■mmy X£^::z: '.y* * /' THE ^ ’4/ <- - / r ' i-.i- TERM QUESTION: ‘OR AN ENQUIRY AS TO THE TERM IN THE CHINESE LANGUAGE WHICH MOST NEARLY REPRE¬ SENTS ELOHIM AND THEOS AS THEY ARE USED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. hi WILLIAM ARMSTRONG RUSSELL, D.D. Missionary Bishop of the Church of England'in.North China. % M S H A N 'G H Ail:: AHEBI C-A.iT PBESBTTEBIA1T IMISSIOZfcT PRESS. MDCCCLXXVII. ' i 5 1 ' *• . 1 * THE ' 1 v7 - i » (i . ■ » + > *| J ' s / ' • ■* — *»*' - * ♦ *■■■*• [* JAN 101 TERM QUESTION: AN ENQUIRY AS TO THE TERM IN THE CHINESE LANGUAGE WHICH MOST NEARLY REPRE¬ SENTS ELOHIM AND THEOS AS THEY ARE USED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. v/ WILLIAM ARMSTRONG RUSSELL, D.D. Missionary Bishop of the Church of England in North China . shanghai: AMBE/ICA1T PEESBYTEEIAIT MISSION DPIRESS. MDCCCLXXVII. INTKODUCTION. F venturing to discuss wliat is commonly called the “ Term” question, and to submit my views upon it to the consideration of my brethren the Protestant missionaries in China, and to the Directors of the Bible Societies in Great Britain and the United* States of America, I have been chiefly influenced by the two following considerations :—■ I. ITS EXTREME IMPORTANCE. This is apparent from the fact that the term which represents JElohim and Theos in any language is that term upon which must be based, and around which must be grouped all correct ideas, all systematic teaching, and all Scriptural truth touching the nature and attributes of Him, “ in whom we live, and move, and have our being,” “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And hence the unspeakable importance of having the right term, and of not making a mistake in a matter which might involve in error, on the gravest of all subjects, the present and future generations of our fellow-creatures in this vast empire. The extreme importance of this question will also appear from the equally undeniable fact that no other question connected with our work has been, and still 2 i£$> is, the cause of so much division and estrangement from each other amongst the members of the missionary body in China; and unless it is settled in some satisfac¬ tory way, there is eVery reason to apprehend that this most unhappy condition of things will be per¬ petuated, and probably even aggravated as time goes on. Moreover, as far as one can see, this question if left unsettled, will make it impossible to have either a common version of the Holy Scriptures, or a common Christian literature of any kind; and thus preclude all hearty practical co-operation on the part of those who differ. And, what is a still more serious con¬ sideration, it is to be feared that this lamentable state of affairs will sooner or later be imported into the native churches and amongst our native brethern, and produce there consequences yet more disastrous. II. PRESENT POSITION OF THE QUESTION. For some years past the Term Question has been allowed to remain comparatively at rest, with apparently a tacit understanding to that effect on the part of the different contending parties. This probably arose either from a conviction that all that could be said upon it had been said already, and in the best and ablest manner, by those who had previously discussed it; or from an impression that the parties to settle it were, not foreigners, but the natives themselves,(wkQn, by-the acquisition of Hebrew and Greek, they became qualified to exercise upon it a clear and independent judgment); or possibly from a vague hope that some¬ thing in the course of events might turn up which would lead to its solution. Feelings akin to these have, 3 I confess, operated upon my own mind, and led me hitherto to refrain from making any public statement of my views upon this question, though its impor¬ tance and difficulty have been present to my mind for a period of nearly thirty years. Matters however are now altered. The truce is broken, the various parties are again in the field, and the discussion is being renew¬ ed on all sides. Under these circumstances I feel that I ought not any longer to stand aloof, but, notwith¬ standing: my inabilitv ' ' ' 1 1 1 problem ° .. II II■ !■■■■ of oil n d nmi n f nl tt f*/-v nr> d r\ o ttat* f a th t*attt an a 1a It A*h f* K, _ Y _ f CHAPTEE X. J y f STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. In the discussion of every question, and especially, I venture to think, in the discussion of the one now before us, it is of the utmost importance to have, at the outset, a clear view and a distinct apprehension of the meaning and import of the question itself. Ambiguity and misconception here, can only lead to confusion of thought, endless logomachy, and in the end irrelevant conclusions. To prevent this as far as I may, let me now endeavor to state with all the precision in my power what this Term question is. And this, I appre¬ hend, will be best done by premising what it is not. It is/setjthen, let it be distinctly understood, a question^ as y to what term or terms in the Chinese language may with propriety be used to designate the Divine Being. In Chinese, as in all other languages, there are several terms which may be most appro- priately^mployed foivthis purpose ; as for instance Heavenly Lord, Supreme Bi$r, Heavenly Father, Governor of Heaven and Earth. But this is not the uestion now before us. r Nor, is it a question as to which of all the various terms which may be employed, conveys to the Chinese tymind the most exalted idea of the Divine Being, and which consequently it would be desirable to use in our ordinary speaking or writin g. Such a question might be a very interesting and profitable one in itself, but This again is quite distinct from our present enquiry. 5 :? What then is the question ? It is simply this, What is that term in the Chinese language which most nearly, represents the words Elohim and Theos as used , ini the Holy Scriptures? or in other words, What is that term which ought to be employed as their repre¬ sentative in the translation of God’s Word into Chinese? or to put it in perhaps a still plainer and simpler form? What is the word GOD in Chinese ? , (JcLjjJ MODE OF CONDUCTING THE ENQUIRY. - T* . In the prosecution of this enquiry, the natural and / obvious course to take, is, first to ascertain the nature of l£i csril (these terms Elohim and Theos, and this can only be ' done by an examination of their usus loquendi in the Sacred Writings^ In these we have the Divine Being designated in three different ways; (1) by the name Jehovah; (2) by various titles such as Lord, Almighty, the Most High; (3) by the words Elohim and Theos. In many places, as far as one can see, these different terms might be used interchangeably, without violating any grammatical or doctrinal principle. And yet in certain positions each has its own special use, in which it could not be so interchanged, and in which the employment of any other term would be, not merely inappropriate, but altogether inadmissible. Now it is clearly this specific use which will enable us to fix the exact nature of these terms, the precise ground they cover, and the definite uses to which they are applied by the sacred writers. Let us examine then what is their specific usus loquendi in the Holy Scriptures. UgJSSLLOQUENDI OF ELOHIM AND THEOS. Before entering upon this examination let me 6 j premise that Elohim and Theos being used in the Bible as synonymons terms, for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition, I shall regard all proofs adduced for the use of the one as equally applicable to the other. I. First, we find Elohim and Theos in the Holy Scriptures used for gq&.in an absolute sense. In sup¬ port of this I would adduce the following passages. Gen. i. 1, “In the beginning Elohim created the hea¬ ven and the earth.” Ps. xc. 2, “ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art Elohim.” In these passages the Divine Being is presented to us as the Great First Cause, the original source of all things, who existed before all other exis¬ tences; and who in that pre-existent state must have been perfectly and absolutely independent, having no relation to anything beyond or beside Himself, the eternal I AM. Now in order to designate the Deity as He then ^ was, none but an absolute term could with propriety be Misemployed ; with, perhaps, the exception of His own dis- rr rtinctive name, Jehovah. A. relative term would here IS S jk 1 ' A/S , be. altogether, out of place. Heavenly Lord would not f do, as then there was no heaven to be the Lord of; Su- ?l I preme Ruler would not do, as then there were none to I rule over ; the true god would not do, as then there i were no false gods from which He was to be distinguish- .. / \ ed. And hence we conclude that the term Elohim y | which the Sacred Writers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have employed in these passages to desi- / gnate the Divine Being, must be an absolute tg rm. 0% (yruc-Jt^ / 4 . 7 2 . Seco ndly, WP, find FJnh.i/m. and TheOS in tllC^\ Holy. Scriptur es used for God in a generic sense. The following passages, with many others of a similar kind which might be adduced, will confirm this: Judg. x. 6, “ And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of Jehovah, and served Baalim and Ashtaroth, and the Elohim of Syria, and the Elohim of Zidon, and the Elohim of Moab, and the Elohim of the children of Ammon, and the Elohim of the Philistines, and for¬ sook Jehovah, and served not Him.” Ps. xevi. 4, 5, “ For Jehovah is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all Elohim. For all the Elohim of the nations are idols : but Jehovah made the heavens.” Acts xix. 26, “ This Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no theoi, which are made with hands.” These and such-like passages clearly shew that Elohim and Theos are also used in a generic sense, including all homogeneous objects, em¬ bracing “all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” They comprehend not only the dii majores and the dii minores of the Greeks and Romans, the devas and shin of the Hindoos and Chinese, and all other gods and goddesses of every description in every nation \ under heaven, but even the very idols themselves, from the little teraphim which Rachel hid in the camel’s furniture, to the great “ image of gold, whose height was three-score cubits and the breadth thereof six cubits; ” which Nebuchadnezzar the king “ set up ii^ the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” Here again none but a generic term could with pro¬ priety be used to represent Elohim and Theos , no relative fill *7 fat**. UjL & fre*. 