In the above passage Dr. Knox has translated the term “Shin,” the Chinese ideograph for the Japanese word “Kami,” by the English singular, God.  This lends to the passage a fullness of monotheistic expression which the original hardly, if at all, justifies.  The originals are indefinite as to number and might with equal truth be translated “gods,” as Dr. Knox suggests himself in a footnote.

These and similar passages are of great interest to the student of Japanese religious development.  They should be made much of by Christian preachers and missionaries.  Such writers and thinkers as Muro evidently was might not improperly be called the pre-Christian Christians of Japan.  They prepared the way for the coming of more light on these subjects.  Japanese Christian apologists should collect such utterances from her wise men of old, and by them lead the nation to an appreciation of the truths which they suggest and for which they so fitly prepare the way.  Scattered as they now are, and seldom read by the people, they lie as precious gems imbedded in the hills, or as seed safely stored.  They can bear no harvest till they are sown in the soil and allowed to spring up and grow.

The more I have pondered the implications of these and similar passages, the more clear has it become that their authors were essentially religious men.  Their revolt from “religion” did not spring from an irreligious motive, but from a deeper religious insight than was prevalent among Buddhist believers.  The irrational and often immoral nature of many of the current religious expressions and ceremonials and beliefs became obnoxious to the thinking classes, and were accordingly rejected.  The essence of religion, however, was not rejected.  They tore off the accumulated husks of externalism, but kept intact the real kernel of religion.

The case for the religious nature of modern, educated Japan is not so simple.  Irreligious it certainly appears.  Yet it, too, is not so irreligious as perhaps the Occidental thinks.  Though immoral, a Japanese may still be a filial son and a loyal subject, characteristics which have religious value in Japan, Old and New.  It would not be difficult to prove that many a modern Japanese writer who proclaims his rejection of religion—­calling all religion but superstition and ceremony—­is nevertheless a religious man at heart.  The religions he knows are too superstitious and senseless to satisfy the demands of his intellectually developed religious nature.  He does not recognize that his rejection of what he calls “religion” is a real manifestation of his religious nature rather than the reverse.