WHO IS GOD IN CHINA, 
 
 SHIN 
 
 OR 
 
 SHAN G-T E? 
 
 REMARKS ON THE ETYMOLOGY 
 
 AND OF 
 
 AND ON 
 
 THE RENDERING OF THOSE TERMS INTO CHINESE. 
 
 BY THE KEY. S, C. MALAN, M.A., 
 
 OP BALUOL COLLEGE, OXFORD; AND VICAR OF BROADWINDSOR, DORSET. 
 
 " 'HfJLfls 8e TOV ev 'A.6r)vais "hyva^rrov cfavpovres, xal 
 ^ftpnf els ovpav&v fKTeivavres, TOVTW fv^apurrrjcro^ifV^ ios Ka.Taia>6fVTts 
 TOIOVTOV Kparovs VTTTJKOOI yevecrdat. Tovs 8e \onroiis, \r]pe1v eacrat^ev, 
 apKtcrBevTfs vnep avT&v fiTTtlv, TO, Ov <f>povr\s 'linroKXfiSr], Kara TTJV 
 iav." LUCIAN, Philopatr. ad fin. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; 
 
 WABEHOtTSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER BOOKS, CHURCH SERVICES, 
 
 LEXICONS, GRAMMARS, CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, IN ANCIENT 
 
 AND MODER'N LANGUAGES; 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW.
 
 'YSTEPON IIPOTEPON. 
 
 THE preachers of the Gospel in China are not yet 
 agreed among themselves as to who is GOD in that 
 country. Some say it is " SHIN," others say it is 
 " SHANG-TE"; while a few declare it is neither. 
 
 Our own knowledge of the subject is, we regret to 
 say, very limited. For we have never been in China; 
 and our acquaintance with Chinese literature is as 
 yet only slight. But, in common with many, we 
 earnestly wish to see the Gospel have free course in 
 China, instead of being hindered there by those who 
 preach it. If, therefore, they and their friends at 
 home, will not disdain a few hints from one who has 
 no prior claim to their notice, we will venture to 
 suggest a few points at issue between them, which, 
 when calmly considered, may possibly tend to level 
 difficulties in the way of a mutual understanding. 
 
 " Favete, adeste sequo animo, et rem cognoscite 
 Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum." 
 
 But, although we had no alternative, in giving 
 
 2005221
 
 iv 'Y2TEPON IIPOTEPON. 
 
 extracts from Chinese and from other Asiatic writings, 
 than to strip them of their native elegance, and to 
 lower them to the level of common type, we owe some 
 apology to men resident in China for doing so. For, 
 as there is inherent in every letter a feature that 
 belongs to the language, there can be no real equi- 
 valent for a characteristic alphabet. Assuredly not 
 for the grave outline of the sacred Devanagari ; and 
 least of all for the ideographic symbols of the land 
 of Yaou and Shun. Fancy even Homer in Roman 
 type ! Would he not be 
 
 " pholkos" indeed, "cholos d'heteron poda: to de 
 hoi omo 
 
 kyrto, epi stethos synochokote 
 
 echthistos d'Achilei malist' on, ede kaihemin?" 
 
 For quotations disguised in this vicious and am- 
 biguous form, which is little else than the lifeless 
 remains of their living original, offer but a repulsive 
 image of the language they represent. And their 
 only use is, we may say, to point to the gems of 
 archaic lore enshrined in the venerable texts to which 
 they refer. 
 
 Thus, while occupied in noticing faults in other 
 men, we are naturally brought to solicit their in-
 
 'Y2TEPON HPOTEPON. 
 
 dulgence, and to hope that (at least for the sake 
 of Hafiz), when in reading they discover our own 
 errors* 
 
 <UxJ? 
 j\ 
 
 " they will not blame but forgive; remembering that 
 no living man is free from mistake." It is true, 
 
 * " quos aut in curia fudit, 
 
 Aut humana parum cavit natura" 
 
 Such] as : p. 10, 1. 8, 13, j for j in <U jo!!- P- 20,1. 15, wpwc 
 for <opur. p. 22, 1. 20, men for them. ibid. 1. 25, dele TO>. 
 p. 56, 1. 4, x0dVos for \9ovo<s. p. 57, 1. 14, *3i.j' ^-> 
 for V.}- t ^gy> ^.jiio. p. 59, 1. 19, ft for \, la, in 
 p. 76, 1. 9, le for lee in Eddaleren. p. 81, 1. 24, 7rrro<vAa for 
 7noro<uAa. p. 84, 1. 18, Travros for Trdvrws. p. 88, 1. 26, this for 
 that. p. 91, 1. 9, 'Poy/.aioi for 'Pw/Aatot. p. 97, 1. 23, dele (Vit.) 
 p. 110, 1. 16, It for Hymn. p. Ill, 1. 2, note, ed for et. p. 113, 
 1. 14, dlo/or dio. p. 114,1. 9, in for im. p. 117, 1. 12, <e for 
 e|>e. p. 122, 1. 19 ; 166, 1. 9 ; eva/or /a. p. 124, 1. 1, add to. 
 ibid, 1. 3, jj for jj in \. J<X>.Jc- p. 94, 1. 3; 126, 1. 4; 188, 
 1. 11 ; 190, 1. 10, oaipov for Scu/xov. p. 126, 1. 18, Traflo/ievos for 
 Trci^d/aevos. p. 127, 1. 23, mixed for mix. p. 128, 1. 9, rjrrov for 
 ^rro^.p. i39 ? i. 7, 8, Ee for K'he p. 152, 1. 6, k'heang for 
 keuen. p. 177, 1. 11, Wai-jin for E-jin p. 188, 1. 1, g for $ in 
 I'l^.ibid. 1. 6, ^S^Sn for fysxp GH.ibid. 1. 27, aha for ^aJ. 
 p. 205, 1. 12, erepoi/or erepot. p. 223, 1. 10, D^HJf/W Dp6||._ 
 p. 251, 1. 7, dele , after 0^% p. 273, 1. 7, Aia for Aia. and 
 others, we trust less important.
 
 yi 'Y2TEPON nPOTEPON. 
 
 that, had we given the opinions of others instead of 
 our own, we might have left our pages less imperfect. 
 But a mere compilation from other writings would 
 not have served the cause in hand so effectually as a 
 fresh supply of original matter. "We have abstained, 
 therefore, from consulting others, in order to approach 
 the subject with a mind entirely free from bias on 
 either side; and so as to form our judgment on the 
 merits of the case, from the Hebrew, the Greek, and 
 the Chinese texts alone. The following remarks, 
 then, however crude they may be, have at least one 
 merit, that of not being borrowed, but authentic. 
 
 Under these circumstances, however, it is quite 
 possible we may have taken erroneous views on some 
 points. If so, we will hope, that since our only 
 motive is a search after Truth, our short-comings 
 may provoke some one else, who, within reach of a 
 good library, enjoys greater facilities for research 
 than we do, to go deep into this important question, 
 and to settle it once for all. 
 
 " 'Ev @ea> ye fjiav reA,09." 
 
 S. C. M. 
 
 BROADWINDSOB, 
 Feb. 1855.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 10 
 
 II. OBJECT OF THE WORK OF TRANSLATION . 10 13 
 
 III. ON OUR INTERCOURSE WITH THE HEATHEN . 13 32 
 
 IV. ON THE TRANSLATION OF THE TERM "GOD" 32 52 
 
 V. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF '$, l!P&f, AND D'n;>X 52 69 
 
 VI. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF EOS . ... 70 129 
 
 VII. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF T'HEEN ' 129 135 
 VIII. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF SHIN 135 153 
 IX. PROBABLE REASONS IN FAVOUR OF SHIN AS 
 
 EQUIVALENT FOR " GOD," REFUTED . 153 164 
 X. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF SHANG-TE 165 173 
 XI. ON THE CHOICE OF THAT TERM FOR "GoD" 173 182 
 XII. PARALLEL BETWEEN *?$, a^K, D'H^K, EOS 
 AND C O EOS, AND SHANG-TE, WHICH 
 PROVES SHIN TO BE AAIMON AND NOT 
 
 EOS 183199 
 
 XIII. ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF AAIMON . . 200 215 
 XIV. COMPARISON OF SHIN, AND OF SHANG-TE, 
 
 IN THE BIBLE WITH ?N . . . . 215 227 
 
 XV. DITTO, .... WITH a^g AND Dr6g . . 227237 
 
 XVI. DITTO, .... WITH EOS AND 6 EOS . 237247
 
 Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 XVII. Ox THE UNFITNESS or SHIN TO STAXD 
 
 FOB GOD . . 248259 
 
 XVIII. Ox THE DAXGER OF ALLOWING PRIVATE 
 FEELING TO BIAS THE JUDGMENT ix 
 
 SUCH MATTERS ..... 260 276 
 
 XIX. Ox THE SHANGHAE VERSION . 276 282 
 
 XX. SUMMING up OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 
 
 SHANG-TE 283291 
 
 XXI. DITTO, .... IN FAVOUR OF SHIN 291 304 
 
 XXII. CONCLUSION . 305310 
 
 (ST. EPHIL&M SEEM. ADV. SCRUT. lix.) 
 
 717 
 
 7 7 P 7 .7 t> 71 ' 
 
 . ^iiSoi 1 1 r 2 1 i Aa><y><v c 
 
 " The Word of our GOD is the source of peace, 
 and brings peace to all. But we make war with it ; 
 with it we think of strife; with it we hate one 
 another; and again, with it we prepare destruction 
 for ourselves."
 
 R E M A R K S, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 I. 
 
 ABOUT a year ago we bought for a very small sum, 
 at the Depository of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, a beautifully-printed copy of the first part of 
 the New Testament in Chinese, with this title-page in 
 English and Chinese : 
 
 " The New Testament in Chinese, translated by the Committee of 
 Delegates, appointed by the Protestant Missionaries in China for 
 that purpose : printed at the expense of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society ; the Text, exclusive of the words for representing 
 Theos and Pnetima, being supervised by the Committee of Delegates ; 
 the blanks left by them for these words being filled in by the 
 Shanghae Corresponding Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society. London Missionary Society's Press. Shanghae, 
 1851." 
 
 "She shoo-che ch'hing 'Shang-Te' che ch'hwang-tsao 
 T'heen-Tih-Choo tsae-ming-wuh, eul yen. Ke ming 'Yay- 
 howah' ts'hung-kaou, wo shang so tang pae-k'hwei; wei 
 sze yew jin i chi-tsung-che ming ch'hing fan so tse-sze tsae- 
 fung-chay ; koo she shoo-ehe fan yung sze ch'hing tsae. I
 
 p'heih ke wang shih-keae-che yih yue : Go Yay-ho-wah 
 eul-che Shang-Te ; yu eul wai puh-ko pee yew Shang-Te. 
 
 "She Shoo-che yung 'Shin' tsze che wo-hing-tseih-chay ; 
 eul yen."* 
 
 The words " Theos " and " Pneuma," " God " and 
 " Spirit," printed on the face of the book, and at once 
 suggestive of goodness and peace, induced us to hope 
 that, ere this, their influence had allayed the waves of 
 controversy, which had "raged horribly," for years, 
 between the champions of " Shin," and the worship- 
 pers of " Shang-Te." We hailed, therefore, our pur- 
 chase as a messenger of peace ; and we carried it 
 home as a pledge of better days. But the dove, alas! 
 has returned without an olive leaf. And the flag of 
 truce, waved in token of good- will, has just been fired 
 upon, though happily not hit, by a small battery on 
 land, in the shape of an anonymous pamphlet ;f a 
 signal to the knights of " Shin " once more to enter 
 
 * " In this book the term ' Shang-Te' refers to the Lord- Governor of 
 men and things, who at first created the heavens and the earth ; and that 
 is all. His highly-honourable name, Ye-ho-wah, is exalted above taking 
 honour from bowing and kneeling which, are practised among men, in 
 token of the greatest respect, and as expressions of the highest degree of 
 devotion to Him. For this reason is this term (Shang-Te) in general use 
 in this book. And, to guard against an erroneous impression of its mean- 
 ing, the first of the Ten Commandments says : ' I am Ye-ho-wah thy 
 God (Shang-Te), besides me thou mayest have none other God (Shang- 
 Te).' In this book, the term ' Shin ' refers to that which has neither 
 form nor substance ; and that is all." 
 
 f "'Shin v. Shang-Te': antagonistic versions of the Chinese Scrip- 
 tures. A review of the controversy respecting the proper rendering of 
 ELOHIM and 0EO2 into Chinese, and statement of the evidence showing 
 a large majority for ' Shin,' etc. By a life-member of the Bible Society, 
 of thirty years' standing. Ex. xxiii. 13; Isaiah xliL 8; Luke xi. 11. 
 London : Wertheim and Macintosh."
 
 the ring, and to run the gauntlet in full tilt. For as 
 yet there is no peace among the belligerents. The 
 two rival armies are still in battle-array against each 
 other, and still eager to shout in the fray : "Io 
 triumphe!" "We will fight in defence of 'Shin' or 
 'Shang-Te'!" 
 
 Sad, indeed, it is that it should be so. For, in 
 truth, one might expect that every man engaged in 
 the solemn undertaking to translate the Word of God, 
 and to give it to the heathen in its purest form, would 
 let that all- important object outweigh all other con- 
 siderations ; and that he would at once lay the free- 
 will offering of his learning at the foot of his Saviour's 
 cross. We must, however, conclude from the pam- 
 phlet before us, that, apart from convictions, the re- 
 sult of conscientious research alone, private judgment, 
 if not, party feeling, have at times taken the place of 
 calm discussion ; and they seem, at last, to have 
 brought men, at home, conscientiously to hate one 
 another for the love of God ; and, in China, to fight 
 angrily by way of seeking peace. And in such a 
 cause, too ! when 
 
 " Two hearts in one might rend a mountain" ; 
 they still prefer 
 
 " To be two captains, and to sink their ship ! " 
 As it was in Ceylon some years ago, when the
 
 4 
 
 key-note of discord among the Christians in the 
 island was: "Are you for 'Deviyan' (Eloah), or 
 for ' Deviyanwahanse' (Elohim) ?" so also at pre- 
 sent in China, not only do the preachers of the 
 " Gospel of Peace" strive among themselves, but, may 
 be, one of their flock, a good " Christian " boatman, 
 who plies across the Yang-tsze-keang, or in the 
 harbour of Canton, may think fit, after taking his 
 fare, first to inquire if you be for " Shin " or for 
 " Shang-Te," ere he consents to spare your life, and 
 to land you safe on shore. 
 
 Such a state of things is partly excusable, perhaps, 
 at the outset of a mission, when everything is strange, 
 and the language is as yet little understood. But 
 when kept up, as it seems to be in this case, it injures 
 materially the cause of Christ's Gospel abroad ; and 
 at home it does, assuredly, no good. 
 
 Here is, for instance, a " life-member of the Parent 
 Society of thirty years' standing," who appears in the 
 ranks with the very best intentions, as a peace-maker, 
 armed with a ploughshare and a pruning-hook, in 
 token of his errand. But while he preaches peace, 
 he does not seem aware that he wounds his neigh- 
 bours right and left, by brandishing around him 
 his peaceful weapons. For, in his zeal, and while 
 sparing no pains to impress upon the Committee of the 
 Bible Society his own very decided preference for 
 " Shin," he blames, in round terms, that benevolent 
 and influential Body for giving a premature verdict 
 against the term of his choice, in order to escape the
 
 other unpleasant alternative of acknowledging them- 
 selves unable to decide the point. And, at page 9, 
 he tells them that " it would have been their wisest 
 course to have cancelled their Resolution, especially 
 after such ample evidence was adduced for ' Shin,' 
 and to have decided at once for this term." "For," 
 says he, "the advocates of 'Shin' had certainly a 
 right to look for this"; but that, on the contrary, 
 "they and their friends were astonished to see the 
 Bible Society still halting between two opinions " 
 (poor limping Body !), "in the face of so much evi- 
 dence," etc. 
 
 Why the Bible Society should " decide at once," to 
 please the advocates of " Shin," in particular, may not 
 appear quite so clear to others as it does to the " life- 
 member." But he must have probed the subject 
 thoroughly. For, with more assurance, perhaps, than 
 charity (page 9), he "thinks the case is now plain 
 enough for any serious-minded, sensible Christian, 
 who is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit 
 of God, to form a sound judgment in this important 
 matter"; a consoling thought, assuredly, for any 
 one who may venture to differ. So that now, who- 
 soever advocates " Shang-Te " instead of " Shin," 
 whether in Pe-tche-li or on the banks of the Thames, 
 may know, that he can lay no claim to being thought 
 either " serious-minded " in his research, " sensible " 
 in his opinion, or " willing to be guided by the Word 
 and Spirit of God" in his decision; if, indeed, he is 
 not altogether wanting in conscientious feeling. For,
 
 at page 10, we further read, that "the advocates of 
 ' Shin' have never wavered or doubted the fitness of 
 that term to render ELOHIM and @EOS, since they en- 
 tered thoroughly into the question, and rightly under- 
 stood it. Therefore, to surrender it for any other 
 name or title, would be to violate their conscience, 
 and disregard the Word of God altogether." How 
 then is it, that if " they have thoroughly entered into 
 the question, and rightly understood it," they have 
 left "out of the question" EL, ELOAH, and 'O 0EOS, 
 three out of the five names for " God " in Scripture ? 
 for they only mention ELOHIM, and EOS. 
 
 " Tantane vos generis tenuit fiducia vestri!" 
 
 But since the "life-member" is at head-quarters, 
 and corresponds with friends in China, he must have 
 had ample opportunity to follow this debate through 
 its successive stages ; and he speaks, no doubt, from 
 book. We regret we are not so fortunate ; for we 
 have no friend engaged in the cause ; and our only 
 source of information, and, therefore, our only 
 authority on this subject, is the pamphlet before 
 us. We can therefore only venture to submit to its 
 author, that it is just possible others than the advo- 
 cates for " Shin" "may have entered thoroughly into 
 the question," may have understood it, at least, as 
 " rightly," and may be as anxious to " do no violence 
 either to their conscience or to the word of God," as 
 the stanchest " Shin "-friend the writer of that pam- 
 phlet may have. For the inuendo at pages 10 and 15,
 
 that scholarship ill accords with conscience, or with 
 an honest desire for the glory of God, deserves no 
 notice, except to show that it retorts upon its author. 
 If it be granted, what, then, may we ask, becomes of 
 those who are so deeply conscientious ? Are they no 
 scholars ? Neither does it follow as a matter of course 
 that, because a man has resided ten years or more in 
 China, he is, therefore, competent to judge. He may 
 have been there longer, and still think Confucius too 
 old, or Mencius too prosy besides they were heathen ! 
 and thus know little of either, and still less of their 
 classical tongue. We have often seen that the case 
 in India, as regards Indian studies. Still less is the 
 question decided by the circumstance alone of "a 
 large majority being in favour of 'Shin.'" For it is 
 an established fact, in Europe, and, we presume, also 
 in China, that the best scholars, and therefore the 
 men best able to be judges in such a case, are by 
 no means plentiful. Unless it be there, as it is in 
 Turkey, where 
 
 " A man who knows much, makes many mistakes." 
 
 With us, at least, such men are to be looked for 
 in the minority ; and it would appear that it is the 
 case also in China : for there, among the " adversa- 
 ries" of " Shin," we notice several men of note ; 
 one especially, Dr. Medhurst, who is well known as a 
 first-rate Chinese scholar. His opinion, whatever it 
 be, is therefore entitled to great deference on any-
 
 8 
 
 thing relating to Chinese literature. For, what is 
 required to meet the question is not breadth, so 
 much as depth. And in the words of the Hindoo 
 poet: 
 
 " Ekashchandro tamo hanti na cha taraganairapi." 
 
 " One moon does more to dispel the gloom than a 
 thousand stars." 
 
 Assertions, or even private opinions, " ad captan- 
 dum" only, will fail to convince men who look below 
 the surface. But they may, as in this case, perhaps, 
 mislead others, who, having no better opportunity to 
 judge for themselves, will, at once and cordially, de- 
 cide on doing "the right thing"; and, as a pious act, 
 freely 
 
 " Dant veniam corvis ; vexat censura columbas." 
 
 It seems, therefore, to be the 'duty of every one 
 who may hope to assist, even a little, in this cause, 
 to do so simply and candidly, with a view to God's 
 glory alone. That is our apology for offering our 
 opinion at all. But we do so with diffidence ; for we 
 run the risk of an encounter with " giants of Gath," 
 in the shape of Committees of men, our seniors in 
 years as well as in learning and experience. They, 
 too, leave us a very forlorn hope of escape, since we 
 are told, at page 10, line 18, that no compromise will 
 do. Either we must side with " Shin," and live, or die 
 with " Shang-Te" ! And yet, to quote the writer's 
 words, we have " no choice left in the matter," but,
 
 with other friends of China, to accept the challenge 
 at page 9, sec. 10, and " see that the truth of God is 
 maintained, and his great and glorious name ho- 
 noured, and not dishonoured in China." 
 
 " Anna parate, animis et spe praesumite bellum !" 
 
 We will, therefore, crave the patient hearing of 
 our readers, while we touch on the " extrema reram " 
 of the case, and lay before them the reasons which 
 have led us, living away from the din of battle of 
 " Shin," to hear of it without alarm, and to judge of 
 the fight for ourselves. However poor the fare, they 
 will have, at all events, something more than a some- 
 what partial view of " Shin v. Shang-Te " to go upon. 
 Unless, indeed, some of them have already made up 
 their mind, like that bencher in Erin, who, would 
 not hear the other side of the question, as it " puzzled 
 him so ! " 
 
 Meanwhile, we would venture to submit to the 
 Committee of the Bible Society, that they need not 
 take alarm. Neither should they be moved to recall, in 
 haste, their former verdict ; and thus hasten their final 
 decision, by the dread of either " giving the Chinese a 
 stone instead of bread," or of incurring a fearful 
 responsibility to God, and the millions of Chinese, 
 who are waiting for "the bread of life" (page 15). 
 The case, we may assure them, is not so desperate. 
 The bread is not "poisonous"; and all the harm 
 " Shang-Te " can do to his own people, is not to be 
 compared with the injury done them by, first, sane-
 
 10 
 
 tioning one reading for the most important word 
 in the whole Bible; and then, after that, expelling 
 it, covered with anathemas. On the contrary, we 
 should say, the Committee of the Bible Society may 
 take credit to themselves for their slow delibera- 
 tion. For, in this case, if ever, the Arabic adage is 
 true 
 
 " In haste lies repentance ; and in moderation, 
 safety." And 
 
 - 
 
 " Patience is the key to joy ; but haste, on the 
 other hand, opens the door to regret." 
 
 II. 
 
 What then, we ask, is our object at present ? It is 
 not, let us hope, to bend the version of Holy Scrip- 
 ture in Chinese, to present circumstances only, by 
 adapting it to the taste, notions, or prejudices of the 
 insurgents. It is, rather, to give the people of China 
 a translation of the "pure milk of the Word," in 
 a style alike acceptable to the educated, and easily 
 understood of the common people : so that they may 
 live and " grow thereby," as long as the Hoang-ho
 
 11 
 
 rolls his wave across the plains of the Middle-king- 
 dom, and there is one man left who speaks only the 
 peculiar idiom of that land. 
 
 Our task, then, is to render faithfully into good 
 Chinese the true meaning of the original Hebrew and 
 Greek texts of Holy Scripture. And that requires, on 
 our part, 
 
 A) A knowledge of the sense of the original text. 
 
 B) A knowledge of the language into which the 
 original text is to be translated. Now 
 
 A) The sense of Holy Scripture may be twofold : 
 a) Literal, and 
 ) Allegorical. 
 
 The allegorical sense, however, is so uncertain, and 
 depends so much on the turn of a man's mind, or on 
 his fancy, that it should be carefully avoided in a 
 printed translation of the Word of God, which ought 
 to speak for itself, and be independent of either 
 note or comment. The allegorical sense is fit for 
 oral instruction alone ; and that again, to older con- 
 verts only. 
 
 In our translation of the original text, then, our 
 bounden duty is, to adhere strictly and devoutly 
 for we have to deal with inspired writings to its 
 
 a) Literal sense, which consists in the meaning 
 attached to it by the author. 
 
 In order to get at that meaning, we must become 
 acquainted with
 
 12 
 
 1 ) The spirit of the original writer. That implies 
 a knowledge of 
 
 2) The language of the original ; and 
 
 The peculiar idiom of that language at the time 
 the author wrote. 
 
 3) The time, 
 
 4) The manners and customs, and 
 
 5) The external circumstances, of the times in 
 which the original author lived. 
 
 On the other hand, a truthful rendering of the 
 literal sense of the original text into another lan- 
 guage, implies 
 
 1) An intimate acquaintance with that language, 
 as it is both written and spoken ; 
 
 2) With the genius, manners, and customs, 
 
 3) The religious tenets, 
 
 4) The ideas, notions, and prejudices, of the peo- 
 ple who speak it. 
 
 Hence it must appear that, in point of learning 
 alone, it is above the power of any one man to bring 
 to perfection the translation of the whole Word of 
 God. Besides, the mind, be it ever so well balanced, 
 will gravitate more or less towards itself, if left long 
 alone ; and the judgment, however correct, must get 
 warped in time, from want of interchange of thought 
 with others. And that must also tell upon the work
 
 13 
 
 of translation, which, as regards the Word of God, 
 requires, above all things and besides a holy mind, 
 consummate judgment. 
 
 A translation of Holy Scripture, therefore, should 
 be the joint work of an assembly of men " moved 
 bythe Holy Ghost," and upheld by prayer, towards 
 the one great object, to give the people, into whose 
 language they translate, the pure Word of God, whole 
 and undefiled. 
 
 But, as the success of a translation greatly de- 
 pends on the spirit in which the men engaged in it 
 labour among the people, it may not be out of place, 
 perhaps, to digress a little, by first making a few 
 preliminary remarks " on the spirit in which we 
 should carry on our intercourse with the heathen." 
 
 III. 
 
 First, then, Who are the heathen ? They are our 
 "brethren, according to the flesh," children like 
 ourselves of the " one God and Father of all," who, 
 " hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to 
 dwell on all the face of the earth." " For we are also 
 his offspring." They are therefore heirs, as well as 
 we, to God's promises in Christ ; but they are " alien- 
 ated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in 
 them, because of the blindness of their heart"; while 
 " by grace we stand."
 
 14 
 
 Secondly, What are they ? They are our brethren, 
 and, like ourselves, some of them are taught, and some 
 are not ; but, generally speaking, they are expert, 
 quick, inquisitive, gentle, willing to be led, and 
 often abundantly learned. As 'to their moral sense, 
 it is either blunted or altogether lost, since it depends 
 on their religious belief, which, among the educated, 
 is a kind of esoteric worship, based on ancient writ- 
 ings and codes of morals ; while among the common 
 people it is only a system of gross, and, to them, 
 unmeaning rites. 
 
 But even the wise among them, as the holy Apos- 
 tle says, "by wisdom know not God." Confucius, for 
 instance (Sh. Lun. iv. 1), not knowing what to think 
 of "Shin" "puh yu kwae, li, Iwan, Shin" spoke of it 
 no more than of magic, fighting, or revolt. And yet, 
 constrained by the irresistible "law written in his 
 heart," he says (ibid. ii. 1), "Tse joo tsae! Tse Shin joo 
 Shintsae!" "Worship (or sacrifice) as if it were a 
 reality; worship 'Shin,' as if 'Shin' were present!" 
 Mencius, on the other hand, declares, that we re- 
 ceive no good from any one but ourselves, " puh wai," 
 and says (Sh. Mang. iii. 6), that "man has in himself 
 the four principles of good." While Plato (Phsed. 
 c. 78), seems to give it up in despair, when (saying, 
 " It is most difficult, if not altogether impossible for 
 us to know in this life, TO o-a</>e<?, the truth, on which 
 we may rely and be safe") he adds, "We must either 
 find out wherein it lies ; or, if that be impossible, we 
 must follow the best opinions of men, and risk upon
 
 15 
 
 that, as upon a raft, our passage through life. Unless, 
 indeed, some one could discover a safer and less 
 dangerous conveyance, % \6<yov Oeiov TWOS, or, better 
 still, some divine Word." The state of even such 
 men among the heathen, is well told by the Buddhist, 
 (Kah-gyur. vol. ii. Rgyatch. c. xiii.), who compares 
 
 " Srid las hbyun la ' hgro * va * rtag * tu rmons I 
 I Vum par chhud pai win va hk'hor va yjin " 1 1 
 
 the ignorant state of beings in this world to " bees 
 buzzing inside a glass vase." 
 