8 term could be employed without doing violence to the acknowledged laws of language, and making the places so rendered absurd and meaningless. To say, for ins¬ tance, all the “ Heavenly Lords,” or all the “ Supreme Rulers,” or all the “ true gods ” of the nations are idols, would be a manifest misuse of terms. And hence we conclude that the term Elohim which the inspired writers have employed in these passages must also be a generic term. The foregoing examination of the usus loquendi of the Holy Scriptures as regards Elohim and Theos, prove then beyond all question that these terms, as there em¬ ployed, a re both absolute and generic . DEFINITION OF AN ABSOLUTE-GENERIC TERM. And here perhaps will be the most suitable place to define what an ^ksalute^generic term is. Archbishop j ' Whately, in his book on the “Elements of Logic,” 1 says, 2 It that an Absolute term is one which denotes “an object considered as a ivhole, and without reference to any¬ thing of which it is apart, or to any other part distin¬ guished from itA/while a Relative .term is one which denotes “an^object considered as a 'part of a whole, viewed inrreferenee to the wholey'or to another part of a mm?e complex object of thought.” He adduces Man an instance oJ^cAAbsolute term; and such words as father, sovfcommander, ruler, as instances of Relative f* */ Ofcftrms Rnt Man is not onlv an Absolute term, it is i A * V Ofepns. But Man is not only an Absolute term, it is I also a Generic one, including the whole human race; and father, son, commander, ruler, &c., are not only Relative terms, they are also Common ones, embracing 1 Book II. chap v. 31. ~ A Ap , - A-/f v/fc| 9 all who stand in these relationships. And hence we have Absolute-generic and Relative-common terms; dis¬ tinctions very important to be borne in mind in deal- PJ ing with this Term controversy. As regards Eloliim ff*' and Theos properly speaking' they are simply Absolute terms, as t here is but one god ; but in view of poly- theism and their usus loquendi in the Bible, they are lutAu^C also Absolute-generic terms. * FURTHER FROOFS.V ^^ tf In order to establish still more conclusively tne / *«• Absolute-generic nature of Elohim and Theos , as used in^** the Holy Scriptures, and with the view of pointing out4»Vfec^ still more distinctly the impossibility of substituting for them a Relative or Relative-common term, without a violation of the laws of language and of the meaning of God’s Word, I will now bring forward two additional uses of their specific employment in the Bible ; one, in • which the true God is contrasted, whether expressly or by implication with false gods —imaginary beings of the same nature; the other, in which God, whether true or false, is contrasted with man —beings of a different nature. 1. As regards the first; i. e. the contrast, whether expressed or implied, between the true God and false gods, the instances of this are very numerous in the Bible. Let the following suffice : Ex. xx. 2, 3, “ I am Jehovah t hy Elohim , .thou shalt have no other affiant* Elohim before me.” Deut. x. 17, “For Jehovah ^ your Elohim is an Elohim of Elohim I. Cor, viii. 5, 6, “ For though there be that are called theoi whether fj in heaven or in earth, (as there be theoi many and lords O^U: ^ ff -/ jlJ- — / / /m P n .. / /— many,) but to us there is but one Theos. Gal iv. 8, “ Howbeit then, when ye knew not Theos, ye clid service ^ unto them which by nature are no theoi.” Here the j^* jc$frtrast between the true and the false is expressed. , ' Again in Ex. iii. 6, “I am the Elokim of thy Father, ;; / • i v - - tlie Elohim of Abraham, the Elokim of Isaac, the Elohim of Jacob.” Ex. xv. 2, “ He is my Elohim, and I will prepare Him an habitation; my Father’s 'Elohim, and I will exalt Him.” Ruth, i. 16, “Thy ^people shall be my people, and thy Elohim my -| r Elohim” I. Thess. i. 9, “ How ye turned to fTheos from idols, to serve the living and true Theos” Here the contrast is implied. But whether expressed or implied, i in all the' instances quoted above the true God is evidently contrasted with Jalse gods. In such passages as these it is still more evident that j Elohim and Theos are used in an. Absolute-generic sense and that none but an Absolute-generic term could properly represent them. To substitute for them a Relative or Relative-common term would involve not only a most serious grammatical error, but a '£r*, it** ; V> tfaM- misrepresentation^ of the divine meaning. To say, for mstance, “ I am thy ^Supreme Rulerj thou shalt have no other (Supreme Rulen before me, would make the commandment of none effect. It would not in the least interdict polytheism. In this form every poly¬ theist might accept it, as all recognize only one amongst their many gods as Supreme Ruler and Heavenly Lord ; while, at the same time, they worship a host of inferior deities. Again, to substitute for Elohim and Theos in the following passages a Relative C4 ■ r or Relative-common tepn—to say, “ Howbeit, then, the inadmissibility of such a rendering is still more apparent, as here the nature of God is not only implied but expressly indicated, which could not be done by means of a Relative term. In cases such as these, where there is an evident inappropriateness in the employment of a Relative or Relative-common term to represent Elohim and Tlieos persistently throughout, an attempt is sometimes made to meet the difficulty by the use of two terms,— one a Relative term, to represent the true God; the other a Generic term, to represent false gods. For instance, the first commandment is sometimes translat¬ ed in this manner, “I am Jehovah, thy Heavenly Lord, thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And Gal. iv. 8, is sometimes rendered as follows, “ Howbeit, then, when ye knew not the Heavenly Lord, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.” Such a mode of meeting. the difficulty is far from satisfactory; as it destroys altogether the contrast between the true God and false gods, in which the principal significance of such passages lies. 2. And as regards the second, i.e. the contrast between God, whether true or false, and men, the 1 instances are also ndt a few. Is. xxxi, 3, “ The | Egyptians are men and not Elohim. Hos. xi. 9, “I I am Elohim, and not man. Dan. vi. 7, “ Whosoever shall ask a petition of any Elohim or man.” Acts xii. 22 “ It is the voice of a Theos not of a man.” Av As«v< ./Ay ^ / CKt^Lyr/' » /£. yit-sLsue^ A The fact of Elohim and lAeos being used in contrast with wan in such passages as these, ought of itself to be sufficient to determine the nature of these terms; for it will, I suppose, be conceded that man is an Absolute-generic term, and that the term or terms which can properly be put in contrast with it must be of a similar kind. All will acknowledge that it would be quite correct, so far as language is concerned, to put in contrast with the word man such Absolute-generic terms as beast , bird, fish ,—to say, for instance, of any supposed being, “he is a man not a beast”; or, “he is both man and beast ” —but altogether inaccurate to put in contrast with it such Relative or Relative-common terms as father, son, ruler, —to say “he is a father not a man;” or, “he is both father and man.” Now, to say in Chinese, or any other language, “ the Egyptians are j men and not supreme rulers',” or to say, “It is the voice of a Heavenly Lord and not of a man,” would be j equally incongruous. The importance of being accurate in the use oi terms to represent Elohim’ and Theos in such passages as the above, if the meaning of God’s Word is not toj be obscured or destroyed, will be obvious to every re¬ flecting mind. But the importance of the strict use ol terms becomes a theological necessity when we have tc represent the two-fold nature of our Blessed Lord—His Godhead and His Manhood—when, for instance, we have to say “He is the Son of God, and the Son of manj both God and man.” Inaccuracy here would be a vei serious matter indeed; and I for one, am unable to see how it can be avoided, except by the employment of ai i i m I ii § ,■ r jal'j i Absolute-generic term for God as well as for man. No Relative term, it seems to me, could possibly indicate either the divinity or the humanity of our Blessed Lord. To express it thus : “He was the Son of the Supreme Ruler, and the Son of man; both the Supreme Ruler and man or “He was the Son of the Heavenly Lord , . and the Son of man ; both the Heavenly Lord and man such expressio ns would utterly fail to indicate His Divine nature. THE CONCLUSION. The conclusion then to which the foregoing examination of the usus loquendi of Elohim and Theos , in the Holy Scriptures has brought us is, that these terms, as there employed, are Absolute-generic terms, such as, man, beast, bird, fish &c., and that they cannot be trans¬ lated into Chinese, or any other language, except by terms of an analagous nature, without invalidating the mean¬ ing of the original, and “making the Word of God of none effect.” [ ;' t it i i , ' !'