Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T12:13:28.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doctrinal Dispute within Interdenominational Missions: The Shanghai Tract Committee in the 1840s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2010

John T. P. Lai
John T. P. Lai*
Affiliation:
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both interdenominational co-operation and denominational competition featured in the Protestant missionary literary enterprise in nineteenth-century China. The interdenominational Religious Tract Society in London became the most vital link between the missionary translators, printing presses and target audiences in the production, publication and distribution of Christian tracts. Ideally, interdenominational missions would pool resources and promote cooperation among missionaries with different denominational affiliations. Doctrinal disputes, however, seem to have been inevitable among them in the everyday operation of missions. The first tract committee established in China, the Shanghai Tract Committee in the 1840s is a case in point. Unequal denominational representation resulted in heated doctrinal controversies and the resignation of a Committee member over the publication of a problematic tract in Chinese.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 307 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of denominational policies and missionary co-operation in the China missions, see Talmage, J. V. N., “Should the Native Churches in China be United Ecclesiastically and Independent of Foreign Churches and Societies”, Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May 10 – 24, 1877 (Shanghai, Presbyterian Mission Press, 1878), pp. 429–442Google Scholar; D. E. Hoste, “Should the Denominational Distinctions of Christian Lands be Perpetuated in Mission Fields?”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (August 1907), pp. 427–433; “Denominational Policies in their Relation to Mission Work: I. Lutheran”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (July 1914), pp. 429–433; J. W. Bashford, “Denominational Policies in their Relation to Mission Work: II. Methodist”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (August 1914), pp. 492–497; R. E. Chambers, “Denominational Policies in their Relation to Mission Work: III. Baptist”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (September 1914), pp. 559–562; H. S. Martin, “Denominational Policies in their Relation to Mission Work: IV. Congregational”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (October 1914), pp. 626–631; Charles R. Watson, “Foreign Missionary Co-operation and Unity at the Home Base in America”, International Review of Missions (January 1919), pp. 39–52.

2 Lai, John Tsz-pang, “Christian Literature in Nineteenth-Century China Missions—a Priority? or an Optional Extra?”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 32, No. 2 (April 2008), pp. 71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The Fifty-first Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1850), p. ix.

4 Lai, John T. P., “Institutional Patronage: The Religious Tract Society and the Translation of Christian Tracts in Nineteenth-Century China”, Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, Vol. 13, No. 1 (April 2007), pp. 39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 With the signing of the Treaty of Nanking (1842), Hong Kong Island was ceded as a colony to the British, and five coastal treaty ports were opened, namely Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai, where missionaries were, for the first time, allowed to reside, build churches and preach the gospel.

6 The contributions to the Fund amounted to 259.95 in January 1843, and increased to a total of 1,857 in April 1843. See RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (24 January 1842), p. 29; (25 April 1843), p. 97.

7 Jones, William, The Jubilee Memorial of the Religious Tract Society: Containing a Record of Its Origin, Proceedings, and Results, A. D. 1799 to A. D. 1849 (London, 1850), p. 482Google Scholar.

8 “Minutes of Conference on Bible Translation at Hong Kong, 1843”, Chinese Repository (October 1843), pp. 551–553.

9 See Appendix.

10 The Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1844), p. 2.

11 Jones, William, The Jubilee Memorial of the Religious Tract Society: Containing a Record of Its Origin, Proceedings, and Results, A. D. 1799 to A. D. 1849 (London, 1850), pp. 492–493Google Scholar.

12 “Regulations of the Society”, The Fifty-first Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1850), p. viii.

13 Murdoch, John, Report on Christian Literature in China; with a Catalogue of Publications (Shanghai, 1882), p. 41Google Scholar.

14 The Ningpo Tract Committee, Hong Kong Tract Committee and Canton Tract Committee were established in subsequent years. See Murdoch, John, Report on Christian Literature in China; with a Catalogue of Publications (Shanghai, 1882), p. 36Google Scholar.