 Yet, amid the gloom that surrounds them, some of 
 those poor creatures "feel after God, if haply they 
 may find Him ; for, in truth, He is not far from 
 them." We well remember a certain festival of 
 Doorga, in Bengal. We were standing with a vene- 
 rable Brahman, by the sacred stream, on which 
 images of the goddess were carried in boats with 
 great pomp, and then thrown into the river, amid 
 the shouts of the multitude. We pointed to one of 
 them, and said to our learned friend : " Dwija ! 
 behold your gods ! You see them first made with 
 hands, and then cast into the river." He made a 
 significant gesture, and replied in his own sacred 
 tongue : " Kim etad Mahashaya, kim ? shalabhanji, k'hara, 
 kashtam ityadi kevalam! Murk'hanam etad asti; na cha 
 panditanam." "What is that, Sir? What! a doll, 
 straw, wood, or anything else you like. It is all very 
 well for stupid folks, but assuredly not for the wise." 
 And then he quoted, with great emphasis, these
 
 16 
 
 beautiful lines out of the "Laws of Maim" (ch. i. 5 
 -7):- 
 
 " Asididam tamobhutam, apragyatam, alak'shanam, | 
 Apratarkyam, avigyeyam, prasuptam iva sarvata: ." 1 1 
 
 " Tata: Swayambhur Bhagavan avyakto vyanjayan-n-idam i 
 Mahabhutadi, vrittauja: pradurasit tamonuda: ." 1 1 
 
 " Jo savatindriyagrahya: , suk'shmo g vyakta: , sanatana: , | 
 Sarvabhutamayo ? chintya: , sa eva swayam utbabhau : ." 1 1 
 
 " This world was as yet in darkness, imperceptible, 
 undefinable, undiscoverable by reason, indiscernible, 
 as if it were altogether asleep." 
 
 " Then He who exists by Himself (nJ!T " 1'Eter- 
 nel"), the Most High, who is Himself imperceptible, 
 He made this world, composed of great elements, per- 
 ceptible. He, the Almighty, showed Himself, and 
 dispelled the gloom." 
 
 " He, whose nature is beyond our reach ; whose 
 essence escapes our senses; who is indiscernible, but 
 eternal ; He, the All-pervading Spirit, whom the 
 mind even cannot grasp, even He shone forth Him- 
 self." 
 
 Thirdly, What are we who thus take upon ourselves 
 to teach the heathen ? We are their brethren. To us 
 the oracles of God have been intrusted, that, pro- 
 fiting by them ourselves, we should make them known 
 to our Gentile brethren. If, therefore, we be " con- 
 fident that we ourselves are guides of the blind," 
 let us see, first, how and which way to lead them. 
 If we give ourselves as " a light to them which are
 
 17 
 
 in darkness," let us see, next, that our " light shines 
 before" them. It will not, then, be necessary to 
 thrust our "smoking flax" into their eyes, in order 
 " that they may see our good works." But, behold- 
 ing them, they will, as St. Paul says, " falling down 
 on their faces, worship God, and report that God is 
 in us of a truth." For it cannot be, surely, that 
 
 c: -w.Li.vj 
 
 *-**-2> 
 
 " The lamp that gives light should itself stand in 
 the dark." 
 
 Thus impressed with our responsibility as teachers 
 of men, who are to receive their first impressions of 
 what is holy and good from us, we will act with 
 wisdom, and consult the law of kindness, in our 
 intercourse with them. We will, then 
 
 Fourthly, Address them as brethren, who are as 
 yet strangers to us, as well as we to them. Wisdom, 
 then, will teach us to make ourselves acquainted, at 
 first, with what our ignorant brethren may believe 
 or think in common with us, in order, as it were, 
 to lessen the distance that separates us; and at once 
 to try and draw nearer to them in love. By thus 
 meeting them on their own ground, as a pledge to 
 them of our good- will, we shall induce them to listen 
 to us, as the first step towards their coming over to our 
 side. For it is only by beginning at what they know 
 and believe as well as we, that we, who have preju- 
 dices as well as they, can avoid giving needless
 
 18 
 
 offence to theirs : thus gain their confidence, and 
 then teach them what we know and believe, in order 
 to make them one with us in the knowledge of Christ. 
 They, too, have a religion as well as we ; but their 
 religion is that of Cicero (de Nat. D. ii. 28), " a rele- 
 gendo," "vain repetitions"; as for instance (Laws 
 of Manu, ch. ii. 79, 82,)- 
 
 " Sahasrakritwastwabhyasya vahir etat trikam, dwija:, | 
 Mahato,^ pyenaso masat, twachevahir vimuchyate." |] 
 
 " The twice-born Brahman, who shall have repeated 
 these three (' Om,' the ' vyahritis/ and the 'gayatri'), 
 a thousand times, apart from men, shall, in a month, 
 be released from a great offence, as a serpent is from his 
 slough." Let us, then, show them, with kindness, that 
 our religion consists in changing only two letters in 
 theirs, in order to make it, as Lactantius (lib. iv. 28) 
 says, "a religando," the religion that will bind their 
 hearts " arctis relligionum nodis," (Lucr. i. 931,) 
 with ours in the fear of God. 
 
 677 of) >br> fnun fo3f> 
 
 " Bring back the wandering sheep to the fold with 
 kind words : when once they are in, then give them 
 the .lesson," says the Jewish adage, quoted by Rabbi 
 S. Jarchi, in his Com. on Eccles. iii. 7. 
 
 One or two examples will suffice to illustrate what 
 we mean. 
 
 If, for instance, we attempt to bring a Buddhist
 
 19 
 
 " to have faith in God," let us at once fix his at- 
 tention, by quoting his own authority on the point 
 (Kah-gyur. vol. iv. Kgyatch. c. iv.), and remind him 
 that, according to his own showing, " faith " is the 
 very first of the one-hundred-and-eight doors of 
 entrance to true religion. 
 
 " Grogs po dag dad pa * ni ch'hos snan pai sgo ste I 
 I Bsam pa mi phyed par hgyur ro | " 
 
 "Friends !" said Byang-ch'hub-sems-d'pah, " faith is 
 indeed a door to the doctrine of morals (religion) : it 
 renders the mind undivided." And that 
 
 " Dad * pai stovs ni ch'hos snan * pai * sgo ste I 
 
 I Bdud kyi stovs las yan dag pad hdah var * gyur ro i " 
 
 " The power of faith is a door to religion : it 
 enables us to escape clean out of the power of the 
 devil," etc. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we have to do with a Taouist, 
 let us introduce to him our doctrine of the " Word," 
 who " in the beginning was with God," and " in whom 
 is life," and gain a hearing by quoting this remarkable 
 passage in his own chief, Lao-tsze, on the Taou, or 
 .40709, ch. i : " Taou ko-taou, fei ch'hang. Taou wo-ming, 
 T'heen-Tih che chin." " The Taou (6 ^6709) that can be 
 expressed in words is not the eternal Taou. The Taou 
 that is not named is the origin of heaven and earth." 
 And ch. iv. : " Tsian hi! sse ch'hang thsun! wo pun 
 chi sui-che tsze. Seang Te-che sean !" " Oh how subtle
 
 20 
 
 He is ! He seems to have existed for ever. I know 
 not whose son He is. He appears to have been 
 before Te!" 
 
 If, again, we have to deal with a disciple of Con- 
 fucius, on the subject of " good works," and wish to 
 bring him round to hear of the only principle of good 
 morals " the fear of God," we may prepare him 
 for further instruction by reminding him of his mas- 
 ter's words (Ch. Yung. c. xxix. 4) : " Keun-tsze chi 
 choo Kwei-Shin eul wo ee. Chi T'heen yay; pe shin i 
 sse Shing-jin eul puh hwe." " The wise, or superior, 
 man, in his daily life, realizes the constant presence 
 of Spirits, without any doubt. He acquaints himself 
 with Heaven, and looks forward without anxiety to 
 the coming of the Holy Man (' ev dvBpl & &>/jwe.' Acts 
 xviii. 31), at the end of the world!" We might 
 also turn to account the remarks of Teng-thoiii-'an, 
 who points to the four things in this chapter of 
 the Ch. Yung, which build up man's virtue : 1) 
 Khao, " rule of conduct borrowed from antiquity 
 (the Word of God)"; 2) Kiau, "conformity to 
 Heaven (love God), and to Earth (and thy neigh- 
 bour)"; 3) Chi, "witness of the Spirits (good con- 
 science)"; and, 4) Sze, "expectation of the Holy 
 Man (final reward of good works)." (See A. Re- 
 musat's ed. pages 367, 422, etc.) Surely, those are 
 materials to work upon, and ready to hand. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we address a Brahman on "the 
 nature of God," we may open the book (Bhagavad-gita, 
 c. x. 19, 20, 23), and bid him read what Bhagavan
 
 21 
 
 says of himself : " Hear Arjuna ! ' Nasti anta vis- 
 tarasya me ! ' There is no limit to my amplitude ! " 
 
 " Aham atma, Gurhakesha ! sarvabhutashayast'hita: ; | 
 Aham adishcha, madiancha, bhutanam anta eva-cha." 1 1 
 
 " I am the spirit dwelling in the bodies of all 
 beings : I am the beginning, the middle, as well as 
 the end of them." 
 
 " Ak'hsaranam akaro f smi, dwandwa: samasikasya-cha I 
 Aham evak'hsaya: kalo, dhataham Vishwatomuk'ha." J I 
 
 " Among the letters I am A (' eyd> ei/u TO A'}, the 
 copula in compounds ; I am endless time ; the omni- 
 present Preserver of all things." 
 
 "Ahan sarvasya Prabhavo; matta: sarvam pravartate." | 
 
 u I am the Author of all, and by me all things 
 consist," etc. 
 
 In thus borrowing from the heathen every useful 
 doctrine or sentiment they may possibly have in 
 common with us, we shall " start fair" with them, to 
 lead them onwards to God. In so doing we shall 
 only follow the example of our great chiefs, the holy 
 Apostles ; and that, too, both in preaching and writing. 
 
 &) As regards preaching. Behold St. Paul on 
 Mars' hill, at Athens, surrounded by sharp and in- 
 quisitive Greeks. He does not insult them by railing 
 at their tutelary goddess ATHENE, as she stood glit- 
 tering on high before him, within her marble walls,
 
 22 
 
 on the summit of her Acropolis. He does not need- 
 lessly offend their prejudices, by trampling under 
 foot her images, nor by throwing down the first 
 altar he meets with in his progress through the city. 
 Far from it. In his unprejudiced love, he makes him- 
 self " all things to all men," without risk of principle, 
 "that he may by all means save some." He there- 
 fore addresses his audience so as to gain their good- 
 will, and to rivet their attention. He does not flatter 
 them, but he takes them " des veniam bonus, oro," 
 "by the smooth handle." He tells them they are 
 even too much addicted to the worship of the gods. 
 " For, as I passed by," says the holy Apostle, " I be- 
 held your devotions; I found an altar with this in- 
 scription, 'TO THE UNKNOWN GOD/" That is 
 his text. He then proceeds : " Whom, therefore, 
 ye ignorantly worship ; Him declare I unto you ! " 
 Wonderful tact ! For St. Paul, no doubt, knew the 
 circumstances of the "<&/uol avfowpoi" (Diog. Laert. 
 i. 10, 3) if he meant one of men. If he alluded to one 
 of the many altars with this inscription, &EOIS. 
 KAI. ETPfZIIHS. KAI. AIBTHS. QEfli. 
 KAI. HENfli. (see Carpzov. Antiq. Sac. 
 Cod. pp. 84, 85, and 476, seq.), he did not, at all 
 events, apply at once the words, " r& 'Ajvdaa-TM @e&>," 
 to 'Jaw, IT, but he applied them to their rightful 
 owner, to "the God" of those to whom he was going 
 to preach "the true God." So also, in order to im- 
 press his hearers with his doctrine, he does not quote 
 from the Targums, of which they knew nothing.
 
 23 
 
 But ke quotes from some of u their own poets," and 
 takes as witnesses to the truth of his teaching, no 
 less a man than the Athenian Cleanthes, and his own 
 countryman Aratus himself. " You must believe what 
 I, a stranger, say; for I only repeat what certain of 
 your own poets have said, Tov yap Kal 70/09 eV/ieV, ' We 
 are also his offspring.'" Whose offspring? Of "the 
 God" they ignorantly worshipped : and who is He? 
 Aratus says (Pha9n. i. 1 5) : 
 
 'Efc Albs dpXGt)/J,ecr0a 
 
 TrdvTrj Se Albs Ke'^prjp^Oa Trdvref 
 TOV jap Kal 761/09 eifjiev 
 
 And Cleanthes (Hymn, in Jov. i. 5) : 
 
 KvSiar ddavdrav, Tro\vu>w^e Trary/cpaTes dcel 
 Zev, 0uc 
 
 K (TOV yap 76VO9 efffjAv - 
 
 While Plato (Timaeus, sec. 6, ed. Bek.) reminds those 
 same Athenians, that they were living in the land 
 first chosen by their tutelary goddess ; and that they 
 were governed by laws which made them excel all 
 
 Other nations in merit, " Ka0d Trep et/co9 yewr/para Kal 
 
 TraifevfjLara Oewv 6Wa9," " as it behoved men born of 
 gods and brought up by them." Those words were 
 familiar to the people of Athens, who claimed their 
 origin from him, of whom they said themselves that he 
 was " Ilarrjp dvSp&v re 0ewv re" ( Sch. in Arat. 5. Horn. 
 II. a. 544, etc.) Zev9, "50ev e%o/iei/ del TO tfjv" (Stob. 
 Eel. Phys. i. 2, 24.) He was Diespiter, sc. Dius-pater, 
 Jupiter, in short ; the " unknown God " preached by
 
 24 
 
 St. Paul himself. Hear that, ye worshippers of 
 "Shin"! 
 
 We see, then, how the Apostle, having won his 
 audience by showing them that they as well as he 
 were brethren, children of the "unknown God," 
 whose servant he was, brings round his heathen 
 hearers from the worship of their own gods, to that of 
 the only true God. They listen attentively. They even 
 quietly bear being told they must " not think that the 
 Godhead is like unto their Gods" ; but that they ought 
 " to repent," and " to prepare for the judgment to 
 come." They hear of the " Just Judge" as of " that 
 Man whom God hath ordained," and through Him 
 of " the resurrection of the dead." So that the same 
 men who exclaimed, at first, " What will this babbler 
 say ?" now begged they might hear him again; while 
 others "clave unto him, and believed"; and (Lucian. 
 Philopatr. ad fin.), with Triephon, said : " f H/-iefr rov ev 
 J A8ijvcu<$ * 'Aryvwcrrov e(f>ev pomes, icai 7rpo(rtcuvr)a-avTe<;, %eipa<; 
 elf ovpavbv e/cretVai/re?, TOVTO) ev^apKmjaofjLev^ to? /carat&>- 
 devres TOIOVTOV tcpdrovs VTTIJKOOI yeveaOai." " For Our part, 
 
 having found the ' UNKNOWN GOD' of Athens, and 
 having worshipped Him, we will, with our hands lifted 
 up to heaven, thank Him for our having been thought 
 worthy to be made obedient to such a power as His." 
 
 b] As St. Paul sets us the example in preaching, 
 so also does St, John, especially, show us how to 
 write for the heathen. What could be more hea- 
 thenish (since it was heretical as well), than the
 
 25 
 
 use of the word 46709, originally borrowed from the 
 Greek school, and made an aeon by the Gnostics, who 
 were already numerous at Ephesus, where St. John 
 wrote ? or yet the Platonic terms, ap^n, ^01/070^5, gsw/, 
 $cw9, and Trvevfui, all of Gnostic stamp ? But for that 
 very reason, and because St. John was writing to 
 refute the impious tenets of those heretics, he adopts 
 their own expressions, to show them what was the 
 apxn, and what the ^0709, and the fatf, and the <<S9, are 
 in truth ; and he opens his Gospel, written for them 
 especially, with these imposing words : " Ev apxp fy o 
 4.0709." Had he adopted the style of St. Matthew, 
 who, for instance, wrote for Jews, he would have 
 missed his aim, and said nothing directly, to reach at 
 once the most prevalent heresy in his day. But, 
 under the guidance of the HOLY-GHOST, he made plain 
 to them, not that " JESUS is the Son of David" for 
 that did not concern them much but, that He is 
 640709, "the Word" of GOD, "by whom, indeed, all 
 things were made"; that He exists / apxfj, "from 
 the beginning"; that He is 6 nov&yevrjs, "the only be- 
 gotten"; j SCOT}, "the life"; and TO <9, "the light," 
 which sheds abroad among men, TO Tn/eO/tta, "the 
 Spirit," or divine light and life. 
 
 Such examples as those show us plainly that it is 
 no easy matter to become " thoroughly furnished" 
 unto the work of " preaching among the Gentiles 
 the unsearchable riches of Christ." Good intentions 
 alone are not enough to make "good workmen" that 
 " need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word
 
 26 
 
 of truth"; who, while they move among a class of 
 men, " del i/revarat, /catca Orjpia, ycKTrepes dpyal" " are 
 yet able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to 
 convince the gain say ers." We enjoy no longer the 
 apostolic gifts of tongues and of miracles. We have 
 human powers and human energies only given us, 
 as instruments to work under God, and for Him. 
 We therefore come far, far behind the holy Apostles, 
 although in the same field of labour. And yet we 
 think sometimes we may improve upon what they 
 did, and accomplish more with less trouble ! 
 
 " ego nee studium sine divite vena, 
 
 Nee rude, quid possit, video ingenium : alterius sic 
 Altera poscit opem res, et conjurat amice. 
 Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, 
 Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit ; 
 Abstinuit Venere et vino," 
 
 Says Horace ; " ercelvoi /j,ev ovv Iva (f>0aprbv crrtyavov \d- 
 ficoviv, ^efc Be a<f)0apTov" says St. Paul, who, in the 
 discharge of his apostolic office, made good use of the 
 learning he had acquired at the feet of Gamaliel, as 
 plain " Saul of Tarsus." He sanctified his knowledge 
 in the using. 
 
 " But," says, perhaps, some one who thinks so much 
 study for the work of the ministry needless, " it pleases 
 God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them 
 that believe." So be it. But, that is not "by the 
 preaching of foolishness." We have to preach Christ
 
 27 
 
 crucified, and Him alone, "the wisdom of God and 
 the power of God." That is all, and that is enough 
 when it is done. But that is the question. And as 
 a hint for private thought elsewhere than in India, 
 or China, Do we preach HIM as HE is, or do we 
 preach our own views of HIM ? and do we, " like wise 
 master-builders," really contribute to the edification 
 of his Holy Church, by laying no stubble, but only 
 precious stones " upon the foundation of the Apostles 
 and Prophets, JESUS CHRIST Himself being the chief 
 corner-stone"? Pearls are precious things; but we 
 may, incautiously, cast them before swine. And the 
 " Word of God," which we all claim as our weapon, 
 is indeed " sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing 
 even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit." 
 But, let us bear in mind, that " the sword" is not 
 the " drill" for it. This comes first. For if the 
 arm that holds the sword be dead, or paralyzed, or 
 even untaught, what happens? Either the soldier 
 cannot grasp the hilt; or, if he does, he fancies he 
 fights, but it is only "as beating the air"; for he 
 neither knows where nor how to strike. So that, 
 after great exertions on his part, he sinks exhausted; 
 but his foe rises unhurt, and the battle has yet to 
 be won. 
 
 Who, then, is sufficient for these things ? Speaking 
 earnestly, and from experience, we say very few. 
 And yet, unless things have much improved of late 
 years, what is sometimes the case, as regards mis- 
 sionaries? Men, from whatever cause, are scarce, or
 
 28 
 
 unwilling to go out. And while, as Rabbi Tarphon 
 (Pirke Av. ii. 15), says : pmS POK^bni TOp D171 
 PDT1 TDBTn &h)& ErSjWl " The day is short and 
 the work is increased; yet the workmen are slow, 
 though the reward be great"; and missionaries are 
 recruited from whence they can be had. Until lately, 
 a boy who was too dull to learn a trade, was at once 
 destined by his fond parents to become the promising 
 schoolmaster of the village. And we might mention 
 like instances of men sent abroad, with very good in- 
 tentions, no doubt, and on a fair salary too, to "do 
 something" as preachers of the Gospel in India or 
 China, who, having perhaps tried their abilities at 
 some common-place occupation at home, had com- 
 pletely failed. We do not attach blame to any one in 
 particular. We only wish to combat the somewhat 
 prevalent and very erroneous idea that, " because, 
 for instance, a man could not 'get on' in the Church 
 at home, he may do well enough for the heathen 
 abroad." He is out of sight, certainly ; but that is all. 
 For, if " to do well" means to plant or to build up 
 the Church of Christ among the heathen, we can 
 assure our readers that a missionary requires, if pos- 
 sible, better training, more learning, more judgment, 
 more tact, more patience, more perseverance, for his 
 work, than most clergymen at home ; although these 
 even cannot well do without a fair allowance of the 
 latter qualities especially. What happens, however ? 
 Some men arrive in India, and, we fear, also in China, 
 as missionaries, who are less able and worse informed
 
 29 
 
 than the first educated native they meet with. This 
 one turns out rather too quick, too sharp, and, 
 perhaps, too learned also ; and he soon finds out who 
 is the abler of the two. He then, civilly 
 
 " naso suspendit adunco 
 Ignotum" 
 
 and walks away with a smile from the man of God, 
 and from his cause. 
 
 Thence come, humanly speaking, the failures which, 
 apart from the irresistible effects of climate, seem to 
 mark the progress of some missionaries abroad. They 
 go forth into the finest field of labour, " already white 
 to harvest," to follow men, who, after having spent 
 their life in " turning many to righteousness," already 
 "shine like stars" in the Eastern firmament. But 
 because they " count no cost," perhaps, but that of the 
 journey, and because they do not weigh beforehand 
 
 "quid ferre recusent," 
 " Quid valeant humeri," 
 
 when they begin to work, they find themselves 
 unequal to their task. Thence too it is, that, among 
 the number of converts in such countries as India 
 and China, we hear of so few "Areopagites," and 
 that " honourable councillors " are fewer still. For it 
 is easier, we allow, to scatter tracts in abundance, 
 and innumerable copies of the Bible, among a multi- 
 tude always ready to receive, than to convince one 
 educated man who is a gainsayer, by bringing home 
 to him the error of his ways. And yet, in those
 
 30 
 
 countries, the multitude is only the lump, and educa- 
 ted or privileged men among them are the leaven. 
 Unless we be satisfied with unleavened bread alone, 
 we cannot leave these out. They are, through their 
 influence, as it were, the "head" of the people. 
 Nowhere more so than in China. And in India, one 
 single converted Brahman will influence the whole of 
 his heathen village, far more than the whole of that 
 village, if converted, could influence him, alone, and 
 still addicted to his Brahmanical rights. As, when out 
 on a foraging expedition, we may clear some brush- 
 wood, and throw down a few mud-huts ; but the 
 country is not ours until its fortresses are taken. 
 When they fall, the rest follows ; not until then. 
 Now, in India, the Brahmanical caste, especially, 
 and, in China, philosophy and national associations 
 of nearly four thousand years, are strongholds which, 
 as yet, have proved impregnable. And, one might 
 almost say, their garrisons deserve well of their coun- 
 try for defending them so well and so long ; though 
 it has been against an inferior force ; if not, against 
 an army partly disorganized. 
 
 " But," says some well-meaning man, " though we 
 walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For 
 the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty 
 through God to the pulling down of strong-holds." 
 So they are, thank God ! for no other weapons could 
 avail. But good weapons do not, of themselves, make 
 good soldiers. These must " endure hardness" and 
 " strive lawfully." Besides, there must be union in
 
 the camp ; there must be a well-concerted plan of 
 attack, and unity of action among the besiegers, led 
 by able officers, under one master-mind. If not, then 
 after a protracted siege and sundry defeats, the be- 
 siegers are at last, perhaps, obliged either to raise 
 the siege, or to ask the besieged city to capitulate, for 
 they cannot take it ! " Well ! " says another, " but 
 we have- this treasure in earthen vessels, that the ex- 
 cellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." 
 Certainly; for what excellency or power could we 
 arrogate to ourselves? But who said that? Not a 
 raw recruit, but an Apostle, who, though he was 
 inspired, yet thought no better of himself! We, 
 however, are but plain "men," to whom it pleases 
 God to grant a certain measure of His grace, in order 
 to enable us to do a little. We cannot, therefore, 
 presume, a priori, on obtaining supernatural gifts. 
 Neither can we possibly be excused for going to 
 " fight the good fight of faith," unless we have, first, 
 done our best as men, to test our strength, to fit our 
 harness, and to try the temper of our sword. And 
 then, but only then, like faithful soldiers of Christ, 
 before going forth to fight under His banner, (and 
 not every man his own way,) let us on our knees 
 receive His blessing; and then we may safely place 
 with Him alone the issue of the battle. 
 
 We all have heard of the young preacher, who, 
 treated his village congregation to what, in the 
 country, is called a "high," or "fine" sermon. After 
 service, a village dame was overheard saying to one
 
 32 
 
 of her friends : " A mighty fine sermon that ! " 
 "Sure!" replied the other. "Ah, yes!" said the 
 first, " that blessed word ' Mesopotamia,' it does me 
 good!" It is often so, we know, even where the 
 minister and his people have the same ideas and 
 language in common. How, then, is it in China, 
 where, the spoken language is so hard to master, and 
 the people differ from a preacher of the Gospel, 
 "toto coelo"; since they look upon him in the light 
 of a "demon" addressing them, the "Celestials"? 
 " Reported,"" Doing well ! " 
 
 IV. 
 
 The foregoing remarks will, we believe, abundantly 
 show, that, in our intercourse with the heathen, 
 whether by word or in writing, we must be able to 
 borrow their own ideas, if we wish to make ourselves 
 understood of them. This general rule bears directly 
 on the work more immediately before us ; that of 
 
 c) Translation, which is, generally speaking, the 
 rendering of, sometimes, new ideas, expressed in a lan- 
 guage unknown to a particular people, into the lan- 
 guage, and through ideas, for the most part in familiar 
 use, among that people. It is, in short, rendering 
 one idiom into another. A good translation, there- 
 fore, is literal, that is, idiomatical; not verbal.
 
 33 
 
 Hence, clearly, if we wish to impart to a people 
 new ideas, we must do it through the medium of 
 those they already have. We must, therefore, adopt 
 a style both correct and familiar to them, and avoid 
 as much as possible the use of words of rare oc- 
 currence in the language, or altogether foreign to it. 
 
 But in no translation is this rule to be more strictly 
 observed than in that of Holy Scripture; although 
 there is at times, we know, great difficulty in chosing 
 appropriate terms in a language which is, as it were, 
 twofold, one, written, for the educated ; and the 
 other, spoken, for the common people. And to no 
 word in Holy Scripture do the above remarks apply 
 more particularly than to the term " God." It exists 
 in every language, and we must find it there. For we 
 do not wish to teach " a strange God," but only, the 
 right worship of " the God," theirs, as well as ours, 
 whom they ignorantly worship. 
 
 Therefore, in the choice of a term to express " God," 
 it behoves us, first, to consider well what is the one 
 leading idea contained in the original term ; and, 
 after that, to try and find, in the language of the 
 people for whom we translate, a corresponding term, 
 and choose the one that comes nearest to the original. 
 It cannot but be a name for the " unknown God" ; for 
 the heathens have no other ; since they worship, they 
 "know not what." This term, if inadequate, must, at 
 all events, be appropriate; and then it may be brought 
 to mean " the known, the only true God." It may 
 then be raised from being the common name of a
 
 34 
 
 dumb idol perhaps, to be the cry of adoption from 
 a Christian people, to the "living and true God." 
 St. Paul, we see, "raised," by his preaching, the "un- 
 known god," Jupiter, in the eyes of the Athenians, 
 to the supreme office of both Creator and Judge. 
 Thereby showing the fallacy of the specious reason- 
 ing, that, because "a name" has been at any time 
 applied to an idol god, it ought not, therefore, to be 
 used in order to express the name of " the only true 
 God." 
 
 The writer of "Shin v. Shang-Te" (page 4, sec. 2), 
 seems to quote Exod. xxiii. 13, " Make no mention 
 of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard 
 out of thy mouth," in support of this assumption ; 
 but, as it appears to us, wrongly. For this com- 
 mand was given to the Israelites, the peculiar people 
 of God, who were leaving an idolatrous country, to take 
 possession of another country, quite as idolatrous, 
 under singular circumstances. They were to continue 
 in that land, the sole worshippers of the true God, in 
 the midst of heathen nations, with which they were 
 to hold no intercourse at all ; but which, on the con- 
 trary, they were to exterminate. Therefore, clearly, 
 for them to swear allegiance to one of the idols of 
 Egypt, or of Canaan, by calling upon it by name, 
 would have been "high treason" in an Israelite to- 
 wards JEHOVAH, not only his " God," but, at that time, 
 also, his only "King." The case is not, therefore, 
 parallel ; nor does the passage above quoted, seem to 
 bear on the subject.
 