■ i !e f- b t CHYYIPTIie, II. CONTINUATION OF THE ENQUIRY. Having ascertained Hie nature of the terms Elohim and Theos, as used in the Bible—having found that they are Absolute-generic terms ; in order to obtain a correct reply to the question “what term in the Chinese lan¬ guage most nearly represents them,” our next step is to endeavour to find in that language a term, which has a similar meaning and which can be used in a similar way. And here, in view of all the attention and examina¬ tion which have been given to this subject in the past, by Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries, and by other Chinese students, it may, I presume, be taken for granted, that in order to represent Elohim and Theos in the Chinese language we are virtually restricted to the choice of one of the following terms, namely, Shang- ti (± #) 1 \en-choo ( 3 ^ j:) and Shin (jjji|i). Let us then examine as fairly and impartially as we can, in the order in which I have placed them, the respective claims of these terms. SHANG-TI (_fc $?). Shang-ti is a compound term, which consists off two Chinese characters. It is usually represented in^ English by the expression Sup r erneJRuler ; and that it means this, or something similar"To™3iis, I supposs there can be no doubt, supported as this translation is , by the unanimons testimony of all lexicographers botl foreign and native, and by the usus loquendi of the _ Chinese language. In Chinese literature of every kind, , l Confucian, Buddhist, and Taouist, this term is very frequently employed; and like many other Chinese ' « terms, in a variety of sense s. When employediiowever to /L in itsjmo^ersense, it always indicates^the chief or ! presidmgnl^rTfvhe place, things, or*|8Sltties, over | whom the being so styled is supposed to exercise his sway^ The Taouist sect have several Sliang-ti, each of ^ whom is considered supreme in the particular depart- ) j ment assigned to him, and according to some authori¬ ties the same may also be said of the Shang-ti of the Confucian system. Still the prevailing impression amongst the literati generally is that the Shang-ti of the Confucian classics represents but one being, the Supreme Euler of heaven and earth, the S overei gn 1 ‘‘ Tiprd of g ods nnd men (kiity* fa Looking at the term Shang-ti as it appears in Chinese literature, from different points of view, par¬ ties have arrived at different conclusions as to the character of the being there spoken of, and hence as to the suitability or otherwise of this term to desig¬ nate Jehovah the God of the Bible. Some, for instance, having regard to its use in the early historical records of China, and to the probability that when these re¬ cords were penned there existed amongst the Chinese some traditional knowledge, however vague, of the true God, have concluded that the term Shang-ti by which He was then called, is the best which can be employed to represent Elohim and Theosj But it must be borne Shangti is Lor^ of J *ods and faen H ft n 4 {Ho fi6**6*~ D M ~ * - ■ - ^ b - s — 16 in mind that in the earliest of these records Shang-ti is presented to us as only one, though the chief, of the many shin who were at that time worshipped ; and therefore, even admitting the trustworthiness of these records, that Shin and not Shang-ti may be the generic word for Others finding in these books various attributes assigned to Shang-ti which properly belong to Jehovah alone, have on this ground concluded that he must be the true God. But this is also a non sequitur, for the assignment of attributes however high t o a particular being, whether real or imaginary, is not sufficient of itself to prove that being to be the true God, or the term employed to designate him to be the best to represent Elohim and Theos. The Greeks as¬ signed to Zeus the highest attributes which their fertile imagination could conceive fprobably much higher than any ever given to Shang^tiy but this did not prove Zeus to be the true God or the term Zeus to be a bet¬ ter word than Theos to denote the various senses in which Theos is employed in the New Testament. Others again keeping in view the fact that whatever ideas may have been entertained by the Chinese in early times respecting the being they called Shang-ti, and whatever high-sounding titles they may have as¬ signed to him, this term in its modern usage is indis¬ solubly united with materialism and idolatry, have hence inferred that it is impossible now to employ it in any sense as a designation of the true God. Now as regards this term Shang-ti, every one ac¬ quainted with the matter must admit that it is per se a most suitable term by which to designate the Divine i ? Being, meaning as it does Supreme Ruler ; and that it is also a term which is very acceptable to the literati of China from its use in their ancient Classical Books. And hence we may conclude that all who have come to propagate monotheism in China, on mere grounds of policy would have been glad to employ it had they not seen strong reasons against its use. That these reasons exist is shown by the fact that nearly all such, including Nestorians, Mahommedans, Roman Catholics, members of the Greek Church, and a large body of ^Protestant missionaries have with one accord eschewed This to say the least is very significant. The gror round which they took for this general rejection of an otherwise most suitable and most appropriate term to designate the Divine Being, was its alleged connec¬ tion with materialism and idolatry. They regarded Shang-ti simply as the Chinese Baal, Osiris or Zeus. Whether they had sufficient reason for coming to this conclusion jt is not easy to determi ne. It is indeed quite clear that the being designated Shang-ti in Con- fucian literature, occupies a place in the Chinese pan¬ theon similar to that assigned to Zeus in the Greek pantheon. But whether he has been degraded to the level of the Olympian Zeus, or admitting that he has, whether the term Shang-ti has become his personal name as Baal, Osiris, Zeus, have,become their names, so that the term cannot now be dissociated from the being it designates; these are points which appear to me s till open to question . If it be so that the being. /reaL or imaginary, whom the Chinese call Shang-ti has been' thus lowered, and if this term has become his personal name, so that it cannot now be dissociated from him ; then I presume that we should all agree that it would be improper to use it for Jehovah. But if these things be not so, there seems to be no reason why Shang-ii should not be employed, as one of the designations of the Di¬ vine Being. Still while the term Shang-ti may perhaps be thus employed without any violation of principle, there are other reasons against its general use amongst the Chi¬ nese which are worthy of some consideration. There is for instance the danger of its being identified with the Taouist idol Yuh-hwang- ta-ti (3£ H k That 'tins is a real~danger every missionary in China who knows the language and the people, and who has used this term amongst them, will freely admit. On one occasion a friend of mine was preaching not far from my house to a company of Chinese, amongst whom was a Taouist priest. At that time he always employed Shang-ti both in speaking and writing. When he con¬ cluded his address the priest came forward and said, “ Sir, I am glad to find that we are co-religionists.” “Indeed” exclaimed my friend. “Why, yes,” said he, “we worship the same God; come and I will show him to you.” He then led him to an adjoining temple, and pointing to a dingy old idol, said “This is our God.” My friend was so taken aback that he never used the term Shang-ti afterwards. Another reason against the general use of Shang-ti is that whilst it is a very favourite term with the liter¬ ati it is scarcely ever employed by others. During my long residence amongst the Chinese I cannot recall ✓ * . yf * / :: !» to mind a single instance of its being used by any ex¬ cept scholars. Whether in their oaths, their prayers, or their proverbs, the term Shang-ti is seldom employ¬ ed. THen (Heaven) THen Ti (Heaven and Earth) and Shin-ming (the gods) are frequently used; but as far as my experience has gone, Shang-ti never. Nor do we find it on hand-bills and placards inviting the peo-|^^ pie to the worship and sacrifice of the gods. Here too the term always used is shin, — e.g. Icing shin ($£ ftp) tsi shin (£ ftp) “ worship the shin ”—“ sacrifice to t shin ” —never Shang-ti I have often asked my teacher and other native scholars the reason of this, but while they admitted the fact, they could give no satisfactory explanation of it. Possibly it may be that the worship of Shang-ti being confined to the Emperor, the people conclude that they have nothing to do with him. But be this as it may, the Chinese as a rule very rarely employ the term Shang-ti and know very little about it except as applied to the Taouist idol. And this to my mind is a consideration of some weight against its general use. But were these and similar objections which might be brought against the use of Shang-ti fully met, and all doubt as to the propriety of its employment as a designation for the Divine Being entirely removed, the fact of its being a Relative or Rpln.ti.nw.--r.nmmn n term, which I suppose none will deny,, would still ^ my mind be an insuperable difficulty in the way using it as the representative of Elohim and Theos in * ^ the Holy Scriptures. If the conclusion at whicl arrived be correct, that Elohim and Theos are Absolute ^ generic terms, then Sliang-ti could not be employed as^ their representative in a translation of fne Bible into Chinese any more than its equ i val en t Supreyi^ Euler* could be so employed in a translation of the Bible into English, without in many instances weakening if not completely nullifying the meaning of God’s Word. Neither the Absolute and Generic senses in which Elohim and Theos are so frequently used in the Bible, nor the contrasts which they exhibit there between the true God and false gods and between God and man could possibly be brought out by the employment 'I of Shang-ti or any other Relative term. And I am*. JIf even bold to affirm that a translation of the Bible into || W, Chinese with Shang-ti as the representative of Elohimll and Theos would be incapable, according to strict! I logic, of proving either the unity of God or the divinity\l of Christ. And hence I am forced to come to the conclusion that Shang-ti is not the term we are in search of—is not that term in the Chinese language which most nearly represents Elohim and Theos as used in the Holy Scriptures. t'ien-choo (* ±). T'ien-choo is also a compound term consisting of two Chinese characters which mean, as all will allow, Heavenly Lord. Like Shang-ti this term per se is also an excellent one as a title for Jehovah. Moreover, as compared with Shang-ti it has the advantage of not being associated in the popular mind with idolatry A few instances of its idolatrous use may indeed be found; but they are so rare and so little known as to make them of no importance. The