1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
617
be taken, the Athanasian formula is equivalent to 'The Father is A Being who possesses a Divine nature, the Son is A Being who possesses a Divine nature, &c.'"
It is difficult to persuade oneself that Dr. L. is serious in all this. To his question, however, I will answer that the word God denotes the Being who is possessed of the only true Divine nature that exists, which Being sustains to his creatures the relationship of Supreme Ruler, and many others also.
If the word God, as used in this formula, is an absolute term denoting nature; then, as Dr. L. admits that shin denotes nature and ti does not, the inference is that the word shin is a suitable one to express the Trinity, and that ti and its compounds are not. But Dr. L. insists that if we attempt to state the doctrine of the Trinity in Chinese, by the use of this word, it will be "the Father is a Shin," &c., &c. In answer to this, we have only to inform the English reader that the Chinese has no article, and that the phrase
Th, may without any violation of Chinese grammar be explained to
mean the Father is the one only true and living Shin, to remove all apprehen- sion from his mind on this score; and as we, who advocate the use of Shin, are monotheists, the reader may rest assured that we will tell the Chinese that although they have heretofore supposed "that there were shin (gods) many, and chú (lords) many, that to us there is but one Shin ;"-" that the Father is this Shin, the Son is this Shin, and the Holy Ghost is this Shin," and that there is yet, as we said above, "to us, but one Shin.”
Dr. Legge must know that there is nothing easier than for us to say this in Chinese, and if he believes that the unity of the Godhead consists in a oneness of nature, I should be glad to know why the fact that the word Shin is an absolute appellative noun, unfits it to express the "Scriptural doctrine” of the Trinity. If he regards the Divinity of the Savior as "a mere relative divini- ty," and is prepared to stand to his position that "the view of Elohim as a relative term, exhibits the doctrine of the Trinity in its Scriptural simplicity, and establishes the Divinity of Christ upon its proper evidence," then I can easily understand why he should maintain that we can not with Shin (an absolute term) express the doctrine of the Trinity in its Scriptural simplicity :" but if he regards the Divinity of the Savior as absolute, if he regards him as "the very and eternal God,” as “very God and very man ;" if he believes, as he tells us on p. 57 of his Letters, "that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 'one in substance,' SO that there are not three Gods but one God;” then I can not understand what difficulty he can possibly see in the way of his expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in its Scriptural simplicity by the use of an absolute appellative noun.
I should be glad to see Dr. L. reconcile his views above quoted, viz., that "the Father, Son and Spirit are 'one in substance,' SO that there are not three Gods, but one God," with the opinion that we must use a merc relative term which does not indicate essence or nature to express the doctrine of the Trinity in its Scriptural simplicity. I should like him also to point out what difficulty there can be in expressing that wherein the oneness of the Trinity consists by the use of a term signifying nature, if that oneness consists in nature. If