f 
 
 (S'l £ 
 
 
 V ■■ 
 
 I •^ - . 
 
 *!;. 
 
 'if* 
 
 " ■> 
 
 
 ! 
 
 ! 
 
 « 
 
THE USE OF 
 
 TIEN CHU FOR GOD 
 
 IK CHIKESE. 
 
 HV 
 
 H.- BLODGET, D.D., '^03 
 
 Missioivu')/ of the Americcm Board, PeJdng. 
 
 - 7 ^- 000 -^ 
 
 SHANGHAI ; 
 
 American Presbyterian Mission Press. 
 
 1893. 
 

 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Columbia University Libraries 
 
 ♦ 
 
 https://archive.org/details/useoftienchuforgOOblod 
 
Mbp Protestant /Ibissionaries in China sboulb unite in 
 nsino tbe worbs Clen Cbu for (Bob. 
 
 First : Because thereby the entire Christian Church, Protestant, 
 Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic would come to he at one in 
 China as regards the word for God. 
 
 In Europe and in the United States, however Christians may 
 differ in other respects, they are united in every language in the 
 use of the word for God. So in the various languages spoken in the 
 Turkish Empire, Christians, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or 
 Greek Catholic, are united in using the same word for God. The 
 same is true of the Missions in India. 
 
 Are we then in China alone to differ on this point from the 
 Latin and Greek churches? Are we to teach Christians among the 
 400,000,000 of this great empire to call the God they woi’ship by a 
 different name from that which is used in these churches? 
 
 Still further; in Japan and Corea the Chinese language is used 
 much as the Latin language was formerly used in the nations of 
 Europe, and a vast number of Chinese words have been incorporated 
 into the languages of these two nations. The Latin and the Greek 
 Churches in these nations have adopted the same word for God 
 which they use in China. Are Protestant Missions to differ with 
 them on this point also in Japan and Corea? Are we to print our 
 Bibles and tracts with words for God ^which they do not and can- 
 not use, and so widen the breach which already exists between these 
 different branches of the Church of God ? 
 
 Is it not time for Missionaries in the field, and for Bible and 
 Tract Societies at home, to call a halt and calmly consider these 
 questions? Is it not time to ask ourselves whether such a division 
 in the Church of the future in these lauds is necessary ? Whether it 
 may not be safely avoided ? Certain it is that the Reformers never 
 dreamed of introducing such differences into the churches. They 
 fought their battles on other grounds. 
 
 Second : Because thereby Protestant Missions in China would 
 be at one among themselves as regards the word for God, 
 
 Eighty-five years have now elapsed since Dr. Morrison landed 
 in Canton, and yet no agreement has been arrived at among Protes- 
 tant missionaries on this point. 
 
 At the present rime there are three ways of representing the 
 word God in translations of the Sacred Scriptures into Chinese, and 
 
2 
 
 large editions are published with each. One of these is to use for 
 God the word Shin, which a large part of the Protestant Mission- 
 aries in China and all the Roman Catholic and Geek Catholic mis- 
 sionaries use for Spirit when speaking of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Another is to use for God the word Shang Ti, which the Roman 
 Catholics, after their long and painful controversy, rejected as 
 inconsistent with the purity of Christian doctrine, and which many 
 Protestant missionaries at the present time strongly object to on the 
 same ground, which also the Greek church does not use. 
 
 The third is to use for God the word T'ien Chu, which is also 
 employed by the Latin and Greek Churches. This was first employ- 
 ed by Protestants in printing the Scriptures in the edition of the 
 New Testament issued in Peking about the year 1870 by the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. In 1872 another edition of the 
 New Testament was printed in Peking with T‘ien Chu for God by 
 the American Bible Society; and since that time the same Society 
 has printed in different editions the Old and New Testaments and 
 numerous editions of portions of the New Testament, with the same 
 word, T'xen Chu, for God. 
 
 Thus these three terms or expressions for God, not to speak of 
 two additional formed by a modification of adjectives, are in constant 
 use among missionaries and Chinese converts. Not only is the state 
 of things extremely embarrassing to the Bible Societies in the home 
 lands, but it cannot be denied that such differences, involving as they 
 do, in the minds of many, grave questions of doctrine and Christian 
 teaching, are a source of very serious difficulty in mission work in 
 China, producing separations and divisions among missionaries and 
 their converts and threatening still greater evils in the time to 
 come. Missionaries of one nation are divided on this point from 
 other missionaries of the same nation ; missionaries of one church, of 
 one society, are divided from other missionaries of the same church 
 and the same society. Missionaries belonging to the same mission, 
 to the same station even, are divided one from another. Presbyters 
 are divided from Bishops, Bishops again from Bishops, and Presby- 
 ters from Presbyters. Each holds his own view tenaciously, and the 
 differences take root in the infant churches. 
 
 True, the mighty power of Christian charity leads brethren to 
 dwell together in mutual forbearance and harmony ; but the differ- 
 ences are still there, and they are very grave. Nor is it of any avail 
 to look back, as many have done, and sigh, “ Alas for the differ- 
 ences entailed upon ns by our predecessors.” The true course is to 
 meet the difficulties and solve them. It cannot be right that they 
 should remain permanently in the Church of China; that they should 
 pass over even to another generation. 
 
3 
 
 Third: The experience of eighty-five years has j)7'oved that the 
 word Shin is insnfiicient as a translation of the word God when it 
 refers to the Supreme Being. 
 
 This word has had a fair trial with everything in its favor. 
 The earlier missionaries — Morrison, Marshman and Milne — all used 
 it and translated the word God by it in the first two versions 
 of the Sacred Scriptures. Thus it came down to their successors 
 with the authority of their names ; and its use has been persistently 
 adhered to, and ably defended by, missionaries of later generations. 
 
 What has been the result ? Even Morrison, though still advo- 
 cating the use of Sh^n for God in his latest work, the Domestic 
 Instructor, employed as many as eighteen other words or expressions 
 for the Divine Being (some of which were quite remarkable, such as 
 no missionary of the present day would think of using) thus indicat- 
 ing in his own mind a want of satisfaction with the word 8h6n. 
 Mdue at the close of his brief ten years in the East had become 
 dissatisfied with Shen, and advocated the use of Shang Ti. 
 