principal objec¬ tion which has been brought against the use of THen-c .1 arises from its employment by Roman Catholics for the DivineBeing, and from its having become in consequence the designation of their form of Christianity in China. It is asserted that if Protestants were to employ this term it would expose us to the danger of being iden¬ tified with Roman Catholics in the eyes of the Chinese. But surely this is a very weak and p uerile objection. As well might it be said that we oughTTncFto employ the terms Ye-su (Jesus) or Ki-toh (Christ) or any, others Christian term, lest the Chinese should confound ns with Roman Catholics. This, to say the least, seems k somewhat excessive exhibition of our Protestant zeal. A more reasonable and weighty objection to the use of ^Tien-choo as the representative of Elohim and Theos independently of its Relative character, lies in the fact that its principal part choo (lord) is admissibly the only term in the Chinese language by which we can render Adonai in the Old Testament and Kurios in the * 1 New. If then all these terms Adonai, Kurios, Elohim and Theos were to be represented by choo (lord) or some compound of it in a translation of the Bible, such a translation would necessarily become very cumbrous and redundant. But as in the case of Shang-ti so likewise in that of Tien-choo, were all the objections which could be urged against its use on these and similar grounds, completely removed, the fact of its being in Chinese just such a Relative term as Heavenly Lord is in Eng¬ lish, would to my mind make it wholly unfit t<^repre¬ sent Elohim and Theos in the translation of God’s Word. If any one will take a copy of Cruden’s Con- 22 • . cordance, turn to the words, God , gods, goddess, look out in his English Bible the various passages there referred to, and for God, gods, goddess substitute Heavenly Lord, we think it will become apparent how incongruous this or indeed any Relative term would be to represent Elohim and Theos in a translation of the Bible into English. The same incongruity would exist in the use of T'ien-choo as the representative of Elohim and Theos in a translation of God’s. Word into Chinese. And hence, as in the case of Shang-ti, I am compelled to conclude that T'ien-choo is not the term we are in search of—is not that term in the Chinese language which most nearly represents Elohim and Theos as used in the Holy Scriptures. shin (jp$) Shin unlike Shang-ti and Tien-choo is a single not a compound, a generi cnot a relative term . This word whatever be its meaning, is applied by the Chinese in their books and in ordinary speaking, to all their gods,. to all their objects of worship from the 1 highest to the lowest; as Elohim and Theos are ap¬ plied in the Bible to all objects of worship. Shin is moreover the only word in the Chinese language which is so applied. Other words may be used to designate particular deities or classes of deities; but Shin is -the only one which comprehends all. And like Elohim and Theos in the Bible, the Chinese employ Shin not only for all the invisible beings which they regard as divin^but also for all the visible images by which ® % ± it &• Amongst the Shin (gods) Shang-ti is the highest. i m s M m ® a * ft jg a- i a, jlrT (L* ^ they are represented . 1 When any one visits a hea¬ then temple in China and wishes to ask a native the name of any particular idol he may see there, he does not say “What Sliang-ti is this?” or “what T'ien-choo is that ?” but “what Shin is it ?” Again the objects worshipped by the Chinese, whether real or imaginary, bear such a striking resem¬ blance to those worshipped by the heathen elsewhere that we cannot help regarding them as the same beings, or at least as belonging to the same class. Let us look for instance at the gods of ancient Greece. Dr. E. Zeller, professor of the university of Hei¬ delberg, in his Philosophic dev Griechen, speaking of the attitude of the stoics towards the popular creed, thus writes , 2 “ The stoics, nevertheless, were not disposed to give up the current beliefs. Far from it, they thought to discover germs of truth in these beliefs, however in¬ adequate they were; and they accordingly made it their business to give a relative vindication to the exist¬ ing creed. Holding that the word Theos belongs, in its primary and original sense, only to the one primary Being, they did not hesitate to apply it, in a limited and derivative sense, to all those objects by means of which the divine power is especially manifested. Nay more, in consideration of man’s relationship to God, they found it not unreasonable to deduce from the primary Being gods having a resemblance to men. 1 n ± Js * « m m m ® ft « m & + - m % x - .E IPU @ tt; Hi) ^ "f* — ££• The Empress Chow- ordered Hua-yi to cast...twelve brazen gods (Shin) each ten feet high. 3 The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, translated by Oswald. J. Reichel. B. C. L and M. A. See page 328. 24 Hence they distinguished, as Plato had done, between ✓ the eternal and immutable God, and gods created and transitory; between God the creator and sovereign of the world, and subordinate gods ; in other words, between the universal divine power as a unity working in the world, and its individual parts and manifestations. The former they denoted by the term Zeus; to the latter they applied the names of the other subordinate gods.” If we substitute Shang-ti for Zeus and Shin for God, gods in this passage, we have an equally correct statement of the views held by some Chinese philoso¬ phers respecting the chief and subordinate deities in their creed . 1 Dr. Zeller goes on,'—“ The divinity of many beings was recognized by the stoics in this derivative sense, and, in particular, the divinity of the stars, which Plato had called created gods, which Aristotle had described as Eternal divine things, and the worship of which lay so near to the ancient cultus of nature. Not only by their lustre and effect on the senses, but far more by the re¬ gularity of their motions, do these stars prove that the material of which they consist is the purest, and that of all created objects they have the largest share irnthe divine reason. And so seriously was this belief held by the stoics that a philosopher of the type of Clean- thes went so far as to charge Aristarchus of Samos, the 'MHZ mm mZW\mZ ± ». E & ? £ sle If we speak of the Shin (god’s) in their com¬ bined character they are called Shang-ti All the thousand and myriads of Shin (gods) are but one Shin (God). H t£*. In heaven there is one Supreme Shin (God) who is the Lord of Creation. 25 discoverer of the earth’s motion round the sun, with impiety, on the ground that he wished to remove the hearth of the universe from its proper place. This dei¬ fication of the stars prepares us to find years, months, and seasons called Theoi as was really done by Zeno.” This statement, in the main, might also be made of the Chinese, who in a similar way and from a similar cause, deify the stars, and have gods of the year, the month, and the seasons, whom they call shin as the Greeks called them Theoi} Dr. Zeller proceeds,—“As the stars are the first manifestation, so the elements are the first particular forms of the Divine Being, and the most common ma¬ terials of the divine powers. It is, however, becoming that the all-pervading mind should not only be honour¬ ed in its primary state, but, likewise in its various derivative forms, as air, water, earth, and fire.” This too is true of the Chinese, except that they omit air and add metal to the elements which they deify. The Chinese elements are metal, wood, water earth and fire, for all of which they have gods, whom they call shin , as the Greeks called - Theoi . 2 j- — * W £ *♦ £ 9J £ » £ M 81« ® X fi M 2 W * M a *1 Z ** ® % #1 Si 2. M 3c T H» ± M 2. W + n ** if? ffl 0 a W * » I*it* The ,hin (god) of the Great Luminary, the shin (god) of the night luminary, the shin (gods) of the stars, the shin (gods) of the clouds, rain, wind and thunder, and all the other celestial shin (gods) who hold office; the terrestrial shin (gods) the shin (god) of the year, the s l >in (gods) of the months, and the shin (gods) who preside over the days. ig) (S* PO S-ifr »)• Confucius said, Heaven has five ele¬ ments water, fire, metal, wood, earth, which divide the seasons, produce, nourish, and complete all things; their shin, (gods) are called the five 26 Dr. Zeller continues,—“All other things too,which, by their utility to man, display in a high degree the beneficent power of God, appeared to the stoics to deserve divine honours ; those honours not being paid to the things themselves, but to the powers active with- t in them. They did not, therefore, hesitate to call gods fruits, and wine, and other gifts of the gods.” In a similar way the Chinese do not hesitate to deify fruits, wine, grain, and many other things bene¬ ficial to man ; which they call shin as the Greeks call¬ ed them Theoi} Dr. Zeller goes on, “How then could they escape the inference that, among other beneficent beings, the heroes of antiquity, in particular, deserve religious honours; since in these benefactors of mankind, of whom legends tell, the Divine spirit did not shew him¬ self under the lower form of an as in the elements; nor yet as a simple ipvmg-, as in plants ; but as a ration¬ al soul? And, in truth, according to the stoic view which on this point agrees with the well-known theory of Euemerus, such deified men had, in great measure, contributed to swell the mass of the popular gods; nor had the stoics themselves any objection to their worship.” In this particular also the Chinese are not behind their brethren of the west. They too have many deified men whom they call shin, as the Greeks called theirs Theoi . 2 And here I may mention, as worthy of notice rulers. Comm. These five rulers are the shin (gods) of the five ele¬ ments who assist heaven in the production of things. \ 1 i® 7pi? ic ^ ## TL ® #if 5; 5;- The shin (god) of wine, the shin (god) of grain, the god of tea, the god of flowers, the god of trees, &c., &c. 3 HU H Jl t£t M % ix ± fr ffl m ^ 5? 