intellectual acceptance of monotheism ere they could be considered, or even be, truly “Christian,” has led many such “believers” to abandon their relations with the Church.  This, while on many accounts to be regretted, was nevertheless inevitable.  The bare acceptance of the monotheistic idea does not secure that transformation of heart and produce that warmth of living faith which are essential elements in the altruistic life demanded of the Christian.

Nor is it difficult to understand why monotheism has proved such an attraction to the Japanese when we consider that through it they first recognized a unity in the universe and even in their own lives.  Nature, and human nature took on an intelligibility which they never had had under the older philosophy.  History likewise was seen to have a meaning and an order, to say nothing of a purpose, which the non-Christian faiths did not themselves see and could not give to their devotees.  Furthermore the monotheistic idea furnished a satisfactory background and explanation for the exact sciences.  If there is but one God, who is the fount and cause of all being, it is easy to see why the truths of science should be universal and absolute, rather than local and diverse, as they would be were they subject to the jurisdiction of various local deities.  The universality of nature’s laws was inconceivable under polytheism.  Monotheism thus found a ready access to many minds.  Polytheism pure and simple is the belief of no educated Japanese to-day.  He is a monist of some kind or other.  Philosophic Buddhism always was monistic, but not monotheistic.  Thinking Confucianists were also monistic.  But neither philosophic Buddhism nor Confucianism emphasized their monistic elements; they did not realize the importance to popular thought of monistic conceptions.  But possessing these ideas, and being now in contact with aggressive Christian monotheism, they are beginning to emphasize this truth.

As Japan has had no adequate conception of God, her conception of man has been of necessity defective.  Indeed, the cause of her inadequate conception of God is due in large measure to her inadequate conception of man, which we have seen to be a necessary consequence of the primitive communal order.  Since, however, we have already given considerable attention to Japan’s inadequate conception of man, we need do no more than refer to it in this connection.

Corresponding to her imperfect doctrines of God and of man is her doctrine of sin.  That the Japanese sense of sin is slight is a fact generally admitted.  This is the universal experience of the missionary.  Many Japanese with whom I have conversed seem to have no consciousness of it whatever.  Indeed, it is a difficult matter to speak of to the Japanese, not only because of the etiquette involved, but for the deeper reason of the deficiency of the language.  There exists no term in Japanese which corresponds to the Christian word “sin.”  To tell a man he is a sinner without stopping to explain what one means would be an insult, for he is not conscious of having broken any of the laws of the land.  Yet too much stress must not be laid on this argument from the language, for the Buddhistic vocabulary furnishes a number of terms which refer to the crime of transgressing not the laws of the land, but those of Buddha.