 In the year 1851 one-third or more of all the missionaries in 
 China had ceased to use Shen for God. During the period which 
 has elapsed since that date one Mission after another has abandoned 
 its use, some deciding for Shang Ti, others for THen Chu, while no 
 Mission which has once abandoned its use has ever returned to it, 
 and few, if any, of the more recently formed Missions have adopted 
 it. These have chosen to use either Shang 2'i or THenChu, There 
 are Missions which are now in a transition state, some members 
 having left the use of Shen, while other members still continue its 
 use. In those Missions where it has not been formally abandoned 
 the inquiry may fairly be raised as to how far, in prayer and 
 devotional language generally, some other word is substituted in 
 its place ; how far those who still adhere to its use have come to 
 feel that the word, as standing for God, is insuflScient to meet the 
 religious wants of the Chinese mind. 
 
 On the whole the outlook for Shen, after eighty-five years of its 
 use, is not favorable. What with its constant use for Spirit in the 
 expression, the Holy Spirit, both by Eoman and Greek Catholics 
 and by a large part of the Protestant missionaries, and its constantly 
 diminishing use for God, he must be sanguine indeed who can still 
 hope to see it prevail as the word for God, and all Christians united 
 in its use. 
 
 Fourth : Christian charity requires concession on the part of 
 those who use Shang Ti for God to their brethren who cannot con- 
 scientiously use this word, and who have adopted T'ien Chu, the icord 
 used by the Latin and Greek Churches, 
 
4 
 
 It is undeniable that in the question as between the use of 
 Shang Ttand the use of THeii Chii for God there lies a deep doctrinal 
 difference of opinion. It was thus in the controversy which vexed 
 the Roman Church for one hundred and twenty years ; it is thus in 
 the Protestant church at the present day. 
 
 The question may be stated in the following manner. Is it safe 
 in the interests of Christian theology to teach the knowledge of the 
 true God, Jehovah, in the use of the term Shang Ti, which has always, 
 from the earliest dawn of Chinese history to the present day, been the 
 name of the chief object of worship in the national cult, an object of 
 worship having an altar the most magnificent in the empire, to which, 
 according to the dual system of Chinese philosophy, there is a corre- 
 lated altar (that to Earth, as this is to Heaven) only second to it in 
 magnificence ; having also a ritual, in which are prescribed the times, 
 places and manner of worship, the various offerings to be presented, 
 the sacrificial vessels, the sacrificial victims and the persons by whom 
 the worship is to be performed, all laid down in the statutes of the 
 empire with a minuteness of detail exceeding, if possible, that with 
 which the worship of Jehovah is laid down in the Law of Moses ; an 
 object of worship standing at the head of, and most intimately as- 
 sociated with, a great multitude of other objects of worship, in- 
 cluding the various parts and powers of nature, the deceased emperors 
 of the reigning dynasty, the first founders of the Chinese Empire, the 
 deceased emperors of all preceding dynasties, deceased sages and 
 heroes, all of which objects of worship, in the eyes of the Chinese 
 nation, belong to one authorized and orthodox cult ? Is it safe to 
 call the true God, Jehovah, by the name of the chief object of 
 worship in such a system, that is to say, Shang Ti? 
 
 To this question, as among the Roman Catholic, so among 
 Protestant missionaries, there have always been a large number who 
 have given a negative answer. They affirm that to use the word Shang 
 Ti for God is contrary to the spirit of Scripture-teaching, which 
 would forbid the identifying, or anything which might seem like, or 
 lead to, the identifying of the true God, Jehovah, with any one of 
 the gods, great or small, of the nations ; that it would be contrary to 
 what has taken place in the history of the propagation of Christ- 
 ianity in other lands, since the case has never been known in which 
 the worship of the true God, Jehovah, has been taught in the use of 
 the name of the chief object of worship of a non-Christian nation, 
 an object of worship having an altar and ritual, as above described. 
 It was not so in Egypt, not so in Greece, not so in Rome, not so 
 in Babylon, and it is not so in India at the present day. 
 
 Some among those who would give these reasons against the use 
 of Shang Ti for the true God, Jehovah, are prepared to go further 
 
5 
 
 and affirm their conviction that the ancient religion of China, which 
 also is the religion underlying all others in the Chinese mind at the 
 present day, is a pantheistic nature-worship, at the head of which 
 stands the worship of Heaven or Shang Ti, which object is represent- 
 ed, sometimes with greater, at others with less of personality, but never 
 as God the Creator of all, before all, and above all, as well as in all 
 and through all ; moreover, that the entire system is pervaded by 
 the dualism of Chinese philosophy. The words of Neander in re- 
 gard to the Manicheans express the ground of their objection to the 
 use of T'ien and Shang Ti for the God of Christians ; “ In those 
 Nature-religions, instead of the idea of the personal living God, 
 such as he declares himself to be in revelation, the pantheistic view 
 predominates. Hence the seeming resemblance must transform 
 itself into an essential difference. And if those old religions, in con- 
 sideration of such a supposed relationship, were to be transported 
 into Christianity, it could be no otherwise effected than by severing 
 Christianity itself from its natural connection with the preparatory 
 revelation of religion in Judaism, and by fusing it with a pantheistic 
 Nature-religion, transforming it into an entirely different thing.” 
 
 Doubtless many of that large number who now use Shang Ti 
 for God would regard the above as a partial and unfair view of the 
 case. Dut it has not been taken without careful and protracted 
 study of the question, and it is held at the present time by many in 
 the Protestant Church, as it was held in the Roman Church by 
 those who opposed the Jesuits, until it finally prevailed. Nor is 
 this view any more likely to die out in the Protestant Church, than 
 it was formerly in the Roman Church. 
 
 What course should then be taken by those who use Shang Ti 
 for God? 
 
 Some of these have held “ That with the literary sect and in 
 the state religion the two characters Shang Ti are not only honor- 
 able but the name of the true God ; ” and they have “ Rejoiced to 
 acknowledge the Shang Ti of the Chinese classics and the Shang Ti 
 of the Chinese people as Him who is God over all, blessed forever.” 
 Others have supposed the Shang Ti of the ancient classics to be the 
 true God, while in later times the knowledge of Him became 
 obscured. Still others have held that the words Heaven and Shang 
 Ti, while not exactly the same as God, were a very near approach 
 to this, and were the most available words the Chinese language 
 affords to express the idea of the Christians’ God. 
 