5c- to 27 in this controversy, that the expression which the Chi¬ nese use for deification is fung shin (^1$) “to make a shin” This, I suppose, could scarcely be translated otherwise than “ to make a god/’ Dr. Zeller concludes his review of the popular creed of the ancient Greeks as follows:—“Add to this the personification of human qualities and states of mind, and it will be seen what ample opportunity the stoics had for recognizing everywhere in nature, and in the world of man, divine agencies and powers, and consequently gods in the lower sense of the term. When once it had been allowed that the word Theos might be diverted from the Being to whom it properly belonged, and applied in a derivative sense to what is impersonal, and a mere manifestation of divine power, the door was opened to everything.” In a note appended to this chapter Dr. Zeller tells us that Plutarch, in his sevenfold classification of the Grecian gods, assigns two classes to those human qualities and states of mind. And here we also recognize a striking analogy between the popular creed of the Greeks and the po¬ pular creed of the Chinese. The Chinese also deify many human qualities and states of the soul, as well as the soul itself; all which they call shin , for the same reason that the Greeks called similar qualities and states of the soul, fi s well as the soul itself, TfiSD'iJ The pifteWty which such absurd Hot ions find a this list might be added any number of other names of deified men, the heroes and worthies of antiquity; and also the name of General Ward an American citizen who has very recently received a similar honor at the hands of the Chinese for his valiant deeds against the T'ai-ping rebels. 28 lodgement in tlie human mind may, according to Arch¬ bishop Whately, be somewhat as follows 1 :—“When several persons are said to have one and the same opi¬ nion, thought, or idea, many men overlooking the true simple statement of the case, which is, that they are all thinking alike , look for something more abstruse and mystical, and imagine there must be some One Thing in the primary sense, though not an individual, which is present at once in the mind of each of these persons. And hence, first, in poetical mythology, and ultimate¬ ly perhaps in popular belief, Fortune , Liberty , Pru¬ dence (Minerva) a Boundary (Terminus) and even the Mildew of corn (Putigo), &c., become personified, deified, and represented, by statues; somewhat according to the process which is described by Swift, in his humorous manner in speaking of zeal (in the Tale of a Tub) ■ how from a notion it became a word, and from thence, in a hot summer, ripened into a tangible substance P We find Seneca thinking it necessary gravely to combat the position of some of his stoical predecessors ‘that the cardinal virtues are animals ; while the Hindoos of the present day, from observing the similar symptoms which are known by the name of small-pox, and the communication of the like from one patient to another, do not merely call it (as we do) one disease, but believe (if we may credit the accounts given) that the small¬ pox is a goddess, who becomes incarnate in each infect¬ ed patient. All these absurdities are in fact but the extreme and ultimate point of Realism.” But whether this be or be not the true explana- 1 Elements of Logic, App. I, page 225. tion of this strange phenomenon of polytheism, which peoples with its myriads of phantom beings not only earth, air, and water, but even the human soul, the me¬ lancholy fact still remains that the ancient Greeks, the most highly cultivated and enlightened people of their day, in total ignorance of Jehovah, the God of the Bible, the only true and living God, deified not only every object in heaven above, visible and invisible, with all the powers and all the qualities supposed to be inherent in them, but also heaven itself; and not only every object on earth below, visible and invisible, with all the powers and all the qualities supposed to be in¬ herent in them, but also earth itself; and not only every part of man, visible and invisible, with all the powers and all the qualities supposed to be inherent in him, but also man himself; to each and all of which in their separate and combined character, they applied the word Theos. And in striking analogy with this is the - popular belief and practice of the Chinese. They too, in like ignorance of the God who made them, and in whom they “live, and move, and have their being,” deify not only all celestial, all terrestrial, and all human things, visible and invisible, in their various derivative forms and in their different disjunctive parts, but also heaven, earth, and man; to each and all of which they apply the word shin. The analogy then between the modes of thought of the ancient Greeks and of the ancient and modern Chinese, and between their respective objects of wor¬ ship, is so striking as to make it impossible to re¬ sist the conviction that those objects,whether real or 30 imaginary, are the same, or at least belong to the same class. In the one case the Greeks called them Theoi, which we translate gods; in the other the Chinese call them Shin, which by parity of reasoning we should also translate gods. The inevitable conclusion then seems to be that in whatever sense the Greek Theoi were gods, in the same sense the Chinese Shin are gods; and that if the inspired writers used the word Theos for God, so we, in imitation of their example, should also use the word Shin for God in a translation of their writ¬ ings ; and hence that Shin, not Shang-ti nor T'ien-choo, is the term we are in search of,—is that term in the Chinese language which most nearly represents Elohim and Theos as used in the Holy Scriptures. / CHAPTEE XII. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Having arrived at the conclusion that Skin is the term in the Chinese language which most nearly repre¬ sents Elohirn and Theos as used in the Holy Scriptures, and hence that it ought to be employed as their sub¬ stitute in the translation of the Bible; I will now pro¬ ceed to state the objections which have been brought against its use, and endeavour to meet them as far as I can. I. It is asserted that Shin in the Chinese lan¬ guage means spirit , spirits and not god, gods . This assertion has been made from time to time by many who have taken part in this controversy; and very re¬ cently by the Rev. J. Chalmers, of Canton, in a book entitled The Question of Terms Simplified. With the facts of the case as stated in the previous chapter before my mind, I have often been surprised at such an assertion being made, and I have felt that there must be a fallacy somewhere underlying the train of thought by which such a conclusion has been arrived at. But what the fallacy was I could not imagine until the appearance of Mr. Chalmers’ book which re¬ vealed it to me; and for this as well as for other valuable hints which it contains, I feel much indebted to him. In his introductory remarks Mr. Chalmers tells us how he thinks this “Question of Terms” may he simplified. “A knowledge of dead languages,” he says, 32 “is not necessary/’ nor “to read np Egyptian, Baby¬ lonian, Greek, Roman, and aH other mythologies and cosmogonies.” Moreover he considers that “we may for the most part steer clear of the higher metaphysics, of ontology and the like;” and also that “questions as to the grammatical character of the word ‘God’ in our mother tongue, whether it is generic or particular, absolute or relative, may be left alone.” And then he adds, “a good knowledge of our own language, and of our English Bible, with sturdy Anglo-Saxon com¬ mon sense is all that is needed on the one part; while on the other part the mind must be bent on Chinese only, without any foregone conclusions.” When I had read these statements, particularly the concluding paragraph, and before I had proceeded any further, the thought occurred to me that possibly Mr. Chalmers in his treatment of this question, and especial¬ ly in his treatment of the term shin, had fallen, how¬ ever unconsciously, into the fallacy of attempting to define the meaning of Chinese words and Chinese modes of thought by the standard of English words and Eng¬ lish modes of thought; or to put it perhaps more cor¬ rectly, of attempting to interpret the meaning of heathen words and heathen modes of thought by the standard of Christian words and Christian modes of thought. The perusal of Mr. Chalmers’ book fully justified this anticipation; as his “inductive” process of leasoning from beginning to end, so far as shin is concerned, is conducted on this principle. With the view of substantiating to the mind of the reader his point that shin means spirit , spirits and r 33 not God, gods, Mr. Chalmers with most praiseworthy industry first adduces a number of passages from Chi¬ nese books in which shin is used in an abstract sense and places them beside extracts taken from Emerson’s writings; and as “a knowledge of the dead languages is not necessary for the settlement of the question,” he , would have his readers divest themselves of all thoughts as to what shin might mean if it were a Greek or Latin word found in such passages in these languages, and only to reflect what it would mean if it were an English word found in similar passages in the English language. Then he draws for them the conclusion that “ nothing can be more obvious than that the word shin in these Chinese examples corresponds to the ‘soul/ ‘mind/ ‘spirit’ and ‘oversoul’ in Emerson’s writings; not to ‘God’ which he brings in occasionally by a kind of poetical license, or as a metaphor borrowed from the language of theology.” This would indeed be the natural conclusion at which. to arrive were the meaning of shin to be determined by the standard of Emerson’s language and Emerson’s modes of thought; which to say the least are rather peculiar. But if Mr. Chalmers, in¬ stead of placing the passages he quotes beside extracts from Emerson’s writings, would compare them with similar passages found in Greek or Latin authors, and adopt their standard of language and their modes of thought, he would quite as naturally arrive at the conclusion that shin corresponds to Tlieos or deus in their writings. 1 1 This point is illustrated in the appendix. 