 But the case, we anticipate, would be similar, if 
 the children of Israel had not been a " peculiar 
 people," if they had been allowed to mingle with 
 the Egyptians and with the Canaanites, and had been 
 charged to make " their own God " known among 
 those nations. The head of a family or a Levite, 
 in his teaching, would, doubtless, have chosen the 
 words already in use for " God " ; or he would 
 have adopted "JEHOVAH" only. In Egypt, he would 
 have spoken of God, not as " ELOHIM," who was " a 
 strange god" to the Egyptians, but as <f>t " Phnuti," 
 o @e6<?, the name by which He is designated in the 
 oldest monuments ; and by which, also, " ELOHIM" is 
 rendered in the Egyptian version of Holy Scripture, 
 e. g., Ps. Ixxxii. 1, "A. cjyl- oeieparq J)eij tcruArtorH 
 N umort, o 6eo? (Phnuti) etm; ev (T^) (ruvcvyayyf} (rfav) 
 6ewv" (an ni nuti); and ver. 6, "AHOK AIXOC xe 
 iJGOJTew 2AMNOvt*, ya> dira, @eot core," etc. It IS 
 also highly probable that " ' Jepo/i/SaXo? 6 le/aev? &eov 
 TOV 'levcb" (Sanchon. ed. Orell. p. 2.) " Jerubbaal, who 
 is Gideon," in his discussions with Sanchoniatho of 
 Berytus, not only talked over, with him, the worship 
 of Sanchoniatho's patron God, Baal-Beryt (Baal-Be- 
 rith, Judges viii.), but that he also adopted the word 
 Sjn "Ba'al," "Lord"; or, may be, [wWl " Ba'al- 
 Shamajin" (BeeXo-a^v, Bochart, Opp. t. i. col. 706, 
 and Plaut. Pcen. in Movers Pun. texte, p. 55, 129, 
 seqq. etc.), "Lord of Heaven"; the name of the 
 highest deity of that land, in order to render 
 " ELOHIM." Unless, indeed, he chose rather to men-
 
 36 
 
 tion Him as " IL," known in Canaan as the name of a 
 god, and probably derived from " EL." 
 
 When, therefore, the writer of "Shin v. Shang-Te" 
 (page 10, line 1), says truly that "JEHOVAH has 
 sworn that He will not give his name to idols and 
 false gods" (for that no god but He is to be called 
 by that ineffable name), he does not seem aware 
 of the position in which he places himself and his 
 friends, by adding, "neither will He, by parity of 
 reason, be called by their names." For, if that be the 
 case, and if so be, not, that the Israelites were, of 
 old, but that we Gentiles are, at present, forbidden 
 to mention or record the names of heathen gods" 
 (page 9), what, then, may we ask, are we to do? 
 Since the ineffable name of God, JEHOVAH, is not to 
 be used promiscuously for " ELOHIM," God, (and it 
 would be unscriptural to do so,) what remains, but 
 to invent a new name ? for even "ELOHIM" would 
 not be admissible, since it is often, even in the Bible, 
 applied to idols. 
 
 According to the above assumption, therefore, even 
 "ELOHIM" will not do; much less eo?, and least of 
 all " Shin," which, belongs to worse gods than 
 " Shang-Te"; and they may never be used in order 
 to designate GOD, whose name is " JEHOVAH." Nay, 
 if the writer of "Shin v. Shang-Te" be consistent with 
 himself, he dares not even adopt the word " God," 
 which, does not express either "EL," "ELOHIM," 
 or " 6 eo? "; does not mean " Shin " ; and was once 
 given to a " false god," like every other term of equal
 
 37 
 
 import among other nations. But, whether El, Eloah, 
 Elohim, Allah, Khailah, Dekhaleta, Aloho, Div, Devas, 
 Dms, Zeus, Theos, Brahma, or Paraparan; Khuda, 
 Guth, Gott, Pernti, Ghmert, Asdwadz, Atua, Yaincoa, 
 Kami, Apkha-i-edchen, Bochdai, Andriamanitra, Bogh, 
 or Buh ; P'harah, or P'hara-cho ; Waca, Phnuti, Amlak, 
 az Isten, Dkon-mch'hog, Ahura-mazdao, Shin, or 
 Shang-Te, and other names for " God," in universal 
 use, they are all, as deservedly as " Ba'al, Jove, or 
 Jupiter," "to perish out of the earth," (p. 10, line 3,) 
 for they all have been at one time, and some are 
 even now, given to false gods. 
 
 We feel we are free from the charge of "treating this 
 as a light matter, with which conscience and the word 
 of God have little or nothing to do" (page 10, line 5). 
 Nor is it with us a "question of mere philology"; 
 God forbid ! Our readers may see that we are sparing 
 of etymologies. We treat the question, if not ably, at 
 all events, honestly and earnestly, with no other mo- 
 tive than to come at the truth, and thus to con- 
 tribute to the glory of GOD, by promoting the know- 
 ledge of HIM alone among the heathen. We, there- 
 fore, look upon the writer's assertion (as far as we 
 understand it, at least), that "the only true God 
 4 Jehovah,' is not to be called by names once given 
 to false gods," as borne out neither by Scripture nor 
 by patent facts. But, on the contrary, we find that 
 the right and only term for " God," in any particular 
 nation, is to be looked for, found, and used in that 
 nation alone.
 
 38 
 
 For, in reality, there is nothing inherent in the 
 names of Ba'al, Jove, Jupiter, or Shang-Te, which 
 are all expressions of the highest respect and 
 adoration for the " unknown God," ignorantly wor- 
 shipped, to make it imperative that those names 
 " should all perish out of the earth." Their images, 
 yes ! the degrading rites of their impious worship, by 
 which the earth has been denied, yes ! the legends of 
 their fabulous deeds, yes ! let them perish to all eter- 
 nity, that the name of " God who is blessed for ever," 
 be alone exalted in the earth. But those names are 
 in themselves pure. If, therefore, Cadmus or San- 
 choniatho, in Phoenicia ; Amenophis, at Thebes ; or 
 E-yun, in China, wished to retain the names of their 
 chief divinities, Ba'al, Amoun-Phtah, or Shang-Te, 
 they might, of course, do so; provided they would 
 abjure the worship of those gods. 
 
 For the question is not, after all, what the name for 
 " God" is, but, first, what the idea is which, the term 
 already in use conveys to the people; and, -secondly, 
 what the idea is which, is to be conveyed to them in 
 the translation. Now, this idea is to be, the correct 
 notion of the only true God who is Three in ONE, 
 and " besides whom there is none else." 
 
 But it must occur to every one that, a correct idea 
 of ONE GOD could only exist, a priori, among the 
 people which, alone, knew God as such, i. e., " the 
 people of God." Among other nations, therefore, 
 which are, or were, all given to idolatry, either a term 
 to express " one God" must be borrowed or adapted,
 
 39 
 
 from among terms already existing in the language ; 
 or, the ineffable name of God, "JEHOVAH," must alone 
 be used. The holy Apostles, however, in teaching 
 the Gentiles, did not adopt " Jehovah," because their 
 object was not to preach a " new god " (and " Jeho- 
 vah " would have been such to all except the Jews) ; 
 but their intention was, to introduce the right worship 
 of the " unknown God," whom every nation among 
 which they preached, "ignorantly worshipped" in its 
 own way. 
 
 Accordingly we find, for instance, that in Greek 
 they chose the term &EOS ; and, it may be asked, 
 why not Zeu? ? Because, although 0e6? and Zevs 
 were, as we have seen, identical in meaning, (" T& 
 a7i/ajo-T&) @e&>," rfc; Zev?,) yet Zev<s was the epithet of 
 the individual god of the Greek nation ; whereas @eo? 
 was the god of the Greek language. Now, on the 
 one hand, the Apostles wrote not for Greeks alone, 
 but for all who spoke or understood Greek, whether 
 at Alexandria or at Athens ; and, on the other hand, 
 they had to preach, not an " individual," but the only 
 "personal" and true God. Instead of Zei)?, therefore, 
 they adopted 6 0e6?, already in use, among philoso- 
 phers, and in the Septuagint, as the term nearest in 
 meaning to EL and ELOHIM. It was used in the sin- 
 gular, to express " a deity " of some sort ; and in the 
 plural, to mean " gods," which, in their nature, varied 
 according to the worshipper's fancy. Thus, it na- 
 turally happens that, in ancient Greek writers, #eo? in 
 the singular is, comparatively speaking, seldom used
 
 40 
 
 with the article, 6 0e6s ; they worshipped their indi- 
 vidual god Zevs instead ; because, originally, they 
 had no distinct notion of " the only true God"; but 
 only a very confused idea of 0eo9, " a god" or " deity," 
 of some sort or other. 
 
 We find, it is true, a glimmer of light on the nature 
 of God, here and there, among men craving after 
 truth. " Non," says Lactantius (lib. i. c. v), " quod 
 illi habuerint cognitam veritatem ; sed quod veritatis 
 ipsius tanta vis est, ut nemo possit esse tarn COBCUS, 
 qui non videat ingerentem se oculis divinam verita- 
 tem." For instance, Orpheus (Fragm. vi. ed. Herm. 
 p. 457) says : 
 
 Zevs 7r/3(WT09 jevero, Zevs vcrraros ap^iKepavvos 
 Zevs K(f>a\r], Zevs /j,e<rcra Ato? S' etc irdvra 
 "Ev Kparos, els aijj,a>v yeveTO 
 
 and Hymn vi. 
 
 Ilpwroyovov KoXeco 
 
 ryeve<Tt>v fjuaKapwv OVTJTWV r' 
 
 and 
 
 $aeOwv vrepi 
 
 in Lactantius (and Gesner's note ad Orph. Fr. vii. 
 p. 465), who (lib. i. c. vi.) quotes Hermes Trisme- 
 glStUS : " 6 Se 0eo9 e?9, 6 Be els ovo/Jbaro? ov Trpoa-Seerai, 
 evri, 7p 6 &v avww^o9," and the Sibylline verses, 
 (quantum valeant) 
 
 Els $eo9 09 povos e<TTiv vTrepfAeyeOijs aryevrjros 
 and 
 
 fjiovos eifjul #eoV Kal OVK ea-rt Oebs a\\os
 
 41 
 
 to which may be added the following of Serapis 
 (Orac. Vet. p. 51, ed. Gall.): 
 
 El/j,i #eo5 roiocrSe fw0eiv, olvai K eyco etTrw. 
 Ovpdvios /c6cryLM>9 Ke<j>d\rj, yaffrrjp Be OciXacrcra^ 
 Tola Se fjioi TroSe? ewrt, ra S' ovar ev alOepi, Ketvrat' 
 O/iyLta re T7;Xairye9, \afjwrpbv <f>do<i rje\loio' /c.r.\. 
 
 Thales, who, probably borrowed some of his notions 
 from the East (conf. Sanchon. ed. Orell. p. 10, seqq.}, 
 taught (Diog. L. lib. i. 1, 35, ed. Huebn.) " 
 rarov rwv ovrwv deb? ar/ewrjrov yap' jcd\\i<rrov 
 TTonj^a ydp 6ov." And Cicero (de Nat. D. i. 10) 
 thinks that he held " deum autem earn mentem, 
 qua3 ex aqua cuncta fingeret." While Aristotle (de 
 Anima, i. 5, 20, ed. Bek.), speaking of this "mens" 
 or " ^i/xV' in the Universe, says : " Kal eV TW oX 
 8e rives avrrjv (sc. rrjv "^v^v) ^lu^OaL <f>acnv oOev I<TO>$ Kal 
 0X779 wr]Qt] Trdvra TrXijp'r) dewv elvai" And Anaxagoras 
 (Diog. L. i. ii. 6) "llama -xpr/futra rjv opov' elra Novs 
 e^Owv avra Ste/cocr/i^o-e." To which Virgil adds (^En. 
 lib. vi. 1. 724, seqq.) 
 
 " Principio caelum, ac terras, camposque liquentes, 
 Lucentemque globum Luna?, Titaniaque astra 
 Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus 
 Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet." 
 
 and (Georg. lib. iv. 1. 219, seqq.) 
 
 " His quidam signis, atque hsec exempla secuti, 
 Esse apibus partem divinaB mentis, et haustus 
 JEthereos dixere : deum namque ire per omnes 
 Terrasque, tractusque niaris, coelumque profundum."
 
 42 
 
 Seneca, says (Nat. Quaest. proem. 12), "Quid est 
 Deus ? Mens universi. Quid ergo interest inter na- 
 turam Dei et nostram? Nostri melior pars animus 
 est : in illo nulla pars extra animum." And, Xeno- 
 phanes (Reliq. p. 35, ed. Karsten), we see, believed 
 that 
 
 " Els 0eo9, ev re 0eoi<ri Kal dvOpayrroicn /J,eyicrro<f, 
 Ovre Se/ia? Qvrjroicriv 6/10/109 ovre vo^pa. 
 O5X09 opa, o5Ao9 8e voei, 0^X09 Se T' aicovei" 
 
 On this Aristotle remarks (de Xenoph. Z. and G. 
 Opp. IV. p. 189, seq.} "Kara Trdvra Se oimw? e%ety rov 
 Oebv, atSiov re Kal evaelvai,? K.T.\. And Melissus (Prel- 
 ler. Hist. Ph. p. 106) "roS' eov ov 76701/6^, ov% av e^ot 
 apXyv" " et, fj,ev eov cart, Bel avro ev elvaC " ev apa TO 
 eov" et alia multa. 
 
 But those esoteric notions had no practical in- 
 fluence over the multitude. They were limited to a 
 few great minds, which, however, from a want of 
 knowledge of THE TRUTH, as it is revealed in the 
 
 Word of God, " ^aoveorre? elvai <ro</>ot efj,a)pdv0r)<rav" says 
 
 St. Paul ; and they only prove what Lactantius says : 
 " Summo ingenio viros attigisse veritatem, ac pene 
 tenuisse ; nisi eos retrorsum infatuata pravis opini- 
 onibus consuetude rapuisset," etc. For even those 
 wise men knew not rbv eov as He is ; since they 
 disagreed on that subject among themselves. Hera- 
 clitus, for instance (Preller. H. Phil. p. 21), flatly 
 contradicts Thales, when he says: "K6<r/w>v rbv av- 
 TOV aTrdvTow oisre rc<f dewv ovre dvdpayrrwv e7rowyo"ei/, aXX
 
 43 
 
 rjv alei KOI GCTTLV ical carat, TTV/J aUityoov" /c.r.X. Zeno, 
 on the other hand, refutes him: " Qeov Se elvcu tfiov 
 dOdvaTov, \oyiKov elvat 8e TOV pev SrjfAiovpybv TMV 6\(av 
 KOI coaTrep Trarepa iravrwv KOIVWS re /col TO yu,epo9 avTov TO 
 SITJKOV Sia irdvTWV, o 7ro\\ais -TTpocnrj^opia^ Trpoaovofid^eTcu 
 Kara ra? Swdpeis. Ata pev yap $acri Si ov ra irdvra^ Zr\va 
 be KaXovai Trap' ocrov TOV tfjv atVio? <TTIV ij Sia TOV %fjv ^e%&>- 
 
 ptjfce" K.T.\. (Diog. L. vii. 1, 73). Epicurus is here 
 at issue, and apparently ill at ease with himself (see 
 the 10th of his Kvpuu Sofat, in Diog. L. lib. x. 31, ed. 
 Huebn.). While Protagoras says : " Ilepl fiev 0ewv QVK 
 
 e%a) elSevcu, eld' &><? eialv eW ay; OVK eicrlv" " As regards 
 
 ' gods,' I cannot make out whether there be any or 
 not" (Diog. Laert. lib. ix. c. 8). Nay, " delos Sw- 
 KpdTrjs" and "deus Plato" even, waver in their opi- 
 nion, and are at variance with themselves! "Jam 
 de Platonis inconstantia " says Cicero (de Nat. D. i. 
 
 12), " longum estdicere ; qui in Timseo elicit, et 
 
 in legibus, et mundum deum esse, et cselum, et astra, 
 et terrain, et animos, et eos quos majorum institutis 
 accepimus: quse et per se sunt falsa perspicue, et 
 inter sese vehementer repugnantia. Atque etiam 
 Xenophon facit Socratem disputantem, formam dei 
 quaeri non oportere: eundemque et solem, et ani- 
 mum deum dicere ; et modo unum, turn autem plures 
 deos." 
 
 So true it is that men were "in darkness" until 
 "The True Light" "The Sun of Righteousness 
 arose" oh this world "with healing in his wings!" 
 If, then, our eyes are open to see Him, and we rejoice
 
 44 
 
 in his light, let us praise Him for so great a benefit, 
 and say with Djelal-ed-dm (Diwan. p. 210, ed. 
 Rosenzw. ) : 
 
 " Through Thee alone I have attained to Truth, 
 Thou TRUTH itself ! Thou hast imparted it to me ! 
 And here I stand to thank Thee, Lord ! mine only 
 Sun and my God ! " 
 
 The Greeks therefore adopted, more frequently, 
 because more conformably to their ill-defined notions, 
 the plural, 0eot, " gods " ; or, with the article, ol 6eoi, 
 " the gods " of Olympus. Thus, Orpheus hardly 
 ever uses the word 0eo9 in his hymns to the " gods," 
 but always 0eoi, " gods." Hesiod mentions the Deity 
 one-hundred-and-two times, viz., ninety- three times 
 in the plural, Oeoi, and nine times in the singular, 
 0eo9, in which it is three times feminine, once applied 
 to a tutelary god, and five times it refers to a god 
 previously mentioned ; but never with the article. 
 And Homer, in the Iliad, Books i., iii., and v., uses 
 the plural, deal, fifty-four times; while the singular, 
 0eo9, is met with only nineteen times, with reference 
 to some particular god ; except, perhaps, iii. 1. 381, 
 where wore 0eo9 may be taken in a more general sense ; 
 yet never with the definite article, 6 Oeos. For Homer 
 could not well have defined his own indefinite notions 
 of 0eo9, to whom he attributes evil passions as well as
 
 45 
 
 good. But we find that, as the ideas of the Greeks 
 on this subject became better denned (though still 
 incorrect, since they still spoke of " gods," deol), the 
 use of the article with 0e6? in the singular became also 
 more frequent, as, e. #., in Aristotle ; and in Plato, 
 
 who says : &rj\av 8rj rovro ye, co? ro)v %vvaKO\ov0r)cr6vT(i)V 
 e&opevov T&> #ea> Bet SLavoydfjvcu Trdvra avSpa: It IS 
 evident, then, that it behoves every man to decide on 
 being of the number of those who follow after God, 
 TO) 0e&>." (de Legib. iv. 7.) 
 
 The Apostles, then, could not do better than to 
 adopt the term " 6 0e6?," for the " only true God," 
 thus dimly portrayed in the Greek philosophers ; and 
 having clearly established by their teaching, and, 
 perhaps, also by their quotations from the Septuagint, 
 who 6 0e6<? is, they used @e6? without the article, when 
 necessary, without risk of being misunderstood. 'O @e6<?, 
 in Plato, and 6 0e6?, as used by St. Paul, both grew 
 out of the 9eo9 of Homer ; but the @eo? of St. Paul is 
 qualified by 6 0e6?, as used by him. " @eo<?," in " 6v% 07' 
 avevOe Oeov rdSe fiaivertu" (II. v. 185), is different from 
 
 " 0eo5," in "17 yap Kara Qeov XVTTT; /jLerdvoiav elf (ratTrjpiav 
 dfj,eraiJ,e\.rjTov Karepyd^erai,-" It is the same word, but 
 
 with either a heathen or a godly meaning. We may 
 therefore expect to find, in the New Testament, the 
 use of 6 0e6? more frequent than that of 0eo? only, 
 which is actually the case ; as, e. g., in the Epistle to 
 the Romans, 6 eo? occurs one-hundred-and-thirteen, 
 and 0e6<? only thirty-nine, times. 
 
 In like manner, the use of the definite article pre-
 
 46 
 
 fixed to the generic term for "God" or "Deity," 
 seems general in most languages that have an article, 
 in order to specify the " one true God." In the She- 
 mitic languages, either the article or the emphatic 
 form is used ; but only seldom in Hebrew, in which 
 a special and distinctive mark was, of course, not re- 
 quired, since the "people of God" knew of none other 
 God but Him. When they forsook Him, His name 
 went down to their idols : they did not raise the name 
 of their idols to His " excellent greatness," as other 
 nations did. Thus, in Coptic, as we have seen, the 
 definite article is always prefixed to wor-h, god, 
 to designate " God," <J>wort, (J>t, in Memphis, and 
 rmorre at Thebes. In Hungarian, also, the definite 
 article is always prefixed (except in exclamations : 
 Isten veled !) to Isten, "God," thus: "Az Isten te- 
 remt," God created. So also in Albanian, Hep-mi, 
 "God," is always found with the definite article, thus : 
 " T^iXt fiovvr re vreyeye (f>cvye /3er/-tf vie Hepvria" who 
 can forgive sins but 6 @eo? only ?" " kivi Trea-e n-n-e 
 Ileprlve" e^ere iritmv (roO) eov. 
 
 As in Greek there is no indefinite article, since efc 
 means " one," not " a," for " et? 0e6?, pin Trwrro," 
 means " one God," " one faith," not " a god," " a 
 faith," 0eo5, not being an abstract noun, was under- 
 stood to mean " a god," not " the God,"" GOD." Thus, 
 "wore 0eo?" (II. iii. 381), where mention is made of 
 Venus, can only be rendered " like a god," and not 
 " like God." The use of the article was therefore ne- 
 cessary, in order to define the idea and to apply it to
 
 47 
 
 the " one God." But in other languages, that have both 
 a definite and an indefinite article, the word " God" 
 takes neither article before it. The "one idea" is 
 best expressed by the term " God" alone. We never 
 find, e. g., " sa Guth," in Gothic, but always " Guth," 
 " God," without the definite article ; e. g. " sunaus 
 Guths," mov rov0eov- and " habaith glaubein Guths," 
 e%ere irltrrtv 0eoO. This obtains also in other languages 
 derived from the Gothic, as, e.g., in English "God" ; not 
 " a" or " the God," etc. But although in this instance 
 the use of either article would at once break the one- 
 ness of idea contained in " God " ; yet another satis- 
 factory reason for the use of " God," without the 
 article, lies, we believe, in the meaning of the word 
 "Guth," "God," itself. It is akin to " Khuda," 
 or "Khudai," thus explained in the Persian dic- 
 tionary, j[i J& p. 282 : J 
 
 " ' Khuda' and 
 'Khudai,' (with dhamm in the first syllable), is a 
 name which belongs to the Most-High, like ' ILLAH' 
 and 'EL-ILLAH'; and is contracted. Its complete 
 form is 'Khuda,' which means 'a being who has 
 brought himself into existence' (Swayambhu, self- 
 existent, PlVV, 1' Eternel). It is also given to a 
 ' lord,' or 'king' (j^j^)-" " Guth," God, then, may 
 probably mean "self-existent"; and so, it might be a 
 far better rendering for "Jehovah," than "Lord." But
 
 48 
 
 since there can only be one self-existing "God," no 
 article is required to define Him better. 
 
 If, therefore, the term for " God," already existing 
 in a language, implies the object of the highest vene- 
 ration of which the people is capable, it may be 
 adopted in the translation to express " God" ; provided 
 always, that it is appropriate, and not at variance with 
 the original. For instance, "ELOHIM," " God," means, 
 originally, " entitled to worship on account of His 
 power." It would be rendered into Tibetan by " Dkon- 
 mch'hog," which means properly, " Chief of rarity," 
 "the rarest Being," and is used to denote "God." 
 This word does not, it is true, correspond in its ra- 
 dical meaning with the Hebrew original ; but as it 
 corresponds fully with its acceptation, as a term of the 
 highest adoration, it is fit and admissible. If, then, 
 the best term already existing, be not adequate to ex- 
 press the original, it must be amended by teaching, 
 and brought to the standard of the original ; but in no 
 case should a "new term" be coined and introduced, 
 for that would be preaching " strange gods," indeed. 
 We have seen that this experiment has been tried 
 in China, without success, as it was formerly tried in 
 Japan, by the Jesuits, who rendered " Deus," by 
 " Deous." But this signally failed ; and the word 
 "kauri" a "god," has been adopted instead of 
 " Deous," by Drs. GutzlafF and Bettelheim, in their 
 respective versions of the New Testament into 
 Japanese. 
 
 In thus unscrupulously borrowing from a people
 
 its own term to express " God," we are borne out, 
 lastly, by the ancient versions of Holy Scripture, all 
 of which adopted, for " God," the term in use at the 
 place and time the translation was made. Thus, 
 
 The Targums adopt Kpj, "God," (which they 
 read ^1N), and also fcW^prn, "object of fear," in 
 the emphatic form, to render " EL," " ELOAH," or 
 "ELOHIM." 
 
 In like manner the Samaritan version has iarrraZA-, 
 or -raZ/*, and sometimes snraAZiS, "angels," and 
 sZfrret, "powerful," to express "God"; all in the 
 emphatic form. 
 
 The Syriac Peschito always reads, in the emphatic 
 form also, loiSf, who is ^i, ''^* ^* OO1 
 
 . *J . 
 
 , "worthy to be praised, high, and mighty in 
 valour over all gods ; who is at the head of all genera- 
 tions, king from everlasting" (Lib. Adami, lib. i. p. 10). 
 
 In Arabic, " ELOHIM" is rendered by <dJ1 EL-ILLAH, 
 "Goo," always with the article, in order to distinguish 
 it from d\ ILAH, "god," applied formerly to idols; 
 as Herodotus tells us (lib. iii. c. 8), " 'Apdfiioi 
 B& rov fjuev Awvvvov, 'OporaX* rrjv 8e Ovpavirjv, 
 *Opord\ or 'OXaraX, is \Uj- A\ " Alah 
 ta'ala," "God Most-High"; and MXtX^r c^UBl "Ali- 
 lahat," means "goddesses." Pocock (Specim. Hist. 
 Arab. p. 108) tells us that they worshipped those 
 gods, but as inferiors to " EL-ILLAH," " God," whom
 
 50 
 
 they addressed in this manner : L-CuJ 
 
 ^jO* Uj <U t-O jA fc^o/i N LJCJ uJojA y " I 
 
 devote myself to Thy service, GOD ! I devote myself 
 
 to Thee ; I do so indeed ! Thou hast no equal but Thy 
 
 fellow, over whom and all He has, Thou art alone 
 
 supreme." 
 
 The Egyptian version adopts, as we have already 
 seen, c|>t " Phnuti," the usual abbreviation of <J>i or c|> 
 "the," and wort "god"; which corresponds exactly 
 with 6 @<?o<?. It is the singular of Meuuorre or 
 uGMuort "our gods," the words by which " the gods 
 of Egypt" are mentioned in ancient Egyptian MSS. 
 (Champoll. Syst. Hier. vol. ii. p. 30, and pi. 13, etc.). 
 And here we cannot but notice the remarkable use of 
 the definite article Fl in Ur\z " P-tah," sometimes also 
 " Phtah," $65, or $9d (and not <J>eAjy, as in Jablonskii 
 Panth. Mg. p. 50, and Opusc. t. 1, p. 382), "the 
 god" of Egypt. His monogram, in hieroglyphical in- 
 scriptions, as well as in hieratic MSS., is n? the 
 origin of the letter Fl, which itself is the definite 
 article. So that, in ancient Egypt, the article 
 "THE," thus alone, stood for "the god" or "GOD" 
 (Salvolini, Camp, de Ramses-le-grand, p. 98). For 
 PITA? or "H<j>aicrTo<: ("H<|>AICTOC GTG HTA? ne," Zoega 
 MS., in H. Brugsch. de L. prop. ^Egypt. p. 17), like 
 Zew, and the names of other such gods, were, each of 
 them, only the epithet of an " individual" god, in their 
 respective countries. In Egypt, therefore, worre or 
 wort (or rep, ATP Salvol. 1. c. and TJhlemann. Insc. 
 Roset. 1. 6, 7, p. 15, 16), and not, n TA2 (like
 
 51 
 
 not "Zeu?," in Greece) became, with the article n or <J>, 
 rmorre or (|>t, o @e6? of Christians; as being alone 
 " <f>t IJTG umort" "the God of gods" (Psalm 
 cxxxv. 2, ed. Ideler.). 
 
 The Ethiopic version adopted ft^ftft "Amlak"; 
 a word related to *f?& "Molech" or "Moloch" of 
 Tyre and of Carthage, and applied to false gods also, 
 as in Acts xiv. 11, a<Y : ft^Aft^ : iVflft : t*Vi<V : : 
 " and they said : The gods (amalekt) have taken the 
 likeness of men," etc. 
 
