[IKY. ARTHUR EL WIN, ON CONFUCIANISM. 



01 



from us, and which is so wanting in their present faith and 

 education. 



The subject is now open for discussion. 



Professor Orchard. — I am sure we owe our gratitude to the 

 able and learned author of this paper for putting before us in so 

 interesting a manner the character and teaching of one of the most 

 remarkable ethical reformers and philosophers who ever trod the 

 earth. Confucianism does not make good its claim to be a religion. 

 A religion, as its derivation implies, is the re-binding of the human 

 spirit to the great I AM. It is the restored relationship of man to 

 God. The original fellowship has been lost by sin. If a man is to 

 be restored to fellowship w r ith God, that sin must be done away 

 with. The great problem of any true religion is this, how to do 

 away with sin. True religion is religion "before God and the 

 Father," but Confucianism makes no remedy for sin. It enjoins 

 some virtues, but it never rises higher than filial piety. If you do 

 not rise higher than filial piety you do not raise man above his 

 natural level. You do not restore the lost communion and fellow- 

 ship with God. 



Confucianism then does not deserve to be called a religion. It 

 is not a religion. It is a system of philosophy undoubtedly, and 

 we may concede this, I think fairly, to Confucius that he was a 

 great ethical reformer and philosopher. At the bottom of page 57 

 and the beginning of page 58, Confucius himself admits the failure 

 of his system. He admits that his system does not (even in his 

 own case) soar far above the ordinary man of his days. He admits 

 that his system does not free from anxieties, nor free from per- 

 plexities, nor free from fear. He admits further there are four 

 things which he ought to do, but which his system does not enable 

 him to do, namely, " To serve my father as I would require my son 

 to serve me ; To serve my prince as I would require my minister to 

 serve me; To serve my elder brother as I would require my 

 younger brother to serve me ; To behave to my friend as I would 

 require him to behave to me." He admits then that with regard to 

 the relationships of father, subject, brother and friend, his system 

 is a failure, — a failure in his own case, yet he was head and 

 shoulders above most of his contemporaries. 



There are one or two questions that I would like to ask the 

 author of this paper. One is on page 47. It appears that before 



