country, if the earliest portions of the Shoo can be relied on at all, to worship other spiritual beings as well. Shun had no sooner been designated by Yaou to the active duties of the government as co-emperor with him, than he offered a special sacrifice, but with the ordinary forms of god [Shangti]; sacrificed purely to the six honoured ones; offered their appropriate sacrifices to the rivers and hills, and extended his worship to the hosts of spirits." [i. e. Shin] Legge's Shoo-king. Prolegomena, p. 192, 193. The Chinese have no idea that such feelings, as those which Jehovah expresses as belonging to himself in regard to the worship of any other being or object, pertain to Shangti, or any of the gods. Many of this people on reading the 2nd, Commandment, have expressed surprise that Jehovah is represented as having this characteristic, as they consider such feelings as derogatory to the divine character. Here then is a second essential characteristic of Jehovah which does not belong to Shangti.

the earth."

In the third place I remark, that the Bible every where presents as the great and distinguishing work of Jehovah, that he is the creator of the heavens, the earth, the sea and all things which are in them. "For in six days, Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Ex. 20:11. Jehovah hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom and he hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. Jer. 10: 12. "In the beginning God created the heavens and Gen. 1: 1. "Thou even thou art Jehovah alone. Thou hast made heaven, and the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Neh. 9:6. "Thus saith Jehovah, I have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded." Is. 45: 12. "I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself." Is. 44: 24. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power, for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4:11. These are a few of the almost innumerable passages in the Bible, which refer to Jehovah as the creator of the heavens and the earth. They are however sufficient to show the prominence which is given in the S. S. to this great work of Jehovah. But how different is it in all Chinese literature. The Rev. Dr. Medhurst says, "In one important particular, the Chinese ideas, respecting God fall short of the truth, for they do not appear to ascribe the creation of heaven and earth to any one being." An Inquiry, &c. p. 4. Moffat in his Comp. Hist. of Rel. says. "In the historical classics of China, there is no mention of creation, nor of anything prior to the reign of King Yaou. Later traditions on the subject, as they do not belong to Chinese scripture, do not come under this head. The cosmological theories of mythologers and philosophers have no right to be assigned to the credit of the original national faith.” Vol. II, p. 7. He also remarks that "creation out of nothing does not appear in the religion of Greece." Ibid. p. 12. This all agrees with the

general remark that the creation of all things out of nothing is not spoken of in any heathen system. Whatever semblance of creation that may be spoken of in heathen writers, refers to the transformation of pre-existing matter. I am fully aware that Dr. Legge maintains that the work of creation is ascribed to Shangti. But as Moffat has stated, there is no reference to the creation of heaven and earth out of nothing in the ShooKing as translated by Dr. L. The strongest passage which he brings forward in support of his opinion is a hymn in praise of Shangti, which was prepared in the 17th year of the emperor Kea-tsing, about the year 1539, A.D. and which is found in "The Collected Statutes of Ming Dynasty." But if we could admit Dr. Legge's translation as correct, it can hardly be claimed that a hymn of the date of 1539, A.D. is an expression of the opinions of the people who lived 1000 or 1500 years before Christ. There were several sources from which the Chinese scholars of A.D. 1539 might have obtained some idea of the Bible account of the creation. The Jews came to China, if not before, very soon after the Christian era. The Nestorians came in the year A.D. 505 and were here for more than three hundred years. The Mohammedans came in the 8th century and the Roman Catholics at the end of the 13th century. See Williams' Middle King. Vol. II, pp. 290-99. But apart from this, the accuracy of the translation is not admitted. One word which he translates creation, is held by many not to have that meaning— and among others who hold this opinion, is the Rev. Dr. Medhurst. To his learing in Chinese Dr. Legge has given strong testimony. In his preface to the Shoo-King he says: "Dr. Medhurst's attainments in Chinese were prodigious." p. vi. He also dedicates one of his pamphlets to the Rev. Dr. Medhurst "in token of his admiration of the extent and depth of his acquaintance with the Chinese language and literature." In "a Dissertation