 In order to render "ELOHIM," the Armenian ver- 
 sion, "regina versionum," as Lacroze calls it, re- 
 tained the word " U,i/i/i_&-, Asdwadz," " God," 
 which formerly belonged to idols. Thus, in the letter 
 of Valarsaces, king of Armenia, to Arsaces, king of 
 Persia (Moses Chor. lib. i. c. 8), we read: 
 
 p-uitf.uiL.nfi trfilffifr L- \fndni^t> npnq uiliZJu L- 
 
 n ~uj L. fiuff J^-p uiuu,nL.lrnij " Arsaces, king of the 
 earth and of the sea ! whose person and image is like 
 unto our gods" (asdudzots). 
 
 The Georgian version renders "God" by " Ghmert," 
 " Ghut," " God," equally applied to " gods," and of the 
 worst character too; as e.g., in Wakhoucht (Geogr. 
 of Georgia, p. 10), where he says that Pharnabaz set 
 up an idol called Armaz ; to which his successors 
 " shesmines kerpni Zaden da Aphrodite" "added the 
 idols Zaden and Aphrodite," " aramed ese Armas udi- 
 desi iqo qovelta ghmertta"; "nevertheless that Armaz 
 was held in greater honour than all the gods" 
 (ghmertta).
 
 52 
 
 The Gothic version renders "God" by "Guth," 
 which was, at one time perhaps, the name of an idol of 
 Northern and of Middle Europe (comp. Odin, Wuo- 
 dan, Gwodan, Gudan, etc. Grim. D. M. p. 120, seq., 
 Edd. Lex. Myth. pp. 598, 606, 631, seq. ; which, how- 
 ever, as well as " Wadda," (Abulfeda H. anteisl. p. 
 14), rather belong to " Bud," or " Budd'ha"). 
 
 Lastly, the Slavonic version adopted the term 
 "Bogh," "God"; a word of Indian origin, probably 
 from "B'haga," which Culluca B'hatta (Comm. on 
 Laws of Manu, p. 5) says, expresses "sovereignty": 
 " aishwaryadinam " B'haga" shabdo vachaka." Hence 
 comes " B'hagavan"; and also, perhaps, the Persian j_j 
 " Bagh," which is said in the j-J'U ^^ to be ^> |*\J 
 " the name of an idol." 
 
 V. 
 
 The foregoing remarks will have prepared the way 
 for the consideration of the question at issue, Is 
 there, or is there not, in Chinese, an appropriate term 
 to render OWN ELOHIM and 0EOS? To which 
 must be added 7N EL, PpK ELOAH, and 'O OEO2; all 
 equally translated " GOD." 
 
 Several terms, we find, have been invented in order 
 to render "God" into Chinese; and, as a matter of 
 course, they have been " discarded each in succession" 
 (see p. 10, and p. 12, of " Shin v. Shang-Te"). We 
 will, therefore, leave their shades in peace, Dr. 
 Bowring's Egyptian symbol @! included, and pro-
 
 53 
 
 ceed to consider only the three terms found in classi- 
 cal Chinese, that appear available for the rendering 
 of " God." 
 
 These are T'HEEN, SHIN, and SHANG-TE. 
 
 But ere we enter into the subject, we must 
 
 First, Examine briefly the literal meaning of the 
 five terms for " God" in Holy Scripture ; then 
 
 Secondly, Consider the literal meaning of each of 
 the three terms, T'HEEN, SHIN, and SHANG-TE, in clas- 
 sical works. And then 
 
 Thirdly, We will show, from the Chinese version 
 of Scripture itself, which of those three terms can 
 alone claim to stand as a substitute for EL, ELOAH, 
 ELOHIM, 0EO2, and 'O 0EO2, in the Word of God. 
 
 I. First, then, as to the literal sense of 7K " EL." 
 
 PL D^K. 
 
 It is, properly speaking, the part. Kal of the 
 primitive root 7^, or 7^ (like fi from ftlfc or 
 JVD; *iy, Ijl, etc.). This root, although obsolete in He- 
 brew as " verb," is, nevertheless, frequently met with 
 in its derivatives, TIN, tjh, W W, h%, pfa*, etc.; 
 and in the Sabaean, ^u) " powerful." Its correspond- 
 ing forms in Arabic, jl, from whence j 1 "first," 
 
 " foremost," and IlM " government," etc., are also 
 
 in common use (comp. 7^, TH and &X&>, Att. e/Xew, 
 i\\<u, etc., which convey the idea of " twisting"
 
 54 
 
 like the gnarled roots of the oak, "roboris"; strong 
 and firm). 
 
 The root 7^ or, TN, then, means 
 
 a) to be " strong," or " powerful" ; and thence 
 
 b) to " take precedence"; to " be first." 
 Those two senses are closely connected ; and they 
 are sometimes found in the same derivative ; e. g., 
 %* pi. D^K, and W pi. D'W, "powerful," " chiefs," 
 
 among men. 7N, then, means 
 
 1) "A powerful man," ^p&)9 ; e. g., 
 &v (Ezek. xxxi. 11.), and pi. D^iSp vtf, O l 
 (Ezek. xxxii. 21, etc.). 
 
 2) "Power," "strength"; e.g., 
 PISH D5?V " It is in the power of my hand to do 
 you harm," tV^yet ^ ^Lp fwv (Gen. xxxi. 29, etc.). 
 
 3) " GOD." In prose it is seldom found alone ; but 
 
 in general, it is construed with an attribute, or with a 
 
 L L 
 genitive; as e.g., |V?y 7# ('EXtoOv), the Most High 
 
 God" (Gen. xiv. 20, 22); +$ ^, "the Almighty 
 God," "*0, J)tj Dtfn, "H, K3J5 ? (Exod. xx. 5, 
 etc.). It is also joined with D*n% Sp?K *|^J ^NH 
 "God, the God of thy father" (Gen. xlvi. 3, etc.)'. 
 In poetical language, on the contrary, it is very 
 frequently found alone; as, fyfb% B>T] D^N 
 " I would seek unto God," etc. (Job v. 8, viii. 5, 13, 
 20, etc.). It is also applied to "a false god," W^^tjH 
 (Is. xliv. 15), or joined to an attribute, as, "Di, IT 7NJ 
 nn^-7 (Judges viii. 4, 33, etc.). It is evi-
 
 55 
 
 dent, however, that to such "gods" the word 7K is 
 applied only by synecdoche, since, in Deut. xxxii. 21, 
 they are said to be 7J$~N!7 "no god." /K is also 
 used 
 
 4) in construction, with the meaning, "of God," as 
 an attribute of excellence or of power" ; e. g. 7N *P|K 
 " the cedars of God," "goodly cedars" (Psalm Ixxx. 
 11); 7K ^Pl "great mountains" (Psalm xxxvi. 
 7, etc.) (comp. Horn. II. a. 141, efc aXa Slav, 8409 
 MgtXXeife ; Hesiod. Op. 299, Slov 761/09; and 479, 
 X06va Slav, comp. with ajrelpova <yaiav, V. 487 ; Call. L. 
 p. 97, Siayvvai, etc.). 
 
 7N " EL," is also to be traced in other Shemitic 
 dialects. Sanchoniatho (ed. Orell. p. 24) says : " Kara 
 
 TOUTOV9 7 literal -U9 'E\iovv (P '$?) Ka\ov/j,evo$ ' r/ T 
 
 Be 6 Ovpavos rrjv rov 7rar/309 apxnv Troieirai 
 5' "IXov (7^, ^-1) rbv KCU Kpovov" K.T.\. Damas- 
 
 cius (in Bochart Geog. Sac. c. 707) says also, " $oli>iKoi 
 
 KOI 2vpot rbv Kpovov "HX teal Btf\ Kal Bo\d6r)V (JH^ /3) 
 
 eTTovoftd&vo-w" (see also Damasc., p. 384, ed. Kopp); 
 to which the "apocryphal" Sanchoniatho (c. vi. p. 18) 
 adds, that the allies of IL (Stf) "'EXoel/* eir&ckq&qffcw" 
 were called ELOIM (OuXw/Lto9, in Damascius, p. 385). 
 From "Ii^" or "Ims," Cumberland (Orig. Gent. v. i. 
 pp. 29 and 473) derives " ILIUM" (see also Nork. 
 Bibl. Myth. v. i. p. 142 ; Creuzer Symb. v. ii. p. 347 ; 
 Boetticher E. Myth. Sem. pp. 4, 5), etc. 
 
 The radical " EL" plays also a conspicuous part in 
 Faber's "Cabiri," and in his "Pagan Idolatry" ; as also
 
 56 
 
 in Bryant's Anc. Mythology throughout (see, espe- 
 cially, v. i. p. 16, seq., and p. 297, where TNT'ErD'n 
 " Hom-pi-El," the oracle of Ham (the Sun), is given 
 as the etymology of 'O^akov eptppopov yOovos (Find. 
 P. Od. 6); while the same radicals, transposed, be- 
 come, in his hands, *S"Dh"7fc< "El-Hom-pi," "OXu/iTro?). 
 Movers (Phoniz. v. i. p. 254, seq.\ and Seyffarth 
 (Grundsatze der M. pp. 52, 66), are worth reading, 
 in connection with this subject. 
 
 In ?#, too, we may probably look for the root of 
 f/ H\ t0 5 or 'H&w (comp. TTto y*rh ^? &&, Psalm 
 xix. 6, 7. "aval- 'ATTO\\MV" etc.), the first god wor- 
 shipped by the heathen, Dius or Agni, the Sun. Sick- 
 ler (Cadmus, pp. 65, 104) derives "HXto? from JJPyfl, 
 and 'HeXto? lJTv*$, which he translates, "the Power 
 that gives light," and, "the greatest Power." But, 
 Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 46, and also p. 88, decides 
 the question : **Joj1 ooi> m I ^r> I V oi_iQ**ii2^ ] S 
 cnSoQ* ^-il ^1 oiloo* *OfO oiloo* " Do not wor- 
 ship the Sun whose name is Adonai (or Adoni), 
 whose name is Kadusch (Bnj?), whose name is EL, 
 EL! (or IL, IL!)" a name which seems alluded to in 
 Isaiah xiv. 13, ^u]> nqiaaa'aa ^ib " from the stars 
 of IL." (In Psalm xxii. 20, St. Matt, xxvii. 46, St. 
 Mark xv. 46, the Hebrew word *7# has been pur- 
 posely retained in the Syriac.) So that 'He'Xto? or 
 "IDuo? might come from ^X'N^n ^H ; or from B^'^K 
 "My god, Agni!" Unless some disciple of Bryant 
 would make it up of 1a)V^l*f, '.EDu-oo-e, " My god! 
 myrtles,!" exclamations (probably) frequent at By-
 
 57 
 
 blus, during the festivals of Adorn ("ASavis), and 
 Ba'altis ('AQpoSknj), when, as Bion (Epit. Ad. 74, 77) 
 tells us, Yenus 
 
 " TroOet, /cal (rrvyvbv "A&wvw" 
 
 and exclaims : 
 
 " 'Palve 8e (MV pvproKnv, a\l<f>a(ri, paive fivpoun" ! ! 
 
 We find /N also preserved in Phoenician names; 
 e. g., " Cadmilus," the fourth Cabirus, who was of 
 
 Phoenician extraction, is /N^Hp " who stands before 
 
 " ' : . .. L 
 
 God"; or (according to Boch. Hieroz. ii. 36), 7M*tipj3 
 
 " the oracle of God" (see also Gesen. Mon. Phoen. 
 p. 399, seq.). We find it also among the Sabseans; 
 
 0.0., Lib. Adami,pp. 294, 309, seq. ^ISoA^l ^IsosLL 
 . ^l^l^o ^-iVjAQO ^-ali>1o %i)s4-IP Hamam-il, 
 
 Hathm-il, and Nothr-il, and Zarz-il, and Pashr-il, and 
 Haltz-il : and in Ethiopic writings too, Lib. Enoch. 
 c. vii. 9, 
 
 : " And these are the names pf their angels : 
 Samyaza, who is chief of them, Urakibarme-el, Tha- 
 
 mi-el, Ramu-el, Dan-el," etc. 
 7 
 
 In the Samar. Pentateuch 7^ is rendered, either 
 by ZA^, to distinguish it from 2J^ when taken to mean 
 "strength"; or by 5fZar^ "powerful"; as, Melchize- 
 dec, in Gen. xiv. 18, is said to be 'BcZTrirer slrrreiZ' ^a 
 " priest to the Powerful in strength." Lastly, in 
 
 Arabic we find also J^ *' Ilun," as a name for " God."
 
 58 
 
 Another etymology for 7X has been proposed by 
 Schultens (Com. in Prov. p. 23), where, speaking of 
 the particle /N, he says : " radix est PPK, pro vK, 
 vel i?K, quae Arab, est }j| and \\ adstrinxit, con- 
 strinxit. Inde, secundario adscitum adstrinxit vin- 
 culo jurejurandi quod ajj^ cum pi. \fl\; inde 7tf 0eos 
 op/ao?, Deus jurisjurandi prceses et sancitor. Qui alia 
 docent analogies non litant." Doctors differ, indeed ! 
 
 for J. D. Michaelis offers J| " a benefit"; and Gese- 
 nius favours him with IJ^L " Gott," as subsidiary, 
 " quod vulgo 'bonum' significare volunt." But we 
 have seen that, even among us, " quandoque bonus 
 dormitat Homerus." 
 
 For it is placed beyond doubt that 7tf comes from 
 /'IK or TK, by the fact, that all participles of verbs "1J? 
 have a long ~ zeri, which does not alter in construc- 
 tion; thus 7JSI from vW makes 7$ in constr. ; e. g., 
 
 ^3p 7N, *n 7N. Whereas, in words derived from 
 -- T I- V- - 
 
 verbs 'TO the ~ zeri is shortened in construction ; 
 e. g., 7X from rPK makes 7N or vX in constr. as, 
 
 etc. 
 
 The one leading idea in 7^, then, to be gathered 
 from the foregoing remarks, is that of power, and 
 therefore of pre- or ex-cellence. GOD is called 7X 
 EL, as being THE MIGHTY, THE ONE ABOVE ALL, 
 THE FIKST. 
 
 From that idea of power, and excellence, grows, 
 as a matter of course, a feeling of awe, which power
 
 59 
 
 inspires, and which leads men to respect, and to 
 worship it. Thus, from 7K " God/' comes fPtf " to 
 swear by God"; and probably, also, n?K, which, al- 
 though not found in Hebrew as a root, is of frequent 
 occurrence in Arabic : jj \ and ^j \j to " worship," 
 
 to "serve," whence *tfl\ and ty\ "worship"; and *H 
 
 to "stand in awe"; from whence some derive al\ 
 " ILAHOUN," g^K " ELOAH," " GOD." He is caUed 
 thus, they say, jJU *fl, because " He is feared and 
 worshipped." 
 
 And here, we may compare the name for " God" 
 in Ethiopic, ft^ftft " Amlak," which is derived from 
 A^Aft " Amlaka," fourth conj. of <&{\t\ " Malaka," 
 to "command," or "govern"; <&l\[\ " Malaki," a 
 "sovereign"; from whence fi^Aft "Amlaka," to 
 " honour a sovereign," \arpeveiv ; to " serve as God." 
 Hence fi<^ftft " Amlak," the object of that worship, 
 GOD; e. #., Matt. iv. 10, " yeypaTrrac yap A?\ tf ]K.^'f1rh>C : 
 
 h^ftn. : ^ftlF : 0n,^l> : Ofht-f : t^^^ : : Kvpuw 
 
 rbv Geov a-ov (Amlak'ka) Trpoa-KWija-eis teal avr<p p,6v(p 
 \arpevo-eis" (tamlak). 
 
 As regards H/^f, however, it would appear more 
 probable that, being itself an intensitive form of its 
 primitive 7N, it became parent to the verb rPK to 
 " worship," than vice versa. One thing, however, is 
 certain, that those roots are all akin to one another ; 
 and that 7^ (/^, TN) is most likely the oldest, as it 
 is the simplest of them all. Fiirst Concord. Heb.
 
 60 
 
 v. n?K says: OPOD DTDI p'Pif" 700 wow , a ?g ]P 
 ODP pui* IIDS-SOT t'pii raw .ODPTW r6 5i?pr> OTIE pi /*? 
 "It is a .a^K /ita WPP To6 ^ ,to DID PPPI ,Dfn3 aiiri 
 verb derived from JiPN, and from its intensitive sig- 
 
 nification (plur.) DWK. The root of both (jjSt 
 
 L L 
 
 and 3^^) is /5S, like as among the Arabs, where the 
 
 verb PPK is derived from the noun LtfuJ And, 
 behold, according to this explanation, you are con- 
 
 r 
 
 strained to bring the word (';Pj) to a fountain-head, 
 and under the root /'IN, 7iJ ; from whence H/JJ, ^7{J." 
 ( See also the remarks of Dathe, in Glassii Philol. Sac. 
 v. i. p. 60, seq.) 
 
 We have, then, the ideas of power and supremacy, 
 as well as of adoration of that power, expressed in 
 
 II. N or ftf "EiGAH," "GOD." InChald. 
 
 L '" " '" v: L 
 fl/ij ELAH, from whence *rPJJ " divine," etc. In Syr. 
 
 and Sab. loi^} 7 " ALOHO," "GoD"; from whence 
 toi^V " divine," and oiS) 7 " alah," to " reckon as 
 God." In Samar. *lr* " ALAH," " God," thence 
 
 S ^ S' 
 
 5fA-^ZA- "divinity." In Arabic *N, or d\ "!LA- 
 
 * * 
 
 HOUN," or "!LAH," "God"; from whence N^, ciy>^, 
 etc. 7|P&f is seldom used in the singular ; and then, 
 Gesenius says, only as, " either an Aramaeism, in 
 poetry, or in inferior style." It means 
 
 1) "any god," pj & I^Hf^fl h>$\ " he will not
 
 61 
 
 regard any god" (Dan. xi. 37 ; Job xii. 6 ; Hab. i. 11 ; 
 etc.). But PPfcJ means especially 
 
 2) "GOD" for ml 6 GehKar ^oxJv; e.g., 
 rfhto WIT-Si* u WiU not God search it out 
 
 from above?" (Job iii. 4, etc.) And its plural 
 
 III. D^r/X " ELOHIM," which is far more fre- 
 quent, is used 
 
 A in a plural sense, for 
 
 1) "all gods"; *,/; e.g., mf* ^ the " gods 
 
 of Egypt" (Exod. xii. 12) wrihwrhsb' nj!T ^ha 
 
 " the Lord is greater than all gods" (Exod. xviii. 11 ; 
 2 Kings xix. 18), etc. 
 
 2) " angels" ; who are also called DTPg ^ " sons 
 of God" (Psahns Ixxxii. 1, xcvii. 7, etc.). 
 
 3) "kings" and "princes"; "judges" and "ma- 
 gistrates" (Psalm Ixxxii. 1, 6; Exod. xxi. 6, etc.). 
 But D7PK is also used 
 
 B in a singular sense, for 
 
 1) "THE ONE GOD, GOD." In this case, espe- 
 cially, the plural is the " pluralis majestaticus vel ex- 
 cellentise" ; pip^P M3T the plural of " powers or virtues," 
 which is used in expressions of sovereignty, as, e. g., 
 DTIK, n#, D^a,etc. (SeeGeseniusLehrgeb.p. 663, 
 seq., and Hebr. Gr. p. 237, seq., whatever Ewald, Hebr. 
 Gr. p. 641, 3, may say against it. Also Danzii In- 
 terpr. Ebr. Chald. p. 26, seq., and p. 149.) Some cri-
 
 62 
 
 tics, however, think that in DTI 7tf, the plural form, 
 is intended only to imply "plurality of persons" in 
 God. For instance, Glassius (Gram. Sacra, can. 
 xvii. and can. xxv. not., or vol. i. p. 44, seq., of his 
 Philol. Sacra, ed. Dathe) says : 1 ) Nomen D WX 
 non est nomen appellativum, sed proprium; nee in 
 significato suo formali dominium seu dominatum notat. 
 Igitur ad hanc regulam, quae de vocibus appettativis, 
 ( 7JD [Tltf) dominium significantibus, agit, referri non 
 debet. Certum igitur esto, Elohim per se non de- 
 notare dominium, etc. 2) Cur nomen hoc plurale in 
 SS. Deus sibi indiderit e scripto verbo Dei eruen- 
 dum et cognoscendum est. Illud vero SacrosanctaB 
 
 o 
 
 Triados personarum in una simplicissima essentia 
 divina, mysterium clarissime tradit, et voce plurali 
 D^rDK idem mysterium exprimi, descriptio creatoris 
 Elohim Gen. i., et alibi saepius in SS. tradita ostendit. 
 Addendum tamen, nomen Elohim proximo significatu 
 personarum pluralitatem in Divina essentia tantum 
 innuere, non determinate Trinitatem, etc. (Dathe 
 refutes him in a note, ad 1.). And Buxtorf, Lex. 
 Heb. v. DViStf says: " Cabalistice D'pfot dicitur," 
 
 . v: J 
 
 quod DH 7K " Deus sint," etc. 
 
 But the fact that DTD^t is also applied in Holy 
 Scripture to "one idol" only, as well as to GOD, 
 "hos abunde confutat," says Gesenius (Thes. L. H. 
 p. 96). For, if D7PJJ be not, generally speaking, " a 
 term to express only adoration, and the highest pos- 
 sible degree of veneration for God, irrespective of the 
 persons of his Triune Essence," why then, may we
 
 63 
 
 ask, is D^K not always used ? And why is it inter- 
 changed, almost arbitrarily, with /K, and especially 
 with il/tf in the singular; both of which we find in 
 the Hebrew text in precisely the same acceptation as 
 D^rpK ? Aben-Ezra is of this opinion, when he says : 
 Gen. i. 1, ppip p7p pt p-)pi DOT ]ip5 o'p3f> *3 w?' Pi5f> wfopp npf> 
 W3 o'37 |^p3 5n:p 5r> iwi 7133 TTT P7pp ]ip53i 7133 -p7 ii p' jipJ> is *3 
 
 ') o'iwi D07f> " After that we have found ifi /$, we 
 know that D^H/X is the plural thereof; and the origin 
 of the use of it is according to the genius of the lan- 
 guage ; for every tongue has its own honorific terms ; 
 and, in the l holy tongue/ the way to express 
 ' honour/ as, for instance, to a superior, is, to use 
 the plural, as in Adonim (' lords/ for Lord), Ba'alim 
 ('masters/ for Master, etc.)." 
 
 Except in the Samaritan Pentateuch, therefore, 
 where D*(T7>J is occasionally rendered ianraZw, and in 
 the Targum of Onkelos, where it is sometimes found 
 as pn/^f ( e -9- G en< ix. 6), with a plural significa- 
 tion, D^ri ?tf is always rendered by the singular in the 
 ancient versions. In the Targums, it is translated 
 by fifi?^ , or more frequently by ** ; in Syriac, by 
 
 }oi!f ; and in Arabic, by <dl! EL-!LLAH, 6 eo?. 
 
 The principal instances besides B*n;>N which occur 
 to us at present, of the usual name for " God" being 
 a plural form, are the Persian J^> " YAZDAN," and 
 the Cingalese " DEVIYAN." " YAZDAN" is, like " E- 
 LOHIM," a plural with, for the most part, a singular 
 signification. It is rendered in Persian dictionaries
 
 64 
 
 by fjj " Tafiri," a Tatar word, used in Uighur, and 
 in most other Turkish dialects, except the Osmanli, to 
 mean "Heaven," and also the "Most High," God. 
 "Yazdan" is thus explained in the j-j'ljj u Uy already 
 quoted (p. 790, etc.), ^V*^ j\ 
 
 *& &J*.a /* 
 
 "Yazdan ^with Feth', Sukun, etc. It 
 is one of the names of God, the Most-High, the glori- 
 ous God. It is also the name of an angel, the active 
 principle of good, who is liable to neither passion nor 
 evil. Others say that ' Yazdan' is the creator of 
 good, and that ' Ahriman' is the creator of evil: and 
 also that Yazdan created the light ('Yazdan,' i. q., 
 'Ahuramazda Khudai'; Wilson P. R. p. 228; and 
 J. G. Rhode, Relig. des Zendv. p. 209, seq.\ and 
 Ahriman, darkness. Doctors call Yazdan a false 
 god ; but poets call the true God by that name." 
 
 " Yazad," and " Yazdan," are mentioned as two 
 out of the one-hundred-and-ten names for " God " 
 (" one-hundred-and-one," Wilson P. R. p. 110.) in use 
 among the Parsees, by Hyde (de Rel. v. Pers. p. 175) j 
 who at p. 178, says: "insuper sciendum est quod Dei 
 vocabulum Yezad (Ized) aliquando tribuitur ange- 
 lis," etc. (exactly like O7P$); e.g. "Vanand- Yezad,"
 
 65 
 
 " Ham-Yezad," etc. The plural of ^ " Yazd" is 
 "Yazdan," which occurs frequently in the Minok- 
 hired ; e.g. ii. 18, 27; iii. 2, etc. It represents, in 
 the singular, the Zend " Yazata," (Sanscr. " ya- 
 jata,") which means " worthy of worship"; as, for 
 instance, in this passage of the Yana, ch. i. 9, Ni- 
 vaedayemi . handarayemi . Mithrah.e . vouru . gaoyaotois . 
 hazanroghaosalie . baevare . chasmano . aochtonamano . Ya- 
 zatahe; "I call upon, I praise Mithra, who multiplies 
 (cattle) living things ; who has a thousand ears and 
 ten-thousand eyes, and is called by the name of 
 Yazata." (Burnouf, Yagna. p. 209. seq., 376, etc.). 
 " Yazdan," or " Yazata," is like EL, ELOAH, and 
 ELOHIM, both the attribute and the name of deities, 
 in the Zend religion (Spiegel, Pars. Spr. p. 139, seq., 
 190; Wilson, P. R. pp. 106, 129). And it seems to 
 correspond with DTPK , not only in its being a name 
 in the plural, given to God, in a singular sense, but 
 also in its application, like ELOHIM, to angels, and to 
 more deities than one. " Yazdan," then, answers 
 to " 0eot," when this is used collectively in a singu- 
 lar Sense; as, e.g., " 6eoi <f>vov<nv avOpayrrois <f>peva<$" 
 " Oewv $la teal i/e/ioV (Soph.). Although " Yazdan" 
 is very frequent in Persian poets (as, e.g., Chr. Sh. 
 
 Nam. ii. v. 204, ed. Vullers, ^3 1j;> J.^L^ ^ 
 
 \^ - \^ ^" j * 
 
 jjXao, etc.), it has not been adopted in any of the 
 Persian versions of the Bible for " God." The only 
 word in use is ! JCL, the name by which Ahurmazd calls 
 himself, " Khuda sam humnam," " KHUDA is my name," 
 or "I am self-produced" (see Wilson, P. R. p. 110).
 
 66 
 
 In like manner, in Cingalese, " DEVIYAN" (the ac- 
 cusative plural of "Devi," or " Deviya," "a god"), is 
 declined and used in a singular sense, out of respect. 
 Thus, " Deviyan visin polavat metchivai" " The earth 
 was created by God" (instr. 0eois), "Deviyange putiyo," 
 " sons of God" (0 e & v )* etc. 
 
 We may, perhaps, also mention, in connection with 
 this subject, the word "HK, D'T "Addir, Addirim," 
 " great, noble, magnificent," etc., applied to the 
 "name" of God (Psalm viii. 2) to God Himself 
 (Psalm Ixxvi. 5) to princes (Nah. ii. 6, iii. 18) 
 to kings (Psalm cxxxvi. 18) to saints (Psalm 
 xvi. 3) and to gods (1 Sam. iv. 8). tt?T. '& 
 nWjtn D'ywn D'nWl T& "Who shall- deliver us 
 out of the hand of these mighty gods?" A.V. and 
 (Isaiah x. 34) TTCtt " By the Mighty One." In this 
 latter acceptation, especially, it may be compared, as 
 Uhlemann does (Quousq. tandem? pp. 15, 16), with 
 the ancient Egyptian word ATiR, or Tep Salvol. 
 
 * The affix of " respect," " wahanse," is added to 
 Deviyan, thus, "Deviyan-wahanse"; which stands to 
 " Deviyan " considered as a respectful address, as 
 "Elohim" does to " Eloah" as an appellative for 
 " God." The choice of either term caused great ex- 
 citement in Ceylon some years ago. The edition of 
 the Bible printed in 1834, uses "Deviyan" and "De- 
 viyo." The edition of 1840 adopts " Deviyanhanse " 
 and " Deviyanwahanse."
 
 67 
 
 (Analyse de Textes, a. Egypt, p. 198, seq.) or 
 IJOTTAP (H. Brugsch. Sai-an-Sinsin, pp. 13,1,3,7,8, 
 pp. 16, 6, pp. 17, 1, etc.), and NeTeR (de Rouge, 
 Mem. p. 165) in Coptic uorre "god." 
 
