Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

"Le is SHIN."

Part I. Le.

1. He is inherent in all things, par. i, 24, 26.

2. Khe (or Matter) is generated by him, and he is designated nature. 2, 24, 35.

3. SHIN and matter never separate; the former is incorporeal, the latter corporeal. 4, 5, 25.

4. Both are eternal. 5.

5. SHIN is an indivisible unity. 6.

6.

7.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

is the root of all things. 7.

preserves all things in chaos. 9.

8. Matter depends upon him for action, and he is the great vacuum. 10.

9. The world depends upon this SHIN for existence; and both SHIN and Matter are infinite. 12.

10. This SHIN is superior to Shang-te; the supposed acts of Shangte being, in reality, the acts of this first or supreme SHIN. 16. 27. 11. This SHIN is the soul of the world. 22.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

is incorporeal reason, and the origin of all the life

13. SHIN and Matter never separate. 25.

14. This SHIN existed before heaven and earth. 26.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Part. II.

is Lord of all. 30.

confers the power of motion on the matter in which

The (Incorporeal) Great Extreme. "The (Incorporeal) Great Extreme is SHIN."

1. This SHIN is Le (fate). 1, 28, 29, 40.

2.

3.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

4.

5.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

is an indivisible unity, 11, 37.
is incorporeal, 31.

preserves the world in being, 6.

and Khe (matter) cannot be separated; the Khe is

generated by this Shin; and both are sternal, 7.

6. This SHIN is "the infinite" (anɛipov), 13, 38.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

is omnipresent, incorporeal, and infinite, 14.

is the best and truly excellent principle, 16.
is designated Le in chaos, and the Great Extreme

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

confers the power of motion on the Khe or matter, 31.

15. This SHIN is inherent in the Khe, yet generated it, 32. 16. All creation depends upon this SHIN for existence and preservation, 35.

17. This SHIN though inherent in mind or the Khe is yet distinet from it, 42.

18. This SHIN is the incorporcal great extreme, and the Khe is the corporeal great extreme, 45, 47, 48.

19. Nothing can exist without this SHIN, upon which all things depends, 50.

V. SHIN is used kaτ' ɛğoxǹv in prayer, by the Chinese.

"O Te, when Thou hadst separated the Yin and the Yang (i. e. the heavens and earth), thy creating power proceeded. Thou didst produce, O, the sun and moon, and the five planets, and pure and beautiful was their light. The vault of heaven was spread out like a curtain, and the square earth supported all on it, and all things were happy. I, Thy servant, venture reverently to thank Thee, and, while I worship, present the notice to Thee, O Te, calling Thee Sovereign.'

This prayer is given in Dr. Legge's "Notions," &c., p, 28. amongst others of the same character. My object in quoting it, is merely to remark that 1st, SHIN is unquestionably used kar' ɛçoxǹv in this prayer. 2nd, Dr. L. does not see the slightest "ragueness" in the use of this term here, but translates it at once in the singular number and as referring to the Chinese chief deity, whom he supposes to be the true God. 3rd, We have here clear proof that those who thus address Jehovah in prayer; or say in the words of Hezekiah, "Thou art the SHIN, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth," use the word SIIN in strict accordance with Chinese usus loquendi, whereas those who reject this use of SHIN, do so through evident unacquaintance with this usus loquendi. It is therefore to be hoped that, amongst intelligent students, objections of the kind referred to, will in future cease to be urged. 4th. Insert the name Jehovah in this prayer instead of Te or "Ruler" and, with very slight alteration, any Christian may address it to Him who is the only SHIN.

The Yin and Yang mentioned in this prayer are not the material heaven and earth, as Dr. L. supposes, but the light and the darkness, the two great principles, of which heaven and earth are the first material (or Yin-Yang) body. In this prayer then, the formation of the light and the darkness are attributed to a SHIN whom Dr. L. states to be Shang-te, and therefore, the Dr. concludes, Shang-te must be Jehovah! But, if such a conclusion as this were admitted, it would prove too much; for, we should then be obliged to admit that every chief god of a pantheon, to whom the works of Jehovah are attribut

October.] IS SHANGTI OF CHINESE CLASSICS SAME BEING AS JEHOVAH? 411

ed by his votaries, is equally the true God. The god of the Persians (Mithras), equally with Shang-te, was declared by them to be the generator of the light and the darkness; but, in direct opposition to the claims of both these gods, Jehovah Himself says; "I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the Light (Yang) and create darkness" (Yin). Is. xlv, 6, 7. To declare then that Shang-te or any other pagan god, with whom Matter is equally eternal, created the world in the same sense as Jehovah did, is, however ignorantly such a statement may be made, giving the glory of Jehovah to another.

Who then created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The SHIN Jehovah, or the Shin Shang-te? "How long halt ye between two opinions? If Jehovah be SHIN, follow Him; but if Shangte, then follow him."

IS THE SHANGTI OF THE CHINESE CLASSICS THE SAME BEING AS JEHOVAH OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES ?

PART I.

ONE of the most important questions that can engage the minds of mis

sionaries at the present time is this; is the Shangti of the Chinese Classics, the same Being as Jehovah of the Sacred Scriptures? This question is not only important in itself, but it is still more important from its connection with other questions which press for settlement. But little further progress can be made in determining what word shall be used in the translation of Elohim and Theos into Chinese, until this preliminary question shall have been decided. Every one can see, that if Shangti of the Chinese Classics is indeed the same Being as Jehovah of the Bible, what an immense vantage ground this gives us as missionaries in our efforts to introduce the Bible and its doctrines amongst this people. So also, if it can be established that Shangti is the same as Jehovah, then there is an end to all further controversy in regard to the distinctive name for God. For if from time immemorial, Jehovah has been called in the language of this people, Shangti, why should we, who bring to them a revelation from Jehovah, seek any other name by which to designate him than that by which he has been so long known to them? But in a matter of so much importance and of such extended relations, we may not receive such a statement as true, on slight or insufficient grounds. The consequences of an error here would be most serious and long continued.