on the Theology of the Chinese." Dr. M. says: "The words Tsaou hwa, here translated 'production and change,' are not to be rendered 'creation and transformation;' for the Chinese have no idea of creation, as we understand it; viz. the bringing the world into existence. It is true, the writer above quoted, explains production by the bringing of something out of nothing; but by that the Chinese mean, the birth of animals, the springing up of plants, the advancing of the tides, or the blowing of the wind, when to all appearance, nothing was before. They do not mean by it, the original formation of all things, but the constant production of things observable every day." p. 16. As the Chinese in common with all other heathen nations had not the conception of the creation of heaven and earth and all things out of nothing it is self evident that they could not ascribe such a work to Shangti. From all these testimonies and considerations, it appears clear that the Chinese have not ascribed the great and characteristic work of Jehovah, to Shangti.

From the above course of reasoning, it is evident that Shangti is without two of the most essential characteristic attributes that belong to Jehovah, viz., eternal self-existence and that holy jealousy which requires the religious service of all his creatures to himself. Neither has he had the most distinguishing work of Jehovah ascribed to him. In the celebrated

case already referred to, the claimant to the Tichbourne estates had an outward resemblance to the true heir, he had acquired a considerable knowledge of the mental habits, acquirements and acquaintances of the heir, so as to present a strong presumption in the minds of many that he was the identical person. But when it was found that he was destitute of those things which most distinctively belonged to the heir, such as, the knowledge of the members of the heir's own family-the ability to speak and read French which he had known like his own tongue,-the knowledge of the places and studies of the college where he studied, &c., all candid and considerate persons concurred with the learned judge and the jury in the opinion that the claimant was not the same person as the true heir. So notwithstanding that Dr. Legge, in the earnest advocacy of Shangti was so hopeful as toex press his belief in these words. "I am confident the Christian world will agree with me in saying, this god [Shangti] is our God"-I feel assured that the great body of Christian men will agree in the conclusion-that, while the Chinese have ascribed to Shangti many of the attributes and works which belong to Jehovah, just as many others of the ancient nations did to their supreme god, yet Shangti is not the same being as Jehovah,—who alone is "God over all blessed for ever." Any one of these three lines of argument, viz. 1st, The testimony of the sacred Scriptures that all nations have forgotten the true God. 2nd, The evidence furnished by various writers that in the early ages of the world all nations ascribed many of the attributes and works of Jehovah to their respective chief gods and hence that such ascription is not any proof that any one of them is Jehovah. 3rd, The evidence that Shangti is without some of the most characteristic and essential attributes and works of Jehovah-would be sufficient to satisfy most minds, that the opinion that Shangti is the same being as Jehovah is not enable; but when they all converge to the same point, they establish the negative of the proposition and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Shangti is not the same being as Jehovah. They will also serve yet more to establish all minds in the truth which has been held by the worshippers of Jehovah in all ages, that all the nations had departed from the one true God, and made to themselves false gods and make evident the interpretation that "all the gods of the nations are idols but Jehovah made the heavens." Ps. 96: 5.

Whilst therefore, it would be a great vantage ground in prosecuting missionary labour in China, if it were true that Shangti of the classics is the same being as Jehovah, yet as it is not true, we must not compromise the truth for any supposed advantage. And however distasteful it may be to the pride of the Chinese, especially to the literary classes, to declare to them that the Shangti of the classics, as well as Yuh hwang Shangti, is a false god, and that no worship of him can be acceptable to Jehovah, yet we must in faithfulness to our God declare the whole truth to them; and exhort them to turn from the worship of Shangti and all other false gods to the worship of Jehovah, the only living and true God and from whom alone cometh salvation.

INQUIRER.

SCHOOL BOOKS FOR CHINA.

BY C. W. MATEER.

SUITABLE school books for teaching science of various kinds, are coming

to be more and more a disideratum in China.

As mission schools

increase in number and efficiency this want is more and more felt. The late missionary Conference recognized the existence of this want, and appointed a committee to take steps to secure the preparation of a series of school books for use in mission schools. This is a step in the right direction, and now that there are parties whose business it is to forward the work, it is likely it will in due time be accomplished. The fact that such a series of books is contemplated, furnishes sufficient occasion for a short discussion of the proper style and best method of preparing such books.