 Shall now those who use Shang Ti for God assume that the 
 objections of those who use Tien Chit are without foundation, that 
 they themselves understand the subject more thoroughly, are more 
 free from prejudices, have a larger and wider outlook, and that their 
 
6 
 
 view will finally prevail; prevail not only in the Protestant Church 
 but prevail also in the Latin and Greek Churches, so that all will 
 unite in using Shang Ti for God ? Shall they, in this view, persist 
 in the use of Shaug Ti for God, seek for it the exclusive patronage 
 of Bible and Tract Societies and refuse all advances toward unity ? 
 
 Is there not a better way ? Does not the royal law of Christian 
 charity point out a solution of these difficulties? Cannot Love to the 
 Brethren accomplish in the Protestant churches that which required 
 the stern authority of successive Popes in the Roman Church ? 
 Where no sacrifice of principle is involved, it is honorable to make 
 concessions to the weaker party. Be it that those who use T^ien Chu 
 for God are thus regarded. Would it not he honorable in those 
 who use Shang Ti for God to concede the point to those who use 
 T‘ien Chu, thus bringing to an end this long controversy and giving 
 unity to all Christians in China in the word for God ? Such a course 
 would occasion devout thanksgiving to God among all who seek to 
 spread the Gospel iu this great empire. 
 
 Fifth ; The way out of this controversy hy the use ofT‘ien Chu for 
 God is not new to the thoughts of Protestant missionaries ; nor has it 
 wanted the consent or advocacy of conspicuous names on both sides of 
 the question. 
 
 In the year 1847 Dr. Medhurst wrote: “The Catholics who 
 have had a wider and longer experience of China than we have, and 
 who, iu their day, knew more of Chinese literature and ideas than 
 we can expect to know for the next century, are iu this respect 
 capable of affording us a lesson. They, on their first arrival iu the 
 country, adopted the word Shen for God, and they iu their transla- 
 tion of part of the New Testament employed that word ; but they 
 have been compelled to give it up and have adopted instead Tien 
 Chu as indicative of that unity and supremacy which Shin could 
 never give. If the rest of the brethren are of opinion that it would 
 be better to profit by their experience, I shall have no objection to 
 adopt T‘ien Chu.” 
 
 The first Bishop of the Church of England iu China, the Rt. Rev. 
 George Smith, Bishop of Victoria, in 1851 wrote to the Rev. T. W. 
 Mellor, Editorial Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 as follows : “ Tien Chu (the Lord of Heaven), the Roman Catholic 
 term for God, has doubtless many things to recommend it as pre- 
 ferable, being stereotyped by nearly a century and a half of usage 
 in a religion which numbers its tens of thousands of converts in 
 every province of the empire, and whose religious nomenclature Pro- 
 testant Christians have adopted iu most other points. Glad should 
 I be, if the able pen of Dr. Medhurst could induce the Protestant 
 missionary body to accept Tien Chu as the basis of compromise.” 
 
7 
 
 In the year 1864 the Rev. Dr. Maclay, then Superintendent of 
 the American Methodist Mission in Foochow, proposed to the Pro- 
 testant missionaries in China to use T‘ien Chu for God, and either 
 Siting Shin or Siting Ling for Holy Spirit. In a letter dated July 
 13th, 18T6, he supports this proposition at length. He writes among 
 other things : “ It is well to learn, even from our enemies. The 
 Romish missionaries have fought the battle on the term question and 
 settled it for themselves. Why not accept their terms ? Ex- 
 pediency aside, is it wrong for us to use the same terms for God and 
 Spirit in China when we are doing so in English ? ” 
 
 In the year 1805 the following paper was drawn up and cir- 
 culated in Peking, largely through the exertions of the late Rev. 
 Alexander Williamson, LL.D. 
 
 “ In preparing and circulating a new Mandarin Version of the 
 New Testament we are unanimous in desiring uniformity in the use 
 of terms, and propose to employ those which we find to afford the 
 only practicable basis of union, viz., T‘'ien Chu for God and Siting 
 Shin for the Holy Spirit. 
 
 “ In conforming to this basis we do not propose to restrict 
 ourselves in any other respect for the present.” 
 
 The above paper was signed by the Rev. J. Edkins, D.D., of 
 the London Mission; Rev. W. A. P. Martin, D.D., LL.D., of the 
 American Presbyterian Mission ; Hon. S. W Williams, LL.D. ; 
 Rev. H. Blodget, D.D., of the American Board’s Mission; Rev. W. 
 H. Collins, M.D., of the Church Mission ; John Dudgeon, M.D., of 
 the London Mission; Rev. Chauncey Goodrich, D. D.,of the Ameri- 
 can Board’s Mission; Rev. James Williamson, of the London 
 Mission ; and, doubtless, by Dr. Williamson himself, who was so 
 zealous in the movement. 
 
 The Rev. J. S. Burdon, now Bishop of Victoria, was then in 
 England ; and the Rev. S. I. J. Schereschewsky, afteiAvards Bishop 
 of the American Episcopal Mission, was at the time also absent from 
 Peking, so that their names do not appear on the paper, although both 
 of them warmly approved of it as a basis of union. 
 
 It is not strange that this proposition was not at once received 
 by missionaries in the South. Changes in such matters, when not 
 enforced but made by conviction, take place slowly. Many of those 
 who signed the paper became discouraged and did not consider 
 themselves bound by it. Yet the movement for the use of T‘ieii 
 Chu was permanent. Two editions of the New Testament were 
 printed with T‘ien Chu for God, the first by the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, the second by the American Bible Society, which 
 Society has since printed different editions of the New Testament 
 and of the Old Testament, with T‘ien Chu for God, as also numerous 
 
8 
 
 editions of portions of the Scriptures. Many tracts also have been 
 printed with T‘ien Chu for God in large editions. 
 