 For our own part, and since the necessary doctrine 
 of the Most Holy Trinity cannot be determined by 
 the plural tD^rPK alone, we are well satisfied to take 
 this plural, practically, as an expression of respect 
 only, for GOD, Three in ONE. Anything else, 
 belongs to the mysterious nature of Him before whom 
 Angels even veil their faces; and whom we, poor 
 sinners, shall never see, till if we be found worthy 
 " we shall know Him even as we are known of Him." 
 Until then, let us in awe, but in faith and hope, lay 
 our finger on our mouth, and worship in silence. We 
 might, possibly, " intrude into those things which we 
 have not seen," and " be vainly puffed up in our fleshly 
 mind." It would appear, therefore, sufficient, that 
 in rendering D^PPK, we should adopt a term which, 
 like h&, implies " THE ONE," and not "MANY." 
 
 The plural B^rPX is found governed by a verb in 
 the singular; as, e.g., D*rPK JO1 "creavit dii," i.e., 
 "qualibet persona divina," says Danz. (Interpr. Eb. 
 Chald. p. 149) and also by a verb in the plural; as, 
 e. q., ttWZra wb*& DIN PTO5 " Let us make man, 
 
 i/7 : ; : T T v -; - ' 
 
 after our own image and similitude" (Gen. i. 26; 
 xxxv. 7). C'rPK is also construed with an adjective 
 in the singular ; as, *H D7PN ; and in the plural,
 
 68 
 
 D'TI DTl'Stf "The living God." And it is used to 
 mean 
 
 1) "a god." DTlStf JNK "There is no god" (Psalm 
 xiv. 1, etc.). 
 
 2) "an idol." Wrj*?K fl^H " Dagon our god" 
 (1 Sam. v. 7). 
 
 3) "a tutelary god." 0eo? eV^/wo?, DHWK Pl*K 
 "Where is your God?" (Deut.xxxii. 37; Joel ii. 17; 
 Jonah i. 5, etc.). 
 
 4) emphatically, " GOD," with the article 
 
 " The only true God" ; as in Arabic, &\ EL-ILLAH, 
 60e6?; for instance, <dJ! 1\ d\ X "there is no God 
 but EL-ILLAH," a^ ill c^!la> ^ J^ y> y^ " Yea ! 
 He is, He alone ! and everything perishes, except 
 Himself" (Epist. Ibn. Toph. ed. Poc. p. 117), fijPP '3 
 DniWl tflH "For the Lord He is God" (Deut. iv. 
 
 V; T \ 
 
 35, etc.). 
 
 5) without the article, D^TK also "GOD." It 
 is for the most part interchanged with Jlin* ; e. g., r\T\ 
 Min* 1 . and t^ri?^ nil, etc. " Generally speaking," 
 says Gesenius (Thes. L. Heb. p. 97), "in the historical 
 style, i. e., Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 
 Kings (and in the Proverbs), HilT is more frequently 
 met with than D 1 *!!/^. In Job, (lift* 1 occurs in the 
 prologue, which is in prose ; but in the poetical parts 
 we find 7K and D^H?^. In later writers, i.e., Eccle- 
 siastes, Jonah, Daniel, etc., Jlin* is scarcely to be met 
 with. In the Psalms it varies according to their
 
 date. In Genesis, the use of HIPP in some chapters, 
 and that of DTPK in others, is so remarkable, as to 
 
 v: / / 
 
 have induced some critics to suppose the book to 
 have been written from two different documents." 
 And Fiirst, Cone. Heb. p. 48, says : " commentitiis et 
 fictis diis omnibus vi potentiaque superior, qua voca- 
 buli origine factum est, ut synagoga inter Elohim et 
 Jehova sic discerneret, ut illud potentiam jptfpi P2p-5w) 
 (i3p? i?i33 5owi T:f> vindicemque scelerum justitiam,* 
 hoc misericordiam gratiamque significare diceret." 
 
 6) E^PPK is used adjectively (like vtf, 4); e. g., 
 Vrbtfn Tl " The mountain of God," i. e., " a very 
 high mountain" (Psalm Ixviii. 16, etc.). 
 
 7) also adverbially, with a prefix ; as, PlTHS *Vtf 
 DWX7 " urbs divinitus magna" (Jonah iii. 3). The 
 Greek expression " atrmo? T&> @e&>" (Acts viii. 20, 
 and 2 Cor. x. 4) corresponds to D <i n7X7 ; if it be 
 not itself a Hebraism. (See also, Schultens, Harir. 
 
 Consess. iv. p. 36 ; and compare D*!"PN7 with ^J <dj ; 
 
 and this, too, with Cic. de Orat. i. 23, and ii. 42, 
 " dicendo deus," etc.) 
 
 The one leading idea, then, in EL, ELOAH, and 
 ELOHIM, is, POWER with EXCELLENCE ; and WOESHIP, 
 as attendant on that power. 
 
 * Comp. ' 2u8e/c' and ' SvSue,' i. q., jTlX " Justus," 
 the father of the seven " Cabiri," according to the 
 Phoenicians, in Euseb. Praep. Ev. lib. ii. 10, p. 39, c.
 
 70 
 
 VI. 
 
 We now come to consider the literal sense of 
 
 IV. EO2. Hermes said of 0eo9' " Oeov 
 pev %aXe7roz>, Qpdo-iu Se aBwarov" " Koges me," says 
 Cicero (de Nat. D. i. 60) quid aut quale sit deus ; 
 auctore utor Simonide qui, "quanto, inquit, diu- 
 tius considero, tanto mihi res videtur obscurior." 
 " Concede esse deos, doce me, igitur, unde sint, ubi 
 sint, quales sint corpore, animo, vita," etc. 
 
 That incertitude as regards the nature of 0eo9 is 
 nowhere more plainly set forth than in the variety of 
 etymologies for 0e6?, offered by the Greeks themselves. 
 Herodotus (Eut. ii. 52) says, that the Pelasgians 
 Se irpocrwvofjiaa'dv cr<ea<? OTTO rov TOIOVTOV on KOCT/MW 
 ra Trdvra TrptfyfAara teal Trdaas vopas el%ov ' called 
 them 'gods' (6eov<i) from this circumstance, that they, 
 after having put (flevre?) all things in order, took in 
 hand the whole management of them." Now, "TO 
 (says Athen. 1. xi. p. 503,) Oelvai, 777509 
 
 eXeyero." " Hoc pacto (adds Scap. p. 919) 
 
 erit conditor et creator universi." Phurnutus (de 
 Nat. D. i. p. 140, ed. Gale) agrees with both : ev\oyov 
 
 oe Kai TOU9 6eov<f CTTTO r^9 6eaea)<; ecr^rjKevai rrjv Trpoary^opLav 
 ravra & av elev ol 0ol, Oerfjpes Kal Troi^rat rcov ^LVOfjuevwv 
 oXcov "The gods are 'arrangers' and makers of all 
 that exists." And further, he adds, that of old, 
 men took to be 6eov<;, " gods," ofc evpov a&a7rrom9
 
 71 
 
 , " the bodies they saw continually revolv 
 ing," etc. 
 
 This opinion is borrowed from Plato (Cratyl. sec. 
 31, ed. Bek., and Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. p. 29, c, seq.), 
 who says, that the Greeks at first worshipped the 
 sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, and heaven, 
 " are ovv avra opwvTes Trdvra del iovra Spopov ical Oeovra, 
 
 O TCIVTTJS TT)? </>u<7ea>? rrj<t TOV 0elv Oeovs auroy? eirovo- 
 " As they saw those bodies continually re- 
 volving in their course, (' egedelao-av, 0ov? etc TOV 
 0elv 6vo[uicravTe<i Toi>9 dcrrepa^ Clem. Alex. Adm. 
 
 Gent. p. 15, ed. Col.), they called them 0eou<? (gods), 
 
 from the rapid motion (TO Beetv, TOVT' e<rn rpexeiv, 
 KOI ofe'w? Kiveladai, Simplicius, com. in Epict. Enchir. 
 p. 223, ed. Salmas.) inherent in their nature." (Sick- 
 ler, Cad. p. 4, derives dew from H^H, "to wander"). 
 To all of which, Macrobius (Sat. i. c. xxiii. p. 319, 
 ed. Bip.) assents, when he remarks (on this line in the 
 Iliad a 424 : Oeol S' a/*a Trdmes ejrovro) ;^- u 0eov<; enim 
 dicunt sidera et Stellas airo TOV 0eeiv, id est, Tpe^etv^ 
 quod semper in cursu sint." Or, 0e6? may come cnro 
 
 TOV dewpeicrdai. ( Stob. Eclog. PhyS. p. 4.) " o p,ev Oeo<f 
 auro? ovre o/jaro? ovre ata^ro?, a\\a \oya), /cal vow 
 deopaTo?" " God, verily, is neither to be seen nor 
 heard ; but only to be contemplated through the rea- 
 son and the mind." Or, from ^eo/ww, admiror. Scap. 
 p. 253. Or, from 0a&>, i.q., Odofuu, " specto cum 
 cura"; e.g. 0aa-6/j,evai TOV "AScovw (Theocr. Id. xv. 23 ; 
 Damm. Lex. Horn. v. 0ao>), and, "comparatio vocis 
 Latinae ' deus,' cum Graeco 8eo? timor, pro quo
 
 72 
 
 (cum adspiratione lit. 8) dicere potuerunt 0eo? sua- 
 det, ut credamus Oeov Grascis dictum fuisse a timore 
 et metu, quern tonitrua et fulmina, ex sethere missa, 
 mortalibus incutiant. Eadem forte ratio est vocis 
 B*rPK Elohim apud Hebraeos," says J. Y. Lennep (in 
 Scap. Lex. p. 919). 
 
 Lastly, Bryant (Anc. Myth. i. 13) derives 6e6<s from 
 the Egyptian Herrnes, "Taut, Thoth, or Theuth" ; and 
 thinks it was originally written OevQ I " Videtisne," 
 says Cicero (de Nat. D. ii. 70), "ut a physicis rebus, 
 bene atque utiliter inventis tracta ratio sit ad com- 
 mentitios et fictos deos? quod res genuit falsas opi- 
 niones." 
 
 " Tt ToiwVy w rap, airoKpLVoi/JbeOa o, n earrl ' eo?';"* 
 
 For GEO2 neither comes from 0e'<n9, nor from Oew, 
 nor yet from Oedo/juu, nor from anything essentially 
 Greek. Its origin, like one element of the Greek lan- 
 guage, is from the East ; and 0e6? is derived, probably 
 through Diu-s, Deus, from the Sanscrit root Diu, 
 Div, implying, 1) brilliancy; and 2) the Sky or 
 Heaven. 
 
 DIU is a substantive, masculine, feminine, and neu- 
 ter, which occurs in the Vedas. As mas. (nom. sing. ) 
 DIU-S, it means "Agni," "fire," the "Sun"; as/m. 
 it implies "a ray of light," "day" (Lat. diu); as 
 neut. it stands for " the Sky," or " Heaven," aiOrfp. 
 
 DIV is also frequently found in the Vedas ; 1) as 
 
 * Max. Tyrius Serin, i. p. 2, ed. H. Steph.
 
 73 
 
 an adjective, "brilliant" and 2) as a, fern, substantive, 
 for the " SKY," or " HEAVEN." It is itself a defective 
 noun, and, in later Sanscrit, it borrows some of its 
 cases from the kindred words (Dyo, Dyau), DIAU-S, 
 fern, andtnas., "the Sky," "Heaven"; andDyu, (diuti), 
 Diu, neut., " the Sky," or " expanse of Heaven," etc. 
 Thus, DIV adopts for its nominative sing., DIAUS; 
 as in the Rig. -Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vi. 13), 
 " Mahi DIAUS prit'hivi-cha "; " great Heaven and the 
 Earth." In the ace. sing, it makes regularly, DIVAM ; 
 nom. and ace. pi., DIV AS; gen. sing., DIVAS, and 
 gen. pi., DIVAM; dat. and abl. pi., DIU-B'HYAS, 
 (from Diu,) etc.; and DIV means 
 
 1) " the Sky," "Heaven." Sama-Veda (Artch. i. 
 prap. 4, Ard'h. 2, dag. i. 7). 
 
 Endra jahi harib'hirupa Kanwasya sushtutim, | 
 DIVO amushya shashato DIVAM jaya DIVA vaso. 1 1 
 
 " Come, Indra! with thy golden-coloured steeds, 
 and listen to the fond praise of Kanwa! Mount, 
 thou Gem of Day (" treasure by day," Diva), into the 
 Sky (Divam), into the vault of Heaven (Divas), that 
 overrules us all ! " 
 
 And (ibid. pr. i. dag. ii. 10) " paro jadid'hyate DIVI," 
 the Sun " who shines forth in the Sky" (Divi); and 
 (dag. iii. 7) " Agnirmurd'ha DIVAS kakut" (600aVo9 
 ^eXt'ou? in 01. iii. 36), "0 Chief Agni! bright globe 
 of Heaven" (DIVAS) ; " Va "A-n-oX^ovl ((Ed. R. 80) 
 
 a> rov alirvv ovpavov 8i(j>pr)\ar&v f/ HXie" (Aj. 845). And 
 Rig.-Veda (Asht. 1, Adh. 2, varg. vii. 20), " DIVIVA
 
 74 
 
 ohak'shuratatam," " like a glance of the eye into the 
 bright expanse of Heaven" (Divi), etc. DIV means 
 
 2) " HEAVEN" personified, as father of Ushas, or 
 Aurora (Sama-V. Arch. 1, prap. 4, da9. ii. 1), 
 pratyu adarshyayatyu ch'hanti duhita DIVA: ' Yon- 
 der dawns in her beauty, the beaming daughter, of 
 Heaven" (Divas), 'Hw? ore Bia favri-r) (II. a>. 417, etc.) 
 'H&><? \afj,7rpo<f>ai]<; Oea Ovy-row fyaecrlpfipo'rov rj^ap ayovaa." 
 
 (Orph. H. 77.) She is called (in Sama-V. Arch. 1, 
 prap. 2. dag. iv. 4) " priya DIVAS," " the beloved of 
 Heaven" ; and, (ibid., Arch. 2, prap. 8, Ardh. 3, xi. 3) 
 Sa no adyab'haradvasur vyuch.'ha duhitar DIVA: " The 
 daughter of Heaven, at dawn, has brought to-day's 
 weal with her." This intimate relationship between 
 DIV and Diu, is further shown by such passages as 
 (e. g., Rig.-Veda, Asht. 1, Adh. 1, varg. xii. 9) "ata: 
 parijmannagahi DIVO va rochanad ad'hi": "therefore, 
 ye surrounding (Maruts), come hither ; whether from 
 the Sky (divo) or from the brilliant solar Heaven." 
 " DIVO " is here explained in the commentary by 
 " Diu-lokat," " from the world of DIU," the highest 
 region of the atmosphere ; and " rochanat," by " dip- 
 yamanad Aditya-mandalat," " from the brilliant sphere 
 of the Sun" (see also varg. xxvii. 9, etc.). 
 
 That brilliant sphere was (the feminine) "mahi," 
 or "uttara" DIAUS, " 77 ea-xartj Trepufrepeia ev y irav 
 tSpvrai TO Oelov" (Zeno, Diog. Laert. vii. 1, 70), 
 6 aworaro? TOTTO? " orbis coelestis extimus" (Somn. 
 Scip. 4) ov aldepa irpoo'wvofjuaa'av, atro rov delv ael. TO
 
 75 
 
 diBiov %povov Qky^voi TIJV eTTwvvf^iav avrta. el? /cat 
 diSios %X WV ^ Ka ^ TrepieXtov ev avrw TOV aireipov xpo- 
 
 vov* It is also taken for " Heaven": "Eva pev ovv 
 
 TpoTrov Ovpavbv \ejofjiev rr)v OIHTMV rrjv Tijs ecrj^aT^ roi) 
 7raz/T09 7repi(f)opa<; euoOa/^ev jap TO eo-^aroy ical TO ava> 
 fj,d\urra KaXeiv Ovpavw, (" ccelum, aeternum, immen- 
 sum, neque genitum, neque interiturum unquam" 
 Plin. N. H. lib. ii. 1, seq.*), eV & KOI TO Oelov irav 
 I8pva-0ai <f>a/j,ev. (Arist. de Casio, i. 3, 13; ii. 1; i. 9, 
 8.) It was supposed (as e. g., by Anaxagoras) to be 
 of fire, in which the planets, gods (foot), revolved. 
 Se T&> dpurrq) (^eo!>) ovpavos Oeovf yu,ev ovv (e\eyei>) 
 TO TroXu TTvplvovs, as Plato says (in Diog. Laert. 
 iii. 72, 74, ed. H.); and Pythagoras, "To pev ovv dvw- 
 TaTw //.epo? TOU Trepte^oyro?, "O~\,vfA7rov tca\el o ^dto9 
 <j)v\a,Kr)v 6vo[j,dovcri, TO Tavrrfv e^ov Trjv "X&pav Trvp. 
 
 (Stob. Eel. Phys. i. p. 488; Arist. de Ccelo, ii. 13; in 
 Preller's H. Ph. p. 78, etc.). 
 
 * Comp. the Zendic " Zaruana-akarana," the " un- 
 created," " eternal time," which on that account has 
 no " Pravashi," or " Farohar," or first ideal prototype, 
 or cause (fra-ushi, "life, intelligence"). (Vendid. 19, 
 480, etc.; Burnouf. com. on the Ya9na, pp. 269-71 ; 
 Vendid. Brockh. 361 ; Wilson, P. R. p. 131, seq. etc.). 
 Comp. also " Xpovo?" " Time," who, says Damascius 
 (c. 125), was a god of the Sidonians; worshipped in 
 Gaza as '^lx?7/uo9 or M\So9, which Bochart (G. sac. ii. 
 2, 14) explains by D* 1 "!?!! 7JD, from "I/H " the course 
 of time," etc.
 
 76 
 
 "Uttara" DIAUS ("Swarga, Suralokau, DIO, divau" 
 Amarak. i. 1), answers, perhaps, in a certain sense, to 
 " n<x;yr" and to " CATH," among the Egyptians (Lep- 
 sius Ag. gotterkr. p. 8, seq.) ; to " Zian" or " Dgah- 
 Itan" of the Buddhists (Upham Hist. B. p. 74, seq., 
 and Rgya-tcher. KP. passim. ) It is also the " Hwang- 
 T'heen" and " Ta-T'heen" of China; and it may like- 
 wise represent the " Gimle" of northern mythology; 
 the "upper-world of light" (Finn Magnus. Eddaleren, 
 tred. B. p. 217). It is doubtless meant as, that 
 " Land er heilagt* 
 
 Er ec liggia se 
 
 Asom ok Alfom ner." 
 
 " ^Ethereal land 
 . Which I see lying 
 
 Near the gods and the elves." 
 (Grimnis-mal. iv.) 
 It was, 
 
 " Ignea convexi vis et sine pondere coeli," 
 
 ( " Coeli lucida templa," Lucret. i. 1013) ; quod 
 
 " Astra tenent coeleste solum, formaeque deorum." 
 -(Ov. M. i. 26, 72). 
 
 * "Heilagt," means "asthereal"; or, as F. Magn. 
 (ibid. p. 11) says: " hvad der tilhorer den hoje, 
 klare Himmel" : " what belongs to the high, clear 
 Heaven" (see S61ar-Lioth, 23). Hence " heilig," 
 " holy." A good land to look forward to !
 
 77 
 
 "Uttara" DIAUS, was the fao UV "bright (air 
 or) sphere" of the Sabaeans, in which the self-existent 
 phoenix lived, e. g., Lib. Adami, 1. i. p. 144. 
 
 'r-> .--4~ O1 ^OOI \n O ] *h \ \ .OOT-JJ 
 
 ]ocn ]^D> ] ; <*) o ]o> ^^ ]ocn ap }ooi 
 
 1A_*1 Zoai ]Q_I -,-i 
 . V>oou> la!^05 ]li*"> IOGI ]JOOLJ ]A*j 1A*1 Even 
 before all the worlds were made, ' Ferho,' the (great) 
 divine phoenix* already existed. As the divine 
 
 * A symbol of the Deity. Compare the " hawk" 
 and the ?r " hat" in Egypt, etc., and " Patanga," 
 " bird," an epithet of the Sun (in S.-Y. ii. 6. 1, 11, 3), 
 with -jL jUj&lt, the "royal falcon" darting from 
 the Creator's hand (Djel. D. p. 130). In the Ber. 
 Eabba, c. xix., it is said that " all animals hearkened 
 to Eve's voice, and ate of the forbidden fruit 
 
 w rDiN hm) THH ^in wen 
 
 one bird, by name ' Chul' (Phoenix), of which it is 
 said, ' I will multiply my days like (those of) Chul." 
 " This bird," says E. Jannai (ibid.), Tl N1PI KM S^K 
 " lives a thousand years, then burns his nest, and lives 
 again and evermore," etc. Norberg renders k*;a 
 (volatilis) by " Phoenix," and he compares it (Lexid. 
 p. 125) with the Persian " Ferouer" (com. Yagna, 
 p. 271), which he derives from u jjjj "to fly." He 
 must have meant ^j , " Pari," the probable origin of 
 "Fairy"; which in the -jli ^Ijy? is jjj ^i-wu, op- 
 posed to u Div," an evil genius.
 
 78 
 
 Ferho existed, in him also did the divine king of 
 glorious light appear. And from the divine king 
 of glorious light, the (" Oyar zivo" bright atmo- 
 sphere) realms of light were produced ; and out of 
 that u oyar zivo," came the "fire of life"; and out of 
 the fire of life, came forth the powerful light of the 
 "king of light." 
 
 DIAUS was also the AqAN or " Heaven" staraA . 
 maonho . Huro . anaghranam . raochananham . qadhatanam 
 " of the stars, of the moon, and of the sun ; self- 
 existing lights that have no beginning," mentioned 
 in the Zend-avesta (Ya9na, Com. c. xxxvii. p. 343, 
 seq.) ; and it ranged high above (the lower and neuter) 
 DIU which was inhabited, as we have seen, by the 
 Maruts (winds or genii), "prishnimatara:," "born of 
 the earth" (Rig.-V. Asht. 1, Adh. 2. varg. ix. 10; 
 Adh. 3, varg. xv. 4, etc.). 
 
 There, in " the higher Heaven" (Swarga, Suraioka), 
 in the "mahi," or "uttara" DIAUS, " KOV/JLOV tvva- 
 the procreating or generative POWER, ""HXw>5 
 " Agni, DIU-S, dwelt in splendour, sur- 
 rounded by his revolving satellites (OeoL). He was 
 adored as FITA?, pn, Auorw-pH or <J>pH,* not in the 
 Lybian-desert alone, but in the neighbourhood of 
 
 * Compare <J><\-pH, 6 rov pn (6 TOV Aios Sto?, rather 
 than norpo "the king") as origin of "Pharaoh" (in 
 Burmese, P'harah, " God," " Lord") with " Poti- 
 pherah" (ne-Te cfrpn "belonging to (f>pH"), who was
 
 79 
 
 Memphis, and by countless multitudes in his own 
 gorgeous temple at Thebes (TAHG Sah.), the capital 
 of his kingdom (HAZ-HTA? Kb-m-osA 4-71/77-1-09), the 
 "land of Egypt." He was Ssft, Ba'al, "lord" or 
 " master" in Canaan : (" Ba'al, hear us !" 1 Kings 
 xviii. 26 BeaTTOTa Koa-pov, KkvQi \6jo)v, Orph. H. 
 viii.). He was, and is, even now, in China, " Choo-jili 
 yay," " the Lord, the Sun," in the worship of Heaven 
 (Le-ke c. x. and xviii.). And in Ceylon, he is still 
 adored as " Hi-Eu," or " I-Ku" (comp. Jyv-pn, Hari) 
 one of the " Bali," (or " Baalim" ? planets, 0eo/, Uph. 
 Buddh. p. 112, seq.j Mahawanso, pp. 230, 231, ed. 
 Turn.). He was ttftfi " Thammuz," or Thamuz 3 dur- 
 ing the winter solstice, not at Byblus only, but even 
 at the gate of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezek. viii. 
 14); and jiteTtiri, " Hadad-Rimmon," at Damascus 
 (according to Hitzig. Com. in Jes. 17, 8). In Phre- 
 nicia he was (Sanchon. ed. Orell. p. 34) "AScoSos ("the 
 in IP! only one" ?) ftaa-itev? 6eS>v (Macrob. Sat. i. 23 
 " Solem intelligentes") or TIN " Adoni," " my lord" ! 
 He was adored as Kippx (comp. the Persian 
 
 priest of "On" (orcoem or ortomi, "the light"), 
 'HXtowroXtf, etc. (Gen. xli. 45). And also the ancient 
 Egyptian ATeR " gods" (Insc. Roset. 1. vii. viii. ed. 
 Uhlem.), with the zend ATAK, " fire," called in 
 Yagna, i. xxxi., " Ahurao . Mazdao . puthro," " son of 
 Horrnuzd" ; and elsewhere, " Aokhto . namano . Yazato," 
 called by name, " Yazata" (or Ized).
 
 80 
 
 or *A$a>vvi at Golgos and Amathus; as 'H>uo9 in his 
 own island, the gem of the deep, favepa 'P6$os (Find. 
 01. vii.); as *o,o " Kadusch," or ^u} "!L"; in 
 his magnificent halls at Baalbek, in Syria, which, 
 
 Abul-feda (Tab. Syr. p. 103, ed. Koehl.) says, 
 * 
 
 " The Sabaeans* declare to be the finest temple they 
 have, and in great honour among them." He was 
 worshipped as HUBVE or MITHRA among the fertile 
 hills of Ariyana-vaeja; and on the sunny plains of 
 India, as AGNI, SURYA, DIVAS-PATI, DIU-S. 
 
 "vi Diom eshi rajas Prit'hu aha mimano aktub'hi:| 
 pashyan janmani Soirya ! 1 1 
 
 Sapta twa harito rat'he valiant! deva Surya| 
 Shocliiskesliani Vichak'shana ! 1 1 
 
 Udvayam tamasaspari jyotishpashyanta uttaram | 
 Devan Devatra Suryam aganma jyotiruttamam. 1 1 " 
 
 " Prit'hu ! thou traversest, one and alone (vi- 
 eshi), thine sethereal sphere DIAUS; measuring days 
 and nights ; thou, Surya ! who seest all creatures 
 upon earth ! 
 
 " Thy seven horses draw thee in thy chariot, 
 divine, bright-haired, light-imparting Surya ! 
 
 (Goran. Sur. 
 
 ii. 62), an. id. 9, L5 ^ ^j^j "Christians of John the 
 Baptist," etc. (see, e.g., Norberg's Diss. deRelig. Ga- 
 lilaeor. p. 2, seq. ejusd. ; De divinitate Nazaraeor., and 
 de Kege Lucis, cult. Nazar. Lund. 1812, etc.).
 
 81 
 
 "And we, beholding the ('pavakam' purifying) light 
 springing out of darkness (when at thy brightness 
 tayavo yat'ha nak'shatra yanti aktub'hi: 'the constel- 
 lations flee like thieves with the night.' v. 2), we 
 approach thee among the gods, Surya, brightest 
 light of all!" (Rig.-V. Asht. i. Adh. 4, varg. viii. 7, 
 8, 10, etc.) 
 
 And while at Rome, they addressed him as 
 
 " Lux immensi publica mundi 
 PHOEBE PATER!" (Ov. M. ii. 35) 
 
 in the classical land of Greece, he was invoked as 
 "*A4flN" (fTIN) "Lord" (Nossis Locr. 5, ed. G.) 
 
 "*Ay\ae ZET 
 
 K.6ajj,ov 
 
 Koa-fiov <w<?" ! (Macrob. Sat. i. c. 23) 
 and adored as 
 
 TOV irvrwv 
 
 Qeov vrpopov *A\iov. (CEd. R. 660.) 
 
 He was there apprfros Kpvfaos irparoyovos 
 ""HAIO2 Trcvyyeveroip Ovpdviov <f><o<i 
 
 del I 7ravinrepraro<j, Trdaiv dpa><y<i' 
 
 r (Orph. fr. vi. Hym. viii.) 
 The " Father of light and life," DEUS. " Nam eun
 
 82 
 
 dem esse Jovem ac Solem, claris docetur indiciis" 
 (Macrob. Sat. i. c. 23). 
 
 Even on the frozen shores of Ultima Thule, was 
 heard of old 
 
 " S61 ek sd ; 
 
 Sva thotti mer 
 
 Sem ek saei gavfgan Guth :* 
 
 Henni est laut 
 
 Hinnsta sinni 
 
 Allda heimi i." 
 
