necessary here to go over the arguments against the use of the word t'ien. In certain connections we do not object to its use, any more than to the use of the word heaven in the English language; but we know of no reason why it should be brought into general use, and when even the Roman Catholics have been forced to discard it, we should be sorry to see it adopted by the Protestants.

2. The word Shángtí (and every other proper name of a hea then idol) is objectionable, because it makes the heathen think, when we use it, that we refer to one of their own idols. Shángtí is so well known as one of the greatest of the Chinese gods, that with all the explanatious we can use, we find it difficult to prevent the people from, saying, "You refer to Yoh hwáng tá-ti; it is perfectly right to worship him ;" and we have often found it impossible, after repeated explanations to convince our hearers that the high ruler, we spoke of, was different from the false idol of their worship.

3. One main argument for the use of Shin, as the term to designate god, is founded on the fact that it is the generic name for god or divinity in Chinese. If this be admitted, (and we see not how it can be denied, there is no other such for Shángtí is confessedly not a generic term,) then it seems to follow as a matter of course that it should be used. All scriptural authority, all apostolic example, and all Christian custom, is in favor of using the generic term for divinity in each nation as the designation of the true God. In Greek, although 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 words eos and Kupiog shall be used, and this, well knowing that the pagan Greeks worshiped "Gods many and Lords many." In Latin, although there was a Jupiter 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 and false as the Kwei-shin 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 American Christians worship their Creator. And in Germany Gott and Herr have rece ved only an additional sanction in the venerable version of Luther. Why then should the descendants of those who rejected the terms Woden and Thor and Jupiter, &c., adopt the name of the national god of China, to designate Jehovah? Shangtí admits a multitude of inferior gods

wlthout jealousy, but Jehovah says, "I am God and there is none else," for divinity is centered in himself alone.

4. There are strong objections to the use of T'ien and Shangtí which are tacitly admitted even by those who insist most on using them. The principal of these is that we want some generic name to express equally the true God and the deities of those whose blinded minds conceive that their own gods are true. Human language must express human thoughts, but the thoughts of the heathen are that their idols are god. Necessarily therefore they must use the same term for god, that is used by those who speak of the true God. But those who use the term Shángtí for the true God, use another term when speaking of the gods of the heathen, and the confusion hence arising, and loss of all the point and emphasis of many a passage of scripture is not easily described. A few examples will show our meaning and the force of this argument.

In the striking passage 1 Ki. 15:21, 27, "If the Lord be God follow him, * * ery aloud for he is a God," in both cases the same word Elohim is used in the original, and in the second the whole point of the irony rests on the use of the word. "The being you worship, you believe is God. You are now on trial for his honor, and your own lives depend on proving that he is the god. Cry alond, he is a God." Turning to Mr. Gutzlaff's translation we

↑

find the first sentence translated thus; 若皇上帝係上帝 "If the royal Shangtí be Shangtí then certainly worship him." If Shangtí is the proper translation of Elohim, then let it be used in both sentence. But in the second, Mr. G. gives “He is an inferior god.” "He is an inferior god." It would puzzle

us,

acuter minds than those of the Chinese to see the particular point and irony of the prophet in a translation like this. Why is the same word Elohím, occurring in the same connection, so differently translated? The same reason which requires Shángtí in verse 21, requires it in verse 27; or if shin be the proper word in verse 27, it should also be used in the preceding one.

An example in which the impropriety of rendering the same word, Elohim, by different terms in Chinese, is still more manifest, is furnished in the 82d Psalm. In the first verse we read, 66 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty (lit. of the gods,) he judgeth

among the gods." Here the word Elohim occurs twice and El

once.

In Mr. Gutzlaff's translation we read,

人之會在神中審判. Here we have the

✰ ✯✯ same word ren

dered first Shángti, then Ying jin, and finally shin! Even admitting that the second gives the sense, the third is indefensible on any principle of sound philology. In the sixth verse, "I said ye are gods," were the same word Elohim accurs, Mr. G. gives us shin.

Turn now to the quotation of this Psalm in the New Testament, where the faults of rendering sos by different terms are more glaring still.

In the tenth chapter of the gospel by John we are told that the Jews took up stones to stone our Lord, because he made himself God. He justifies himself by appealing to the eighty second Psalm, where it is said, "I said ye are gods." It is an argument from the less to the greater. "If he called them (deos) gods to whom the word of god (Asog) came, how could it be blasphemy in Christ to call himself the son of God." Here the whole force of the argument depends on the use of the same word god in each case. Look how it is weakened, or rather totally lost in the version of the New Testament now in use. There the story is, "The Jews took up stones to stone him, because he made himself the son of Shángti." He replies. "It is written in your law, "I said ye are shin.” "Now if men receiving Shángti's commands are called shin, why do you accuse me of blasphemy for calling myself the son of Shángti?" We conless ourselves unable to see the force of this reasoning. Nor do we see any reason why the inspired example of using only one word in all these cases should not be followed by us. If Shángtí be the proper generic term for god, use it altogether; but do not arbitrarily interpret and confound by different terms, what the Holy Spirit has expressed by one.

