipped at all in China, except by the Emperor; and that the worship of the 
 whole body of his subjects is addressed to different sorts of spiritual beings, 
 whom the worshippers themselves do not regard as possessed of any divinity. 
 Now, if the worshippers do not regard them in any sense as gods, then we 
 have the strange anomaly of the most populous nation under heaven recognis- 
 ing no god at all, and yet constantly acting towards innumerable other beings 
 precisely as all other heathen people have uniformly acted towards their 
 acknowledged gods ! Such an exception is a priori incredible ; and before it 
 can be admitted, ought to be substantiated on grounds most manifestly incon- 
 trovertible. 
 
 In favour of the use of Shin in preference to any term thus far advocated, 
 your committee would state, that a large majority of the Protestant missiona- 
 ries in China are of this opinion. By late accounts received from that coun- 
 try, it seems that the proportion of missionaries at the various stations, in 
 favour of one or other of the proposed words, is as follows : For Shangte, 
 nineteen; for the transferred term, six; and for Shin, fifty-five. This, we 
 think, indicates the predominant feeling of those who, being on the spot, may 
 be considered as best qualified to form a correct judgment. 
 
 In conclusion your committee remark, that much reliance must be placed 
 on Christian instruction, in order to form in the Chinese mind a true concep- 
 tion of God, and thus to incorporate in the word Shin a fulness of meaning, 
 which it is freely granted it does not yet contain, but which it is better capa- 
 ble of receiving than any other word yet proposed. 
 
 They recommend therefore the use of Shin, as the best word to be em- 
 ployed, with a transfer of the term Ja-ho, for Jehovah, in analogy with Ya-soo, 
 now in use for Jesus. Such a course has already received the sanction of the 
 British and Foreign, and also of the American, Bible Societies, in other ver- 
 sions which they have published. The Indian translation into the Sioux dia- 
 lect, the Hawaiian, and the Grebo, use the native terms for God and transfer 
 Jehovah ; and there is reason to think that the same is true of other versions 
 which it has not been practicable to examine. In the Tahitian New Testa- 
 ment, the native word is employed for God, and Logos is transferred. 
 
 As your committee agree in recommending the use of Shin for God, they 
 can do no otherwise than recommend that Ling be employed to denote spirit. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted, 
 
 Sam’l H. Turner, 
 
 R. S. Storrs, Jr. 
 
 The above report of the sub-oommittee on the 4th of December was laid 
 before the Committee on Versions, consisting of the Rev. Drs. Spring, Turner, 
 Robinson, Vermilye, M’Clintock, Thos. Cock, M. D., and Rev. Mr. Storrs, 
 and was carefully considered, as its main features had been often before. 
 The Rev. Dr. Robinson then submitted the following resolutions ; — 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the sub-committee on the proper words to be 
 used in the Chinese version, for the ideas of God and Spirit, in the Old and 
 

 8 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 New Testaments, be accepted and adopted as the Report of this Committee to 
 the Board of Managers. 
 
 Resolved, That it be recommended to the Board of Managers to cause the 
 said Report to be printed, and copies of the same to be transmitted to the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, as expressing the general result to which 
 the Board have' come on this difficult and important topic; at the same time 
 respectfully requesting their further consideration of the subject, and, if pos- 
 sible, their concurrence in the views set forth in this Report. 
 
 These Resolutions, with the Report, were then adopted by the Commit- 
 tee, and the whole were unanimously approved by the Board at its regular 
 meeting, 5th of December, 1850. i. 
 
 » % J. C. Brigham, Secretary. 
 
 Bible Society House 
 
 New York, Dec. 10th, 185( 
 
 ./ 
 
 1