 Dr. Williamson, who made this proposition in 1865, wrote 
 in a private letter in 1889, twenty-four years later, as follows: 
 “ T‘ien (Heaven) in the Chinese mind and in Chinese literature has 
 very decided personality about it. Still, I think the early Roman 
 Catholics, in view of the whole case, did right in placing this 
 personality beyond doubt and giving it emphatic prominence by 
 adding Lord to it (Chu), and thus setting God forth as T‘ien Chu. 
 I therefore wish our predecessors had adopted this term, as well as 
 the others bearing on religious nomenclature, at the commencement 
 of their work in China.” 
 
 The Church of England Mission in North China and the Rt. 
 Rev. Bishop Scott have from the first followed the usage of the 
 Roman Catholics in the words for God and Holy Spirit, using T‘ie7i 
 Chu and ShSng Shen. 
 
 It was to be expected that in dictionaries made by Russians 
 and Frenchmen the God of Christians would be given as the 
 equivalent of THen Chu, Mr. Herbert Giles, of the British Consu- 
 lar Service, in his recently published Chinese-English Dictionary, 
 after translating THen Chu as the “ The Lord of Heaven,” adds this 
 remark: “This term has been adopted bv the Roman Catholics as 
 the Chinese equivalent for God, and is the least open to objection of 
 all terras so far in use amongst Christian missionaries.” 
 
 Enough has been written under this head to show that the use 
 of THen Chu for God has seemed to many to afford a way out of the 
 difficulties of this controversy. 
 
 Sixth : Ansu-ers to objections to the use of T‘ien Chu for God. 
 
 It is implied in the remark above quoted that objections may be 
 urged against every term which has been proposed, and, it may be 
 added, which can be proposed, as a translation of the word God into 
 Chinese. Objections to the use of Shen and of ShangTi have already 
 been alluded to. It remains to state and to answer, so far as may 
 be, objections which have been urged against the use of THen Chu. 
 
 Objection 1. The term does not correspond to Eloha, Theos and 
 Deus, which words can be used in the singular, or in the plural, at 
 pleasure, and can be applied to false gods, as well as to the only true 
 and living God. This was a point of earnest contention in the argu- 
 ment of the first Bishop Boone ; and it certainly is desirable that, as in 
 the original languages of the Sacred Scriptures and in the various langua- 
 ges of Europe, so in all other languages, such a word should he found. 
 
 But what if in the Chinese language such a term cannot be 
 found ? It will be remembered by those who urge that Shhi is such 
 a term, that in the view of the greater number of missionaries in 
 
9 
 
 China, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, this word is insufficient 
 to meet the higher uses of the word God ; to signify the one and 
 only Creator and Lord, whom Christians adore and serve : and that 
 many regard this word as meaning spirit or spirits, and this alone. 
 
 It will be remembered also by those who contend that Shang 
 Ti is such a word that it has never been used as a general word for 
 god, the gods, by the Roman Catholics, and that it is regarded by 
 the greater part of Protestant missionaries, among them many 
 who use Shang Ti for God, as out of place when applied to the gods 
 generally. 
 
 Thus it appears that neither S/ien nor Shang Ti, in the view of 
 most missionaries, corresponds to the words Eloha, Tlieos and Deus. 
 The same is the case with T‘ien Ghn. When used properly it signifies 
 the true and only God, and may not be applied to the false gods. 
 This leads to the question whether, in the Chinese language, it is 
 absolutely necessary to find a word thus corresponding; whether the 
 Christian religion may not be taught to the Chinese in its integrity, 
 using one word for God and another word for god, gods, as is now 
 done by the Roman Catholics and by others ? 
 
 Some light on this question may be obtained by referring to 
 what is done in India. It is well known that throughout the greater 
 part of India the word deva is used very generally for god, gods. 
 It is also used for the true God, as a translation of Elohim and 
 Theos, generally in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, and, where 
 Mahrattiis spoken, also in the central provinces. But in the greater 
 part of India deva cannot be used for the true God. “ Even in 
 Southern India it labors under the objection of having been more 
 frequently used to denote a god than God, while in Northern India 
 it would be almost unavoidable and universal that it should be 
 understood by the ignorant as descriptive of inferior deities.” 
 
 Among the 50,000,000 who speak the Hindustani or Urdu, the 
 word Khnda, Lord, is used for God. In the Hindi, which is spoken 
 by a still greater number, the word Ishioara, Lord, is used for God, 
 and Para-Ishicara, the Supreme Lord, for Jehovah. Even in some 
 parts of Southern India Ishwara, with some qualifying adjective, is 
 used for God, while, as in Northern India, the word deva is used for 
 god, gods. Thus it appears that in the greater part of India the 
 missionaries use one word for god and another word for god and 
 gods. If such is the case in India, may not the same thing be done 
 in China? If the Christian faith is taught in its integrity and 
 purity in India, notwithstanding this infelicity in language, may not 
 the same result be secured in China? 
 
 Objection II. It has been objected to the use of T'ien Chn for 
 God that there are pagan associations connected with this term. 
 
10 
 
 Sucli an objection should be fairly met and receive all due con- 
 sideration. 
 
 It is said that T'ien Chu was one of the eight gods worshipped 
 by the renowned Emperor Ts'in Shi-hwaug. The mention of this 
 worship is found in the works of the historian Sz Ma-ts‘ien, occur- 
 ing incidentally in his notice of the very ancient rites of worship 
 called Fhig Shan which were performed on the mountain 
 
 Thii-shan in Shantung. Shi Hwang, having given offence to his 
 literary men by his method of performing these extraordinary sacri- 
 fices, the Feug-shan was derided by them on account of a violent 
 storm which he encountered in coming down from the moun- 
 tain. Thereupon he went to the east and sacrificed to the famous 
 mountains and great streams, also to “ the eight gods.” It is not 
 supposed that this Emperor failed to maintain the worship of the 
 national cult, but on this single occasion of performing the sacrifices 
 he worshipped also “the eight gods,” which may have 
 belonged to the feudal territory from which he sprang. Little or 
 nothing is known of this worship. 
 
 The “ eight gods ” were *THen Chu, lord of heaven ; Ti. C/iu, lord 
 of earth ; Ping Chu, lord of war ; YinChu, lord of darkness ; Yang 
 Chu, lord of light ; Yueh Chu, lord of the moon ; Jih Chu, lord of sun ; 
 Sz Shih Chu, lord of the four seasons. Beyond the bare mention in 
 this place no information in regard to this worship is accessible 
 to scholars generally, and nothing whatever is known of it to the 
 common people. Only a few students of antiquity know of it. 
 
