Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 219

1850.

Term for Elohim and Theos.

193

this: That objects to which religious worship is offered by any peo- ple, are of necessity the Gods of that people. Hence the conclusion, that an appellative by which those objects are known must be in their language the generic term for Deity, and thus the proper one to trans- late the Hebrew and Greek terms.

•

Here we have two different ideas, idolatry and polytheism, sadly con- founded. Yet, in our search after a fit word to translate the original terms in the Scriptures for God, it is important that they should be kept distinct. Probably no one will deny that shin is a common term applied by the Chinese to all their objects of religious worship, even in the fullest sense contended for; but most unluckily for the validity of the argument, it is not even thus limited. There are myriads of shin regarded of too insignificant a character to be honored with worship even by the grossly idolatrous Chinese. But is shin ever used by the Chinese in any of their standard works, is it in common use, or has it been applied xal' sğoxǹv to any object or being, real or imagi- nary, ancient or modern, to express Deity or God? This point in the discussion is an inquiry of the first importance. Yet no instance has been produced, and probably can not be, where shin is so used. In the meaning of shin there is not necessarily the least idea of God whatever, any more than we have an idea of Deity in the English words spiritual, mysterious, invisible, inscrutable, and their cognate

names.

It may be contended (see page 25) that shin used in a concrete sense means, or is to be translated, God or Gods. Do native dictionaries au- thorize this meaning? Ask an intelligent Chinese not acquainted with what may be your object and predilections, why the objects of Chinese worship are called shin, and he will tell you because they are spiritual, invisible, inscrutable, or something analogous, but never will one tell you, because they are partakers of the divine nature.

All these may

belong to deity as qualities, or as being expressive of the divine method of existence or operation, but constitute no part of the essential attri- butes of the divine Being. The Chinese employ shin in no such distinguishing sense. The quotations made from Chinese works in the Essay clearly show this, for almost every one in which shin is used, may be, and according to Chinese usage should be, rendered not God or Gods, but spirit or spiritual, mystery or mysterious, intelli- gence or intelligent, &c.,—a noun or adjective, singular or plural, as the case may be.

The question now arises, not whether shin is applied to a being or beings supposed to be divine, but whether considering its meaning,

VOR. XIX. XO, IV.

25