It is a generally admitted principle, in translations, that a word should be uniformly rendered, unless the context forbid it. But the advocates of the term Shángtí, are commonly found to violate this rule by using Shángtí for the true and shin for false gods, while in the original the same word is used for both

"There is none

Look, for example, at the passage, Cor. 8: 4, 6; other god but one, for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God the father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." How simple and forcible is this! The repetition of the same word bɛos, first for the true God, then for false gods, with a reference to their number, and then by contrast vindicated for the true God alone; adds force and beauty to the thought the apostle wished to convery. The Greek language was copious enough to have furnished different

terms, and the apostle Paul was sufficiently master of the art of rhetoric to have used them aright; but he prefers to confine himself to the simple word θεος.

In the common version of the New Testament, we find the following.

上帝獨一無他也盖天地內 有多邪神 名,亦依人見有多种多主但吾所崇獨一 天父上帝

By what authority, we would respectfully, but earnestly ask, is the simple word deos, in this passage subjected to the various renderings

上帝 Shángti,邪神名, isé shin ming, and 翮 shin? It

needs but a glance to see how completely the force and beauty of the apostles' language is lost in the translation.

"6

It is time to attend to the objections that are urged against the term Shin, which are supposed to decide in favor of using Shángti. 1. Shángti is the most honorable term, and respectable Chinese tell us he alone should be worshiped." We are rather surprised at this objection. It is not common to bring the heathen in as arbiters to decide for Christians, by what terms they must worship the true God. We do not admit their authority, especially when we have apostolic authority for our guide. The very same argument might have been used to induce the apostles to use Jupiter, or Woden, or Thor, and for ought we see, with as good reason, unless indeed any one will undertake to maintain that at some former time the Chinese possessed the knowledge of the true God and worshiped him, and him alone, under the name Shangtí! As we presume no one will undertake this, we think the argument we are considering may be safely passed by, on the ground that it proves entirely too much.

2. "Shin is a mean low word. There are shin at every corner of the streets. It is not befitting the dignity of the true God to give him such a cominon term." This argument, like the preceding, proves entirely too much. It was just as true and just as forcible in ancient days as it is in China now; Aeos and Deus were as "mean" and "low" and "common" in Greece and Rome as shin is in China now; nay we might undertake to prove they were more so. The apostle admits that these were gods many, but he told the Christians to worship one God.

Look at the Turba Deorum of Rome; Vaticanus, god of crying babies; Cumira, god of cradles; Sera, Segetina, Nodatus, Volutina. Patelana, Forculus, Cordua, Limentinus, or those viler still, of

whom with singular felicity Augustine says, "Priapus et Cloacina, et Pavor, et Pallor et Febris, et cetera, non numina colendorum, sed crimina colentium."

All these were Dii, and we greatly doubt whether among all the kwei shin of China, enough can be found to rank with even those which Augustine mentions, much less those which he was ashamed to name; yet though the word Deus was applied to all these, he did not scruple, in a work written expressly against idolatry, to employ it constantly to denoste the true god. Moreover the advocates of the argument, we are now considering, forget that they have no right to use it. They use the word shin for the holy spirit. How comes it about that the term which is too "low" and "mean" to designate the Father and the Son is yet good enough to designate the Eternal Spirit, the same in substance with the Father and the Son and equal in power and glory? The fact that the word is used to designate the Holy Spirit, shows that the objection just urged can have no force at all, though, as we shall presently show, shin is by no means a suitable word to enote the third person of the Trinity. 3. An ob Jon, to which there is weight, though it is seldom urged, is tha shin is not a colloquial word, and that consequently if you speak of shin or the true shin, or the living shin, &c., the common people will not understand what is said. Admitting this, in its fullest extent, the difficulty is by no means insurmountable. The people can be taught to use the word shin, and connect with it the ideas we wish to teach respecting the true god, far easier than they can divest their own minds of their heathenish associations with the word Shangtí, and make that word the representative of the true and living God.

Our conclusion therefore is, that shin is the nearest equivaient to the Elohim and beng of the Old and New Testament.

ART. II. The Eighth Annual Report of the Morrison Education Society, for the year ending September 30th, 1846.

THE Eighth Annual Meeting of the Members and Friends of the MORRISON EDUCATION SOCIETY was held at 6 P. M. on the 30th September 1846.

VOL. XV. NO. XII.

76