 The same may be said of a casual mention of the worship of 
 T‘ien Chu, by a tribe of Mongols, the Hsiu T‘u ({;f: ^), who were 
 subject to the Huns (jSjJ jd), but afterwards submitted toWiiTi 
 of the Han dynasty. 
 
 Besides this there is in Buddhist books mention of the god 
 liidra, in Chinese ([^ H). one of whose titles is Nenq T‘ien Chu 
 
 (nt Ti ±). the i)owerfnt lord of the devas; the Chinese word T'ien 
 (%) being here used for the word deva, gods. 
 
 The answer then to the objection from the pagan uses of the 
 term T'ien Chu is, that such uses are very infrequent, are unknown 
 to the common people and not generally known to scholars, while 
 its use to designate the Cod of Christians is known throughout the 
 Chinese empire. 
 
 In this connection the mind naturally turns to the objection 
 already stated to the use of the term Shang Ti for God, on the 
 ground that it was the name of the principal object of worship, not 
 only of the Emperor Ts‘in She-hwang but of all the Emperors 
 
11 
 
 who preceded him, as it has been the name of the chief object ot 
 worship of all the Emperors who have succeeded him down to the 
 present day, and that it is inseparably bound np in the Chinese 
 pantheon. 
 
 Objection III. It has been objected to the use of T‘ien Chu 
 for God that the two words T‘ieii (Heaven) and Chu (Lord) are in 
 opposition, and, after all, mean only Heaven, so that those not 
 Christians misnnderstaud the doctrine and suppose us to teach that 
 Heaven is the God we worship ( ^ ^). 
 
 This objection of course would not be urged by those who 
 think the T'ieii (Heaven) of the Chinese signifies the same or very 
 nearly the same as the God of Christians, but only by those who 
 wish to escape this — in their view — pantheistic way of thinking. 
 
 In considering this objection it is to be observed that a similar 
 one might be urged against the use of Tien Fu for Heavenly 
 Father, which is universal among missionaries in China and is 
 regarded not only as a correct but a very happy form of expression. 
 The objection would be that the combination Tien Fu means only 
 Heaven as Father. Certainly this would be the meaning, if Fu 
 were placed before THen, so as to read Fu T-ien, in which case it 
 would correspond with Fu Tien in tho expression everywhere cur- 
 rent — Fu Tien Mu Ti, ‘ Father Heaven, Mother Earth.’ 
 
 One and the same answer may be given to this objection 
 against the combinations Tien C/m and Tien Fti. It is that they 
 are very frequently employed in Chinese literature, or in the speech 
 of the common people, so that the meaning attached to them is 
 easily fixedj by Christian usage. In fact, the native Christians 
 frequently drop the word 2''‘ien and use Chu alone, as do the 
 Mohammedans, thus showing how they understand the combination 
 Tien Chit. They all know that the God they worship is not 
 Heaven but the Lord of Heaven. 
 
 The combinations Tien Chu, Tien Fu are widely to be dis- 
 tinguished from Tien Ye, Lao Tien Ye (Sire* Heaven, Old Sire 
 Heaven), which are everywhere in use among the people of China. 
 In this case the word Ye (Sire) is but a personification of Heaven, 
 and is attached to Tien with careless ease, containing slight honor, 
 amounting almost to slang, as is evident in numerous other expres- 
 sions in which the same word Ye* is used. 
 
 Objection IV. It has been objected to the use of T‘ien Chu for 
 God that in this combination the character Chu (^) may sometimes 
 be used as a verb; and the passage from the Shuoh Wen is cited, in 
 
 * lg, US 1^ St, * 3^ SS. « Y Sg, 5f iii^ Sg, ± ^ t| 5 
 
 ^ |g, PI If Sg. ^ 
 
12 
 
 which it is said that *“ Heaven controls {=Chu) the sending down 
 of air, or breath, to influence all things.” 
 
 In answer to this objection it is to be said that the word C/iii, 
 when thus combined with Heaven {T‘iea), is very seldom used as a 
 verb, and whenever it has this signification the fact is very easily 
 determined by the connection. 
 
 Objection V. It has been objected that the expression “ Lord 
 of Heaven” localizes God, since God is not only the God of Heaven 
 bnt of the Earth also and of every part of the universe. But it 
 should be remembered that the expression “ Lord of Heaven ” by 
 no means confines the power of God to Heaven but rather exalts it 
 over all parts of the universe. The Heavens are conceived of as the 
 most grand, exalted, vast of all God’s works, and in speaking of the 
 Lord of Heaven we set his glory above all created things. Thus in 
 the Bible, especially in the books of Ezra, Xehemiah and Daniel, 
 when the people of Israel had been brought by captivity into contact 
 with the ethnic religions in Babylon, we rind the true God, Jehovah, 
 often called the “ God of Heaven.” So far from localizing God the 
 design was to exalt him, not only above all false gods bnt above the 
 most glorious part of the frame of nature, and so, as above and 
 over all. 
 
 Objection VI. It has been objected to the use of T‘ien Chit 
 for God that the word C/iu is needed as a translation of Lord, and 
 that by its use in the combination T'ien Chu for God we restrict 
 our vocabulary, so as to have but one word for Lord and God. 
 
 That there is force in this objection no one can deny. It is 
 frankly admitted that the Chinese language does not afford us the 
 two words God and Lord, as do the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and the 
 various languages of modern Europe. The objections which lie 
 against the use of either Shen or Shang Ti in this sense have 
 already been alluded to. It lies without the scope of this paper to 
 give them in full. Suffice it to say that from the first entrance into 
 China of those who had derived their monotheism from the Bible, 
 neither of these words has been used for God. The Nestoriau 
 Christians and the Mohammedans used Chu and Chm Chit (Lord 
 and True Lord) for God. They brought in at times the word 
 Elohim, as in our day a Christian might introduce the name Jehovah, 
 in saying the true God, Jehovah. 
 