15 McClatchie and George Smith (1815–71) were the first two CMS missionaries to arrive in China in 1844. The next year McClatchie was appointed as a member of the Shanghai Tract Committee. He was stationed in Shanghai during 1845–53, 1863–65 and 1870–79, and was rather prolific in literary work. See Church Missionary Society, Register of Missionaries (Clerical, Lay, & Female), and Native Clergy, from 1804 to 1904 (London, 1904), p. 63Google Scholar and Church Missionary Intelligencer (July 1885), p. 554.

16 Medhurst arrived in Malacca in 1817. He was hereafter actively engaged in the preaching and publishing work in Malaya and Indonesia before settling in Shanghai in 1843. The author of scores of Christian tracts and books, he set up the London Mission Press in Shanghai and chaired the Translation Committee of the Delegates’ Version of the Bible, published in 1854. See Anderson, Gerald H. (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions (New York, 1998), pp. 451–452Google Scholar.

17 The Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1846), p. 3.

18 Thomas McClatchie Papers, letters 28A, the Church Missionary Society Archives, deposited in the University of Birmingham Library (CMS/B/OMS/C CH O62/28A).

19 Murdoch, John, Report on Christian Literature in China; with a Catalogue of Publications (Shanghai, 1882), p. 41Google Scholar.

20 Set up in New York in 1825, the American Tract Society (ATS) modelled its objects and constitution on that of the RTS, which was recognised as its parent society. On the relations between the RTS and the ATS, see The Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1844), pp. 97–102.

21 Extant copies of the first edition, in 30 leaves, are found in The National Library of Australia (LMS 570) and The Harvard-Yenching Library (TA1979.41/55).

22 The 1835 edition can be found in The Bodleian Library, Oxford (BOD Sinica 1663).

23 McClatchie Papers, letters 28A.

24 An extant copy of the 1845 edition can be found in the Bodleian Library (BOD Sinica 1322).

25 A minority of Protestant missionaries proposed to use tianzhu (the Lord of Heaven), a standardised term for the Roman Catholics. In the translation of a Mandarin New Testament in 1872, the Protestant Peking Committee remarkably agreed in unanimity to adopt tianzhu for God. See Burdon, J. S., The Chinese Term for God (London, [1877]), p. 17Google Scholar. Henry Blodget also used tianzhu in his translation of Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ (1889). Tianzhu was also adopted in the Eastern Orthodox Bible, Yin yizhao shengshu (Peking, 1864).

26 W. H. Medhurst, “Reply to the Essay of Dr. Boone on the Proper Rendering of the Words Elohim and Theos into the Chinese Language”, Chinese Repository (1848), pp. 489–520, 545–574, 600–647; Medhurst, W. H., On the True Meaning of the Word Shin (Shanghai, 1849)Google Scholar.

27 Legge, James and Boone, William J., The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits (Hong Kong, 1852)Google Scholar.

28 “Chinese Religions”, World Missionary Conference, 1910. Report of Commission (Edinburgh, 1910), Vol. IV, p. 53.

29 William J. Boone, “Defense of an Essay on the Proper Rendering of the Words Elohim and [Theos] into the Chinese Language”, Chinese Repository (1850), pp. 345–385, 409–444, 465–478, 569–618, 624–650.

30 Thos. McClatchie, “The Term for ‘God’ in Chinese”, Chinese Recorderand Missionary Journal (1876), pp. 60–63 and T. McClatchie, “The Term for God”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (1876), p. 217.

31 For the history and development of the Term Question controversy, see Eber, Irene, “The Interminable Term Question”, in Bible in Modern China, eds. Eber, Irene et al. (Sankt Augustin, 1999), pp. 135–161Google Scholar and Lee Chi Chung (ed.), Shenghao lunheng: Wan Qing Wanguo gongbao Jidujiao “Shenghao lunzheng” wenxian huibian (Discourses on Naming God: Debate on the Chinese Name of the Christian God in The Globe Magazine in Late Qing Dynasty) (Shanghai, 2008).

32 Indeed Medhurst advocated the use of the Shanghai dialect as the medium of simple tracts. In so doing, the illiterate Chinese might comprehend the message easily when listening to the reading of such tracts. See The Forty-ninth Annual Report of the Religious Tract Society (1848), p. 6.

