I have lately been interested in noticing the number of terms God employs in making known His nature and attributes. Such is the depth of human ignorance and such the poverty of human language that He found no one term sufficient for His purpose.

In this respect are not the Chinese of to-day very much in the same position as the Jews of old? The chosen race in Egypt had been for centuries without a Divine revelation, and had probably lost, through contact with idolatry, the clear conception of God enjoyed by their forefathers. It is painful to notice how God almost labored, if we may say so, to convey to their dull minds a proper idea of Himself.

Moses felt this difficulty, and when commanded to go to Israel said, "if I say unto them, 'The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you,' they will say to me: 'What is His name?"" God answered, "Thou shalt say unto the sons of Israel, Ehyeh hath sent me unto you."

Here God reveals Himself to man as "I am," lit., I go to be the "One who is about to act." (Ex. iii. 14). The promises made to their forefathers were about to be fulfilled. Soon after this God recurs to the name Jehovah "the self-existent One," under which He had made Himself known of old, but not by such proofs as He was now about to show to Israel and to Pharaoh. In early times "names were significant and served to mark out the individual by some peculiarity in his person, some trait in his character, or some event in his history. If several of these circumstances might occur in the case of a finite man how much more may we expect them to come out in the contemplation of the infinite God. Accordingly among a primitive people His names grow in number as the manifold aspects of His all-perfect character break upon their view. He is called Elohim, the everlasting, when His antecedent eternity and absolute independence are contemplated. He is termed Jehovah, the self-existent, the author of all existing things, when He is regarded as the free and personal God, manifesting His being to the intelligent universe by the works of His creative power. He is named El Elion, the Most High God, when His unattainable preeminence above all created things comes into view. He is designated El Shaddai, the Almighty God, when He wishes to set before the mind His unconquerable omnipotence.'

In later times, the times of Ezra and of Daniel, when Israel was living among an idolatrous people we find him designated "the God of heaven" (or of the heavens.) When God has chosen to reveal Himself under so many names in order to accommodate Himself to our finite understanding does it show wisdom on our part to insist on using one term only? Shall we who through ages of Christian knowledge have learned to associate definite ideas with Murphy on Exodus.

*

the term God refuse to accommodate ourselves to a heathen people who are just emerging from darkness or are still in its midst?

In my own mind I have no doubt that Shang Ti is the best term to express God's "transcendence" any more than I have that Shin is the best term to express the Divine "imminence." Shin seems best to express God's mysterious working in the creation and transformation of all things. Witness the common expression 神造化之極 and 神迹 as applied to created objects as the sun, moon and stars. On the other hand, Shang Ti is well adapted to express the Divine Majesty and Mighty Ruler. In preaching to the heathen I am accustomed to employ whatever term seems best adapted to express that side of the Divine character which I am endeavoring to present to my audience, and frequently use several terms synonymously, as they are found in our Chinese Christian literature. Both terms are in the present Christian literature, and I presume are there to stay. Is it not wiser to conform to the fact and have a mutual understanding, as rival steam-ship companies often do, instead of pursuing the "cut throat" policy of one line trying to run all the others off the trade? When we come to the translation of God's word of course we must be faithful to the original, but here we have a case where faithfulness to the original seems to demand that we conform our expression to the ideas presented in the text and context.

It seems to me that instead of ranging ourselves in separate camps we should catch more of the spirit of the venerable book we are translating and use the variety of terms which we find there. No confusion need exist. We use "Spirit" and "Ghost" interchangeably in speaking of the Third Person of the Trinity, though the latter term is elsewhere now confined to a far lower usage. The epithet "holy" or the capital S distinguish Him from the lower use of "spirit" or "ghost," as in Greek the definite article does. I think the "delegates" and Dr. John have done rightly in translating To Vevua by, even where there is no ayov in the Greek. To leave out the article is just as poor a translation as to insert the is. In some cases the reference is clear, in others, as Acts xix. 21, it may be difficult to say whether To TvEvμa refers to the Divine Spirit or the human spirit as inspired by the Divine. Usually, however, the context will determine the meaning.

Probably the word for "Spirit" is a point where agreement will be found to be more difficult than that for "God." If some one word could be agreed on, the "Term Question' would be much nearer settlement. But even if two terms are used, as in English, no practical difficulty exists.

So my conclusion is that with regard to the Divine names comprehension is better than ranging ourselves in opposing ranks.

F

Female Education.*

BY REV. R. M. MATEER.

[American Presbyterian Mission, Weihien.]

HE educating of the girls urges itself upon us for two general and three special reasons. In general:

First. Because, equally with the boys, it is their right. It is their right, because they are human beings, going to live forever, and because they have a great God-assigned part to perform in the uplifting and saving of China. Unbelief or indifference concerning thorough female education, the idea that it is in any sense a duty or virtue for a woman to remain ignorant,— these, along with slavery, polygamy and torture, are relics of barbarism. In Syria it was at first protested that a woman could no more be educated than a cat. In the South Seas it was insisted that women could not understand kindness; that when they became troublesome the only way was to kill and feast upon a few in order to instruct the living. However strange, it is just possible that missionaries unconsciously imbibe some of these heathen views. A woman from the country said to her milkman, "I do not like your milk. It's dreadfully thin and there is no cream on it." He replied, "Arter you've lived in the city a while mum, you'll git over them rooral idees o'yourn.'

Indeed all are not entirely free from these heathen sentiments when they come to China. Some of the most profound and precious truths that ever entered human ear were revealed first to a woman. The apostles, influenced by the Rabbinical notion that the female sex was incapable of religious instruction, marveled that our Lord talked with the woman. After eighteen hundred years, in 1879, Oxford opened a hall for women, but up to the present, although passing exactly the same examination as men, they are given not a degree but a certificate! Most amazing of all is the fact that the most indifferent to the higher education of women are the women themselves. A prominent educator has, upon investigation, ascertained the fact that, while many have given largely for educating men, only one woman in the U. S. A. has ever given any considerable sum for educating women. Likewise here in China it really seems necessary at times for men to take the lead in this matter.

Second. Because the triune voice of Revelation, History and Reason bid us educate the women. Our daughters, says the psalmist, * Read at the Shantung Conference in November, 1893.

are to be as corner-stones polished after the similitude of a palace. Why are we building; what are we building without these divinely chosen corner-stones, cut and polished? Machinery, money, missionaries, instruction, scientific and theological,-with these we are building large and bright, while leaving the corner-stones in the mines of heathenism. High over the portals of such a structure God has written folly and failure. We must begin anew by the cutting and polishing of God's chosen corner-stones.

What does History say? Greece, Rome and Babylon! Why did they ignominiously fall? Because they made the state instead of the family the unit of society. In vain did they think to live and flourish with woman nothing but a toy or a slave. Are we, in the name of Christianity, to repeat their mistake? Certainly we are, so long as we make the station and the Church everything, while neglecting the family. The salvation and large success of our work must lie in lifting up into prominence the mother, the wife and the school mistress.

The verdict of Reason is uttered in such sayings as: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Such sayings are so familiar because so true.

How is it in Shantung? After thirty years of effort, with one hundred and sixty-five missionaries and about eight thousand members, how many of our number are giving themselves personally to the teaching of girls? It is said there is one. How can we be thus overcome as by a summer's dream?

Female education presses upon us for three special reasons. First. We must have girls' schools to train future mothers. Out of families the nation and the Church are made. If this great fountain of love and truth and duty be dried up all artificial streams will fail. Are we to have for our cause awakened intellects, enlisted affections, conquered wills and quickened consciences we must have educated Christian mothers. The sweet, strong and lasting influence of godly mothers is absolutely indispensable in order to the fixing in goodness the pliable character of the children of the Church. To be thus a living Gospel to her children she must be educated.

In our China Church the children are left to browse at large. They are not gathered round the family altar nor taken to Church. This alarming fact will remain a fact till the mother be, taught to realize the immortal worth and dignity of the child given her in trust from God.

We

We mourn the unreliable character of our Christians. shall continue to do so until the mother ceases to promise her child a biscuit or a beating but fails to give it to him.

We are shocked by their lack of reverence. Parental influence is the only cure for this. It must be imbibed in the lap and at the knee of the mother who is herself such as to command the respect of her child. There must be mothers with the self-control and moral courage to face public opinion in compelling obedience by affectionate firmness and wholesome discipline.

We are praying and laboring and longing for men of that selfresource, self-reliance, self-renunciation and compassionate love for their fellowmen that will make them independent leaders of the native Church. We shall not find them till we study and appreciate the mother's influence upon such men as Luther, Wesley and Washington, and then educate in earnest Christian mothers. In this we have need to redeem the time, or the youngest of us will die without seeing the desire of our hearts.

Second. We must have schools to train wives for the pastors and leaders of the Church. Otherwise, unless satisfied with a very low semi-heathen standard, we shall never have men able to take charge of the Church. No man who looks down upon woman is fit for a leader in the Christian Church. This is just what every man will do, whose wife has no mental outreach and no spiritual upreach. With a heathen or nominally Christian wife a leader is placed in a false and unscriptural position. He is semi-paralyzed, and hence of little account. He will either let the spiritual and moral state of the Church lie prostrate or succumb under the burden of care and discouragement. He will be not only not helped but most seriously hindered by the influence of her backbiting, jealous, narrow and unreasonable companionship. He must be sustained by the intelligent sympathy, tact and patience of a Christian wife, or he cannot continue to suffer and be strong. He must have such a wife to kill his vanity and save his reputation. He must have such a wife, or his own home will be such as to tie his tongue concerning a large section of vital moral questions.

Third. We must have such schools in order to prepare teachers for the women and girls of the Church. All that men can and will do in this direction is utterly unsatisfactory. This fact and the reasons for it are too clear to call for enlargement. This work foreign women cannot possibly overtake directly. In stamping a nation's coins the device is engraved upon soft steel dies by very skilful engravers and this steel hardened. But these engraved dies are too valuable to use constantly, for one is worn out in about two weeks; so impressions are made from them in softer steel, which is hardened, and with these the coins are struck. Likewise our women are too costly and too soon worn out to do all this work. They must make their impress upon girls in school and send them forth to stamp