 The Chinese is not the only language in which the word Lord 
 is used for God. As has been already stated, in the greater part of 
 
 jg, The divine foice or enerjiy of Heiiveii is tliat wliich leads forth all tilings. 
 Hsii says Shen is to lead. Heaven controls the sending; down of air, or breath, to 
 influence all things. Therefore it is said to lead forth all things. 
 
13 
 
 India Ishwara and Para Ishwara (Lord and Supreme Lord) are 
 used for God and Jehovah: also among the fifty millions of Urdu- 
 speaking Mohammedans in India the word Kh\ida (Lord) is used for 
 God, Moreover, it is to be observed that in China the combination 
 T'ien Chu (Lord of Heaven) does in a measure relieve the difficulty. 
 For in this way God is set forth as Lord over the most glorious, 
 exalted and immeasurably vast of all his works, so that He alone 
 can receive this appellation. Hence it is that the words Chit T‘ien 
 Chu, as a rendering of Lord God, are not mere tautology but convey 
 a most elevating conception of the Divine Being, in this respect 
 having a decided advantage over the words Chu Sliang Chic (Lord 
 Supreme Lord) as a rendering of the same expression. 
 
 Objection VIL It has been objected to the use of T'ien Chu for 
 God, that the decision to use this term was made out of China, 
 amony: those not familiar with the language and not understanding 
 
 o O o o 
 
 the nature of the case. 
 
 This objection, it will be observed, has force only as against 
 the place in which the decision was made, and not against the 
 decision itself, since a right decision may be made in a wrong place. 
 The same objection may be urged against the use of Shang Ti for 
 God, since the British and Foreign Bible Society made its decision 
 to use this term also out of China in Great Britain, and has adhered 
 to this decision, with the single exception of printing one edition of 
 the Testament with Tden Chu for God. The Scotch National Bible 
 Society, which also formed its decision out of China, has, so far as is 
 known to the writer, made no exception in its use of Shang Ti. 
 The combined action of these two Societies has of course given great 
 currency to the term. At the same time it has come to pass that 
 those English missionaries, among them the Bishop and Presbyters 
 of the North-China Mission of the Church of England and the 
 Senior Bishop of the Church of England in China, who cannot con- 
 sent to use Shang Ti for God, are unable to secure Bibles for their 
 work from the British Bible Societies. 
 
 The same objection might at one time have been urged against 
 the use of Shen for God, since the American Bible Society in like 
 manner formed its decision to use this word for God out of China 
 in the United States. This Societj% however, subsequently listened 
 to the representation of missionaries and changed its course. 
 Although it still maintains the view which it has held from the 
 first, that the use of Shang Ti for God “is highly objectionable, as 
 having a pantheistic sense in the minds of the learned and an 
 idolatrous sense in the minds of the vulgar,” yet it does not refuse 
 to print Bibles in any terms which American missionaries desire 
 to use. 
 
14 
 
 As to the validity of the argnment against deciding such a 
 question out of China, there is this to be said. There are two 
 questions involved in what is popularly known in China as the 
 “Term Question,” one a question of theology, the other a question 
 of philology, as to the proper use of words. The theological ques- 
 tion centers in the identifying, or seeming to identify, or putting 
 Chinese converts in a way to identify, the chief object of worship in 
 the national cult of China with the true God, Jehovah, by using the 
 name of the chief object of worship in that cult, S/iang Ti, for this 
 God whom Christians worship. On such a question the opinion of 
 judicious theologians, well read in Church history, who have also 
 made a study of comparative religious, must have great value. On 
 the whole it would appear that a combination of Chinese scholar- 
 ship with such theological attainments is needed, and that the place 
 of the decision is a matter of less importance. 
 
 Objection VIII. It is objected to the use of Tien Cku for God 
 that the decision to use this term was made by the Pope of Rome. 
 
 This again is an objection not so much against the decision 
 itself, as against the person from whom it emanates. A correct 
 decision may be given by a person to whom it pertains not to give 
 such a decision. The decisions of the Pope of Rome have just so 
 much of force as they have of truth or reason in their favor. If 
 they are correctly formed judgments, agreeable to the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures, and commending themselves to the reason and conscience, 
 they will stand. If the contrary is true of them, they are without 
 . force and cannot stand. It would be a task no Protestant would 
 venture, to go through with all the decisions of the Popes of Rome 
 and remove from the Church everything which in doctrine and 
 practice had been settled by such decisions. 
 
 While nothing is claimed for this decision on the ground of the 
 authority of the Popes of Rome, yet in all fairness it is urged that 
 the bare fact that the decision emanated from such a source is not 
 of itself a sufficient reason for its rejection. On the contrary, if 
 attention is given to the circumstances of the case, and to the 
 history of the discussion, much will be found to commend it to the 
 thoughtful consideration of those who do not acknowledge the See 
 of Rome. 
 
 The impartial student of this controversy in the Roman Church 
 will not fail to notice that the decision to use Tien Chu for God, 
 and not to use Shang Ti, was made and enforced, not as against 
 Protestantism but as against Paganism, and apparently contrary to 
 all the worldly interests and outward prosperity of the Church; 
 made in the face of great opposition from the Chinese government 
 and consequent danger of persecution anti death ; made after in- 
 
15 
 
 effectual attempts to adjust these differences in China, at one time 
 by a Conference of the leading members of the Jesuit order, before 
 the arrival of the other orders in China ; at another time by a Confer- 
 ence of members of all the orders ; and finally that it was made 
 and enforced by successive Popes through a period of many years, 
 the one decision being in fact eight decisions, the first in ] 656, the 
 last in 1743, most of them arrived at only after very careful and 
 deliberate investigations of the most learned theologians in Rome, 
 the testimony of the most able missionaries on both sides of the 
 question, and of numerous Chinese, being cautiously weighed and 
 duly estimated. 
 
 Such considerations, and others which cannot be mentioned here, 
 may suggest the question, whether Grod in his providence has not by 
 these discussions in the Roman Church (though not unmingled with 
 heat and animosity of feeling, as is often the case in such contro- 
 versies) and by the decisions of so many Popes, for the most part 
 very carefully taken, indicated to his people in after times the 
 proper course amid these very difficult questions which meet the 
 Christian missionary in China. The decisions in regard to ancestral 
 worship and the worship of Confucius are very generally accepted as 
 correct by Protestant missionaries. Will it not be found that the 
 decision to use T‘ien Chu for God, and not Shang TL was also correct ? 
 
