Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 233

204

Term for Elohim and Theos.

APRIL,

objects of worship: and also that these terms can properly be predicat- ed onir of such class

2. That there is a no less remarkable analogy in the use of skin and daukar. As sa may be predicated of all the desí, so skin may be predicated of all the ti; but as bioí is never predicated of ¿œmporis; so also, ti is never predicated of skin. There is also a remarkable analogy of meaning between the two terms. Both convey the sien of spirituality and intelligence generally of a character and order more than human. Again, the demonology of the Greeks embraced good and bad spirits, though generally good, from the souls of men, manes, lares, penates, genii, and upwards; and objects of worship from the lowest to the highest rank: so also the Chinese doctrines of skin include all from the lowest to the highest beings which are objects of worship, and many which are not objects of wor- ship, not only benignant but also malignant spirits. The doctrine and practice of the Chinese concerning their shin is a remarkable acting over again of the demonolatry of Greece. It is a system of demono- latry and nothing else.

3. The term borrowed from the Greek language to designate the God of the Bible, was not selected by the translators of the Septua- gint, nor employed by the Savior and his Apostles, because it was the common name by which the heathen designated their objects of worship. Classical writers in Greek it appears did not so use EOS. There is scarcely a doubt that eg was thus selected and employed just because it was the only term used for Deity xa?' ɛğɔxv. It was found to be the distinguishing term used to designate the highest in rank of all spiritual beings; but which were not however called @for because they were spiritual beings.

4. That as ti has been misapplied, because of supposed resemblance in dignity and office, to a mortal ruler, so also ɛog in like manner was applied as a title of the emperors.

5. That it is extremely doubtful, whether any being worshiped by the Chinese, is by them regarded as a divine being At most there is but one, the Shangtí of antiquity, and he worshiped only by the em- peror. Consequently, a general term by which the objects to whom the Chinese offer religious worship are designated, can not be a generic term for Deity. Again, the Chinese mythology, in which there is only one Being at all recognized as being divine, does not contain, and can not furnish a proper generic term for Deity. Not having an idea of such a class of beings, the Chinese language assuredly will not afford a generic term for it.