34 Again Mr. Chalmers brings forward several pas¬ sages from Chinese authors in which the word shin is used in a concrete sense, and compares them with extracts taken from Milton, Shakespeare and other Eng¬ lish writers, in which the word spirit is employed in a similar sense; and here also draws for his readers the conclusion that the meaning of both words is identical, and as the English word is spirit the Chinese word shin must also mean spirit. Mr. Chalmers for in¬ stance adduces the following parallels:— PARALLEL I. “That which when it would he small becomes like a moth or a grnb, when it wonld be large fills the world; when it wonld ascend mounts on the airy clouds, when it would descend enters the deep; whose transformations are not conditioned by days, nor its ascending or descending by seasons, is called Shin ”— Hwan-tsze. “For spirits when they please “ Can either sex assume, or both; so soft “ And uncompounded is their essence pure, “Not ty’d or manackled with joint or limb, “Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, “Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose, “Dilated or condensed, bright or obscure, “ Can execute their airy purposes, “And works of love or enmity fulfil.” 1 — Para Use Lost. 1 We fear that Mr. Chalmers must have copied these lines from a volume of Poetical Extracts and could not have had time to refer to the context. Had he done so he would have seen that the spirits whose pure es¬ sence “ is uncompounded,” who assume what sex they choose, who exe¬ cute “airy purposes” and fulfil “works of love or enmity” are none other than “Chemosh the obscene dread of Moab’s sous,” “Moloch Ho¬ micide,” “Baalim,” “Asbtaroth,” and the other Elohim of the nations, and that four lines below the one at which he discreetly stops these very spirits are called “bestial gods.” We give the passage in extenso. “With these came they who from the bordering flood Of old Euphrates to the brook that parts 35 PARALLEL 2. “No Shin is left uriinvoked.”— Booh of Poetry. “0 all ye host of heaven ! 0 Earth ! what else? And shall I couple hell?”— Hamlet. PARALLEL 3. “When Hwan, prince of Tsie (b.c. 685-642), was on an ex" pedition against the north, at Ku-chuh, he saw a man of a foot high, with clothes, cap, and ornamental cuffs, running before his horses. Kwan-chung §aid, ‘This is the Shin of the mountain. Its name is Yii-rh. When a usurping prince arises it appears.’ ”— Shuh-i-hi. “Dr. Percy tells us that the existence of fairies is alluded to by the most ancient British bards, among whom the common¬ est name was that of ‘spirits of the mountain.’”— Brand’s Popu¬ lar Antiquities. Mr. Chalmers adds, “ Instances like the above could be multiplied to any extent. There is not a fairy or ghost story in our language but might be matched with a Chinese one in which the subject is Skin.” And hence he would have us infer that Shin cannot mean god , gods , but must mean spirit , spirits. By a similar process of reasoning Mr. Chalmers might as conclusively prove that the Greek word Theos, and the Latin word deus meant spirit , spirits and not <0 t Egypt from Syrian ground, had general names Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male, These feminine. For spirits when they please Can either sex assume or both; so soft And uncompounded is their essence pure, Not tied or manacled with joint or limb, Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, Like cumbrous flesh ; but in what shape they choose Dilated or condensed, bright or obscure, Did execute their airy purposes, And works of love or enmity fulfil. For those the race of Israel oft forsook Their living strength, and unfrequented left His righteous altar, bowing lowly down To bestial gods.”— Paradise Lost. Book i. 419—134. 36 god, gods. The fallacy of such reasoning is clearly pointed out by Archbishop Whately in the appendix to his “Elements of Logic/’ when treating of “certain terms which are peculiarly liable to be used ambiguous¬ ly.” Under the word “God” he thus writes: “The Greek and Latin words, which we translate “God,” having been applied by the heathen to their objects of worship, were naturally employed by Jews and Christians to denote the object of their own worship. But the heathen were far from regarding any of these supposed Beings as eternal, or as the Maker and Governor of the Universe. They regarded them as the same kind of beings with the Fairies, Demons, Nixes, Bogles, genii, &c., which in various parts of the world are still feared, and in some places propitiated by offerings and other marks of reverence.; and which in fact are the very gods (though no longer called by that title) which our pagan forefathers worshipped.”. ‘ ‘ The more any one studies the ancient classical writers the more in error he will be if he is not attentive to the difference between the meanings they attached to certain terms, and to those which we now attach to corresponding terms.” II. It is stated that if Shin be employed as the representative of Elohim and Theos in the translation of the Bible into Chinese, there is no other word which can properly take the place of ruach in the Old and pneuma in the New Testament.. This objection comes to nothing if it can be shewn, as I think it has been, that Shin means god, gods, and not spirit, spirits. But independently of this, is it reasonable to expect to find in Chinese a term corres¬ ponding to ruach and pneuma as employed in the Bible ? Did the Greek language possess such a term before pneuma was, so to speak, Christianized by the translators of the Septuagint and by the writers of the New Testament, and employed in the various senses 37 in which we now find it ? Every one acquainted with the ancient classical Greek knows that pneuma, before its introduction into the Bible, was never used for spirit at all, either in an abstract or concrete sense. 1 It should, not then surprise us if we do not find a term in the Chinese language having the same meaning and used as ruach and pneuma are in the Bible. The fact is the ancient Greeks and Romans had no conception of a class of spiritual beings distinct from gods and demons , such as the Bible reveals to us; and therefore could not be expected to have a distinctive term for them. In this particular the notions of the Chinese are also very similar; they likewise have their shin (gods) and hwei (demons), but know nothing of any other class of spiritual existances. Still the term ling (fg), which a large body of Protestant mission¬ aries employ as the representative of ruach and pneuma may in time be Christianized as v.-veviw. was, and have corresponding ideas attached to it both in the Bible and in our Christian literature. III. Shin is supposed to have too wide an appli¬ cation and too indefinite a meaning to be employed as the representative of Elohim and Tlieos in the trans¬ lation of the Bible. This objection probably weighs more with some minds than any other. They reason thus, How can a term like Shin, which is used so widely by the Chinese 1 It is difficult for one who has been long accustomed to the New Testa¬ ment usage of pneuma to realize that before the LXX translation was made this word was used in no higher sense than that of wind or breath. But a glance at a good lexicon, if the reader has not time or opportuni¬ ty to study the question for himself, will be sufficient t’o show,that this is the case and that the statement in the text is strictly accurate. Tho question is however treated at greater length in the appendix. 38 and conveys such an indefinite meaning, and which moreover has been so degraded as to include all their objects of worship from the highest to the lowest, be employed for Jehovah the God of the Bible ? To this the simple reply is, That such was also the state of the case as regards Theos amongst the Greeks, and deus amongst the Romans. These terms were equally wide in their application and equally indefinite in their meaning, and had also been degraded to quite as low if not a lower level than the Chinese word Shin. St. Paul tells us that both Greeks and Romans had “ changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image make like to corruptible man, and to birds and four- footed beasts, and creeping things/' all of which were called Theoi and dii} Surely no term could be more degraded than these; and yet the writers of the New Testament under divine guidance were led to employ Theos , and its translators into Latin from natural in¬ stinct, if not from a higher cause, were led to employ deus. But, it is said, Theos and deus could be used in a singular sense, and thus made to define at least a par¬ ticular God ; whereas, shin having no inflexion, the 1 Quis nesoit, Volnsi Bithynice, qualia demens Aegyptus portenta colat ? crocodilon adorat Pars licec, ilia pavet saturam serpentibus Ibin. Effigies sacri nitet aurea cercopitheci Dimidio magicae resonant ubi Memnone chordae Atque vetus Thebe centum jacet obruta portis. Illic coeruleos, hie piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam.— Juvenal, Sat. xv. 1—3. Who does not know,Volusius of Bytliinia, what kinds of monsters demented Egypt worships ? One part adores the crocodile, another quakes before the Ibis gorged with serpents. The golden image of a sacred long-tailed ape glitters where the magic chords resound from mutilated Memnon, and an¬ cient Thebes lies in ruin with her hundred gates. There whole towns vene¬ rate cats, here a river fish, there a dog, but no one Diana.— Lewis’s Translation. 