The statement is widely made that because the Japanese language has no term for “personality” the people are lacking in the idea; that consequently they have difficulty in grasping it even when presented to them, and that as a further consequence they are not to be criticised for their hesitancy in accepting the doctrine of the “Personality of God.”  It must be admitted that if “personality” is to be defined in the various ambiguous and contradictory ways in which we have seen it defined by advocates of Oriental “impersonality” much can be said in defense of their hesitancy.  Indeed, no thinking Christian of the Occident for a moment accepts it.  But if “personality” is defined in the way here presented, which I judge to be the usage of thoughtful Christendom, then their hesitancy cannot be so defended.  It is doubtless true that there is in Japanese no single word corresponding to our term “personality.”  But that is likewise true of multitudes of other terms.  The only significance of this fact is that Oriental philosophy has not followed in exactly the same lines as the Occidental.  As a matter of fact I have not found the idea of personality to be a difficult one to convey to the Japanese, if clear definitions are used.  The Japanese language has, as we have seen, many words referring to the individuality, to the self of manhood; it merely lacks the general abstract term, “personality.”  This is, however, in keeping with the general characteristics of the language.  Abstract terms are, compared with English, relatively rare.  Yet with the new civilization they are being coined and introduced.  Furthermore, the English term “personality” is readily used by the great majority of educated Christians just as they use such words as “life,” “power,” “success,” “patriotism,” and “Christianity.”

In the summer of 1898, with the Rev. C.A.  Clark I was invited to speak on the “Outlines of Christianity” in a school for Buddhist priests.  At the close of our thirty-minute addresses, a young man arose and spoke for fifty minutes, outlining the Buddhist system of thought; his address consisted of an exposition of the law of cause and effect; he also stated some of the reasons why the Christian conception of God and the universe seemed to him utterly unsatisfactory; the objections raised were those now current in Japan—­such, for example, as that if God really were the creator of the universe, why are some men rich and some poor, some high-born and some low-born.  He also asked the question who made God?  In a two-minute reply I stated that his objections showed that he did not understand the Christian’s position; and I asked in turn what was the origin of the law of cause and effect.  The following day the chief priest, the head of the school and its most highly educated instructor, dined with us.  We of course talked of the various aspects of Christian and Buddhist doctrine.  Finally he asked me how I would answer the question as to who created God, and as to the origin of the law of cause