THE

CHINESE REPOSITORY.

Vet VVII-OCTOBER, 1848.-No. 10.

sos into the Chinese language,

Reply to the Essay of Dr. Boone on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and contained on pp. 17, 57, et seq. By W. H. MEdhurst, d. d. [Note. We feel that we owe an apology to the readers of the Repository for occupying the pages of the work with the continuance of a discussion, which, though highly important in itself, and relating to a subject of vital moment, has still little interest for most of them, inasinuch as the several arguments of the two parties relate measurably to philological points, and does not include topics of general research. The present reply of Dr. Medhurst will probably end the discussion in our pages until the answer of the British and American Bible Societies has been received; it will be found to embody a reply to the points treated of in Dr. Boone's Essay, and doubtless repay the perusal of those who have read the previous articles. Ed. Ch. Rep.]

In replying to Dr. Boone's Essay, we shall merely follow the order of his article, and take up each successive paragraph, as it may seem to call for our remarks. As in so doing we shall have to quote largely from the Essay, and to recur occasionally to subjects which have been handled before, our reply will be extended a greater length than we could have otherwise wished; we shall endeavor, however, to be as brief as possible, and would fain hope that those who feel interested in the subject will afford the time necessary to toil through our pages.

Upon the general statements contained in the first few paragraphs we have nothing to remark.

On page 18, a question is asked as to whether the Chinese are monotheists or polytheists; and the answer is given, that the Chinese have been polytheists from the highest ages to which their history extends. We do not now intend to discuss the question of the monotheism of the Chinese, but merely to offer a few remarks, with the

view of showing how we understand the terms. If it be said, that the Chinese are polytheists because they believe in many Shin, we demur to the statement: and conceive that in order to establish such an axiom, it would be necessary to show that Shin in Chinese means all that @sos does in Greek; but if, in the estimation of the Chinese, Shin cannot be used in the same acceptation in which the Greeks used os, i. e. for God xal oxy, then the fact of the Chinese worshiping many Shin would not prove that they were poJytheists in the same way in which the Greeks might be considered polytheists, for worshiping many ɛ. If Shin be an equivalent to IIvsvua, as we have shown in the " Inquiry," then the offering of prayers and services to Shin would prove that the Chinese were poly-pneumatists, if we may be allowed the expression, but not poly

theists.

The polytheism of the Chinese is a doctrine capable of being established, not by showing that they worshiped many invisible beings called Shin, which term is never used for God by way of eminence, but by showing that they worshiped various invisible intelligences whom they called by the same name with which they desiguate the Supreme Being, as far as they were acquainted with him Thus they worshiped the five T, the ancient kings, and the imperial ancestors, to gether with numerous deities belonging to the Budhist and Táuist schools, whom they exalted almost to an equality with the One Universal Ruler, not only in worship but in name; and on this account they were as really polytheists as the Greeks and Romans were. Notwithstanding we admit however, that polytheism was thus practiced by the Chinese from the highest ages to which their history extends, we venture to observe that such polytheisin may still consist with the existence of monotheism among them.

Cudworth thinks that the Greeks were both monotheists and polytheists at the same time; that is, understanding the word 05, coinbined in the two terms, in different senses (see vol. I. page 374). In the first as conveying what he calls the natural idea of God, viz, an All-perfect Being, the Ruler of the Universe, and the other as alluding to certain supposed invisible intelligences, who were the objects of religious worship, but subordinate to the one Supreme. What Cudworth pleads for in behalf of the Greeks may be allowed to the Chinese and they may be considered as monotheists, because they believe in one Supreme God, the Author and Ruler of all. Much will depend, however, on the sense in which we understand the word. If monotheism mean, that its adherents worship only one Supreme

Being, and pay no services to other invisible beings of any kind, in the same way that consistent Protestants are accustomed to act, then are the Chinese not monotheists. But if it mean the acknowledgement and adoration of one Supreme Being, the author and ruler of all, whilst worshiping whom with the highest services, they still offer prayers to a variety of invisible beings, all subject to the one Supreme, in the same way that the ancient Greeks were accustomed to act, whom, notwithstanding, Cudworth call inonotheists; then are the Chinese as much entitled to the appellation as they were, and the doctrine of one Supreme Deity is not to be considered a strange thing to them.

On page 19, Dr. Boone says that it is necessary to determine what we shall seek; and thinks that, seeing the Chinese do not know the true God, we must either seek for the name of the chief God of the Chinese, or the name by which the whole class of gods is known, in their language. To which we reply, that as the true God was as little known among the Greeks as among the Chinese, it is certainly necessary in order to express the idea of God to determine what we shall seek; for Dr. B. thinks we must seek for one or other of the two things specified by him, viz. the name of the chief god, or the generic name for God; in our estimation, we should seek for a name which will convey to the mind of the Chinese the same idea which was conveyed to a Greek by the use of the word so if the same term be likewise that by which the whole class of worshiped beings is known in the language, so much the better. Now it so happens that the name used for the chief object of worship, or God by way of eminence, and the name for the whole class of worshiped beings, was one and the same term among the Greeks: among the Chinese, these two ideas are represented by different terms, which constitutes the difficulty.

