Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 216

190

Term for Elohim and Theos.

APRIL,

are couched being understood in one sense,) possessed a perfect accord- ance with these principles, its Author might with much reason have declared, in his conclusion, as to the term he advocates, “We must use [it] malgré all objections." That "one sense" referred to above is, that in the first quotation,-the words "worshiped as gods," must mean that they are so worshiped because they are esteemed to be divine Beings. But in the mind of the author; judging from his Argu ment, they seem to signify, such worship is offered as belongs to Gods or dinine Beings. If therefore, " worshiped as Gods” means wor- shiped because they are esteemed divine Beings, we make no objection to the proposition. This clearly then consitutes polytheism. But if the latter idea be the true one in the mind of the author and other advocates for shin, viz., that “ worshiped as Gods" signifies worshiped as divine Beings only should be worshiped, we cannot acquiesce in the position. This is not polytheism, but idolatry.

Again, in relation to the generic name for God, if, by "The name for the highest genus or class of Beings," &c., be intended the name by which that genus or class is distinguished from every other genus or class of beings, then it is just what we need. But if in the first phrase, “worshiped as Gods"-by gods, is to be understood simply, beings to whom religious worship is offered, which should be offered to the true God only, and by "The name of the highest genus, &c.," be signified a name predicated of, though not peculiar to such high class, while with equal propriety, it is applicable to many other classes of beings, then we cannot but feel that there is a radical defect in the very foundation of the Argument in this essay. This argument is labored, ingenious and plausible, and especially calculat- ed to bewilder those not acquainted with the Chinese language, and unaware of the very diversified uses and applications of shin. It is conducted too much, as if the author believed that shin had no such application even in its concrete use. True, occasionally we get a glimpse of the fact of its extensive range, though the prominent view given is, that it only embraces so much as the definition for a generic name naturally implies, and so is the distinguishing name for the highest class. But whether the writer intended to hold up shin in the restricted sense as simply an appellative for the highest genus or class of objects worshiped, or in its wider range, as a generic name for all objects of worship from the lowest to the highest in rank, it is not easy to decide. But other writers on the subject argue the adoption of shinexpressly and explicitly on account of this extensive applica- tion. In the China Mail there is a well written article, on the present