 Objection IX. It has been objected to the use of THen Chit for 
 God that Protestant Christians would thereby be confounded with 
 the Roman Catholics. 
 
 In this case the objection is not to the term itself but to the 
 supposed consequences of its use by Protestants. It is said that the 
 Roman Catholics are called in China the T‘ien Chu Chiao, the 
 ‘Church of T'ien Chu’ and if Protestants adopt the same words, 
 'Pien Chu, for God, they will inevitably be regarded as of the same 
 religion. 
 
 It should be borne in mind by those who urge this objection 
 that a like reason against the use of the same word for God which 
 the Roman Catholics use must exist in every mission field in which 
 the Roman Catholics have preceded Protestants, and in which they 
 have called their Church the “ Church of God.” Are the objectors 
 then prepared in every case to use a different word for God ? But 
 this has not been done in other mission fields. In all Christian lands, 
 and in almost every heathen country where Protestant and Roman 
 Catholic missions co-exist, the same word is used for God by both. 
 Not only so, but it is easy to see that the rule of adopting a 
 different word might, in many cases, cause great disadvantages to 
 Protestant missions, or indeed leave them in grave doctrinal errors, 
 as, in the view of many, is true in the present case. 
 
But how far wonkl those who oppose the use of T‘ien Chn be 
 willing to apply this principle ? To the word for God only, or also 
 to the word for the Lord Jesus? Should the Roman Catholics in 
 any heathen country, in which their missions may have preceded 
 those of Protestant Christians, call their Church the “Church of 
 Jesus” (as Protestants now call the Protestant Church in China), 
 would Protestants in the same country on this account be debarred 
 from using the same word for the Lord Jesus, which they also use ? 
 Or if Protestant Christians should in any country precede the 
 Roman Catholics, and call their Church the “Church of God,” 
 or the " Church of Jesus,” is it supposed chat the Roman Catholics 
 would on this account refrain from using the same word for God, 
 or for Jesus, which the Protestants also use? At present Protestant 
 Christians in China are known as the “ Yasu Chiao''' or the “ Church 
 of Jesus ” (the word Jesus being used in China much as the word 
 “Christ” is used in Western nations). Are Roman Catholics in 
 China on this account to use a different word for the Lord Jesus, 
 lest they should be confounded with Protestant Christians ? Such 
 considerations seem insufficient on either side to warrant the avoid- 
 ance of the words in question, thereby necessitating the search for 
 some other word, which may be less suitable for the purpose. 
 
 The fear of being confounded with the Roman Catholics is not 
 a sufficient reason to determine the choice of the word for God 
 among Protestant Christians. These branches of the Church of 
 God are not to be distinguished from each other by calling 
 God or Christ by different names but by the things in which 
 they really differ. The trne Christian, be he Protestant or Roman 
 Catholic, belongs to the Church of God, also to the Church of the 
 Lord Jesus ; and he places himself at a disadvantage before the 
 heathen when he denies that he belongs to the one or to the other. 
 Some other way should be found of expressing his dissent from 
 those whom he regards as in error. “ The Roman Catholic 
 Church ” is a name well known in other countries, which fitly 
 distinguishes that branch of the Christian Church from all others. 
 Why not employ this designation in China ? The denial that one 
 belongs to the Roman Catholic Church does not involve the denial 
 of any Scripture truth, as does the denial that one belongs to the 
 “ Church of God,” or to the “Church of Christ.” 
 
 Let not then a consideration which is just in its proper place, 
 and has its legitimate uses, be elevated out of such place and uses, 
 and employed in a way, not only to injure the Protestant Churches 
 in China, but to cause lasting injury to the whole Church, by creat- 
 ing divisions not existing hitherto, and unknown in other parts of 
 the world. 
 
17 
 
 In what has been said thus far, it has been conceded that 
 by avoiding the use of T‘ien Chu for God, Protestants would be 
 either wholly, or to a great degree, distinguished from Homan 
 Catholics. But this is by no means the true state of the case. 
 Whatever words are used for God, these two great branches of the 
 Christian Church must inevitably for a time, and to an extent, b,e 
 confounded in the minds of the Chinese. They both accept and 
 teach the great facts of the Christian religion as stated in the 
 Apostles’ Creed, and they both reject and oppose the idolatry and 
 nature worship of the Chinese. The teachers of both come from 
 lands in the Far West, and are similar in stature, complexion 
 and general appearance. It is very natural that the Chinese should 
 suppose them to be teachers of one and the same religion. And 
 thus the two Churches have been more or less confounded from the 
 first until the present time, and that although different words have 
 been used for God in most parts of China ; nor is it seen that this 
 confusion has been any greater in places where the same word is 
 used for God. 
 
 This evil of confounding Protestants and Roman Catholics may 
 be greatly overestimated, both as to its continuance and as to 
 its results. Among Church members it cannot long remain. The 
 Roman Catholics are very careful to warn their converts against 
 Protestantism, and Protestants are not less sure to warn the Christ- 
 ians under their instruction against the errors of Romanism. Thus 
 the distinction between the two Churches soon becomes known 
 among Christians. This knowledge is rapidly communicated to 
 those without the Church, both by what is said and written on the 
 subject, as also by what is seen and manifest to all. Rulers and 
 people gradually come to know that differences exist between the 
 two great branches of the Christian Church now spreading in China, 
 and learn, more or less correctly, the origin and nature of those 
 differences. The natural course then is that Christians should state 
 these differences plainly and fairly, defending in all lawful and just 
 methods what is true and right, and should then await patiently the 
 time when Roman Catholicism and Protestautism shall stand before 
 the Chinese, as they stand before the people of other lands. Far 
 better this than to add to the differences which already exist by 
 creating a new difference which does not exist elsewhere. 
 
