Zhong Wen: Looking back at the hundred years before Emperor Yongzheng’s 1723 prohibition of Catholic missionary work, we return to late 1624 in the Ming dynasty. In view of the needs of the China mission, Alfonso Vagnoni (Gao Yizhi) was sent to the remote region of Jiangzhou in Shanxi to evangelize. After thorough study, on October 8, 1626, Vagnoni wrote a report to the Superior General of the Jesuit Order in response to Longobardi’s On Certain Questions Regarding the Chinese Religion. He offered a profound and incisive discussion, from a theoretical standpoint, on the advantages and disadvantages of using the terms “Shangdi” (上帝) and “Tian” (天) in Chinese Catholicism.

1. First, Vagnoni stated: “Shangdi refers to the supreme ruler and emperor. Using this term to designate our Lord God is legitimate, for it appears many times in the writings of Father Matteo Ricci.” He believed: “*According to our doctrine and Ricci’s description of the Lord, we may use the term Shangdi to express the meaning of Deus / God.”

2. Ricci, Nicolas Trigault, and others used Shangdi in their published works because it most fittingly conveyed the divine authority of Deus/God as the creator of all things. When they discussed Shangdi or Tian, they were generally referring to “a spiritual and eternal being.”

3. Vagnoni held that Ricci’s use of the terms Shangdi, Tian, and Tianzhu (Lord of Heaven) was the result of long theological reflection. In his view, “the Chinese government has already acknowledged that we have brought a friendly religion (doctrine). Although they enjoy a superior position, they treat us with great respect.” His words reflect how, at one time, Jesuits gained considerable support and recognition from Chinese officials and Confucian scholars.

4. Vagnoni hoped that missionaries in China would sincerely accept the term Shangdi, because it appeared most frequently in the imperial publications of the time. He said: “The emperor often uses these names in almanacs, edicts, and official documents published throughout the empire. We may use the emperor’s own terminology to describe the God we worship — namely Shangdi or Tian.”

5. In Vagnoni’s view, Chinese scholars already believed that the Confucian Tian and Shangdi were the same deity as the Christian Deus / God. He said with certainty: “Fathers who share my view all believe the term Shangdi expresses the meaning most fittingly. We may confidently use the terms Shangdi and Tian.”

6. Drawing from the real conditions of missionary work in late Ming China, Vagnoni strategically quoted Confucian classics to defend Ricci’s policy of cultural accommodation. He argued that the terms Shangdi and Tian in ancient Chinese texts were “used by the Chinese to denote the Lord who rules over souls and humankind.” This ruler shared the same theological attributes as the Christian God, for “He is the source of all power and moral authority; He is omnipotent, omniscient, and the one who rewards the good and punishes the wicked.”

7. Finally, Vagnoni stressed that Shangdi and Tian were names revered in ancient Chinese literature. Using these terms would satisfy the cultural expectations of scholars and help dispel the prejudice that Christianity was a foreign religion—thus aiding its spread in China. If, however, missionaries abandoned these terms, the result would be the closing of the doors of dialogue already opened between them and the literati.

Active for many years on the front lines of missionary work, Vagnoni possessed a clear understanding of the realities of evangelization in late Ming China. He knew that using the terms Tian and Shangdi had undeniable advantages in practice. He viewed Ricci’s missionary method—proven through experience—as a universally applicable strategy capable of harmonizing with Chinese society and culture. It offered theoretical resources for evangelization and a protective umbrella for the Church’s stable development in China. If missionaries deviated from Ricci’s approach, the young Church—still in its cradle—could easily face the danger of premature death.

Bo Ya: In my view, Vagnoni’s attempt to equate “Yahweh God” with the Chinese Shangdi is nothing more than muddling the waters. Their connotations differ fundamentally—not only because the latter lacks the redemptive blood of Jesus Christ, but also because the “Chinese Shangdi” is merely the ruler of the universe, whereas “Yahweh God” is also the creator of the universe.