 " I saw the Sun ; 
 It appeared thus to me, 
 As if I saw a majestic god ; 
 I bowed to the earth before him 
 For the last time, 
 In this passing world!" (Edda, S61ar-l. 41) 
 
 for there also 
 
 " Eldr er best 
 Meth yta sonom 
 Ok Solarf s^n." 
 " Heylindi sitt 
 Ef mathr hafa nair." 
 
 * The Sun, " Sol," was, in Iceland, held to be one 
 of the Asynior or u goddesses." (See Lex. Mythol. 
 p. 291; and Runa, Nord. Mythologi, pp. 99-101.) 
 
 f " Sol," Cicero says (de Nat. D. ii. 27, ed. Era.) : 
 " dictus est, vel quia solus ex omnibus sideribus est 
 tantus, vel quia, quum est exortus, obscuratis omni-
 
 83 
 
 " Fire is best, among the sons of men ; and the 
 light of the Sun ; if a man keep his health." (Hava- 
 Mal. 68.) 
 
 (Comp. Irj, irj Itcuiaf t \ "id est, medere Paean!" and 
 
 bus solus apparet." (See below, Varro's etymology.) 
 But, Grimm (Deutsch. Myth. p. 664, seq.) derives 
 the Gothic " saiiil," n. from " ^uo?" (as {J/ti/os is from 
 " stunna-s," " a song of praise," Sanaa- Y. ii. 6, 2, 13, 2) ; 
 which Eustath. says, is " e'/e rov aw rb Xa^Treo, ical e\r} 
 
 f) deppaata" (in M. Port. L. Dor. Theoc.). And AU 
 viss the wise (Al vis-Mai. 16), says : 
 
 " S6L heitir med Monnum 
 En SUNNA med Gothom," etc, 
 
 " ' SOL/ is his name among men, 
 And, ' SUN,' among the gods." 
 
 Is the Gothic " Sunna" (m.) allied to " syn," " syni"? 
 (Damm L. Horn. i. 677, says, " die sonne" est pro 
 ** die schone"!!) i. <?., elSo?, which Lex. Myth. Edda3 
 proposes as the origin of "sidus." Or would the 
 Sansc. " SAN," " true, existing, excellent, best," ap- 
 pear too far fetched? See, however, his epithets, 
 " sarvada-SAN," u always existing " (in Vishnu Pur. 
 ii. viii. 16), and "AMBITA:" "immortal" (in Rig.- V. 
 Asht. i. Ad. viii. v. i. 2). Compare also the oracular 
 *EI, " thou art," inscribed over the entrance of the 
 Temple of Apollo, at Delphi. That *EI o>9 t/TroXa/*- 
 
 fidvovcri 4e\(f>ol cr^ua ical poptyr) rrj<; 7rpb<i rov Oeov ev-
 
 84 
 
 " 'Ie Ilaiav" \a/j,7rpal<s aicrlcriv "H\i /SaXXtyj/ " Savitri," 
 TTC/JL^OV eica{3o\ov e%0poi<; /3eXo9 cra9 airo vevpas, Ilatdv ! 
 (Macrob. Sat. i. 287, seq.\ and his epithet " Likn- 
 Skin," " healing light," in Snorra Ed. p. 177, ed. 
 Rask.), with 
 
 Hridrogam mama Surya! harimanan-cha nashaya, 
 
 " Sun ! destroy the heartburn in me, and the pal- 
 lid hue of my body!" (Rig.-V. Asht. i. Adh. 4, vg. 
 viii. 6, 11.)* This triplet is repeated in India as a 
 charm against disease, like 
 
 APOLLO . MEDICE . APOLLO . 
 
 Hence 
 
 " KaXovftev avyas iJX/bu <r&>T7;ptou9, 
 
 (Suppl. 216) for, " ert Be "H\io<s eTrm 
 
 Scorrjp S elvat teal 'Hpa/cX^," in Megalopolis Arcad. 
 
 (Pausan. lib. viii. c. 32, 4, ed. Fac.). 
 
 The traces of the worship of DTU-S, or the Sun, 
 which are met with in all countries, " vrayro9 
 
 Teyfea>9 a>9 a(f>6apTo<; 6 $609 real dt'Sios 7re<f>vKa)<; Was, as 
 AmmoniUS Said avrore\.r)<j TOV Oeov Trpocrayopeva-is fcal 
 
 7T/309 (f>(0vr)(Ti<;. Plutarchi (de *EI ap. Delph. 5, 9, 17, 
 p. 78, seq. ed. Tchn.). 
 
 * Comp. "O5Xe re /^\a %atpe" (Hym. Apol. 466) 
 " Mi\tfa-ioi et Atf\.tot vocabant eum Oifaiov, i. e. 0X0x77x09 
 leal vytela? iroitjriKov' ov\eiv enim est vyiatveiv" (Danim. 
 
 L. H. 2, 793), with " heil," " heiland," "whole" 
 (Buttm. Lexil. i. p. 191, not.).
 
 85 
 
 (Hymn. Ap. 19), show to what extent he de- 
 serves his epithet of "Jeo-TroT^ KOO-//.OU" (Orph. 
 Hym. viii.). The stupendous ruins in Central Ame- 
 rica, some of them built, one would think, after 
 the pattern of the temple of Belus at Babylon ; 
 the Pyramids and the Obelisks of Egypt; the fir- 
 groves (yni) of Phoenicia, so often mentioned in 
 Holy Scripture, as inducing the children of Israel to 
 idolatry ; the rites of the festivals of Adonis at By- 
 blus and Aphaca ; and in the more civilised lands of 
 Rome and Greece ; probably the round-towers, and, 
 certainly, the " be"al-tjne" of the present day of Ire- 
 land, and the now almost obsolete may-pole in Apo- 
 stolic England ; all those", and many more, attest the 
 universal adoration paid to the god, whose worship has 
 tended more than any other to defile the face of our 
 fallen earth; and who may be called emphatically, 
 " JT7roT?79 Koa-pov" the " ruler of the darkness of this 
 world. To him ^poiloo lSoAmSo cnoj lop ^Aa 
 was given * to lie,' in order that all men should wor- 
 ship him" (Lib. Ad. i. 212). 
 
 Wherever the Sun shines upon earth, he has been, 
 or is now, adored " /cal yap elSe rbv "H\tov irpwrov 
 e*a<rro9 cmo rrj<j TrarpiSo? o>9 teal TOVTOV TON 0EON, el 
 KCU KOWOS eo-riv, aXX,' ovv eicd<TT(p vofii^ecrdcu Trarpqjov" 
 (Lucian Patr. Enc. 6, ed. Bip.) as well in the 
 frozen north as on the sunny banks of " sarvapapahara 
 sarit" "the river that destroys all sin!" (Vishnu- 
 P. ii. c. viii. 97, 106) " Ganga-iva kutilagati," the 
 " meandering Ganges." There, at the dawn of day,
 
 86 
 
 when the Brahman repeats his sacred gayatri,* and 
 chants a Vaidic hymn to the rising Sun, you may 
 witness the daughters of India at their early devo- 
 tions ; and see the remnants of their morning sacrifice 
 strewed along the water's edge, or washed away by 
 the stream. What are they? The still fresh but 
 dying blossoms of the white jessamine, of the scarlet 
 ipomaea, of the rose-coloured kinshuka, blue ternatea, 
 and of other pure and fragrant " relics of paradise," 
 an offering of those women to the emblem of their 
 god, made of mud, the work of their own hands, and 
 worshipped with his unholy rites (Pushpad. Mahim- 
 nastava. v. 23, etc. ). Such a worship ! and to whom ? 
 to the god of Light! Well might St. Augustine 
 (de Civ. D. ii. 4) say: " QuaB sunt sacrilegia, si ilia 
 sunt sacra? aut quse inquinatio, si ilia lavatio?" 
 
 This has happened unto them, because, as Clemens 
 of Alexandria says (Admon. ad Gent. p. 15, ed. 
 Col.): "ty S^ T49 e/4$uro9 ap^aia Trpos Ovpavov av6p<iyrrot,<; 
 
 * The most sacred text in the Vedas. It is found 
 in Rig.-V. Asht. iii. Adh. iv. Sukt. 10 : " Tat Savi- 
 turvareniam B'hargo devasya d'himaM d'hiyo yo na: 
 prachodayat" " We meditate on that pre-eminent 
 light of the brilliant (or heavenly owy/SoXou, AVKIOV 
 'Savitu:') Sun ; may he (rule over) illumine our 
 minds" (H. H. Wilson, V. Pur. p. 222). Comp, 
 " 6 VO^TO? "H)uo9 of Pythagoras farep rb ovra e^tov TO 
 (J. Lyd. de M. p. 42).
 
 87 
 
 Koivwvia, aryvoia pev eo-fcoTia-fJLevrj f-vvoiai Be o\e0pwu o>9 
 dX77#(W9, TO ovpdviov <f)vrbv avOpoyrrov, ovpavlov egerpe- 
 tyav 8uiirij<f, teal egerdvvo-av evrt 7779, 7170/0*5 f irpo<rave^eLV 
 ava7Ti<racrai 7r\dafui<riv. Ol pev yap evOecos apfyl rrjv TOV 
 'Ovpavov 0eav a7rarovfivoi Kal en/ret povy ireTrurrevKOTes, 
 TWV a<TTep<0v ra$ Kivr\au<$ CTrtOewfievoi, eOav/uurdv re e^e- 
 Oeiacrav, 0cov<} e/c TOV 0eiv ovop,curavr&i TOVS atrrepas' Kal 
 Trpoa-eicvvTja-av "H\iov &><? 'IvSot, Kal ^eX^w/v, <o? <pvye5'" 
 K.T.\. And thus, being "alienated from the life of 
 God," and a-m/XT^/coVes " usvenans vaurthanai," as 
 Ulphilas reads it, that is, " having reached a state 
 of despair," " they have given themselves over unto 
 all uncleanness." For truly, as Seberianus says (Ho- 
 mil. x. on Baptism), 
 
 *- "/ 
 
 /"-[> * JuiuL cjjj i/lu^ I? ^ntj-L-nj "JlfL aui^T 
 
 " There is neither life for the body 
 without breath, nor rest for the soul (or spirit) with- 
 out the knowledge of her Creator. For the soul of 
 those men is dead, who know not God." So that in 
 Plato's words et9 "HXtov aTro/SXerroin^, vv/cra ev fj&ve/j,- 
 fipla (hrdyovrai, "while looking at the mid-day sun, 
 those people are still in the shadow of death." 
 
 How full of pity ought we to be for them ! and how 
 thankful ought we to be to Him, " whom to know is 
 eternal life," that "He hath called us out of such dark- 
 ness into His marvellous light!" That He hath be- 
 gotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection 
 of JESUS CHRIST from the dead, to an inheritance in- 
 corruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away,
 
 88 
 
 reserved higher than either Div or Olympus in 
 HEAVEN for us, " who are kept by the power of GOD, 
 through faith unto salvation" ! Even now, " though 
 we see Him not, yet believing," our walk through 
 life is to be that of children of " GOD, who is light"; 
 the bright " path of the just," which is, we know, to 
 " shine more and more, unto our perfect day." Then 
 " we shall see Him as He is ; and we shall be satis- 
 fied, when we awake with His likeness." For He is 
 " the Fountain of Life," and " in His light alone we 
 shall see light." Such is our hope. We can, there- 
 fore, and with more confidence than Anaxagoras 
 (Diog. 1. ii. 3, ii. ed. Hueb.), also look up to Heaven, 
 where " Christ, who is our life," sitteth on the right 
 hand of God ; and, with him, say : " e/tol teal a<f>opa 
 fj>\ei T79 Trarpi'So?," 8et^9 TOV 'Ovpavov" 
 
 The twin-roots, Div, DIU, DiAtr-s, and Diu-s, 
 which imply "Heaven and brilliancy," while spreading 
 westward, still continued unaltered in quantity and 
 in accent. For DIV, DIAU-S, or Diu-s are not words 
 in which " vowels go for nothing, and consonants for 
 very little" ; but they are terms which, like " pater," 
 "mater," "frater," and the like, outlive generations 
 and languages, unhurt. We find, therefore, that, as 
 both DIV and Dlir-s " corripiebant penultimam," 
 three thousand years ago, this has remained as short 
 as it was at that time; and that, of course, the tone 
 has continued, as in those days, on the last syllable 
 (except ace. s. Divam Ala}. DIU-S in Sanscrit was 
 pronounced "DYUS"; and ere Sanscrit grammar
 
 89 
 
 was modelled by Brahmanical skill -it was, perhaps, 
 declined something like the Oscan (Iou9 or Awvs) gen. 
 " luveis" (diu-vas); dat. "Diuvei," SiovFei, " Diovi'^ 
 (diu-vi) VOC. lov, lov Ilarep ! (diu, diu-piter) in the 
 Iguvinian Tables, ii. 2, v. 4, iv. 29, etc. (Mommsen % 
 Unterit. Dial. pp. 129, 143, 170, etc. Grotefend, 
 Kud. L. Umbr. viii. 17, vii. 30, iv. 7, 12, i. 10, etc. 
 Lanzi, Saggio di L. Etr. p. 309, etc.). From DIU-S 
 came probably the Latin DEUS ; the Doric SAETS 
 (Alcasi fr. 3, ed. G.) and Zeo? ; the Lacedemonian 
 5*665 (Thucydid. v. 77, irepl Se T 2y o-vyuaTos and 
 0-6605 avr)p, etc. Arist. Eth. vii. 2); the ^olic AET2, 
 ZETS (gen. Jt6?, dat. Ad; ace. Ala) or @t6? (Salinas. 
 Not. in Epict. p. 37; Scheid. in v. Len. et. Gr. p. 
 917); the Attic (like ovdeb, ov6ev for ovS el?, ovB ev, 
 &v0fjdt<i for guo-^ia?, etc.) 0ETS (Callim. Cal. Cer. 58 
 yeivaro 8' a Befc, and 129 irorl rhv 0ew ) and &EOS. 
 
 We find accordingly that, both DEUS and 9EOS 
 are in some cases considered as one syllable, like 
 ZETS and DIU-S. E. g., OeD? as above, eo?, Or. 393 ; 
 0eo/, II. i. 18, @ewv, eot?, Theogn. 173, and 66ov?, 
 1100, etc. and, in Horace (Sat. ii. 3, 284), "Diis 
 etenim facile est," etc. And as to the pronunciation, 
 no one can hear the dentals t, t'h, d, and d'h, in San- 
 scrit, from the lips of an educated Brahman, without 
 feeling that " Diu-s," Zevs" " Deus," " e05," and 
 " eo?," may be so easily interchanged, as to become 
 mere provincialisms of the same identical word. And 
 not only does the pronunciation of the dentals t, t'h, d, 
 or d'h, vary, or even dwindle into a sibilant, in Indo-
 
 90 
 
 germanic languages, (as e. g., "dann" for "then," 
 " door" and " durch," " through," etc.,) but we find 
 it the case also among the sterner idioms of the 
 Shemites. E.g., the Arabic JUUJt "emthal," becomes 
 UJU "meseller," in Turkish; j,\\ "eththani," in 
 Yemen, becomes " ettani" in Syria, and "essani" in 
 other districts. For these dentals are, from East 
 to West, another " Sibboleth," which many do not 
 pass. 
 
 The Sanscrit DIU-S (masc.), Agni, or, "the Sun," 
 and (fern.) " radiating light," in connection with 
 the allied roots, DIU, DIAU-S, and DIV, " Sky," or 
 " Heaven," is, then, the probable etymon of DEUS = 
 0EOS. The Sun was adored because he gave light 
 to Heaven, and life to the Earth ; and Heaven was in 
 turn worshipped as abode of the Sun. But the object 
 of adoration in both was " LIGHT," as inseparable 
 from the heat of "LiFE" (Yagna, i. xxxvii.). This 
 induced Bryant to propose |?ST*VIN J Ovp-aiv, " fountain 
 of light and heat," as the origin of 'Ovpavo?. For 
 Heaven as " Heaven" was not worshipped at night: 
 the moon and the stars were at that time the sole 
 objects of adoration; and " Night" (" quod nocet, 
 nox." T. Varro. vi. 6, ed. Mull.), when deified, was 
 rather propitiated than worshipped, " veneranda 
 nox," as being the absence of the " light and life" of 
 day, from the "bright" expanse of Heaven above. 
 Hence, it often happens that, among heathen nations, 
 " the Sun" and " Heaven" " hoc sublime candens," 
 - are identified in worship; one DIU-S (m.), as the
 
 91 
 
 generator of DIU-S (f.), " light and life,"* the other 
 DIAU-S (f.), or DIV (f.), as the receiver and pro- 
 pagator of LIGHT, throughout the lower and neuter 
 atmosphere, DIU. 
 
 We have here the reason for which Zev<; = DIU-S 
 is always in the singular. One Zev?, one Dru-s, " one 
 
 HEAVEN and SUN" ; ava<f>eperai Be r) fiovas ets '.^TroAAow, 
 Tovrecmvj et9 TOV eva ( 'H\t,ov 09 '^TroXXwz/ \eyerai Bia TO 
 aira)6ev etvai rwv TToXXewi/* teal Pco/naioi, Be avrov " ^oXe/*" 
 (rfroi " povov" \eyovo-i) Joh. Lydius (de M. p. 42) 
 " SOL" vel quod ita Sabini, vel " solus" ita lucet, ut ex 
 eo deo " dies" sit.f T. Yarro (v. 68). The Sun, then, 
 was adored as 7JSt " 7rp6/M)<; "A\io<; n " ava% tear e'o- 
 X/iv" (and not amf from 'AvaKalos, for having slain the 
 " 'Anakim," as Dickinson thought ; Delphi Phoen. p. 
 21, seq.) as 1135, ^w?; in the Vedas as "Surya:" 
 Shura : and NABA : (comp. " Nero," avfyelos " Nepoov 6 
 tV%upo9 rrj Saptvav favy" J. Lyd. p. 207, n.) as " dux 
 et princeps et moderator luminum reliquorum" (Somn. 
 Scip. 4) idam shreslitam jyotisham Rig.-Y. Asht. i. 
 
 * Comp. "Jubar"=" Lucifer," with Sansc. diu or 
 ju-b'hara, bara, or vara? 
 
 f Called, for that reason, in Sanscrit, "divakara:," 
 " maker of the day." 'Afj*pa7rat<; 'A\iov, o yeveffXio? 
 aia-ivwv Karri p, Find. " Sollum Osce totum et solidum 
 significat"; or, "usil," "sol" (ai/a-fa, aurora) often 
 found on Etruscan mirrors, with an image of the Sun 
 (Mommsen Tint. Dial. pp. 297, 349).
 
 92 
 
 Adh. B. varg.'i., "The first and best" (Stf) of lumi- 
 naries ; as " mens inundi" and " cor cceli" (Somn. 
 Sc. 3). "Atma jagatastast'hushash-cha." -^vyr) TOV KOO-- 
 fjMV xal TOV o-Tepewparos. Rig.-V. Asht. i. Adh. 8, Varg. 
 7, i. nam, " Sol est in ^Ethere quod in animali cor " 
 (Macrob. Somn. Scip. c. xx.); and thus as. the 
 " centre," the " Light and the Life" of the Universe, 
 as " God" ONE GOD " Ala /j,ev rbv "H\iov evofufyv 
 elvat" " "HXto? yap Zevs Kara rbv $epeKV&r)v" ( J. Lyd. 
 
 pp. 48, 150.) 
 
 Even S. Ephrsem spiritualises this " Unity" in 
 the " Sun," when he says (Serm. adv. Scr. Ixxiii.) 
 
 OO1 pM OO1 po 
 
 001 ^m-*^ * J-K. o . 001 "jA^Zj ^ . 001 
 
 . _o*o '*-: <7> oicu^l ^io "iaSn* " Behold the 
 symbols in the Sun of the FATHER ; of the SON, in the 
 light, and of the HOLY GHOST in the heat thereof! 
 Although He is One, yet He shows forth the Trinity. 
 
 One is many ; One is three ; and Three One. The 
 Sun is parted from his rays ; they are distinct and 
 yet equal and the same," etc. That was the mono- 
 theism, from which arose all the gods of heathendom ; 
 for, " quod omnes psene deos dumtaxat qui sub coelo 
 sunt, ad Solem referunt non vana superstitio; sed 
 ratio divina commendat; ita diverse virtutis Solis 
 nomina Diis dederunt: unde ev TO TTCLV sapientum 
 principes prodiderunt." (Macrob. Sat. i. c. 17.) 
 
 The Sun, then, and Heaven (Agni and Indra), 
 were the first objects towards which the heathens
 
 93 
 
 raised their eyes, and lifted up their hands in worship. 
 Aristotle (de Coelo, ii. 1, 3) tells us that, rbv S' ovpavbv 
 Kal rbv ava) TOTTOV ol pev dp^aioi rot? Oeols aTreveipav &>9 
 ovra fwvov dOdvarov. " The ancients awarded to the 
 gods, Heaven and the High place above; as itself 
 being alone immortal," etc. ; and ibid. i. 3, 
 jap dvdputTTOi irepl 6ewv e^ovcnv vTrohrj-fyiv, Kal 
 rbv dvwrdrw T&> 8ea> TOTTOV aTroSiSoaa-t,, Kal fidpfiapot, Kal 
 "EXhyves, ocroi -rrep elvcu vo/j,tov(ri, ^eou?, K,T.\. "All men 
 have some kind of notion about gods; and they all 
 have awarded to the Deity the highest place above ; 
 whether Barbarians or Greeks, as many as believe in 
 the existence of gods." 
 
 But the worship of "Heaven" as abode of the 
 Deity, is especially remarkable in China, as we shall 
 .see presently. That worship was, as we read in the 
 Le-ke (c. ix. ) " K'hing-chih-che yay," " an act of the 
 highest possible veneration." We find it the case 
 throughout, in the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in 
 the other works of Confucius. For as to the " mate- 
 rial" Heaven, the Chinese only thought " T'heen-Tih 
 shang-keaou," " that Heaven and the Earth were of a 
 very remote antiquity." For, here, "keaou" cannot 
 be " eternal," as one commentator explains it ; for 
 Lao-Tsze says expressly (see above, p. 19), that 
 " wo-ming Taou," " the ineffable Taou," " the Taou 
 that cannot be named," is the origin of Heaven and 
 Earth. And at c. xxiii., moreover, he seems to imply 
 that T'heen-Tih puh neng keaou " Heaven and Earth 
 cannot last long."
 
 94 
 
 Whether in China, then, in Greece, or in India, 
 " bright Heaven," DIV or DIAU-S, was deified and 
 worshipped 
 
 1) as abode of the Sun, Le-ke (c. ix. x. xii. xviii. 
 xix.) "Keaou-che tse ta paou T'heen eul choo Jih," 
 " The sacrifice performed in the open country, is a 
 great acknowledgment to Heaven, and the principal 
 object in it is the Sun" : arpifovra KVK\OV 'H\iov 7ra<? 
 
 et (Soph. fr. 90, 2) TOV TcavoTCTr\v KVK\OV 'H\iov 
 
 S), (Prom. v. 91,) etc. 
 
 2) as abode of the planets (0eoi, UTTO TOV 0eeiv, Plato 
 
 Cratyl.), (juucdpe<rcri Beois 09 d<7<jfeaXe9 atet, (Hes. 
 
 Theog. 128,) and soon became 
 
 3) personified ; (as Hes. Th. 46, and Orph. H. iv.,) 
 
 " Ovpav& vrayyeveTtop, KOO-/JLOV /juepos alev aretpe?, 
 ve&\' apyj] Trdvrwv" " TravvTreprare Salpov, K\v6L 
 and in the Vedas, as father of Ushas or Aurora, etc. 
 
 We saw above, that $avr)<*, $aeda>v, f/ HXto9, and Zew, 
 Deus, are one (Zev?, "IDuo? ^8e Se\qvii, Orph. fr. vi.). 
 And since " Heaven" (DIU or DIAU-S, Aw v^e\a0pov 
 e%wi/ tcpdro*;, Orph. H. v.), i. ., " the light of Heaven 
 above," was, practically, identified in worship, with 
 DIU-S the Sun and father of that light, we must 
 expect to find also that 'Ovpavo? and Zeu? are one 
 and the same. " Mundum," says Pliny (Nat. H. 
 lib. ii. 1), " et hoc, quod nomine alio 4 Coelum' ap- 
 pellare libuit, cujus circumflexu teguntur cuncta, 
 numen esse credi par est, aeternum, immensum, ne- 
 que genitum, neque interiturum unquam." We find,
 
 95 
 
 accordingly, that Euripides, as quoted by Hecatams 
 (Euseb. Praep. Ev. p. 681, A. ed. Col.) says 
 
 , <j>r)(rl t rov ir\frovj rovS' avreipov 'AiOepa, 
 Kal yrjv irept,^ eyovff wypals ev ayicdkais ; 
 Tovrov vo^ify. Zfjva, rovS' 37701; Qeov. 
 
 And ^Eschyius (ibid, ibid.) 
 
 Zev<$ effriv alOrfp, Zevs Be 777, Zeii? 8' ovpavos. 
 
 And Orpheus (fr. vi.) 
 
 Zev? TTvd/Arjv 7aw79 re /cat 'Ovpavov acrrepoeVTO?, etc. 
 
 et? 6e6$ eV Trdvreaai, TI trot Sfya ravr aryopevo) ; (fr. IV.) 
 
 And Ennius (Epich. 512, ed. G.) 
 
 " Istic est is Juppiter, quem dico, quern Grseci vocant 
 'Aepa - " 
 
 And Philemon (fr. i. ed. Cler.) 
 
 'Arfp, ov av rt? ovo/jLaaeie Kal Aia" 
 And Archilochus (fr. 17, ed. G.) 
 
 V2 Zev, Trdrep Zev, aov //./ 'Ovpavov /cparo?!" etc. 
 
 Thus, besides the Greek idea that " 6 /coo-po 
 ^X l r *1 v cr we'xpvo'av avrov. Kal avrrj /cdketTat %ev 
 curia over a rofc ^cocrt rov ffiv' Tlapd riat 8e Kal 
 \eyerai, aTro rov Seveiv rrjv ytjv" .r.X. (Phurn. N. D. 
 
 p. 141, ed. Gale), we may also mention other appro- 
 priate (but not probable) etymologies for Zevs; namely, 
 the Syriac fai "Zivo" (i. q., Div?), "brightness, 
 light," (" Oyar zivo,") and the Egyptian xoeic (pron. 
 Djo'is, or Djeus), which means "Most-High" ; and with
 
 96 
 
 the article nxoeic, (or, abbreviated, noc,) the word by 
 which PliiT and Kvpio? are generally translated in Holy 
 
 Scripture. ZEY2, then, ityaoro?, 'HXtos re real Ovpa- 
 1/65, is Trarrip avSp&v r 6e<av re IK rov <yap KOL 761/0? 
 eo-^ey "pater diviimque hominumque" ; DIESPI- 
 TER,* (Hor. Od. i. 34, 5) (not DIVAS-PATI: "Lord 
 of the Sky," an epithet of Agni and of Indra ; but) 
 DIU-S-PITER, or DIAU-S-PITER, " Sun," or " brilli- 
 ant-Heaven-Father"; or DITT-PITER, " Air," " Sky," 
 or " Heaven -Father"; JUPITER; ZET2 DEUS = 
 
 - "hoc 
 Sublime candens quern vocant omnes JOVEM." 
 
 (Ennius Thyest. 669, ed. Giles). 
 
 In like manner, then, as ZEYS, DIU-S, DIV, was 
 
 * " Hoc idem ostendit antiquius Jovis nomen ; 
 nam olim DIOVIS et DIESPITEE dictus, id est ' dies 
 pater' (' dies,' i. q., * dius,' Lanzi. Sagg. iii. 721), a 
 quo * dei' dicti qui inde, et 'dius' et 'divos'; unde 
 ' sub divo,' ' Dius Fidius.' Itaque inde ejus perfora- 
 tum tectum ut ea videatur ' divom' id est * coelum'; 
 
 ^Elius ' Dium Fidium' dicebat ' Diovb filium,' ut 
 Graci 4i6<T/copov Castorcm," etc. (T. Varro. v. 65, et 
 ix. 75, ed. Mull.) " Jovis diespiter appellatus, id est 
 diei et lucis pater : idcircoque simili nomine Diiovis 
 (or Diovis) dictus est et LUCETIUS, quod nos die et 
 luce quasi vita ipsa amceret et juvaret." (Gell. v. 10 ; 
 in Mommsen. Unt. D. p. 274).
 