33 McClatchie Papers, letters 28A.

34 Ibid.

35 To inform the CMS Home Committee about the controversy, McClatchie translated the revised preface of the 1845 edition into English to illustrate how Congregationalism was favoured. For the sake of comparison, he also translated the three most debatable sections of the original preface. He also added four footnotes to highlight where the controversial points lay. See McClatchie Papers, letter 28B, the Church Missionary Society Archives (CMS/B/OMS/C CH O62/28B).

36 Livingstone, E. A. (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.) (Oxford, 1997), pp. 399–400Google Scholar and Dale, R. W., History of English Congregationalism (London, 1907)Google Scholar.

37 Livingstone (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 64–67, 554–555, and Avis, Paul D. L., Anglicanism and the Christian Church: Theological Resources in Historical Perspective (London, 2002)Google Scholar.

38 The 1845 Shanghai edition originally consisted of 38 leaves. The problematic preface was omitted, and the title page was bound together with page four, starting with an incomplete first question. Thereby, the extant copy only consists of 35 leaves. According to Alexander Wylie (1815–87), the 1845 edition, like the 1835 edition, was attributed to Milne and classified as classical Chinese. As an LMS missionary and superintendent of the London Mission Press then, Wylie should have been informed of this controversy and have made a distinction between these editions. In making no distinction, Wylie might simply have wished to conceal such a controversy around his senior colleague, Medhurst. See Wylie, Alexander, Catalogue of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs Collection at the United States International Exhibition, Philadelphia, 1876. Appendix. Catalogue of Publications by Protestant Missionaries in China (Shanghai, 1876)Google Scholar.

39 McClatchie Papers, Letter from Medhurst to McClatchie, 29 February 1848.

40 The resignation of Bishop Boone had been reported by Medhurst in his previous letter dated 19 October 1849. See RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (1 January 1850), p. 3.

41 RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (27 August 1850), p. 209.

42 Ibid.

43 100 was granted by the RTS to the Shanghai Committee for 1848, equivalent to $444.44 (Mexican dollars). The purchase of the four tracts mentioned cost more than $410. See McClatchie Papers, letters 28A.

44 RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (27 August 1850), pp. 209–210.

45 RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (17 December 1850), p. 315.

46 These include the Hankow Tract Society (1876), North China Tract Society (1883), East China Tract Society (1885) and West China Religious Tract Society (1899).

47 Tenth Annual Report of the Chinese Religious Tract Society (1888), p. 19.

48 RTS Minutes of Executive Committee (10 June 1851), p. 98.

49 The directors of the LMS passed a resolution on July 22, 1850 on the Bible translation, “That it is highly desirable that Messrs. Medhurst, J. Stronach, and Milne, with any other Missionary of this Society, whose services may be available, proceed with the revision of the Old Testament in Chinese, unconnected with the Agents of any other Institution”. In compliance with the wishes of the directors, these LMS missionaries held a Shanghai committee meeting on February 19, 1851. They resolved to withdraw from the original Delegates’ committee, and formed their own one called “The Committee for translating the Old Testament into Chinese, under the auspices of the London Missionary Society”. See W. C. Milne, “Printed Circular Relating to Old Testament Translation Committee” (1851), the Church Missionary Society Archives, deposited in the University of Birmingham Library (CMS/B/OMS/C CH O12/4).

50 For the history of these Bible translations, see Zetzsche, Jost Oliver, The Bible in China: History of the Union Version; or the Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China (Sankt Augustin, 1999), pp. 97–102Google Scholar.

51 “By-laws of the Chinese Religious Tract Society”, Tenth Annual Report of the Chinese Religious Tract Society (1888), p. 22.

52 See the letter of the Committee of Missionaries in China dated at Hong Kong 8th September 1843 and signed by Alexander Stronach and John Stronach, of the London Missionary Society, containing the result of their deliberations relative to future tract operations (RTS Minutes of Executive Committee [13 February 1844], p. 278, the United Society for Christian Literature Archives, deposited in the School of Oriental and African Studies Library, University of London).