Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 516

478

Medhurst's Inquiry.

Ser.

a being must be either absolutely God, or no god at all, only God by way of a figure, or improperly so called. Now then, if in this phrase compounded of an adjective and a noun, the noun ti meant god, what would be the effect of using this qualifying term, and saying "there is only one Supreme God;" would this teach monotheism? Does not the addition of the adjective supreme on the contrary, imply the existence of inferior gods? The belief in the existence of only one supreme God is not monotheism; but the belief in the exist ence of only one God is. The Greeks, Romans, and indeed all the polytheistic nations we know anything of, believed in the existence of only one Supreme God; but this belief did not interfere with their belief in the existence of numberless inferior gods. Hence Tertullian objects on this ground to the use of this phrase; he says most admira- bly, "Divinitas non habet gradum, utpote &∙ica.”

If the noun ti means merely ruler and not god, all the adjectives in the world can not make it answer to this word, if God is, as we contend, the absolute name of the Supreme Being, and not a mere title. To say there is only one supreme Ruler is not monotheism, for this supreme Ruler might not be a god at all; but only the visible heavens, or a mere lifeless principle, primitive reason, destiny or fate. This point seems to me so plain that I will not dwell on it, but will only request the reader to endeavor to state the Scripture doctrine of the existence of only one God, adding any adjective he can think of except the adjective "true," and see if this added adjective does not interfere with his statement of this doctrine. The adjective supreme implies inferior; good God, would not exclude the Manichæan idea of a malig- nant God; great would not exclude small, &c., &c. To state this doctrine we must have a simple, unqualified word; we can not say there is only one good, or one great, or one supreme, God; but must simply say, there is only one God.

(To be continued.)

ART. II. An Inquiry into the proper mode of translating Ruach and Pneuma, in the Chinese version of the Scriptures. By W. H. MEDHURST, sen. Shanghai. Printed at the Mission Press, 1850. SUCH is the character of this little volume, and such the place it holds in a series of works, which have come from the same pen within a period of four or five years, that some notice of it seems called for.