 97 
 
 6ewv 'OXv/iTrtW (Choeph. 773) so also from 
 (Dm, Dlu-s) DIV proceeds naturally the adjective 
 DEVA-S, Lat. Dlvus, i. e., one of DIV Heaven" 
 both " bright" and " heavenly." Accordingly, we 
 
 find, Sto? (dlU-s) " rbv O/JTO Aios" vlov e/Jiov, ^apTTijSova 
 
 &iov, II. o. 67, as Plato (Phsedr. sec. 72, ed. Bek.) says: 
 
 "ot flV Brj OVV AlOS AuOV TWO, elvat, fyjTOVCTl TTjV tyv)(r]V TOV 
 
 vfi avrwv epwpevov" 6elo<> a fleo?, e.g. Zeno (Diog. Laert. 
 Vll. 119), " Oeiovs (av6 PWTTOVS) re elvai' e%eiv yap ev eav- 
 ro?5 oLovel Oeov" creto? a 0-409, etc., and thus only, 
 "divus"a"deo," "a god." 
 
 DEVA-S, we see, can hardly be the root of DEUS 
 and @EO2, for the wear and tear of three thousand 
 years would not reduce the long e of Deva-s (pro- 
 nounced like ay in " day," "nay") to the short e, e, 
 in Deus, and @e6?. For, this " e-tyikov" (and not i-wra) 
 is the Greek substitute for the Sanscrit semi-vowel 
 "y" or "i" short; since (unlike t-wra), it coalesces 
 with the following vowel into one syllable, as in Zevs, 
 Aev<; = Dyus, Diu-s; and also in @eo?, as Porson (not. 
 ad Orest. 393) shows abundantly. Moreover, the " v" 
 ( Vit) of deva-s would not disappear without good reason 
 for it. (Comp. e.g. " dwa," (diia) duo, inst. pi. dwab'- 
 hi-s, Lat. " duabus," with dyu-s, (diu-s) deus, @eo9, ace. 
 s. (of diau-s) diam, diem; inst. pi. (of dyu) diub'hi-s, 
 diibus ; gen.pl. (of div) divam, deum, Oewv.} In the 
 nom. pi. Deva-s makes Deva-s, Lat. Divi, ol Oeoi. ace. 
 sing. Devam, Lat. Divum, etc., and it is applied, like 
 0eo/, to all created gods ; who are the offspring of 
 Div, Diu-s, " Pita devanam," " the Father of the gods."
 
 98 
 
 We have already quoted the Orphic hymns to that 
 effect. In the Rig.-V., i., Adh. 2, iv. 13, we read - 
 
 " Namo mahadb'hyo namo arb'hakeb'hyo namo juvab'- 
 
 hyo namo ashineb'hya : I 
 
 Yajyama devan jadi shaknavama ma jyayasa : shansa- 
 ma vrik'shi deva : 1 1 " 
 
 " Homage to the great gods, homage to the lesser 
 gods, homage to the younger gods, (at last!) also to 
 the older ones ! We worship the gods as well as we 
 can; let me not omit to praise the oldest gods as 
 well." They are said, in varg. iv. 2, to be, Deva Di- 
 visprisha " divl Dium tangentes" ; explained in the 
 commentary to mean, as applicable to the two As- 
 wins, Dmlokanivasinau, " dwelling in the world of 
 DIU-S." Deva-s, it is true, is applied to VIRAJ, who 
 is a secondary creator, and " calls, or not, this world 
 into life," at pleasure (in Laws of Maim, v. 52). 
 But at si. 33, we find that this creator VIKAJ, although 
 so powerful, is nevertheless an offspring of 
 
 " tapastaptwasrijat yantu sa swayam purusho VIRAT," 
 
 the original Viraj, or Brahma, after he had performed 
 austerities for that purpose. In the Rig.-V., also, 
 Asht. i. Adh. 1, varg. 23, 7, etc., and in the Yedas 
 in general, deva-s is repeatedly said of AGNI ; but it 
 stands there as an adjective; and the commentary 
 explains it to mean, "dyotamana," "brilliant"; and 
 " divine." We have also further proof, elsewhere, 
 that Deva-s " dlvus," " a god," cannot be taken in the 
 same acceptation as Deus 6 eo?, GOD ; e. g., in the
 
 99 
 
 Bhagavad-gita, x. 23, Bhagavan, Almum Numen, 
 
 says 
 
 *' Ha me vidu : surana : prab'havanna maharshaya : | 
 Ahamadirhi Devanam maharsliinan-cha sarvasha : 1 1 " 
 
 " Neither do the hosts of gods, nor yet the oldest 
 sages, know from whence I am. I AM the origin of 
 the gods, and of the great sages too ! " etc. DEVA-S, 
 then, like Divi and 0eoi, are creatures, " 0eov Traces," 
 the offspring of DIV, or DITJ-S. 
 
 But although heaven-born, those Deva-s, divi or 
 0eoi, were, we know, bad enough : and, for that rea- 
 son, they were alternately worshipped or dreaded, 
 coaxed or averted, by an ignorant and priest-ridden 
 multitude. In the Zend-Avesta, for instance, " Dae- 
 vas," " deva-s," " divus," always means an " evil 
 spirit," hostile to Hormuzd; as, e. g., " Daevojata," 
 "struck or killed by the Daevas"; and (Ya9na, 
 Invoc. iii.) Pravarane . mazdayaqno . Zarathustris . vi- 
 daevo . Ahuratkaeso . etc. : " I utter with respect the 
 mazdayagna of Zarathustr, the enemy of the Daevas, 
 the follower of Ahura's behests, etc." The same word 
 became, in Persian, .. j, " Div," with a long 7, which 
 jU Jj says, jj,b UA \ is " a species 
 
 of devils." While the long e of deva-s, re-appears in 
 the diphthong "_," " ev," or " yev" (comp. Lith. 
 "diewas," and Lett, "deewas"), of the Armenian j^.^., 
 " TEV," or " TYEV," gen. i^bi-bi " TIVI," etc., "an 
 evil genius or spirit," which in ancient Armenian 
 authors is frequently applied to false gods ; e. g.
 
 100 
 (Moses Chor. lib. i. c. viii.), 
 
 fi rf-fraft ft- ui^Jutuft^ft litter 
 
 " Those chiefs among the gods were 
 both terrible and notorious, and the promoters of 
 many advantages to the world"; and c. ix., where 
 the historian relates the deeds of Haic, who by his 
 
 valour ruled over uitT ^[^^"^^3^ ^- i-l 1 '-3 UiJ Uf f ' iM 3i 
 
 u all the giants and the gods." In the New Testa- 
 ment, " tj-L." is used for " devil"; e. #., 1 Cor. x. 20, 
 
 " TO, edvrj) tj.fiL.iutj IM. n ft/if q.n^kJf'. 8ai/J,OViOl<S 0VL, /cat 
 
 ov 0eo3," etc. Thence comes the old Icelandic TIFI 
 or TIVI, " a god," pi. T!VAB, e. g., " rikir tivar," 
 " powerful gods" (Thrm. qv. i. ; Yegt. qv. 43, etc.), 
 and the modern Icelandic " dif-il," a "dev-il"; and 
 the acceptation of Safawv (which in Greek is good and 
 bad), chiefly in a bad sense in Latin, and always so 
 in its cognate dialects. 
 
 " 'Ev roaovTO) 8r} TroXe/iw /cat erdcrei /cal $ia<f>(i)vla" says 
 Max. lyriUS (Xoy. a. p. 3) eva tSot? av ev Trda-rj rffj 
 o/j,6<f>wvov vo/Aov fcal \6yov, o ri @EOS EI2 Travrwv ftacrt,- 
 Xev? Kal Trarrjp, /cal 6eol TroXXot, 0eov TratSe? 
 @ec5. Tavra /cal 6 "EXkyv \ejet /cal 6 fSdpjBapos Xe^e 
 
 "We find accordingly, that in like manner as 
 was " e??," so also was his prototype (Div) or DIU, 
 " HEAVEN," personified, even in Vaidic times, under 
 the name of Indra,* 
 
 * Either from " idi," " to govern" ; or from " indi," 
 
 " raining.'
 
 101 
 
 " PATIB-DIVO, ya eka idb'huratit'hirjananaml 
 
 Sa purvyo EKA IT." 
 
 "the Lord of Heaven, who ALONE is (the guest 
 worshipped among men. He is of old He is ONE." 
 (Sama-V. i. 4,2, 4, 3). 
 It was Indra, who 
 
 " dirgaya chak'shasa a Suryan rohayad Divl I " 
 
 " in order to make all things for ever visible" (Adi- 
 tyan Diuloke st'hapitavan), raised (or placed) the Sun, 
 DIU-S, in "Heaven"; that is "in the world of 
 DIU"; ("within himself" Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 3). 
 Then, the Sun, DIU-S, the restless Agni 
 
 " Murd'ha DIVO, nabir AGNI : prit'hivya at'hab'havad 
 arati rodasyo : | " 
 
 became the "head" of Heaven (DIU-S masc.of DIU 
 neut. as " Head and Author of life"), the navel of the 
 earth (" o^aXos epuftpopou X00I/05," at Delphi, Find.), 
 that gives to it strength and energy " a/ca^a?" 
 " vTreplcov" " /coa-fjLov rov evap/j,6viov Spopov <=\KWV" (Orph. 
 H. viii. ; Rig.-V. i. 4; xxv. 2), for 
 
 " Vi Suparno antarik'shan yak'hyadgab'hiravepa Asura : 
 Sunit'ha : | " 
 
 "the deep-quivering, life-giving, true Suparna ('with 
 heah'ng wings' wholesome rays) shines in the whole 
 Heaven" (Rig.-V. i. 3; vii. 7), DlVAS-chid rocha- 
 nad ad'bi " from even beyond the bright sphere 
 above," where he "yeveTvp 9701)5" dwells with his 
 daughter Ushas (Rig.-V. i. 4; vi. 1). 
 
 The SUN, as " head of Heaven," and " prat'hamo
 
 102 
 
 mritanam" " first among the immortals" (Rig.-V. i. 
 2; xiii. 2), was worshipped FIRST; 
 
 " hvayamy AGNIM PRAT'HAMAN, swastaye 
 
 - hvayami devan Savitaram, utaye | | " 
 
 " f/ HXte SecTTrora, real Trvp lepovl" 
 " avrap eycbv ov X^fw, e/c^ySoXov 'ATr6\\wva 
 apyvporo^ov (Horn. H. Ap. 177). 
 " - TOV Trdvratv 6ewv 
 
 6eov Trpofjbov "A\i,ov" " 
 " TOV 0eov TToiovfjuevos apuyov" (Soph. Orph. Rig.- 
 V. i. 3; vi. 1; and i. 2; xiii. 3). 
 
 For the Sun, Agni, DIU-S " DIVAS-PATI : " or "Patir- 
 divas," " Lord of Heaven " or of " the day," is 
 " jyotishkrit," "creator of light" (Rig.-V. i. 4; vii. 
 4) ; " diva-kara:" " maker of the day" (or " of Hea- 
 ven" " ovpdviov </>w9," Orph.; Kum. Samb T h. i. 12), 
 and 
 
 " pratyan devanam visha : pratyanudeshi mamishan | 
 pratyan vishwan swardrishe. | | " 
 
 " rises in presence of all the gods ; in presence of 
 men; in sight of the whole Heaven" (ibid. 5). 
 Hence 
 
 ""Ev0ev eTrowvfjiiav ere fipoTol K\rjov<riv "ANAKTA" 
 
 he is called " Prince " (Orph. H. xxxiv.) ; " vispatim," 
 "Lord of men" (Rig.-V. i. 1; xxii. 2); and "vishwa- 
 charshanim," "worshipped by all" (Rig.-V. i. 2; 
 xxiii. 9), who are all " his offspring." For 
 
 " twam AGNE pramatistwam PITASI nastwam vayas- 
 krittava jamayo vayam I "
 
 103 
 
 " Agni ! thou art favourable to us. Thou art our 
 Father ! thou givest us life, and we are thy kins- 
 men!" 
 
 Thus sang of old, the Yaidic priests of Sind, the 
 beloved land of Indu, that drinks "prishtin Divas," 
 the refreshing showers of Heaven; and rejoices ever- 
 more in the exuberant gifts of AGNI, " Pati prit'hivya," 
 " the LORD," who " vansate rayim," " crowns His 
 land with His choicest blessings" (Sama-V. ii. 3, 1, 
 4, 2; andi. 1, 3, 7, and 2). 
 
 There INDRA, "mahan INDRA parashcha" Lord 
 great and supreme (Rig.-V. i. 1, xv. 5), 
 
 " sahasran yasya rataya uta va santi b'huyasi : I " 
 
 " whose bounties are in thousands, and even more" 
 (Rig.-V. i. 1; xxi. 8). 
 
 " ya ekasb.charsb.an inam vasunamirajyati | " 
 
 " who alone rules over mankind and their wealth" 
 (Rig.-V. i. 1; xiii. 9). 
 
 was addressed as 
 
 " INDBA raye," "Opulent Indra!" " asaditte vib'bu 
 prab'bu," " whose own are riches in abundance, 
 enough and to spare" (Rig.-V. i. 1; xvii. 4-7). 
 
 " twamasya pare rajaso vyomana: swab'butyoja avase 
 
 d'brisbanmana : I 
 
 chakrishe b'humim pratimanamojaso g pa: swa: pa- 
 rib'bureshya Divam. II" 
 
 " Firm in thy counsels, Indra ! thou abidest in 
 thine own strength, even beyond that bright expanse
 
 104 
 
 of Heaven ; thou hast made the earth ; them hast 
 been the type of vigour ; and thou hast encom- 
 passed the sky, and the firmament, even unto the 
 Heavens." 
 
 " twam b'huva : pratimanam prit'hivya rishwavirasya 
 
 brihata : patirb'hu : I 
 
 vishwamapra antarik'sham mahitwa satyamadd'ha na- 
 kiranyastwavan. | [ " 
 
 " Thou art the image of the wide earth, and Lord of 
 the boundless realms above ; thou fillest the whole 
 Heaven with thy majesty; indeed there is none other 
 like unto thee!" (Rig.-Y. i. 4; xiv. 12, 13.) 
 
 "mad'hu DIAUB astu na: PITA!" 
 
 " May our Father, Heaven, be favourable (sweet) to 
 us!" (Rig.-Y. i. 6; xvii. 7.) 
 
 " INDBA kratunna ab'hara PITA putreb'hyo yat'ha." | 
 
 " Indra ! bring us wisdom, as a father to his chil- 
 dren!" (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 7); for- 
 
 " vasyam INDBASI me pituruta b'hratirrab'hunjata:|" 
 
 " Thou art dearer to me, Indra ! than either father 
 or brother, who both have abandoned me!" (Sama- 
 V. i. 3, 2, 5, 10) ; and - 
 
 " shradd'ha hi te, Maghavan, parye DIVI I" 
 
 " Faith in thee, thou rich in blessings ! exalts us 
 to Heaven!" (ibid. i. 2, 3, 4, 8.) 
 
 " pra sam BAJAN charshaninam INDBAN stota nav- 
 
 yan girb'hi : | 
 Naran nrishaham manhishtam ! "
 
 105 
 
 " praise anew the king of mankind with your 
 songs ; praise him, the hero, the conqueror, the ever- 
 bountiful Indra!" (Sama-V. i. 2; i. 4, 10); for 
 
 " INDBO vishwasya rajati." 
 
 "Indra reigns over all!" (Sama-V. i. 5, 2, 2, 10.) 
 He is 
 
 " PITA Devanan, janita sudak'shyo, vishtambo DIVO, 
 d'haruna : prit'hivya : 1 " 
 
 " The father and noble progenitor of the gods, the 
 pillar of Heaven, and support of the earth" (Sama-V. 
 ii. 1, 1, 10, 2). He is " Swa:-pati:" the Lord of Hea- 
 ven, and like the Sun also, "Prit'hu: patir-Divas" 
 " Prit'hu, Lord of the Sky" or "of the Day" (Sama- 
 V. i. 5, 1, 3) "yo devasya shavasa prarina asu" 
 "who brings forth life with power divine" (Sama-V. 
 i. 5, 2, 3, 10). 
 
 But since " Heaven," as " Father," derives his life- 
 giving energy from the Sun, who is " asura," " pos- 
 sessing life," and "Indreva," " like Indra" (Sama-V. 
 1, 2, 3, 6, etc.) the SUN is called " Pitus-Pita," 
 " Father's Father" (in Sama-V. ii. 6, 2, 7, 2). For 
 the " light and life" of " the Sun" is inseparable 
 from " Heaven"; since 
 
 " srayanta iva SURYAN vishwed INDBA-sya b'hak'- 
 
 shata | 
 
 vasuni jato janimanyojasa prati b'hagan na did'- 
 hima:[ |" 
 
 " In looking up to the Sun for health, you receive 
 every gift from Indra ; from whom we obtain abun-
 
 106 
 
 dant riches as our birthright" (Sama-V. i. 3, 2, 
 3,5). 
 
 Thus, we often find these two principal and in- 
 separable deities " Heaven " and the " Sun," " IN- 
 DBA" and "AGNI" worshipped together as one, 
 "INDRAGNI," as, e.g. (Sama-V. ii. 1, 3, 7 3, 1, 9; 
 and ii. 2, 1, 9, etc.) 
 
 " INDRE AGNA namo brihatsuvrtktimerayamalie I 
 d'hiya d'hena avasyava : 1 1 " 
 
 " We extol, worship, and praise Indra and Agni, the 
 two together; looking for their help, in our devotion" 
 (Sama-V. ii. 2, 1, 9) ; yea 
 
 " ta huve YAYOR idam papne vishwam pura kritam | 
 INDRAGNI na mard'hata: 1 1 " 
 
 " I call upon the two celebrated ones, by whom all 
 this world was made of old; Indra and Agni, you 
 two in one, do not forsake me!" (Sama-V. ii. 2, 2, 
 8), etc. 
 
 The above examples, which might be multiplied 
 abundantly, from the same ancient source, show that 
 " HEAVEN," as Parent of men, was inseparable in 
 worship from the fountain of his own " light and 
 life," the SUN; and that as in India, so also in 
 Greece, " ZetV' (Ovpavoi), and (Zefc) ""HW," his 
 head, were ONE, " Aecrjror^ KO<TIWV" and 
 
 In like manner, also, as we have seen that in all 
 probability we may bring back D'n?N to its simplest 
 primitive 7N, so also, if there be any priority in the
 
 107 
 
 monosyllables Diu, Diu-s, DIO, DIAU-S, or Div, we 
 would look upon DIU and DIV as identical, and 
 as anterior to DIU-S or DIAU-S. DIU (neut), the 
 "bright expanse of HEAVEN," became DIU-S (fern.), 
 the " life-giving rays," which proceed from DIU-S 
 (masc.), the Author and Parent of that life-giving 
 light, AGNT, the SUN, (Ignis, " 070/771-09," " 071/09 
 
 o9" Find.); for, as Homer (II. o, 189) says 
 
 jravra 
 
 But as those three cannot exist separate (since 
 " Fire," " Light," " Day," and " Heaven," are aU told 
 in one word), and make together ONE bright and in- 
 divisible whole this " fountain of life-giving light" 
 (py 11K, ovpavo?) was also expressed by the length- 
 ened form (Dio,) " DIAU-S," which, like Diu-s, is both 
 masculine and feminine, and means, when feminine, 
 Day (" DiES,"f Ovid. M. ii. 25), " the highest Sky," 
 "Heaven," and " Swarga," or "Paradise"; and is 
 
 * See this treated at length by J. Lyd. de M. pp. 
 51, seq., and spiritualised by S. Ephraem, in Serm. 
 adv. Scr. Ixxiii. 
 
 f Comp. "Dies" for "deus" or "dea," in "CURE 
 DIES"; Iguvin. Tab. iv. 4, which Lanzi (Sagg. Et. 
 L. vol. iii. p. 721) reads, " Coras Diaa," for Proser- 
 pine. But Grotefend (Rud. L. Umb. iii. pp. 17, 21) 
 reads it " tcovpenes," for " Juno Curitis," or " 
 etc.
 
 108 
 
 regularly declined in most of its cases in the Vedas. 
 When masculine, however, it may be taken for " the 
 Sun," as, perhaps, in this passage of the Sama-Veda 
 (ii. 9, 18,2)- 
 
 " Yajishtam twa yajamana 
 
 parijmanamiva DIAM, hotaram charshaninam, | ' 
 
 Shochishkesham." 
 
 " We worship thee, most worthy of worship ! ( Ya- 
 jishta,' ' Yajata,' ' Yazata,' ' Yazd,' ' Yazdan,' DVT?K) 
 like the Sun, revolving (or like Heaven, surround- 
 ing), ' fjidvTiv em^Oovloif efo^oi/ (Pind.) ' ^pvaoKOfjiav 
 'AiroTOuova,' (Eurip.) ' PITUS- PIT ARAM,' the Father 
 of Heaven, who is the Father of men." 
 
 We have thus endeavoured to bring back EOS, 
 DEUS, to its root DIU,-S, masc. fern, and neut., 
 the " Sun," and " bright vault of Heaven above" 
 "HOC SUBLIME CANDENS" for in the east, "Heaven," 
 anon " candet," is white; and the " air" is ardent. 
 And we have seen that 0e6<? meant, originally, not 
 " a god," as it does generally in Greek writers, but 
 that long anterior to their time it was used to express 
 the great and bright expanse of Heaven, which is 
 
 ONE ov fiovov el? ecrrlv ovpavos, a\\a KOL a&vvarov ye- 
 veo-Oai TrXeiovs, which was thought dt'Sto? a<f>dapro<} &v 
 
 real 0761/771-09, " eternal being, imperishable and un- 
 created" (for they knew Him not who says : " Be- 
 hold, I create new heavens and a new earth ; and 
 the former shall not be remembered!" etc.) and 
 was worshipped at first Kal jap TOVTO TOVVO/JM (ovpa- 
 vo<?) 0eo5 fyOeyrat Trapa rwv apx^icov as the " first,"
 
 109 
 
 or " only God."* (Arist. de Coelo, i. 9.) We have 
 also seen that " deva-s," " divus," is inferior to Diu-s, 
 or Dju-piter, who was v-^n^eSwv or {n/rto-ro? 
 
 " ev Kpdros, el? Sal/iav yevero, fteyas dp%p<; aTravrtav." 
 
 (Orph. fr. vi.) 
 
 So that DIAU-S, Heaven, or Diu-s, lov Ilar^p, DJU- 
 PITEE, Zew, DEUS, and 0e6?, like EL and ELOHIM, 
 were adored together as inseparable, as head and 
 body of the Great and Powerful ONE above. 
 
 We see, then, clearly, that the original worship of 
 0eo5 (Diu-s or Div), and that of the Divi, are in 
 themselves different; and that, although mingled to- 
 gether in practice by a degraded people, what applies 
 to the former, will seldom suit the latter. For these 
 were each only an energy or a property of " the 
 SUN," DITJ-S, (who, as author of life and light, was, 
 ev TO 7rcw>,) singled out and personified by men who, 
 Macrobius says, " diverse virtutes Solis nomina diis 
 dederunt" (Sat. i. xvii.). But "the SUN," " $ /^om?, 
 apfav Kal yovipajTaTr)" from which they all emanated, 
 was " et<? ZeV " oirra> yap Kal 6 "A\io<;" says Archy- 
 tas, " <f>ep6/j,evos Bia rw ^a>o(f>6pco KVK\(O Slave fj,et, rot? eiri 
 7a9 Tracrt Kal yevecrios Kal Tpo<f>d<> Kal /Stord*; rav 
 
 ' f Thus, e. g., we find that Tanri which in Tatar 
 means the " open Sky," is the term also by which 
 they express the " Most-High God," " Allah-ta'ala." 
 It is the term adopted in the Orenburg- Tatar version 
 of the New Testament, for " God."
 
 110 
 
 crav fioipav, olov vvo/j,iav, 8to teal IV6/^t09 Kal IV 6/^,77 109 
 
 Zei><; Kdheerai" (Epist. iv. p. 126, ed. Gil.) for, as 
 we read in the Vishnu Purana (ii. ix. 6, 7), 
 
 " tadad'haranjagaclich.ed.an sadevasura manusham. | " 
 
 " This world, with all the gods, demi-gods, and men, 
 is supported by the SUN." Since, however, 
 could not be " Ovpavo? 
 " ev o-repvoicriv %&v 
 
 (Orph. H. iv. 6), but for " 0)779 <&>9," "H\iov, rbv 
 avro<j)vrj %p6vov irarepa aOdvarov Ala (Orph. H. 
 viii.); we have fixed upon DIU-S, in particular, as 
 the origin of " DEUS" and " 9EO2," because, as a 
 masculine, it is the creative Power; " $9 Kal evffv 
 Kal fjbovifJMV^ appev re /cal Segiov" (J. Lyd. de M. pp. 
 42, 44). &>apeo9, a> ava, 77777779 
 
 ayro9 e%6>y K\*r)i8a (Procl. It. in S. 2). 
 We do not think that either the relative position 
 of Diu-s, m., the Sun, and DIAU-S, /., Heaven,* or 
 the whole type of life expressed in DIU, masc., 
 
 * In, Diu-s and DIAU-S, (and perhaps, in " Dyavi," 
 " Heaven and earth" S.-V. ii. 7, 3, 14, 1), we have 
 the probable origin of the phallic worship and its 
 rites, as they spread from east to west ; from the Yin 
 and Yang principles of Chinese physics, to the myth 
 of Adonis and Yenus. (" Venus," not from " Be- 
 noth," in " Succoth-Benoth," 2 Kings xvii. 30, as 
 Selden (de D. Syr. 1. c.) thinks, but from the Celtic 
 " Ben" or " Bean" (pron. " Yen"), a " woman.")
 
 Ill 
 
 fern., and neut., are a mere coincidence. We believe, 
 on the contrary, that although the distinction may 
 not have been adhered to by the bulk of Vaidic 
 
 worshippers, who " TO yap o\ov Kal TO nav euaOacrt, 
 \eyeiv Ovpavov ev w ical TO Beiov irav ISpvffTat <f>a<r(," 
 (Arist. de Ccelo, i. 9, 8, 9), yet that this " TWO " or 
 "THREE" in "ONE," is a genuine relic of ancient 
 Monotheism among men, who, having lost the know- 
 ledge of " the true God," still endeavoured to wor- 
 ship, as such, the One source of Light from which 
 they received Life and all its blessings. DIU-S ac- 
 counts at once for " DEUS" and " 0e6?" being masc. 
 and fern.* It leads us back to Gen. i. 27; but only 
 to forbid the mind to dwell on the mystery, with 
 human thoughts. It explains how "Heaven" is both 
 " father" and " mother" (Sama-V. ii. 4, 2, 3, 2; and 
 3, 1, 16, 2, etc.); and how " JUPITEE" is also both 
 " father" and " mother" of the gods (Creuzer Symb. 
 iii. 543), since 
 
 " Zevs ap<rev <yevTO, Zeix; aftfipOTo? errXero vvfuprj " 
 
 (Orph. fr. vi.) 
 
 It shows how VTBAJ, proceeded from BRAHMA (Manu 
 
 * E. g., " ducente deo," Virg. ^En. ii. 632, " non 
 dea" (says Macrob. Sat. iii. c. 8), " nam ed apud 
 Calvum Acterianus affirmat legendum" : " pollentem- 
 que deum Venerem, non deam" etc. ; and Cic. de N.D. 
 i. 28, J A<f>p68iTov and 'Afypobirtiv, r&> 0eco, i. e., JTepcre- 
 etc.
 
 112 
 
 Sanh. i. 32), who (in the Kumara Samb'h. ii. 7) is 
 addressed thus by the sages : 
 
 " Stripunsavatmab'hagau te b'hinnamurte : sisrik'shaya I 
 prasutib'haja: sargasya taveva pitarau smritau. 1 1 " 
 
 " Thy integral parts are male and female, when, 
 wishing to create, thou dividest thy form. They are 
 called the two authors of nature dividing itself to 
 produce." It also accounts for " dies" being m. and 
 /. ; and for "the Sun" ("HXto? m., and ex^ /.), being 
 of both genders; e. g., either generally masc., and 
 very rarely fern., as in the Vedas ; or fern., as in the 
 North; e.g., " Kona Glens," or "Glens bedia," "the 
 wife of the Brilliant;" " ey-gl6a," &vy\r,, " dottur 
 Mundilfsera, systar Mana," " the daughter of the re- 
 volving Sphere, the sister of the Moon," etc. (Snorra 
 Edda, Skaldsk. pp. 126, 177; ed. Rask. Lex. Myth. 
 Edd. p. 716, etc.) or of com. gender, as in the She- 
 mitic idioms. In Syriac, it is sometimes expressly 
 fern., as e. g., in Lib. Adami, i. p. 222, where a reason 
 is given for it. 
 
 But, as Gesenius says (Thes. L. H. p. 49), in 
 speaking of the etymology of 7N : " Quis in tanta 
 harum rerum obscuritate certam sententiam dixerit?" 
 It would, therefore, only savour of conceit in us, if we 
 were to do more than offer an opinion on the subject, 
 together with our reasons for it, leaving our readers to 
 judge for themselves; especially as, in some parti- 
 culars, we are at variance with authorities from which 
 it seems arrogant to differ. With St. Augustine
 
 113 
 
 (de Trin. lib. i. c. 2, 3), therefore, " Non me pigebit 
 sicubi hsesito, quserere : nee pudebit, sicubi erro, dis- 
 cere. Quisquis hasc legit, ubi pariter certus est, per- 
 get mecum : ubi pariter hassitat, quaerat mecum : ubi 
 errorem suum agnoscit, redeat ad me ; ubi meum, 
 revocet me." 
 
