Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 651

1850.

Defense of an Essay, &c.

609

pushed out of existence, they are made to be no shin-nonentities. A new distinction is introduced as existing between the members of the class comprehended under this common name, in place of the old polytheistic one of higher and lower, ruler and ruled-a distinction of true and false-a distinction founded on nature, according to the words of the Apostle in Gal. iv. 8., “Then when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods

>>

Dr. Legge proposes to effect this object by the use of a title of dig- nity or office, by the use of the phrase Shangti, the Supreme Ruler. But with this phrase, I am persuaded, he will never teach the Chinese a real monotheism. He may teach a Divine Monarchy, but this, so far from being monotheism, implies, in all the polytheistic systems with which we are acquainted, a plurality—a large class of gods, as the subjects of this Divine Monarch.

4

The affirmation that "there is only one Shángti" will never teach monotheism. The assertion "that there is only one Supreme Ruler " does not push the gods now worshiped by the Chinese out of exis- tence; it does not introduce the scriptural distinetion of true God, or no God at all, but only continues the old polytheistic distinction of su- preme and inferior, recognized here in China from the days of Yáu and Shun to the present time, and which ex vi termini, instead of negativ- ing, implies the existence of the inferior equally with that of the su- perior. No title of office or dignity will answer, no word limited “by adjunct" or adjective can be used to declare that there is in reality only one of the species spoken of; and therefore it is, that we must use the absolute appellative name of the gods of a polytheistic people to render Elohim and ✪ɛos into their language. The fact that shin has never been used xal' ¿1⁄2oxǹv to designate their 7"ien, should not induce us to lay this word aside for the name of a dignity or office, but only be remembered by us as indicating how much we have to teach this poor, benighted nation,

That people have fallen into errors on any given subject is no reason why we should not call this subject by the same name they do, when our object is to correct these errors.

There are two uses of the word Shin that have weighed very much against its employment as the rendering of Elohim and ↔sog: I refer to the fact that the manes of the dead, and the human soul have been called by this name. When the circumstances that led to these uses are duly considered, it does not appear to me that either use is a valid objection to the employment of this word to render sog. I shall con- sider them separately.

VOL. XIX. NO. XI.

77