I said above that the Romanists have adopted a term for God which the Protestant missionaries are unwilling to use: this is, perhaps, the best place to state the reason, as it will throw light on the point we are now discussing, viz: the necessity there exists, from the very nature of the case, for using the generic term for God to reader Elohim.

Much controversy, with respect to the proper word by which to render God, had existed among the Romish missionaries for many years before this point was decided by the Roman See. The use of Tien, Heaven, Sháng Ti, Supreme Ruler, or Ruler on high, and Shin, a God or Gods, according to some, and a Spirit, Spirits, or Genii according to others, was warmly advocated by different parties. Clement XI., in 1715, decreed that the phrase Tien Chú, "Celestial Lord," or "Lord of Heaven," should be used, in future, as the term for God; and this phrase has been used ever since by the Romish missionaries. "Lord of Heaven" cannot be applied to false gods, or used as the generic term for God; the Romanists have therefore, rendered the First Commandment as follows:

 or

kin sung yih T"ien Chú sản xuh ch sháng,

Ati ZE, "Reverently worship or honor one Heavenly Lord above all things." Here it is plain that the design of this Commandment, to forbid the offer of religious worship to any other being than Jehovah, is neither expressed nor implied. According to this rendering of it, any number of saints and angels may be worshiped, provided Jehovah is placed above them and worshiped with

inore reverence.

Protestants, believing that the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-is the only proper object of religious worship, can never consent to such a rendering of this Commandment.

The Jesuits employed Tien Heaven, and Sháng Ti,

the Supreme Ruler, to render God, and thereby, no doubt, very much weakened their testimony against polytheism. To my mind, the reason which Kanghi assigned for refusing baptism is worthy of very serious consideration in connection with the question, whether we should use the name of the chief God of a ploytheistic nation, or the generic name for God in their language. We are told by John Bell of Antermony, that when the missionaries besought him to become a Christian and be baptized, he always excused himself by saying, he worshiped the same God with the Christians." What answer could they give? They used the name of his chief God, as the

term by which to render Elohim; and what conclusion could be more natural than the one he had drawn?

Lactantius cautions against the use of the name of the chief God of a polytheistic system for the very reason just assigned. It would seem the same use was made of it, as an excuse, in his day, that was made by the emperor Kánghi.

"It is a vain persuasion of those who would give the name of Jupiter to the Supreme God. For some are wont thus to excuse their errors, when they have been convinced of one God, so as that they could not contradict it, by saying that themselves worshiped him, he being called by them Jupiter: than which, what can be more absurd? Since Jupiter is not worshiped without the partnership of his wife and daughter. From whence it plainly appears what this Jupiter is, and that the name ought not to be transferred thither where there is neither any Minerva nor Juno." Lactantius Firmianus: quoted in Cudworth's Intellectual System. Edit. Harrison. Vol. 2. p. 149.

4. The use of the name of any heathen Deity would be derogatory to the glory and honor of Jehovah.

There being in truth but one God, the existence of a generic term for God is owing entirely to polytheism. If none other than the true religion had ever prevailed, there could have been no such genus as this conceived of The Gods of a polytheistic people are merely imaginary Beings, who have no real existence. The true God claims the right to displace the whole class; and this is the reason that, in translating the Scriptures into the language of such a people, the generic term for God must be used. Jehovah claims the right-not, to be recognized in the place of the chief God of such a system, but-to take the place of the whole class of gods. He will not consent to propose himself to polytheists as their Jupiter or Neptune, their Tien or their Fuh Budha.* He claims

*

Origen thus warmly expresses himself on this subject: "Celsus thinks it to be a matter of no moment whether we call the highest and supreme God, Adonai and Sabaoth, as the Jews do; or Dia and Zena, as the Greeks; or as the Egpytians, Ammon; or as the Scythians Pappœus; but we will rather endure any torment," says Origen, "than confess Zeus (or Jupiter) to be God; being well assured that the Greeks often really worship, under that name, an evil demon, who is an enemy both to God and man. And we will rather suffer death than call the supreme God Ammon, whom the Egyptian enchanters thus invoke; and though the Scythians call the supreme God Pappaus, yet we, acknowledging a supreme God, will never be persuaded to call him by that name, which it pleased that demon (who ruled once the Scy. thian desert, people and language,) to impose. Nevertheless, he that shall use the appellative name for God, either in the Scythian, Egyptian, or any other language, which he hath been brought up in will not offend." Origen contra Celsum quoted in Cudworth's Intellectual System. Vol. 1 422

to be "the all and in all." He says, I ain the God of heaven and the God of the earth; the God of the hills and the God of the valleys; the God of fire and the God of wealth; yea, of whatsoever place or thing, in the most unbounded license of your imagination, you have conceived a God to exist, I am the God thereof: "I am God and there is none else; there is no God beside me." fore, take for Jehovah the name of the whole class and affirm that it properly belongs to Him alone; that there is no other Being in the universe entitled to this name; that those whom the heathen have, in the days of their polytheistic ignorance, called gods, are mere imaginary Beings, who have no existence except in the minds of their blinded votaries.