39 hearer or reader must necessarily be left in doubt as to whether one or many gods are intended. Such, too, frequently is the state of the case as regards Elohim, to which in this as in other particulars Shin bears a very striking resemblance. When reading the Hebrew Bible one is often in doubt as to whether Elohim is to be understood in a singular or plural sense. For instance it is not at all clear whether Gen. iii. 5, should be translated, as in the English version “and ye shall be as gods” or “ye shall be as God.” If the former be the correct rendering it seems like an indication of the existence of polytheism even before the fall, which it is difficult to imagine, except on the supposition that Satan and others amongst the fallen angels had already set themselves up as gods (Elohim). Again it is said that Elohim though a plural noun and at times indefinite in its meaning, may yet have a singular sense attached to it by being followed by a singular verb, as in Gen. i. 1, “In the beginning Elo¬ him created the heaven and the earth,” where the verb created is singular and therefore Elohim though plural must be construed in a singular sense. But Shin, may also have a singular meaning attached to it by being preceded by a singular classifier, as for instance, che-iue shin means this god. The objection then brought against shin on the ground of its wideness of application and indefiniteness of meaning, might with equal force be adduced against Elohim, Theos and deus. And here let me bring for¬ ward the testimony of two distinguished writers as to the indefiniteness of the word Elohim as used by the 40 inspired penmen. In his introduction to the Com¬ mentary on the Bible known as The Speaker s Com¬ mentary, Bishop Harold Browne treating of the names of God as used in the Book of Genesis thus writes :— J Elohim “is tlie simple generic name of God. It occurs very seldom in the singular in the earlier books of Scripture, except in the abbreviated form of El.In the plural it is applied to God as comprehending in Himself the fulness of all power and all the attributes which the heathen ascribe to their several divi¬ nities.It is applied to false gods as well as to the true. The heathen nations round about the Israelites would have recog¬ nized the existence and the divinity of El and of Elohim. 1 Jeho¬ vah, on the contrary, is as clearly a proper name as Jupiter or Vishnu. Elohim and Jehovah are therefore as distinguishable as deas and Jupiter; the difference being only in this, that, whereas the worshippers of Jupiter admitted “gods many and lords many, a multitude of dii; the worshippers of Jehovah, on the other hand, believe in no Elohim except Jehovah.” Again Mr. William Aldis Wriglit, Librarian of Trinity College Cambridge, and Hebrew Examiner in the University of London, in his article in Smith’s Dictionary, under the word “Jehovah” thus writes:— “With regard to Elohim, the other chief name by which the Diety is designated in the Old Testament, it has been held by many, and the opinion does not even now -want supporters, that in the plural form of the word was shadowed forth the plurality of persons in the godhead; and the mystery of the Trinity was inferred therefrom. Such, according to Peter Lombard, was the significance of Elohim. But Calvin, Mercer, Drusiers, and Bel- larmine have given the weight of, their authority against an ex¬ planation so fanciful and so arbitrary. Among the Jewish writers of the Middle Age the question much more nearly approached its solution. R. Jehuda Halleion (12th century) the Author of the book Cozri found in the usage of Elohim a protest against 1 This might also bo said of Shin, the divinity of which the Japanese and other nations round about China recognize. 41 idolaters, who call each personified power Eloah and all collec¬ tively Elohim. He interprets it as the most general name of the Deity, distinguishing Him as manifested in the exhibition of His power, without reference to his personality , or moral qualities, or to any special relation which he hears to man." And here a very interesting question suggests it¬ self, which has an intimate bearing upon this term controversy, and upon the solution of which mainly depends its settlement, namely, why did the writers of the Old and New Testament employ, in the various senses in which we find them used, these vague and indefinite words Elohim and Theos and not the distinc¬ tive name or title of any particular god ? and why did the translators of their writings into Latin, German, English, &c., act in a similar manner ? Dean Stanley in his history of the Jewish church suggests a reply to this question, as regards the use of the word Elohim. He thus writes:— 1 “If we may trust the ingenious conjecture of a distinguish¬ ed writer (Max Muller), whom I have already quoted, a more certain and enduring memorial has been preserved of this side of Abraham’s mission. The name by which the Deity is known throughout the patriarchal or introductory age of the Jewish church is “Elohim,” translated in the English Version “ God " In this name has been discovered a trace of the conciliatory com¬ prehensive mission of the first prophet of the true religion. Elohim is a plural noun, though followed by a verb in the singu¬ lar. When Eloah (God) was first used in the plural, it could only have signified, like any other plural, many Eloahs; and such a plural could only have been formed after the various names of God had become the names of independent deities; that is, during a polytheistic stage. The transition from this into the monotheistic stage could be effected only in two ways; either by denying altogether the existence of the Elohim, and changing 1 Lecture I, p. 22. First Edition. 42 them into devils—as was done in Persia,—or by taking a higher view, and looking upon them as so many names invented with the honest purpose of expressing the various aspects of the Deity, though in time diverted from their original intention. This was the view taken by Abraham. Whatever the names of the Eloliim worshipped by the different clans of his race, Abraham saw that all the Elohim were meant for God; and thus, Elohim comprehending by one name everything that ever was or ever could be called Divine, became the name by which the mo¬ notheistic age was rightly inaugurated; a plural conceived and construed as a singular. From this point of view the Semitic name of the Deity, which at first sounds not only ungrammatical but irrational, becomes perfectly . clear and intelligible. It is at once the proof that monotheism rose on the ruins of a poly¬ theistic faith, and that it absorbed and acknowledged the better tendencies of that faith. In the true spirit of the later apostle of the Gentiles, Abraham, his first predecessor and model de¬ clared the God ‘whom they ignorantly worshipped’ to be the ‘ God that made the world and all things therein ’ the ‘ Lord of heaven and earth,’ ‘in whom we live, and move, and have our being’.” Another able writer in an essay on this Term Controversy, treats the same question in a somewhat similar way with regard to Theos, deus, &c. He thus writes 1 :— “The ancient Chinese, whilst worshipping many gods, did yet acknowledge one Supreme Lord. In this they have acted like every other idolatrous nation. While worshipping a host of idols ‘under every green tree and on every high hiU’ they had yet sufficient of the light of nature, or the glimmerings of Revela¬ tion and tradition, to teach them that there must be one Being above all others. The Greeks had their Zeus, the Romans their Jupiter, the Phenicians their Baal, the Britons their Woden, and the Chinese their Shang-ti or Tien.” Then winding up his argument as to which should be employed to represent Elohim and Theos in the 1 Chinese Repository, vol. xv., p. 689. 43 translation of the Bible, the specific name Shang-ti, or the generic word Shin , he says :— “All scriptural authority, all apostolic example, and all Chris¬ tian custom, is in favour of using the generic term for divinity in each nation as the designation of the true God. In Greek, al¬ though there was the term Zeus appropriated to their Supreme God, of whom glorious things were spoken, yet the overwhelming authority of Christ and his Apostles, (to say nothing of all the Greek fathers) decides that the word Theos and Kurios shall be used, and this, well knowing that the pagan Greeks worshipped ‘ Gods many and Lords many.’ In Latin, although there was a Ju¬ piter equally supreme among the gods, yet the uniform custom, sanctioned doubtless by the Apostle Paul, who dwelt so long at Rome, has been to use Deus and Dominus, though the Dii and Domini of Rome were as numerous aud false as the Kwei-sJiin of China. In the nations of northern Europe, though there was the powerful Woden and Thor, yet the generic and simple terms God and Lord have been the chosen terms in which British and Ameri¬ can Christians worship their creator. And in Germany Gott and Herr have received only an additional sanction in the venerable version of Luther. Why, then, should the descendants of those who reject the terms Woden and Thor and Jupiter, &c., adopt the name of the nation¬ al god of China to designate Jehovah? Shang-ti admits a multitude of inferior gods without jealousy, but Jehovah says, ‘ I am God and there is none else,’ for divinity is centred in Himself alone.’’ These extracts afford a partial, if not a complete answer to the question, why the inspired writers and the translators of their writings into Latin, German, English, &c., used the generic word God and not the distinctive name or title of any particular god in the various senses in which Elohim and Theos are em¬ ployed in the Bible. The following remarks may also throw some light upon this question. The sacred writers in their treatment of poly¬ theism seem to have regarded all objects of worship t 44 however low and degraded, even the images of “birds, and fonrfooted beasts and creeping things” as gods in some sense; and hence as occupying a position of antagonism to, and of rivalry with Jehovah, the only living and true God. This seems clear not only from the general bearing of all scriptural teaching respect¬ ing this matter, but also from such passages as the following, where the expression an object of worship appears to be used as equivalent to the word god. In Acts xvii. 23, it is written, “As I passed by and beheld your oEpdonaTa,” (objects of worship), or as the marginal reading in our English version has it “the gods that ye worship.” Again in 2. Thess. ii. 4, it is written, “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is a oepaona” (an object of worship). Here Qeo~ (God) and ok0ao[ia (an object of worship) are evidently used as convertible terms. ' In Bible language then, and according to Bible modes of thought, all objects of worship throughout the whole world are Gods in some sense—in some sense all occupy a position and have attributes assigned to them which properly belong to Jehovah alone. Now the fiat has gone forth that the “gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.” But