Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

counter-charges against the use of Shin or Tien-chü, of a like horrible nature to those which are constantly being directed against the use of Shang-te. I do but protest in the name of Chistian charity, of common sense, and of well-grounded experience, against the continuance of language, condemnatory of the great majority of native Protestant Christians;-language which can only serve to divide effectually the native church, and alienate the hearts of its loyal members from all who so recklessly outrage their tenderest susceptibilities, their holiest feelings.

This argument from experience, of the successful use of Shang-te for the past twenty-five years, disposes effectually of all objections that may be brought against it, to the effect that Nestorians, Mohammedans, and Romanists did not or do not use this but some other term. The Nestorians have gone and left not a trace in a living church; we would regard them as a warning rather than as an example in this matter. Certainly we need not go to the Mohammedan apostacy for instruction in divine worship; and other and cogent reasons make it most desirable, that we preserve the clear distinction at present existing between the Romish and Protestant churches; whilst, if the evidence of the Lettres Edifiantes, vol. xviii, as to the Jews is to be accepted, the use of these haters of idolatry for two thousand years is clearly in favour of Shang-te.

The argument from experience answers also, the objection to Shang-te, that because some Romanists feared it would endanger Christian doctrine and sacrifice the truth, therefore we ought to have the same fear or as it is put in another form, that there is great danger of our disciples confounding the Shang-te of the Bible, with the Shangte worshipped by the emperor at the altar of Heaven! I ask which of the thousands of native Christians using this name during the past twenty-five years, has ever suffered from having done so ! Where is the idolatry to be found amongst them? Has one become again an idolater because of using Shang-te?* Away then with unfounded dread that our converts by using Shang-te "are in danger of becoming idolaters." In the absence of any proofs that such has ever been the case, it is eruel and unjust to urge such an objection.

On the other hand, our possible identification with the Church of Rome, by reason of using the same name for God if we adopt T'ienchu is a real and serious danger, which every one should seek to avert. That in other countries the same name is used for God by both Romanists and Protestants, is an argument that does not apply here; as

* The Shang-te who grants fruitful seasons is to my mind the God of the Bible. The emperor's error is not in worshipping Him, but in the manner of worship; that is, in trying to approach God by another way than that He has revealed in Christ Jesus. But if any object to this view and regard the object of that worship as a different being from the God of Scripture, my argument remains unaffected by a difference of opinion on this point.

the Romish church is principally known in China as the T'ien-chü kiau, from the term she uses for "God." Some Protestants-not Episcopalians who for a time tried the experiment of using this term, have given it up on this account; and certainly if any form of Protestant worship is in more danger than another of being confounded with the Romish, it is the Episcopalian; hence it behoves all such to be doubly on their guard. The Chinese would be glad to have an excuse in the future, for not distinguishing between us, which they have not had in the past; let us be careful and not afford them such. Experience resulting from the use of Shang-te applies in another direction, as an argument for its continuance. I mean in the way of literature. Experience shows that this is the best working term for translating Elohim, Theos or "God," and for keeping the distinction clear between these words and Adonai, Kupioç or "Lord." This is a point of great importance to Bible and tract committees to those who are concerned in translation either into the vernacular or book language, of hymn books, prayer books or works on theology generally. A various and undecided use of terms is a source of constant weakness and confusion. Accuracy and stability are specially required in dogmatic literature, and these requirements render impossible any compromise such as has been suggested in the use of two or even three terms for "God" in the same book. Nothing more satisfactory can be required than the results already attained in the case of catechists and candidates for the ministry, trained to the use of Shang-te for "God." It remains to be proved, that better results have been obtained by the use of Shin, or are likely to be by the adoption of Tien-chü.

So far then, experience answers all objections which can be brought against this much-abused term; whilst it serves to convince us who use it, more than ever of the security of the ground on which we stand from a religious point of view.

If it be urged, that after all Shang-te is not " Jehovah," we reply neither is Elohim;-this is a mere truism, recognized in the Bible Society's version, by the use of the phrase "Jehovah Shang-te," for "Jehovah Elohim." But equally is it true, that Tien-chü is also not Jehovah, nor can it be said that it is the name of the most High who revealed Himself to Abraham, and was revealed by Jesus Christ. This is the only God we recognize, or teach others to recognize; and we think He is to be recognized better under the term Shang-te than that of T'ien-chü.

I have thus endeavoured to present the question in a somewhat new light, and in doing so my attention has been directed more particularly to Tien-chu than to Shin. Signs are not wanting, that as it was in the Romish missions so it will be with Protestants-the ultimate