We must, there

The generic name for God, when thus claimed for Jehovah, undergoes a change by Christian usage: according to this usage it is employed in a proper sense, to designate Jehovah alone; and, but for the fact that it must still be used to combat polytheism, its generic character would wholly cease. But, as polytheism gave rise to so improper a genus, so the necessity there exists of forbidding men to have a plurality of Gods, causes the word to retain so much of its generic character as to make it available to prohibit sternly the recognition and worship of all the imaginary Beings who are by polytheists strictly and properly included in its meaning.

We might illustrate this point much more copiously, and enforce the use of the generic term by many other considerations; but knowing that "brevity is the soul of wit," we shall endeavor to be as brief, in the discussion of every point made, as we can, having due regard to a fair presentation of our subject. We shall pursue this course, not merely from a conviction of the truth of the above dictum, but also from the consideration that those for whom we write in England and America, and upon whom a most solemn responsibility devolves in connection with this question, have many important calls upon their time, which will make them desirous to have this matter submitted to them in the shortest compass in which it can be made intelligible.

The point above discussed, we regard as of the utmost importance, and the reason we do not pursue the subject is that we are persuaded our readers will agree with us in the conclusion to which we have come, that the generic term must be used. And here I would beg my missionary Brethren, in China, to pause; and laying aside all the partiality to any particular term that may have been contracted by previous use, to settle definitely in their minos this previous

general question, before they proceed with us to the examination of the particular question-What Chinese word shall be used to render θεος ?

If we have succeeded thus far in carrying along with us the convictions of our readers, then the point remaining for our consideration is narrowed down to the single question, What is the generic name for God in the Chinese language?

To this question we answer, with Morrison and Milne and Marshman, in the Chinese language, Shin is the generic name for God. To this question a different answer has, however, been given. Within the last few months another term, which, so far as we have been able to ascertain, was never previously regarded in this light by any foreigner, Romanist or Protestant, has been proposed as the generic name for God. This term is Ti.

The point to be decided then is, Which of these two terms is the generic name of God in the Chinese language.

We shall first endeavor to prove that Shin is the generic term sought, and then state the reasons that forbid us to regard Ti as the name of any class of Beings either human or divine.

To give prominence to the point upon which we rely, as sustaining our view of Shin, and to enable the reader, at a glance, to comprehend the bearing of the evidence adduced, for his conviction, we present a brief Synopsis of our argument.

We beg that the important point, already proved, may be kept in mind when reading this Synopsis, viz. that the generic name for God must be used to render Elohim and ɛog.

To prevent all misunderstanding, that might arise from a vague use of terms, we shall preface this Synopsis with a definition of the phrase, "generic name for God," which occurs so frequently in this discussion.

By the generic name for God, in Chinese, we understand the name of the highest genus or class of Beings to whom the Chinese offer religious worship. On this definition we shall offer no remark, except that it is the plainest and simplest we can frame, and that we presume it will be assented to immediately by every one upon reading it.

SYNOPSIS.

1. Shin is the name of a class of invisible Beings to whom the Chinese, from the highest antiquity to the present time, have always offered religious worship.

2. The class of Beings called Shin is the highest class worshiped by the Chinese.

Proofs. 1st. 1st. The Shin are directly affirmed to be the most honorable Beings in the universe.

2d. The chief God, the Being worshiped in the highest sacrifice, offered in the state religion, is a Shin.

3d. It is maintained that, being the highest class of Beings worshiped by the Chinese, as above stated, this class must be regarded as the Gods of China, and Shin as the generic name for God.

We shall consider these points in the order in which they are presented above, and then state and answer the chief objections that have been made to the use of Shin.

The first point. Shin is the name of a class of invisible Beings to whom the Chinese, from the highest antiquity to the present time, have always offered religious worship.

The two facts above stated, viz. that Shin is the name of a class of Beings, and that to these Beings the Chinese have always offered religious worship, are freely admitted by those who oppose the use of this word to render 8ɛos into Chinese. We might content ourselves with this admission and pass on to our second head, but that this is the most convenient place to make the Reader acquainted with many facts, in connection with our subject, important to a correct decision of the point at issue.

It is perhaps well known to the learned in Europe and America that the words of the Chinese language undergo no inflection, either of declension or conjugation, and that the same word may, in different contexts, be a noun, adjective, verb or adverb. To mark these different uses, of the same uninfected word, they rely entirely upon the position the word occupies in the sentence and the subject treated of in the context; leaving the reader to infer, from these, what part of speech it may be and which of its several meanings it may have in any given sentence.

The word Shin is used as a noun, adjective and verb. It occurs much the most frequently as a noun; as an adjective it is also frequently used; but it is rarely used as a verb. As a noun it may be either concrete or abstract; but it is concrete in a very large majority of instances. When used in a concrete sense, it is the name of a class of invisible Beings, worshiped by the Chinese, as we have said above. In this case we contend that it is to be translated a god or gods, as it may be singular or plural in any given instance. When used in an abstract sense, to express a quality belonging to any Being,

VOL. XVII. NO. 1.