 The supposed evils of being thus confounded with Roman 
 Catholics may be summed up under three heads. First, the being 
 involved in ill-will and persecutions brought upon Christians through 
 the errors and misdeeds of Roman Catholics. Second, the hin- 
 drances to Christian work and fewness of accessions to the Church, 
 consequent upon the antipathy of the people to the Roman Catholics 
 
18 
 
 and tlieir methods. Third, the way made easy for the perversion of 
 Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 However great these evils may seem to Protestant Christians, it 
 is doubtless true that, in the view of Roman Catholics, the evils of 
 being confounded by the Chinese with Protestants are even of 
 greater magnitude. It is to be borne in mind on both sides that 
 the things to which Protestants object in Roman Catholics, and the 
 things to which Roman Catholics object in Protestants, are not, for 
 the most part, such as excite great animosity in the Chinese. Their 
 thoughts are directed to other issues, such as overturnings, which 
 Christianity, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, must make in 
 the present religious systems of China, changes in long established 
 customs and possible political complications. Already they see the 
 boundaries of their own country contiguous to those of territories 
 belonging to great nations of the West, and it would not be strange if 
 national jealousy should connect these things with Christian mis- 
 sions. Such being the case, neither of these two branches of the 
 Church can expect wholly to avoid ill-will and persecution. It would 
 be in vain to suppose that by standing alone they could retain the 
 goodwill of the rulers and people ; nor should an undue estimate be 
 allowed of the evils resulting from classing together all who bear the 
 Christian name. 
 
 Nor is it to be forgotten that certain benefits have resulted to 
 Protestant Christians by being thus classed with the Roman 
 Catholics* Great joy was occasioned among Protestant Christians by 
 the toleration of Christianity in China, secured through the efforts 
 of the French Minister, M. de Lagrene, in 1844, 1845. The rescript 
 of toleration for the T‘ien Chu Chiao, or Church of God (Roman 
 Catholics), which he obtained from the Chinese government, was 
 explained at his request by Kiying as including under the same 
 designation, all Christians, and “granted as complete toleration to 
 all Christian sects as the writer was able to do from his knowledge 
 of their differences.” 
 
 Ever since the year 1861 Protestant Christians in the rural 
 districts of China have enjoyed to a greater or less degree the 
 benefits resulting from the Imperial order by Prince Kung, which 
 was granted to the Roman Catholics, explaining and enforcing the 
 toleration clauses in the treaty with France, and protecting Christ- 
 ians from imposition of unjust assessments for idolatrous purposes. 
 Up to the year 1882 the document was the strong ground of appeal 
 for Protestants in cases of oppression of native Christians in country 
 towns and villages* In that year the benefits of this Imperial order 
 were formally extended to Protestant Christians by the action of 
 the government, at the request of the Hon. J B, Angell. 
 
19 
 
 Ifc is not too much to say that the precedence of Roman Catho- 
 lic missionaries in all the provinces of the empire, and the continued 
 prosecution of their labors there, has made it vastly easier for Pro- 
 testant missions to make that onward movement into the same pro- 
 vinces, which has characterized the last thirty years, and which 
 gives promise of so great good in the years to come. And if a few 
 converts have gone to the Roman Church, not well understanding 
 the points at issue between them and Protestants, it is also true that 
 there are worthy members of Protestant Churches, whose first 
 religious impressions were received from Roman Catholics. Who 
 can say that the gain has not been greater than the loss ? 
 
 There is a wider outlook in this matter than the fear of being 
 confounded with the Roman Catholics. Protestant Christians are in 
 China, not only to bring the Chinese faith to the Christian, but 
 they also have an important mission toward the Roman Catholics. 
 In various nations of Europe, in Mexico and in South America 
 special efforts are making to bring Roman Catholics to a Scriptural 
 faith. How shall this be done in China but by putting the Sacred 
 Scriptures in the language of the common people into the hands of 
 their Church members ? This, after three hundred years in China, 
 the authorities of that Church have not done. But in putting the 
 Scriptures into their hands shall we use a word for God which they 
 regard as the name of the chief object of worship in a pagan 
 religion, which they never use for God, and which they are bound 
 by oaths and promises not to use on pain of excommunication from 
 their Church ? How utterly futile will efforts be to influence them 
 by such a Bible! With good conscience will their priests forbid 
 its use. But if the same word for God is used, which they also 
 use, their priests will need to find some other reason for refusing 
 permission to read the book* They may be compelled at length 
 to furnish a translation of their own, as they have given the 
 Douay version in English. This would be of immense advantage 
 to their Church members. 
 
 In our contentions in China with the Roman Catholics (for 
 Paul must contend with Peter whenever the interests of the truth 
 and of the Church require it) we do, as it were, mount their deck and 
 meet them face to face, by the use of T‘ien Chu for God. Other- 
 wise all our efforts for them will be put forth at the greatest dis- 
 advantage. No word in the Chinese language has more of religious 
 reverence attached to it than the word T‘ien, Heaven. To this 
 word, Chu, Lord (the word which the Mohammedans in China all 
 use for God), has been added by Christianity, to make it personal, 
 and to show that, not the creature but the Creator of all is to be 
 worshipped. It will be well for Protestants to consider whether in 
 
20 
 
 leaving a word for God so well calculated to excite the reverential 
 feelings of the Chinese to the Roman Catholics, they do not give them 
 the inside track in the race. There are two large cities in China in 
 which are found laborers of the Roman and Greek Catholic and of 
 the English and American Protestant Episcopal Church, all using 
 T"ien Chu for God. In one of the cities these non-Episcopal Pro- 
 testant Churches also very generally use T‘ien Chu for God, 
 while in the other the use of Shaug Ti prevails. God speed the 
 day when on this point the Churches in China shall be one ! 
 
 In what has been written no allusion has been made to the 
 word for Holy Spirit. This has been regarded as a matter of 
 secondary importance in comparison with the word for God. For 
 many years the writer has been convinced that, while the word Shen 
 must come to be used for god, gods, as it is now by the Roman 
 Catholics and most Protestants, it may also be used in the combi- 
 nation Sheng Shen for the Holy Spirit, as it is used by the Roman 
 Catholics and by a large proportion of Protestant Christians. He is 
 not therefore unwilling to use this combination Shhig Shin for the 
 Holy Spirit in the Bible and other Christian books. If both 
 Sheng Shin and Shing Ling should maintain their place in the 
 Christian literature of China, as we have in English Holy Ghost 
 and Holy Spirit, this would occasion no confusion of ideas. 
 
 H. Blodget. 
 
 Peking, February 13 , 1893 . 
 

 ^ r-r.