Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 212

186

Term for Elohim and Theos,

APRIL,

to the examination of these terms, however, it will be well to ascer- tain what are the requisites in any term employed as an appellative for the Divine Being. I apprehend that such term should be one used by common consent, generally, and xal' soxv, for Deity or for a Di- vine Being or Beings, by the people to whose language the term be- longs. This is of the very highest importance. If the term be not so used, it can not become a proper one to translate and sós. There should be a suitableness also, so that the term should convey of itself and by application the idea of power, dignity, greatness, and grandeur. Again, it should be a generic term for Deity, if the people into whose language the translation is made, are polytheists, and have a general name for Deity. Such is , for the Aramean nations had become polytheists; such also is so, for the Greeks had whole families of Divine beings.

The first of these requisites is indispensable; the other two are very important, and should exist, if the genius of the language and the theology of the people afford them. Now, in which of the two pro- posed terms do we find these requisites, or the nearest approach to them; and hence the closest correspondence to be and Gos? Are they found in shinor in ti? In this investigation, dic- tionaries by foreigners and their opinions, manifestly can be of no weight unless clearly verified by native usage and authority. Thus premising, I shall assign some reasons for giving a preference to ti with an adjunct, as either sháng or tien ti, as the fittest term to render God in the Chinese; and then show why I can not acquiesce in the position of those who have advocated the employment of shin.

I propose to try ti by the abovenamed requisites. 1. Is ti used by the Chinese for Deity by way of eminence; and as the distinguishing appellation for that being, or those beings who are regarded divine? In the sacred books of the Chinese, we find at least one Being re- cognized of whom is predicated what belongs only to God, and who, especially in moral character and attributes, resembles far more the true God, than does any one of the 50 of the Greeks. He is a Being to whom no beginning is attributed; a Being of perfect moral recti- tude, and is represented as rewarding the upright and punishing the wicked; a Being too of universal sovereignty and providence. The distinguishing title by which this Being, and all other entities supposed to resemble him, are known among the Chinese is shángti . This too is a title used by way of eminence to distinguish Deity, long before the Chinese were led by their pride, either to assume or apply