In the first place, it should be noted that they are to be school books. They are not to be labored and exhaustive treatises, nor are they to be diffuse popular essays. Of these we have a goodly number already. What we want, and what this committee contemplates is school books, of which we have as yet very few. The prime idea in reference to a school book, is that it is to be studied—not read over merely, but studied—and taught by a teacher. This should be kept distinctly in view in the preparation of the book. Let it be so constructed and arranged that it may be a text book, adapted to the wants, both of the student and of the teacher. In order to this it is not only important that there should be a clear and philosophical arrangement of subjects, but that the treatment of these subjects should be carefully subdivided, and a natural order preserved. A good school book is not a careless hash of the subject, but a systematic and careful digest of it, giving the important facts and principles, and arranging them in such a way as to isolate each one in succession, and present it clearly to the student for his attention and acquisition. In order to this, short paragraphs distinctly marked and numbered are very important, and will be found a great help, both to the student and the teacher. In some branches it is an excellent plan to use two or more kinds of type. The text properly divided into sections and verses is printed in the larger type, and forms a continuous and connected treatment of the subject. Explanations and illustrations are thrown in between the sections and verses of the text in smaller type, while all notes or critical remarks are put in, in still smaller type. This shows the student at a glance what is the most important to study, and to prepare for recitation. It also enables the writer to put in many interesting and important particulars, without seeming to digress from the main subject.

In order to adapt the book to the use of the teacher it should either be put in the form of question and answer, or have at the foot of each page, questions for the teacher, which will serve to bring out the important ideas of the text. Such questions may not be necessary in mathematical

works, in which the book is made up chiefly of rules, analyses, and examples, but in such branches as geography, history, and natural science, they are highly important. In some branches, especially the more primary ones, the question and answer form, if properly managed, is undoubtedly the best, while in others short paragraphs with questions at the top or bottom of the page, will be found the best. Such questions will not only facilitate the use of the book by foreign teachers, but will be an invaluable aid and guide to Chinese teachers. The Chinese have but very poor ideas of teaching, and unless the way is thus pointed out, they will simply require the pupil to commit the book to memory.

The technical terms used in these school books will constitute a very important element in their proper preparation. In most cases the subjects to be treated are new to the Chinese, and when they are old subjects, they are still treated in a new way. This makes the use of many new terms necessary. Some of those who have written books for the Chinese have avoided as far as possible all technical terms. This may do when a subject is treated in a loose and general way for popular use, but it is not the way to prepare a school book. Scientific subjects are treated largely by the use of the technical terms peculiar to them, and accuracy and perspicuity depend on the possession of a sufficient number of such terms, clearly defined and consistently used. Every new science must create a terminology for itself, and in the introduction of the sciences into China, new terms must be inverted for each one. This is a necessity, and no attempt should be made to avoid it. How could a man write accurately, or even intelligently, on any scientific subject without the use of the technical terms peculiar to that subject. The Chinese language is peculiarly rigid, and ill adapted for the formation of technical terms and new forms of expression. We must make the best of it however, for we must have the terms, if we are to teach the sciences. In English we have in the Latin and Greek, an inexhaustible store on which to draw in the formation of technical terms. It is a great advantage that we can form such terms from foreign and dead languages. It gives unity and dignity to the terms, and enables us to attach to them the precise meaning we desire, without being embarrassed by the literal sense of the component parts. How different it would be if we had nothing but our own language to draw upon. How flat for example, would it sound to say "farviewer" for telescope, or "soullaw" for psychology, or "loadinative lightning" for inductive electricity. Such terms would not only be lacking in dignity, but they would be awkward and embarrassing in practice. In Chinese we must fall back on the rarer characters of the Wen-li. This will overcome the difficulty to some extent. In so far as style is concerned, I am in favor of the plainest and the simplest, but in the formation of technical terms let us have the very highest and rarest Wen-li.

In nothing is an authors skill more shown, or his ability put to a harder test, than in selecting and compounding his terminology. Several