conflict will be between Shang-te and Tien-chü. It is now generally known that simultaneous and energetic efforts are being made, to bring about a consensus of missionaries to the exclusive use of Tienchü for "God" in the place of Shin on the one hand, and Shang-te on the other. Several of the former supporters of Shin have abandoned their old position, and are prepared to accept T'ien-chü as a via media ; whilst in some instances, Christian rites are withheld from those who refuse to abandon the term they believe to be right, for one to which they have an invincible repugnance. It is to be hoped, that none now using the time-honoured, divinely-blessed term Shang-te, will be led to abandon it for Tien-chü, in the hope that thereby they will be accelerating an unanimous settlement of the question. The steady adherence of so many veterans in the field to the old use without a shadow of anxiety or idea of change or whisper of compromise, sincerely as they would hail unity in the matter, is surely a weighty reason why we later comers should imitate their example and stare super antiquas vias. In conclusion, when urged to give way, let us ask, what are our Churches to gain by the change to Tien-chü, supposing for a moment that we could induce them to agree to it? Show us that in numbers of converts, in increasing depth of spirituality, in firmer grasp of sound doctrine, in more exemplary practice of Christian virtue and self-denial-in any or in all of these we are likely to be benefitted by abandoning Shang-te for Tien-chü;-show us this, not theoretically, but by actual experience, and then, but not till then, will it be necessary for us to take counsel as to the carrying out of that change, which at present would be contrary to the teaching of all experience of Protestant missionaries in China during the past twenty-five years.

We feel therefore, that there is abundant warrant for answering the question,-shall Tien-chü supersede Shang-te and Shin? decidedly, and that in the negative. It is sometimes said, that supposing its use were not so identified with the Romish church as is now the case, it might perhaps be thought a better term; but this is beside the mark, for we have to do with facts as we find them. Still we would reply,Tien-chi is very objectionable as a comparatively modern and unauthorized term, not to be found in the classics, and only occurring twice in Chinese literature (Chalmers' The Name of God in Chinese, p. 6), both times used of new idols. It was known* to Kang-hi, and yet is not in his dictionary. Whether the Romish missionaries took it from the above instances, or coined the expression anew, is doubtful; but it lies open to all the objections which attend the use of a term peculiar to foreigners, as well as those derived from the fact, that it is philologically much inferior to Shang-te in fullness of meaning.

See Apologie des Dominicains, Cologne, 1699, p. 82.

The conclusion then to which we are irresistibly led is this,that so long as Shang-te can be used successfully in the propagation of Christianity (and I have shown that it is so used), there is not only no reason at all for-but the gravest against-so revolutionary a change; and that so long as T'ien-chü remains the official and popular title of the Church of Rome in China, there are most weighty reasons for abstaining from and discouraging the use of that term in Protestant missions.

HONGKONG, December 2nd, 1876.

NOTE. In the Yih King, p. 427, 428. Canon M'Clatchie says,"Belus or Baal (like ) is merely a title signifying 'The Lord,' and under this title both the Great Father (Heaven) and the Great Mother (Earth) were included." It is very hard to reconcile this statement with the above quotations. If we agree for a moment with the learned Canon, that "Shang-te is merely a title," it clearly cannot be Jupiter, Baal, &c. for these are personal names of distinct beings; and for the same reason, it is not the chief God of the Chinese, i.e. as chief among many other false gods. But Shang-te is no other than the Supreme Being. We demur in toto to the statement, that "Shang-te is a title" signifying "the Lord" in the same sense in which Bel or Baal did. Chü is undoubtedly the equivalent of "Lord," and therefore philologically Baal in China. Münter in his Religion der Babylonier quotes Sanchoniathon (p. 14, ed. Orelli), to the effect "that the Phoenicians considered the sun to be μόνος οὐρανοῦ κύριος, calling him 'Beelsamen, which is the Zeus of the Greeks.' Balsamen (i.e. Heb. Baalshamin, lord of the heavens) also occurs is Plautus, &c." (Kitto). Where then do we get the true equivalent in Chinese of Bel or Baal or Zeus but in Tien-chü, "the Lord of the heavens," a name first introduced into China, B.C. 220, by Shi Hwang-te for idolatrous purposes, and so used again by Wu of the Han, B.C. 87; the former of these being the first to degrade the sacred title Te by applying it to himself. The care of the prophet Daniel (ch. v. 23) to avoid the use of the idolatrous equivalent of "Lord" or Chü-in the phrase "Lord of Heaven "—is very noticeable; instead of Belshamim he said Marê shmaia-thus avoiding the use of Bel for the true God. Bel seems from the first to have been used idolatrously, as was Tienchü until Rome adopted it. Notes on Chalden account of Genesis by G. Smith, 1876, p. 54, shows that the Supreme Being or "God" or E Shang-te of Assyria was Anu, but his worship was deserted for that of Bel (Lord) and Ishtar.

MISSIONARY STATISTICS.

IN accordance with suggestions made in previous numbers of the Recorder, we have received the following tables from three mis

sions, and gladly give them insertion here.

SWATOW MISSION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Statistical Statement for the year ending 31st December, 1876.

Communicants at 31st December, 1875 ...

Additions

Adults Baptized during the year

Admitted to Communion, having been Baptized in Infancy

Received by Certificate

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

413

Deductions

*Suspended during the year

Died

Gone elsewhere

Communicants at 31st December, 1876

(Children Baptized during the year 1876)

[ocr errors]

Total Baptized children, not yet admitted to Communion

*Members now under suspension

Total Membership of Adults and Children

17

89

502

[subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

• This number Includes fourteen persons who were led away by the Roman Catholics at Kieh-yang.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »