Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 215

1850.

Term for Elohim and Theos.

189

for a second, shin chú for a third, and

the Bible into their languages have been made. Does not the existence of such generic term depend, not on the nature of the case, but on the theogenical and mythological views of a people? We know from re- vealed truth, there can be no such term. There can be only one God, one supreme Being, and consequently there can be no term expressive of a class of such beings. But mankind have not always been thus correct in their theology, and hence such terms have arisen. The Greeks had several families of gods, divine beings begetting divine beings, and hence the generic term of sol. The use of as a generic it is now impossible to trace; probably it arose much in the same way, as its cognate among the Greeks. If the Chinese, like the Greeks, have a family of divine beings, that family is assuredly com- posed of the highest in rank, the most powerful and venerated beings acknowledged by them. The common term by which this class is dis- tinguished (leaving the question whether they be or be not esteemed divine), is tí, just as tien shin is the generic appellation for one, pú sáh kwei for another class of objects of worship, so also is ti the term for distinguishing the highest, most venerated, most dignified and powerful class. In its use and applications by the Chinese, it is near- er to those of soi than any other term to be found in their language. This fact will become more clearly developed in the discussion of shin as claimed to be the best term to be employed to express Deity.

神 I now proceed to consider the grounds, on which shin has been advocated as the only proper term, in the Chinese language to express Deity appellatively. This term, the author of the "Essay on the pro- per rendering of the words Elohim and Osos into the Chinese lan- guage," given in pp. 17,57 of Vol. XVII, says must be used "malgré all objections." Let us therefore, ascertain the strong foundation on which this "must be used” rests, by reference to the Essay, and to the writings of others, who advocate the same views. On page 20, he says, "in order to combat polytheism," "we must use the name of the whole class worshiped as Gods by the Chinese." Again, page 23 "We must, therefore, take for Jehovah the name of" the whole class [of Gods] and affirm that it properly belongs to Him alone; that there is no other being in the universe entitled to this name. Again, page 20, a definition of the generic name for God, is given,—“The name of the highest genus or Class of Beings, to whom the Chinese offer religious worship."

These first principles of the Essay appear well, and had the argu- ment, purporting to be built upon them (the language in which they