ABDICATION OF THE EMPEROR YAO.
A disciple asked, saying, “Is it true that Yao (2357 b.c.) gave the throne to Shun[1] (2255 b.c.)?” “It is not true,” replied Mencius; “the Son of God[2] cannot take the throne and give it to any one.” “Yes,” said the disciple, “but Shun got it. Who gave it to him?” “God gave it to him.” “Oh, God gave it to him, did He? Were there any particular commands as to what his duties would be.” “No,” replied Mencius; “God does not speak. God made manifest His will through Shun's own behaviour.” “Oh,” said the disciple, “through Shun's own behaviour, was it? How did He manage that?” “The Son of God,” replied Mencius, “can recommend any one to God, but he cannot make God give that man the throne. Just so, the feudal nobles can recommend any one to the Son of God, but they cannot make the Son of God appoint that man to be a feudal noble. Likewise, a Minister can recommend any one to his suzerain, but he cannot make his suzerain appoint that man to be a Minister. In those days of old, Yao recommended Shun to God, and God accepted him; he let the people see what sort of man Shun was, and the people accepted him. Therefore I said, God does not speak; He manifests his will through behaviour.” “May I ask,” said the disciple, “how this was managed.” “Yao,” replied Mencius, “caused Shun to preside over the sacrifices; and as the spirits were well pleased, God accepted him. Yao also caused him to preside over the conduct of affairs; and as affairs were well administered and a general wellbeing prevailed, the people accepted him. Thus, it was God and the people who gave Shun the throne; and therefore I said that the Son of God cannot give the throne to any one.
- ↑ For more about Shun, see Yang Chu. “On Self Sacrifice.”
- ↑ More commonly called the “Son of Heaven”; but now that the word t'ien has been shown to mean an anthropomorphic Deity―to all intents and purposes the Deity, as universally recognized,―it seems only proper to use the term “God” without reserve. That t'ien tzŭ means the “Son of God” is also beyond the reach of argument. This phraseology may doubtless shock many who are more concerned with accidentals than with essentials. It must however be remembered that priority is on the side of the Chinese, who created the term and used it widely centuries before the Christian era.