The affirmative of this question has been argued with great ability and learning by the Rev. J. Legge D.D., LL.D., formerly a distinguished missionary at Hongkong, and now the learned Professor of Chinese at Oxford. The statement of his opinion on this subject was first published in a series of letters to the "Hongkong Register," in 1849, and then in 1852, in a book entitled "The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits:" and recently, in his paper which was read before, the

General Missionary Conference at Shanghai on May 11th, 1877, on "Confucianism in relation to Christianity." The ability and learning displayed in these publications are acknowledged by all; and all will readily admit the clearness and courage with which the learned profes sor states his opinions. On page 23 of the "Notions of the Chinese" the Dr. says; "My thesis is that the Chinese have a knowledge of the true God, and that the highest Being whom they worship is indeed the same whom we worship." After presenting the argument, in proof of this opinion, and expressing his opinion of Shangti, he says: "I am confident the Christian world will agree with me in saying "this God is our God." The explicit statement thus made by a Christian missionary and a learned scholar, that he regards the chief god of a heathen people, to be the same Being as the God revealed to mankind in the Bible, is sufficiently startling as to challenge investigation. This opinion is so contrary to the opinions on that subject which have been held by Christian men of all ages and countries, that it must be substantiated by very clear proofs before it can be received as true. The Jews regarded the chief gods of all the nations around them, whatever were the titles and attributes ascribed to them, as false gods. The histories of the ancient nations of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, India and Greece have spoken of the gods of these nations as false gods, hence it would be surpassingly strange and at the same time most interesting, if, while all the other nations of the world within a few hundred years after the deluge had all formed to themselves gods after their own imagination, it should be found that the Chinese have preserved the knowledge of the one living and true God through the long period of more than four thousand years. I have given the subject very careful and patient investigation and at the conclusion of it, I must declare, that after the consideration of all the professor's arguments, I cannot receive the opinion which he supports. The arguments which he presents in support of the opinion that Shangti is the same Being as Jehovah entirely fail to establish their indentity. And the arguments on the other side, in my judgment, make it clear beyond all doubt that Shangti is not the same Being as Jehovah.

I will now present to my readers the arguments, which, in my judg ment, establish the opinion that Shangti is not the same as Jehovah. These will be arranged under three heads. 1st, It is contrary to the teachings of the Bible that they are the same Being. 2nd, That the chief gods of the other heathen nations have had attributes and worship, which belong to Jehovah, ascribed to them, as they have been ascribed to Shangti. And 3rd, Shangti is destitute of some of the essential attributes and work which belong to Jehovah, and, therefore, he is not the same Being. 1st, This opinion is contrary to the teaching of the word of God. The Bible teaches that all men had corrupted their way before Jehovah, and had made unto themselves gods after their own vain thoughts. This is taught in many different ways, both by indirect implication and inferences, and by positive statements. In the Old Testament the implied teachings

is, that as all nations had gone away from Jehovah the true God, and made for themselves false gods, the only way of preserving a knowledge of the true God among men was to call a chosen people from among men to whom the knowledge of Jehovah was again made known by special revelation and this knowledge was committed to them as a special trust for preservation. Thus throughout the whole of the Old Testament history, all the nations, with whom the Jews came in contact-such as the various nations of Canaan, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, &c., worshipped false gods-each nations had its own chief godas Baal, Ashtoroth, Chemosh, Osiris, &c., in contradistinction to Jehovah the God of the Israelites.

So in the New Testament, wherever the apostles went in preaching the Gospel, in fulfilment of the command of their ascended Lord-to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature" the people are spoken of as idolaters, worshippers of false gods, and the obvious teaching of the whole narrative, is that the whole world was in the same condition of ignorance of the one living and true God. It would be easy to quote many writers to show that such has been the wide spread and prevailing opinion of Christians of all ages, as to the condition of the nations that had not yet received the written revelation of Jehovah as made in the Bible. But it is hardly neccessary to quote testimony to an opinion of such general currency. One may suffice. The late M. L' Abbe Huc, in his work, "History of Christianity in China, &c., &c.," writes thus in a note. "It is not without surprise that we find in the writings of this learned Jesuit [Father Le Comte], such propositions as the following:- The people of China have preserved for more than 2000 years the knowledge of the true God, and have paid him homage in a manner that might serve as an example to Christians.' Another [Jesuit], too, in speaking of Confucius says;-His humility and modesty might give grounds for conjecture, that he was not merely a philosopher formed by reason, but a man inspired by God, for the reform of this new world.' Father Le Comte was doubtless inspired by a great desire to facilitate the conversion of the Chinese, and especially the literati, but, in the words of the modern apologist of the Society of Jesus, we must say, that in this instance, Christian charity, and the enthusiasm of science, led the Jesuits astray." Crétinean Joly, vol. iii, p. 178, quoted in Huc, vol. iii, p. 247.

The positive statements of the Sacred Scriptures are equally as clear and decided on this point, as the general implications and inferences of the sacred narratives-Joshua says to the children of Israel, after they had entered into the promised land-"Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Now, therefore, fear Jehovah, and serve him in sincerity and truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and serve ye Jehovah." Josh. 24! 3, 11.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »