1848.] The Conclusion. 749 they too frequently terminate at the last head of the body of the discourse, without any regular peroration. A tedious monotony, an abundance of idle, wearisome repetitions, and of artificial constructions, must result from an observance of the rule that every sermon shall close with a five-fold application-to instruct, to refute objections, to reprove or to warn, to exhort, and to console. The old writers of homiletics [English as well as German] insist on these five uses as essential to a profitable sermon: usus didascalius or dogmaticus, elenchticus or polemicus, epanorthoticus, paeduticus, paracleticus. They appeal to 2 Tim. 3: 16 and Rom. 15: 4, as if these passages were designed to supply clergymen with homiletical rules. But why should a preacher devote a special part of his sermon to each of these uses, when each may have been sufficiently attended to in his previous train of remark? Will it be said that he should systematically reserve all these applications for the close of his sermon, and therefore not insert them where they are logically appropriate? Shall the order of a discourse be thus invaded, and its whole shape distorted, for the sake of bending to an artificial and scholastic And how shall every subject be made to suggest, naturally and without constraint, these five uses? It is a false view of the nature of a sermon, which induces its composer to abstain from all attempts to make it practical until he reaches the close of it. He should make it practical throughout, and as a whole. Still, as some discourses are to be regulated by the theoretical proposition which is selected as their theme, these may properly defer until their close the most vehement or melting of their appeals to the heart and will. The conclusion of a sermon is often peculiarly fitted for delineating the practical results of a discussion, and for applying it to various classes of the audience. The final sentences of a discourse may very happily be one or more stanzas of a devotional hymn, or still more happily a passage of sacred writ. This is the most worthy top-stone of the whole structure. The echo of the sermon sounds so much the louder and deeper, by mingling it with the words of inspiration. Frequently this biblical and even the lyrical quotation may be the finishing words of a prayer with which the discourse closes. The excitement of the preacher rises higher and higher, until it can express itself only in the language of devotion. Both he and his hearers are more heartily interested in concluding, than they are in beginning their homiletical service with a prayer, although such a solemn address to God is an appropriate form for the commencement as well as for the termination of many a discourse. When this address is made the closing part of the sermon, it may breathe forth the emotions which are naturally excited by the remarks which have been made, or it may express the personal hopes of the preacher that his discourse may be useful. He should give especial heed that it be animated with the spirit and be clothed in the language of supplication, and that it do not retain the prosaic character of the sermon. Reinhard sometimes inserts in his exordium a prayer which contains the division of his discourse, and sometimes the prayer in his epilogue is a virtual recapitulation of the leading ideas which he has advanced. The same may be said of other eminent preachers, and it cannot be indiscriminately condemned. The recapitulation may be expressed in such eminently devotional language, as to suggest no idea of a scholastic reference to the divisions in the sermon. Thus Herder, in his beautiful homily on the raising of the widow's only son from the dead at Nain, Luke 7: 11-17, expatiates on the providence of God that watches with fatherly care over the destiny of each individual, distributes and commingles joy and sorrow in a wonderful manner among men, sends helps and consolations at the very hour when they are most needed, not seldom in ways entirely unexpected, and most frequently by means of kind-hearted, compassionate men. He closes his discourse with the following recapitulatory yet affectionate prayer: "Oh thou who livest forever! thou Father of our destiny, before whose vision is stretched out the whole picture of our life with its sorrow and its joy; whose ear catcheth our cheerful and our mournful notes; in whose heart all our emotions resound! With a wise hand dost thou distribute joy and sorrow; thou troublest and consolest us, and teachest us thereby that we should comfort others. To all who are anxious and faint-hearted, give thou the inward assurance that thine eye seeth them, thy searching glance findeth them out, and thou hast compassion upon them. Let them hear the voice of thy Spirit speaking in their hearts, as none other can, and saying to them, Weep not!—and teach thou them to pray. At the right moment send thou the angel of consolation, who shall strengthen and quicken them with the cup of life. Awaken in men the noble sentiment, that they can be the very arm of the Most High, extending comfort and good cheer to the sorrowful. Lord! at that day when the last tears shall be wiped from our eyes, when thou by thy gentle power shalt raise us up to the higher life, when thine almighty hand shalt touch us and thou shalt say, I am he who liveth forever, and ye shall live also; oh, at that day, for all the events which have been intertwined with each other in our earthly course, for our mourning and our gladness, let there come into our eyes the tears of joy which are the thanks of the redeemed. Amen." You may perhaps be aware that the Chinese have selected from the whole number of the characters which compose their written language, two hundred and fourteen characters, called by them "Tszepoo," and by us radicals, or keys, one or more of which constitutes, or forms a part of, every other character in the language. Each of these radicals is numbered and has its own proper name and place in native dictionaries. In their dictionaries the Chinese group together all the characters having the same radicals, and arrange these groups in the same numerical order with the radicals themselves. The characters under each radical are also arranged according to the number of strokes with the pencil which each character contains, not counting its radical. Thus a character composed of a radical and one stroke is placed first, that which has two strokes is placed next, and so on in regular order till the whole group is completed. In consulting their dictionaries, the Chinese first look for the radical belonging to the character, whose name or meaning, or both, they wish to learn, and then turn to the group of characters arranged under that radical and find it situated near or more distant from the radical, according to the number of strokes which it contains. Under this character thus found, is placed another character of the same sound, which is supposed to be known by the one who consults the dictionary, and which gives the name of the character sought. Then follow other characters of similar signification which give its meaning. This is the method of the Imperial Dictionary of Kanghe, which is the standard dictionary for the nation. In different parts of the empire, these characters, amounting to some 40,000, are called by different names, while their significations remain the same over the whole empire. Hence has arisen the great diversity of dialects among the Chinese, while the same characters and the same books are used with equal facility in every part of China. And here I would observe, by the way, that the difference of orthography used by missionaries in their communications, and in speaking of names and places here, arises mostly from the fact that some use them as they are heard or spoken in the local dialects, while others conform to the orthography of the Mandarin, which is doubtless the most correct, and will probably, ere long, be universally adopted. Using this latter mode, one in speaking of this province would write its name Fukien, while another, using the orthography of one of the southern counties of this province, viz. Cheang Chew, would write it Hok Keen. So of most other names of men, places, etc., their orthography in different dialects differs more or less from their orthography in the Mandarin dialect. Dr. Morrison selected from the whole number of Chinese characters, and such as were supposed to be in most common use, about 12,000, arranged them according to the radicals, and attached names and significations to them in English. Dr. Medhurst has done substantially the same thing, though in a much less extensive form, in respect to one of the county dialects of this province, viz. Cheang Chew. The missionaries at Canton have also furnished an English vocabulary, and a chrestomathy of the Canton dialect. Till recently we had to depend upon our teacher almost exclusively to give us the names of the characters in this dialect, but now, having constructed a syllabus of the dialect from a native vocabulary, and according to this written out the names of the characters contained in Dr. Morrison's list in English, we can, if we choose, be more independent of them in this respect. The native vocabulary above referred to contains a collection of several thousand characters, perhaps not less than ten, and those in most common use by the people of this city, arranged not according to the radicals, but according to the tones and the sounds of this dialect. It is called "Paèk Ing," the eight sounds or tones, though there is in fact but seven tones in use, and comparatively only a few Chinese words represented by the same orthography in English, have as many as seven different tones. In the Mandarin, only four tones are usually spoken of, while in some of the provinces at least, as in this province, each of the above four tones has been divided into two, making in all eight, but in dividing one of the above tones, the distinction is lost and only one tone remains, thus making in all really but seven tones. Much has been said and written, and there still exists a great difference of opinion respecting the importance of the tones; one class making them of the highest importance and altogether indispensable in order to be understood by the people, while the other class regard a knowledge of them as useful though not indispensable, and as secondary to a correct and thorough knowledge of the character and idiom of the language. To say that such men as Dr. Morrison, Dr. Milne, and the late and much esteemed Mr. Lowrie, not to mention others still living and equally esteemed 1848.] Tones in Chinese. 753 for their learning and piety, to say that such men did not attain a sufficient knowledge of the language of China to appreciate the importance and nature of the tones, would be foolish and invidious in the extreme. How then are we to reconcile such a difference of opinion on this subject? It may be done in the way hinted at above, which is doubtless the correct way, viz. that in the Mandarin and in some other dialects, the tones are far less important than in others. In the Cheang Chew, Chwan Chew, Amoy and Fuh Chow dialects of this province, the tones are regarded by the people speaking these dialects, of special importance, while Chinamen speaking the Tie Chew, Canton and Ningpo dialects, seem to pay but little regard to them. The views of missionaries on this subject should of course be conformed to those of the people among whom they labor. It has been asserted, that the same characters have the same tones throughout the empire, how much soever they may differ in orthography in different places. This however is a mistake; it may be so generally, but it is far from being universal truth. And this is more generally true in respect to some tones than in respect to others. What is denominated the first tone may perhaps be so called throughout the empire, but the same cannot (probably) be truly said of any one of the other tones. The tones are classed or numbered differently in different dialects, in respect to some words, and not so in respect to others. For instance, in the Amoy dialect, the word for tea is ranged under the fifth tone, while here it is placed under the second tone; while the word for man, though spelt differently ("gin" at Amoy and " 'Ing" here Fuh Chow) is placed under the fifth tone in both dialects. So in the Cheang Chew dialect, some words which are there placed under the eighth tone are, in the Amoy, found under the fourth tone, while other words are placed under the same tone in both dialects. There is obviously a difference in the same tones as they are expressed by persons of different dialects, but this difference is of such a nature that it cannot be described on paper. Tone, according to Dr. Webster, means sound, strength, accent," but as here used in respect to Chinese words, it has a different signification, inasmuch as words of the same orthography or sound have different tones, and accent has respect to other syllables, one or more, of which the word is composed, while the Chinese language is mostly monosyllabic and of course needs no such mark as accent, properly so called. Tone when applied to Chinese words, has respect to the manner of pronouncing monosyllabic words of the same orthography. Thus sa, the first tone, means west; sá, the second tone, means to wash, or bathe; while sa, the third tone, means small, diminutive. These three tones are all that are found 66 |