Dr. Boone enlarges on the same idea, as follows: "In stating the requisites to be sought, we must either seek the name of the being to whom the Chinese ascribe the most glorious attributes, or the name of the highest class of beings to whom they are in the habit of offering religious worship" But why this change in the phraseology employed in the two cases? Ought not the requisites to have been thus stated: "we must seek the name of the being to whom the Chihese ascribe the most glorious attributes, or the name of the class of beings to whom they ascribe the most glorious attributes:" or else, we must seek the name of the being to whom they offer the highest acts of religious worship, or the name of the class of beings to whom

46

they offer the highest acts of religious worship." If attributes be sought for in the one case, they should be sought for in the other; and if religious worship be the standard in the former instance, it should be so in the latter. Supposing attributes to constitute the standard of divinity, then we must seek for the name of the being who produced and governs all things, or of the name of the class of beings who are supposed to have produced and govern all things. On the supposition, however, that religious worship is to constitute the standard of divinity, then we must seek for the name of the being to whom the highest acts of religious worship are paid, or of the class of beings to whom the highest acts of religious worship are paid. Let the requisites be the same in both cases, and we shall be better able to understand and meet the argument. If attributes are to constitute the standard of divinity, then it will remain to be seen what is the name of the being or beings to whom the Chinese ascribe supreme power and authority or if worship be made the standard, then it will be lawful to inquire what name is attached to that being or beings to whom the Chinese offer the highest acts of worship. It may turn out to be the case, however, that the class to whom the Chinese offer religious worship is a larger class than that to which they ascribe divine attributes; and the fact of offering religious worship may not be with them distinctive of divinity.

Dr. Boone enumerates several considerations, on page 19, as those which convinced him that the generic name for God should be used, and not the name for the chief deity, of any polytheistic nation. Upon this we would remark, that a term which is assumed to be the generic name for God in any language, should contain so much of the idea of divinity in it, as to be capable of being used for the chief deity, or God by way of eminence; and a term that is used for God by way of eminence should not be confounded with the proper name of the chief deity, in any language; the generic word should be applicable to every one of the class, and the individual designation should be such as can be used only for one; otherwise, both the one and the other may turn out to be something different from what we imagined. In our estimation, the name used for God by way of eminence must first be discovered, and if that name be used occasionalfor other beings besides the Supreme, it will then appear to be the generic term. The considerations which appear to us most influential are the following

1., in the New Testament, is chiefly used for God by way of eminence, while it is occasionally applied to other deities besides

Jehovah; we should therefore seek a term that is capable of expressing the idea of God by way of eminence, and at the same time not be inapplicable to the supposed deities, who assume to be like him.

2. By using the name employed for God by way of eminence, a translator would be following the example of inspired writers. The Greeks were monotheists, as well as polytheists: the apostles, who preached the gospel to them, were in the same position that we are in seeking for a term to express the most important word in the inspired record. Examination shows that they chose a term to express the Deity which was employed by the people amongst whom they went for God by way of eminence, and which standing alone, contained the full idea of divinity. This was at the same time not the proper name of the chief god, but the name of God par excellence, and was the better adapted to their use because it had been employed (though improperly) for a variety of inferior deities, who being according to the theory of the Greeks made and generated, could not justly be called by the same name with the One Being, who was the Author and Ruler of all. If then a translator of the sacred Scriptures into the language of a people who are monotheistic in one sense, and polytheistic in another, desired to follow the example of the apostles, he would employ the name used for God by way of eminence, and not one which is never employed by that people to express such an idea.*

It is necessary, in order to convey correctly the idea contained in the first commandment, including its preface, to employ a term, when alluding to the individual speaking, which is capable of being used for God by way of eminence; which term should also be employed to designate those fabulous beings who are supposed to be like him, but are not, and the worship of whom is prohibited. The object of the first commandment, and of all similar passages inculcating the exclusive claims of the Divine Being to the trust and honor of all man

Alexander, on the Connection and Harmony of the Old and New Testa ment, p. 17, says, "It is remarkable how few of their religious designations are borrowed by the apostles from the ordinary phraseology of the Greeks. Thus in designating the Deity, whilst we have the common Greek word Theos, a word which the sacred writers might legitimately employ, inasmuch as, though it was used by the Greeks with reference to the idol gods of their mythology, it is in itself simply expressive of Deity in the abstract, and is so used by the classical writers in innumerable instances. Whereupon he quotes Hom. Il. xiii. 73. Αλλω μεν γαρ ἔδωκε θεος πολεμηῖα ἔργα, 'Αλλω δ ὀρχησὺν ἐέρη κιθαριν καὶ αοιδήν. ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιος λόγος αρχην τε ἔχων. κ. 7. λ. Esch Ag. 926, &c ενμενώς προσδερκείας.

Also Plato, de Legg. iv. Ο μεν δη θεος, και τελευλην και μεσα των ὄντων απαντών Τον κρατοῦντα μαλθακῶς θεος προσωθεν