how is this to be effected? Surely not by the exercise of physical power on the part of the Almighty, nor constrainedly on the part of their deluded votaries.; but by the light of God s Word, and the teaching of His Holy Spirit, shewing them the absurdity of wor¬ shipping such “vanities,” and thus leading them of 45 their own free will to “cast their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats.” But how is this teaching to be imparted? How are idolaters to be taught that the things which they regard as gods are no gods? The only way as it appears to me in which this can be done is by taking the term which they apply to all their objects of worship and claiming it for Jehovah alone—by telling, for instance, the Jews that beside Jehovah there is no Elohim, the Greeks that beside Jehovah there is no Theos , the Romans that beside Jehovah there is no deus, and the Chinese that beside Jehovah there is no Shin. Every attempt to teach mankind the folly and sin of polytheism and the existence of only one living and true God by means of any other term than the absolute-generic term which in eaeh language is applied to “all their objects of worship,” must in my judgment necessarily fail. IV. It is said that Shin when used in speaking may be confounded with other words of the same sound in the minds of the hearers. This objection though seldom brought forward is . worthy of some consideration. The Chinese written language to a considerable extent is monosyllabic, and the number of its different sounds very limited. Con¬ sequently it frequently happens that several mono¬ syllabic words though written in a different manner, have the same sound. These words therefore while distinguishable by the eye when seen, are not so by the ear when heard, To meet this difficulty the natives 46 in their colloquials change the monosyllabic word into a dissyllabic or pollysyllabic form by adding to it either a prefix or a suffix as the case may be. For instance the word for table in the written language according to the Ningpo pronounciation is choh, and there are several other words of the same sound which when articulated could not be distinguished one from another. To remove the ambiguity which might in consequence arise a Ningpo man in speaking always employs for choh (table) the dissyllabic form choh-teng. This method they also adopt in the case of Shin. Whenever the monosyllabic word shin is likely to be unintelligible to the ear when spoken, they use the dissyllabic form Shin-ming. We too in speak¬ ing and also in writing the colloquials of China, which when read aloud are supposed to be intelligible to the hearer, ought I think to follow this native example. By using the dissyllabic word Shin-ming in speaking, and also in our colloquial literature, instead of the monosyllabic Shin , all danger of its being confounded with other words of the same sound will be completely obviated. CONCLUSiON. I have now expressed, however feebly and imper¬ fectly, my views upon this Term Question. They are in the main, as will be seen, the views which have al¬ ready been put forward, and in a much abler manner, by Bishop Boone and others who have supported the Shin side of this question. I cannot therefore pretend to claim for them any originality. And yet possibly certain aspects of the subject may be presented in this 47 \ paper in a somewhat new light and come home with fresh force to some minds. My object in writing it will be fully gained if, under God, it tends in any way and to any extent, to harmonize the views of Protestant Missionaries in China on this most important subject, and to put an end to our present unhappy divisions, so that “we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity; and may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace / 7 / APPENDIX ON THE WORD FOR “SPIRIT” IN GREEK. —— The object of the writer in the preceding paper has been solely to discuss the merits of the various terms which have been put forward as the equivalents for the word God. In this ques¬ tion the term for Spirit has properly no place. But as it has been stated that if Shin be used for God there is no other word in the Chinese language which can well be used for the translation of Spirit, it will be well to add a few words, with regard to this subject. Moreover the paper which has recently been published by Mr. Chalmers of Canton has treated the Term Controversy as if all turned on the meaning of this word. Let us therefore briefly consider how far such a method is applicable to the ques¬ tion before us. In the first place let it be borne in mind that Christian ideas are very different from those of heathenism. Our conceptions of the Divine Being are far separated from those of the heathen whom we have come to teach, and we differ no less in our con¬ ceptions of Spirit and Spirits. This has been entirely overlooked by Mr. Chalmers. He commences his paper with an elaborate discussion of the meanings of Spirit, which he arranges in four divisions. Without entering into an examination of the merits of his analysis from a Christian point of view, it is pertinent to inquire how far we may expect to find the ideas which he there expresses, in the language of a heathen people. Let us take as an example a nation whose philosophers discussed this and kin¬ dred questions in no superficial manner, and left to us a rich inheritance of their writings from which we may ascertain both 50 their modes of thought and the various uses of the words in which they clothed them. And when it is further borne in mind that the most famous translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, from which the apostles quoted, was in the Greek language, and that the New Testament was given to the world in that language, it will be admitted that we have a weighty example before us. If therefore it can be shewn that the Greeks had no word which could satisfy the requirements of Mr. Chalmers, much of his argument will fall to the ground. The LXX translators and the writers of the New Testament used the word 7 Tvevpa to express what we call Spirit. In the selection of this word they had nothing to guide them, humanly speaking, but its ordinary usage in the classical writings of Greece. If tried by the standard laid down by Mr. Chalmers were they right or wrong ? Let us see how far Tcvevpa as used by classical writers may be applied to the translation of the meanings of which are enunciated on the ninth page of “The Question of Terms Simplified.” There we read:— I. “A Spirit is something belonging to and forming an integral part of a living being; as ‘the Spirit of God,’ ‘the spirit of man’; in which sense it is more or less personal.” II vevfM avQpioTTOV could mean nothing but “breath.” Thus we read “oaXm y| fiporsiov nTvevpaTog- rrXTipovpsvT]” Esch. Euvi. 568. A trumpet filled with mortal breath. The word is applied to a divine inbreathing in Plato. Ax. 371. “el pij tl Oelov ovrug - svt]v tt vsvpa iv i/jvxq fit’ ov ttjv twv tt]\lku)V 6s Trepivoiav nal y v&olv £0%ev.” “ Unless indeed there were some breath of divinity in the soul by which it could per¬ ceive and know such great matters.” The word is however here by no means used in a personal sense. II. “Spirit is simply a quality; as ‘a man of spirit’; in which sense it is not personal.” II vsvpa could certainly not bo used in this sense. III. “A spirit is a spiritual being; as ‘God is a Spirit’ (which expres¬ sion becomes altered in all our minds to ‘God is pure spirit’), ‘they suppos¬ ed that they had seen a spirit,’ ‘ Sir Spirit, I doubt I do nick-name you, for those of your kind (they say) have no sense,’ (sensation. Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burleigh). ‘Several energetic spirits resident at Amoy’ (China Mail). This usage is, strictly speaking, what is called metonymy. The 51 whole Being, the entire person, is included in the word which primarily denotes only a part.” UvEvpa never bore this meaning in any classical writings, and not one of the examples given conld be translated by the use of the word. TtVEVp.a 6 Qeog- is indeed found in philosophical works, but as is pointed out later on, this expression would form one of the great objections to the use of the word in St. John. IV. “ Spirit is spoken of as a distinct essence ; as ‘ The Egyptians aro men and not God; their horses are flesh and not spirit.’ This usage directly suggests the inquiry ‘what is spirit?’” From a Classical point of view this question would be as promptly answered by the remark that irrevpa is wind. In short uvev/m never bore any of the meanings attributed to Spirit by Mr. Chalmers, before the LXX translation-was made. It is not used by classical writers in any other sense than that of wind or breath either simple or metaphorical. Doubtless the reason which led the LXX translators to select irvev/na was the fact that it was the exact equivalent of Bitach in these lower meanings. But it was a distinct straining of language to apply nvEvpa to any abstract or personal sense of Iinach. In fact if it had been thought essential to find a word which should adequately repre¬ sent Spirit as explained by Mr. Chalmers, the Old Testament could not have been translated, and the Xew Testament could never have been written. Further, there was, as has been noticed above, a very serious objection to the use of the word for theological purposes. The most important school of philosophers then existing, viz., the Stoics, had already appropiated the term ni’EVpa to express their conception of the Divine essence which, it need hardly be said, was very wide of the truth. They spoke of God as being Fire, Ether, Air, or most generally as being nvEVpa or atmospheric current. Cf. Hob. Eel. i. 58. “Ilooeidm’to? (Qtov key el) nvEvpa voepov nai nvpajdEf” “Poseidonius calls God an intellectual and^ fiery atmospheric current.” And that this objection 'was not without weight may be proved by the fact that Origen and others found it necessary in defence of Christianity to attack the mater¬ ialistic views “of the stoics, who said that God is a Ttvevpa per¬ meating all things and holding all things in himself”; “rwv 52 Irmativ (paoitovTMV o'tl 6 $eog- Tcvevfia ’eanv did tt avTUV die- A??Ao0o