 Yet, there is difference of opinion on the subject 
 even among those high authorities. For instance, 
 Prof. Bopp (Comp. Or. p. 4, 15) derives fleo? from 
 "deva-s," while at p. 134, he brings Zev? and " Ju- 
 piter" from DIU. But he seems to us to make light 
 of quantity; for he derives the short e of 0eo? from 
 the long e of " deva-s"; and, vice versa, the long 1 of 
 " divo," and " dio," from the short i of " div." 
 
 Dr. Spiegel ( Avesta, ch. i. p. 6) says, that " deva-s," 
 in Latin "deus," comes from "div" or "dyu." But, 
 with Dr. Windischmann, he derives 0eo9 from the 
 root " d'ha." This is, we presume, on the supposition 
 that the Sanscrit d'h is represented by the Greek #. 
 Now, while it is quite correct to say that (as e.g. in 
 dad'hami = rld^^t} 6 takes sometimes the place of d'h 
 in Sanscrit, it is nevertheless to be noticed, that, 
 whereas cTh is a strong aspirate, 6 differs from it. 
 For the Greek 8 and 0, pronounced exactly like the 
 Icelandic " stungen duss" and "thuss," or th in "this 
 thing," express each a single articulation, naturally 
 allied to sibilants and to dentals, from which it differs 
 by " lisping." "Whereas cTh expresses a double arti- 
 culation ; a clear dental or cerebral d, and an h as- 
 pirate, as in " hat." The d clashes with the h and
 
 114 
 
 causes a " break" in the articulation, not inaptly 
 represented by the apostrophe in " d'k." 0eo9 there- 
 fore, were it in sound alone, is more nearly related 
 to " Diu-s" or " Deus," " Zefc" or even to " Ju," than 
 to " d'ha." 
 
 Prof. Lassen (Indische Alt. vol. i. p. 755) says, 
 " Die bei den Indo-germanischen Volkern am weitesteii 
 verbreitete, allgemeine Benennung Gottes lautet im 
 Sanscrit deva-s, in Griechischen 609, im Lateinischen 
 l deus,'" etc. (See also Pott. Etym. F. i. 101, sq.) 
 
 It is true that " deva-s " is oftener met with than 
 any other appellative for " God," in Indian writers ; 
 because, alluding almost constantly to some particular 
 "deva-s," inhabitant of "Div," "Heaven," or "di- 
 vine," they spoke of him or of her as of an individual 
 " divus." But DIV the parent of the " deva-s," 
 " divi," was never altogether lost sight of. The very 
 worship of a " deva-s," led thoughtful minds upwards 
 to DIV. In like manner, as " Oeol 0ez/" " 0eoO 
 ," etc., reminded the wise of 0eo<?, who is 
 " " Trpecrftinarov rwv OVTWV @eoV ayevvrjTOv 
 yap'" " et? @eo? 09 /iOW9 eerri," " Trarrjp Oewu" etc. So 
 
 that not only in the later Brahmanical times, did 
 Arjuna say to Bhagavan, (Bhag. Glta. x. 12 14) 
 BHAVAN ! Eternal ! - 
 
 purushan shashwatan diviam ADIDEVAM ajam vib'htun 1 1 
 ahustwam Rishaya : sarve Devarshir Naradastat'ha. I 
 
 " The chief sages, and even that Heavenly Rishi 
 Narada declare, one and all, that Thou art that 
 essence, eternal in the heavens, anterior to all the
 
 115 
 
 deva-s, uncreated, over all, supreme" ! " Swayan- 
 chaiva bravishi me"! "Nay, thou sayest it to me, 
 thyself"! 
 
 " sarvametadritam manye yanmam vadasi Keshava ! I 
 na hi te, B'HAGAVAN! vyaktim vidtirdeva na 
 danava:" |] 
 
 " I take as truth itself, every word of thy lips, 
 Keshava ! No ! neither the sons of Danu, nor even 
 the deva-s, know thine appearance, Thou wor- 
 shipful " ! 
 
 " swayamevatmanatmanam vett'ha twam Pttrusliottama! I 
 b'hutab'havana b'hutesha DEVADEVA jagatpate ! " 1 1 
 
 " Thou, best of beings, author of all existence, Lord 
 of all, God of Gods, Supreme Euler of this world! 
 Thou knowest Thyself, conscious as thou art of thine 
 own essence," etc. 
 
 But even in the primitive ages of Yaidic lore, we 
 find as we have seen, that Indra (DIU or Div), 
 "Heaven," was "purvyo eka it," "of old" "verily 
 ONE," "PITA devanam janita sudak'sha" (Sama-V. 
 ii. 1. 1. 10), " the Father and august ancestor 
 of the gods, "(deva-s)" who "chakrishe b'humim," 
 "made the earth" (Rig.-V. i. 4; xiv. 12), and who 
 "vishwasya rajati" " rules over all"! (Sama-V. 5. 2. 
 2. 10.) 
 
 But who is that " IN-DIVIDUAL," ADITI ? myste- 
 rious even to the Vaidic priest who, of old, chanted : 
 (Rig.-V. i. 6; xvi. 10). 
 
 Aditi Diaur Aditirantarik'sham Aditirmata sa Pita sa 
 putra : I
 
 116 
 
 Vishwe deva Aditi ; pancha jana Adititir janam Aditir 
 janitwam. 1 1 
 
 " Aditi is Heaven ; Aditi is the firmament ; Aditi 
 is Mother, she is Father, she is Son ; Aditi is all the 
 gods ; Aditi is the five classes of men ; Aditi is birth 
 and reproduction." 
 
 The scholiast (on Kig.-V. i. 6; xxxii. 16) explains 
 "ADITI" by " adinakTmndaniya va devamata," "impe- 
 rishable, indivisible, or the 'mother' of the gods"; 
 and (at xvi. 10) says of her: "Aditi: diaur-naka:" I 
 "Aditi is 'Heaven' and what is she not?" "saiva 
 MATA nirmatri jagato janani | saiva PITA utpadaka : " I 
 "she is both 'Mother'' i. e., maker and bringer-forth 
 of the world, and also ' Father ' who generates it." 
 
 It is impossible not to compare the above with 
 what Lao-tsze says of TAOU (Bk. i. cxxv.), "Yew 
 yth-wuh, hwen-tching, sian TTieen-Tih. seng." " There 
 is a Being who is One ; who existed before Heaven 
 and Earth." "tsi-i! liao-i!" "how calm! how sub- 
 tle"! "too-wei, eul puli ke," "He exists by Himself 
 (or alone) and changes not"! "ko-i wei T'heen-hea 
 MOO." " He may be considered as the MOTHER of the 
 whole world." (" T'heen-Tih. che she," c. i.) "Pub. chih 
 ke ming ; tsze-che yue TAOU." I know not his name ; 
 by way of a name I call him "TAOU." "TAOU" 
 means " a way," a " door of entrance " into existence 
 for all beings ; and as such, it may be compared with 
 the account Movers (Phoen. i. p. 594, sq.} gives of the 
 Phoenician goddess " Tir'ata" (lAiiZ, NWlHK) " Atar- 
 gatis" (though taken there for the earth). This
 
 117 
 
 " shing-MOO," " Holy Mother of all," is represented in 
 the " San-kiao-yuen-lew," p. 9, 10, as a lady with a 
 female attendant who holds a fan of feathers, and she 
 is called "sian-T'heen tai-How," "the great queen of 
 the first (or fore) Heaven"; and, "yuen-T'heen ta 
 shing-How," the " great and Holy Queen of the highest 
 (oldest) Heaven." Both "ADITI" and "TAOU" may 
 be compared in their capacity of " Mother," with the 
 symbolical hieroglyphic for " Heaven," (Champ, gr. 
 Eg. p. 57,) which is "a woman protecting and 
 nourishing her offspring " ; and reads, " ne," " to be," 
 "existence;" and also " ne" or "fa "fern. "Heaven." 
 From thence, no doubt, came " die ursprungliche Idee 
 der ersten Mutter, der grossen Mutter, die alles was 
 lebt aus Licht bringt" (Creuzer s. ii. 466, 523) who 
 figures always as the " Asiatic goddess " " 
 @e<wi/" Ovpavia as fem. of Ovpavos, " Ovpavtr) ^ 
 " 17 fiev ye TTOV Trpecrfivrepa fcal dfjurfrcap Ovpavov 
 Ovydnjp, r)z> Sr) teal ovpaviav e-rrovo^d^pp.ev" (Plato, bymp. 
 
 sec. 8, ed. Bek.) " Mater deum," " Magna Dea," 
 " TToXyyLuzo-ro?" (Guhl, Ephes. p. 78), " Magna Dea 
 Ephesiorum!"="O57rt cfmo-o-a!" (Call. H. in D. 240). 
 "API-r-no bod'hi Indra!" " twamirma apyan" "0 
 Heaven be our fostering friend for thou art akin to 
 us!" (Sama-V. i. 3, 1, 5, 7; 2, 2, 8.) 
 
 This seems to account for DIAU-S " Heaven," being 
 both masc. as " Farther," " Protector," " Saviour," etc., 
 and fem. as " Mother," who nourishes, etc. And it 
 seems also to throw light on the following line, which, 
 otherwise, is obscure : (Sama-V. ii. 6. 2. 7. 2.)
 
 118 
 
 garb'he Matu : pitus Pita vididyutano ak'share I 
 Sidannritasya yonima | 
 
 "the Sun, Father of Father (i. e. of 'Heaven,' to 
 which he gives 'light and life') shines forth in the 
 imperishable womb of his Mother (Heaven), while he 
 rests there in the bosom of truth." 
 
 It would be both rash and presumptuous to dis- 
 pute the reasons, or to disparage the profound learn- 
 ing, which have led those great men to differ among 
 themselves, as to the etymology of 0e6? ; while 
 they all agree in deriving " deus" from "deva-s." 
 We have no doubt they are right, although we can- 
 not yet see as they do. But we rather lean towards 
 the opinion of Buttmann, who (Mythologus, i. p. 28 ) T 
 says, speaking of "Zeik" and " Awnrn? "Zjv" and 
 Zavfo" " Jovis" and " Juno" " welche Namen alle 
 mit 0eo9 and 6&uva eigentlich sind."* For, setting 
 aside the ' feeling' that leads one instinctively to 
 
 * Zrfv or Z<o>, Z7?vo9, etc., is not like Zeik, from 
 Diu ; but only the Greek idea of Zeik, " airo rov $)v" 
 declined. We also differ from him at p. 173, where 
 he says on the subject of JWo9," " Bekantlich 
 heisst dewen auf Indisch Gott, welches wort mit 
 Deus, mit Zew und mit Aw einerlei 1st." As " Ju- 
 bar" " $<o-<o/>o9," may possibly, have something to 
 do with Diu-b'hara, bara or vara; so also, perhaps, may 
 "Jtowo-09" be compared with Diu (ace. Diun), and 
 ushas, " aurora."
 
 119 
 
 look elsewhere than among the " plebs coeli," for the 
 parent of 0eo<? or of " Deus," we do not appreciate 
 the reasons for which, while " Zev$" " 2Sev9," " JeiV' 
 (and, under Attic influence, " eiV'*), " diuvei," 
 "SwvFet," 'juveis," "Diovi," "dies," " dies-piter," 
 "diu" or "lov narep," " Jto?," " Att," "Ala," are all 
 with one consent derived from DIU, Div, or DIO, 
 " Deus" and " Oeo?" on the other hand, are, with no 
 small trouble, exorcised out of the adjective " DEVA-S." 
 Is it because Zefa being used in the singular, and 
 "0eo9" in the sing, and plur. as masc. and fern., Zevs 
 corresponds " practically" with DIU, " Heaven" and 
 0eo9, and deot, with "deva-s" and "deva-s ;" or with d'ha, 
 "to uphold"? The first reason would be, "prac- 
 tically" speaking, valid, if Dili or DIV had no plural: 
 but it has both dual and plural; so that the " plu- 
 rality" of 0eo9 may be accounted for. Besides, we 
 have " Ju pater," or " Djovis," in the plural in Igu- 
 vin. Tab. iv. 52; and vii. 13, 50, where we read 
 " Jovies," which, whether it be taken for " magis- 
 trates" or not, is the plural of " diu " or lov Tlarep (like 
 ?> and DTfeg- " yazd" and " yazdan"). As re- 
 gards the " common" gender of 6 and ^ " 0eo9," that, 
 as we have seen, betrays its origin from DIU-S, masc. 
 and fern. As to the "0" of 0eo9, it is, in pronun- 
 ciation, more nearly related to the sibilants " "' in 
 
 * It is in this sense that at p. 89 " &ev<t " is men- 
 tioned under the " Attic " dialect, instead of " Doric."
 
 120 
 
 or " <r" in " 2t<V (comp. Span, "zapato" pr. 
 " thapato"; and " ciencia" pr. " thienthia," etc.), or 
 to the dental " d" in Jew (pr. of old probably, as it 
 is now, " theus," soft) or in " Deus," as we pronounce 
 it; or even the palatal "j" or "g" (as "then6" for 
 " genou " in a Romance dialect) than to " d'h" either 
 dental or cerebral, as it is pronounced in India; 
 where, on the other hand, the semi- vowel "y" is 
 frequently changed into "j" or " dj" as it is in 
 Bengal. And as to the short e of 0eo9 or of Deus so 
 short that it often counts as nothing, we cannot help 
 thinking that, as we have already said, it is a more 
 fitting representative of the short "*" in Div, or of 
 the semi-vowel "y" in Dyu, Dm, than of the com- 
 pound (and almost invariably long) vowel <F, in 
 Deva-s. 
 
 Prof. Bopp (Comp. gr. i. p. 4, Eng. tr.) says, 
 "From this dropping of the i or u in the Indian 
 diphthongs $ and $, it may happen that , e, or 
 0, answer to these diphthongs"; "thus devri, Lat. 
 levir, Gr. Saijp ; ddva-s ' God ' eo?," etc. But it 
 appears to us, 1.) that whether the e (compound of 
 a+i pron. as one) be long or short, the element ll i" 
 still forms a part of the sound e (which in the " per- 
 fect " Sanscrit is reckoned long as being a compound 
 vowel. 2.) The element "i" therefore, still exists in 
 the short e of 0eo9 or Deus, as well as in the e of deva-s ; 
 as also in the short e of Zeu?, which reappears as a 
 short "i" or "y" in Zto9=Jto9, Zu=Au, Zui=Aia. 
 S.) If " e " is admitted to be a fit representative of " i"
 
 1*21 
 
 or "?/," in Zev<?, as from Dili, why not also in 
 "deus" or "0e(59"? 4.) What becomes of the "v" of 
 " deva-s," in " deus " and " 6e6<; "? " Deva-s," " dlvus," 
 and "devri" (deva) Saijp levir keep throughout their 
 cases the "w," as a binding articulation, indispens- 
 able between the long vowels e and a, and graceful 
 between the long and short of Divas, Dlvi, Divo, etc. 
 This " v " reappears in the digamma of " SiovFei" 
 "iuvei," "diovi," "Jovis," etc., while not a vestige of it 
 is found in the oblique cases of u Deus " or of " 0e6?." 
 Now 5), the presence of this connecting "v"or"F," 
 rather than the absence of it in " de-us " and " 0e-os," 
 argues a polished state of the language; for "divi" is 
 more agreeable to the ear than " Ad? We should feel 
 inclined therefore, 6.) to look upon "Deus," "de-i," 
 " de-o," " de-um," etc. and 0eo?, 0e-ov, 0e-w, 0e-6v, 0->v, 
 0e-o-1<;, etc. as a more ancient declension of Dltrs, than 
 "di-v-as," "di-v-i," etc., indicated by the Vaidic ace. 
 "di-um" for the more modern "dl-v-am." So that, 
 for aught we know, " deus " and ^e6?, may be older, 
 and continue more true to their monosyllabic origin 
 Diu-s, than does even Dm-s itself in the melodious 
 strains of Valmiki-Kokila. For as Dyus or Diu-s is 
 one syllable ; so is " diis" and " dis," " dii " and " di " ; 
 like Zev?, 0ev?, 6eo9, @eoik, etc., and " 0ewv," which 
 comes nearer to " di-(v)-am," gen. pi. of DIU or Div, 
 than to " devanam " gen. pi. of " deva-s." 
 
 With every due deference therefore to the great scho- 
 lars above-named, and while wondering at derivations 
 like BalfMiv from " atma," " caminus " from " ashment,"
 
 122 
 
 etc., we still find it easier to bring "Deus," Aefa, 
 Siov or Ioi<7raTep), Dios, Deos, Dio, Ddio, Dieu, Dia, 
 Diu, etc., from DYU or DIU-S, than from DEVA-s. 
 We do not think that in the beginning men sought 
 "the true God" from among a host of ready-made 
 and inferior gods. On the contrary, we believe that, 
 in like manner as DIU, Div, preceded in existence 
 and as object of worship his offspring DEVA-S " divi," 
 SO also was " ebs asyevvyros" " efc," " /AOI/O?," " 
 
 jp" "Zijv" "Life itself," adored before " 
 ," who, as Apollo said of them at Claros, are, 
 GeoO". But since 
 
 It \ V \ 
 
 TO pev jap 
 TrarpoOev, etc Aios ev 
 
 they each took for their patronymic, the name of their 
 father, most in use; especially when worshipped in- 
 stead of him. So that on the one hand the same 
 men who professed their belief in "/ 0e6v" wor- 
 shipped with him a multitude of " @eo/" as born of 
 him; and, on the other hand, following the example 
 of their Vaidic ancestors, they used " divus " exactly 
 as those did " deva-s," and e. g., called their " Prin- 
 cipes Dei Ccelum et Terra, Saturnus et Ops," " Dei 
 magni," " Divi qui potes" in their ancient rituals 
 (Varro L. L. v. 57). 
 
 We lean, therefore, on the whole, to the opinion 
 of Y. Lennep (Et. Graec. sub. v. Zey?), who says: 
 u Varia3 sunt formse nominum, quibus olim Jupiter, 
 deorum summus, appellabatur, ut Zevs, Zjv, Zdv, Ak,
 
 123 
 
 et forte alia, quoe omnia mihi quidera videntur 
 unum idemque nomen fuisse, dialectis diversorum 
 Grseciae populorum distinctum. Inter haec nomen 
 0eo9, Atticis proprium, communi usu postea tritum 
 fait tanquam appellativum Dei cujusvis," etc. And 
 we believe accordingly, that the original creed of 
 only "one God," degenerated " aa-Oeveia 877X^0-60)9" 
 into idolatry; "Sm yvovres rbv 0eov, ou% W9 &eov 186- 
 %acrav 77 ev^apicfrijcrav, dXV e/jMTauadrjaav Iv rot9 8ta\o- 
 7io-yu-o?9 auTwv, /col e<TKOTicr0T} 77 dcrwero9 avT&v KapSia." 
 We would therefore, look up to the " source of light 
 and life" of our world, who was of old "BAJA," 
 " Koo-fAotcpaTeop" " alel TrawTrepraTos" "DEVA," " <axr- 
 ^0/309," "ovpdviov, Kal 0^9, <w9" "KITAM BKIHAT" 
 ) a Mighty Truth, " ax^ftfr" ^^ aMo- 
 
 " " SHUCHI :" " d/iiavro9," " 071/09" " STJPAR- 
 
 "JTatai/," "with heah^ig wings" "DITTMAN 
 
 DEVAJATA:" " alOaXfc," " avro^" "'AOA'NATOS 
 ZEYS" whom Proclus (H. in Solem) addresses thus: 
 
 voepov 
 dewv 
 
 Trarfyeverao 6eov, "fyvx&v dva/ycoyev, 
 /ceK\vOi, Kal fji,e Kadijpov dfuipTaBos alev a7ra<T779. 
 
 for, " caldor cceli et inde anima," and, as Epichannus 
 says " Est de sole sumptus ignis, isque totus mentis 
 est" ( Yarro, L. L. v. 16) ; we would look, we say, to 
 "Pitus-Pita," the father of " Heaven "" DlAUR-iva " 
 "with whom He is ONE" (S-V. ii. 6. 2. 6. 1; 3. 1. 
 6. 1 ; i. 5. 1. 4 ; 1. 2. 3. 3. etc. Orph. H. viii. and
 
 124 
 
 xxxiv.) rather than an inferior " DEVA-S," for an 
 emblem, however dim, of Him, u who 
 
 dwells on high beyond the flight of Seraphim, from 
 whence he looks on me " ; u the faithful attendant of 
 my daily life, my Sun and my God"! (Djellal ed-D. 
 p. 220). For He is "TO $flZ TO 'AAH9INON, 
 6 <om'a 'jrdvra avQpwjrov ep%ofj,evov et9 rov KOO-JJLOV" 
 
 We have found MIGHT and MAJESTY in htt, 
 and D^D7^ ; and we believe also that in 0EOS 
 
 . * ;v * 
 
 we may find " THE ONE supreme," with whom " is 
 the FOUNTAIN OF LIFE, and in whose Light 
 alone we shall see Light." 
 
 For 0EOS, DEUS, conveyed, like the object it was 
 intended to express, ONE idea of " protecting light 
 and life." " Heaven," says Alviss 
 
 " Himinn heitir med Monnom, 
 Enn Hlyrnir med Gothom" : 
 is called 
 
 " A covering (or veil) among men, 
 And a bower among the gods"*^- 
 
 (Al vis-Mai, xii.) 
 
 * " Quoi par imber, et ignis, spiritus, et gravi terra ; 
 Qua3que freto cava coeruleo cortina receptat." 
 
 (Ennius, Annal. i. 16.)
 
 125 
 
 made by Him who WT3 DB> HEfo " stretcheth 
 the Heavens like a curtain" (Psalm civ. 2; Isaiah xl. 
 22). And "DiausPita," Protecting, or "trata," Sa- 
 viour HEAVEN, DITJ or DIV, " 0eo9 07^x09" 
 " Ac s an raochanhan qadhatanam," " the bright Heaven 
 of the self-existing lights,"* was always looked up 
 
 " sub eodem tegmine cceli." (Lucr. ii. 661, 
 
 1. 986.) And " ccelo tegitur qui non habet urnam." 
 (Lucan.) " Himinn" also means " a shield." (Virg. 
 JEn. lib. iv. 1. 451.) " Cceli convexa." Compare 
 
 " in altisono 
 cceli clypeo" (Ennius, Iphig.) 
 
 and " THE LORD is A SUN AND SHIELD" (Psalm 
 Ixxxiv. 12). From whence " the earth" 
 
 " Jorth heitir meth Monnom 
 Enn meth Asom Fold" 
 
 is called among men " a field," which among the 
 gods is said to be " covered" (Alvis-Mal. 10). Comp. 
 "sky," Swed. a " cloud," a " covering," with " sky;" 
 and Sama-V. i. 2, 1, 3, 7; and ii. 4, 14, 1). Indra 
 " b'harti opashamiva Diam," " spreads Heaven like a 
 covering" " yatsamavartayad I Indrashcharmeva rodasi" 
 " with which he has enveloped Heaven and Earth 
 as with a mantle" (ibid. i. 2, 2, 4, 8), etc. 
 
 * The zend qadhata, "self-existing," "uncreated," 
 (swadatta?) may be related to the Persian IjcL " Khu-
 
 126 
 
 tO, as pdicap eTrarjwv farjv ocrt'rjv (Orph.) - aTTaOfj TTJV 
 
 apurryv e%oi/ra ^v (Arist. de Coelo, i. 9, 14) and 
 was invoked as 
 
 " Ovpave TrarffeveTap" " TrawTreprare Balfiov !" 
 
 (Orph. H. iv.) 
 
 And this accounts for the idea of " Oneness," or 
 " Unity," which seems to exist in the word 0eo<?, as it 
 is found occasionally in Greek writers; as, e. g., " &e6v 
 Xao-e/tey epSwv" <rvv @e&>, (comp. " under God" sub 
 "dio" vel "divo," etc.). And Simonides, fr. iv: 
 
 ft> Trai, re\o9 /lev ZET2 eyei 
 
 Trdvrwv 
 
 OTTW? Kaarov efcreXevr^a-ei 0EO2. 
 
 And Cleanthes (H. in Jov.) 
 
 ZEY, ^)u<765 a/rj^T^ye, vo/j,ov f^era Trdvra 
 
 Suo-yaopofc, oiV cvyadwv fiev del tcrfjcnv 
 
 OVT e<70p(t)cn 0EOT KOLVOV voiwv, ovre K\,vovcnv, 
 
 But that unity in worship continued dimly per- 
 ceived among the better-informed only ; while the 
 " plebs coeli," the whole host of Heaven, all the cre- 
 ated devas, divi, gods and demi-gods, endowed with 
 
 da," God, which (see above, p. 47) means Sway- 
 amb'hu, Plin\ (see Burnouf, Yacna, pp. 553-556); 
 rather than the Ar. j.-,- (pr. " good" in Egypt), 
 "good," " excellent" (see Pfeifferi Dub. vex. p. 148).
 
 127 
 
 human passions good and bad, became the sole object 
 of worship of the common people, instead of the One 
 God. 
 
 That one idea, then, the original import of @eo<?, 
 once lost in gross idolatry, eo? no longer implied 
 "Heaven," as "the One God"; but it now chiefly 
 meant " a god" only, one of the many " gods" ha- 
 bitually supposed to inhabit Heaven. And, although, 
 as Eusebius remarks (Prasp. Ev.lib. iii.p. 141, ed. Col.), 
 rrpwricrra rcdvrwv rbv Trpwrov dfyopicravres deov, elSevcu <f>acrl 
 rovrov elvai rbv eVt rraa irpwrov re ovra KOI rrdvrwv 6eov, 
 rrarepa re Kal /SacriXea* /ie$' 6V yevos TO Oe&v vrrdp^eiv 
 Sevrepov, errbfjievov Se TO SaifAovaJv, TO Se 'Hpaxov, reraprov, 
 yet such a religion was not that of tl\e many. But, 
 (frdaKOvres irpwrov oTrdvrwv roi>s Ovpaviovs Selv KOI aiOe- 
 plov? ^eov? 0epairViv, " while saying they ought to 
 worship the celestial and the aethereal gods first ; 
 Sevrepov, rovs dyaOovs Sai/jLovas, rpirov, Ta9 rwv 
 reraprov, TOW ^auXou?, teal Trovrjpovs 
 
 ;" then, in the second place, the good spi- 
 rits ; thirdly, the souls of great men ; and, fourthly, 
 to propitiate the evil spirits ; yet epym a-vyxeovai ret 
 Trdvra, " they, in fact, mixed it up altogether," /iom? 
 dvrl rwv elp^^ivav rrdvrav, Ta<? Trovrjpas &wdfj,ei$ depairev- 
 ovTe?, Kal o\oi ravrai? K,ara^ov\bvfJivoL ' " serving, out of 
 all those, the powers of evil alone, and giving them- 
 selves up wholly to worship them." 
 
 It would be wrong to affirm that they all wilfully 
 did so. Yet it is true that even the greatest and the 
 best of them were led passively, by "the vanity of
 
 128 
 
 their mind;" and that, as Ulphilas renders it, "riqi- 
 zeinai gahugdai visandans," existing in a darkened 
 imagination, " they were alienated from the life of 
 God through the ignorance that was in them." Even 
 Cicero, then, is right in finding fault with the " deus 
 Plato," for having no fixed opinion on the subject. 
 For, discoursing on Providence, this great man says 
 (de Leg. lib. x.) : " It might not be difficult to prove 
 crpiicpwv elai 6eoi ov% rjrTov, r} TO> peyedei 
 "that the gods are not less careful of 
 little things than of more important ones"; else- 
 where, he attributes the same care, not to " the 
 gods," but to 0eo9, God ; and further, again to the 
 0eof, gods ; and so on, repeatedly. While, on the 
 other hand, he speaks, as, e.g., in his Timasus, of @eo?, 
 "God," as Creator of the world ; he attributes the same 
 office also to " Jupiter." And in his Philebus, after 
 having taught in a masterly manner his views of the 
 supreme and overruling " 2o$ia real Nofr," which avev 
 "tyvxw vic &v Trore ywofo&tfp, as belonging to 609, he 
 sums up thus : " OVK ovv ev fiev T$ TOV Jto9 epels <j>vaei, 
 @a<Tt\iKr)V pev tyvxrjv, /3acrt\tov Se Now e<yy{ve<T0ai, 8ca rrjv 
 
 T^9 alrta? 8wa/uy." " You are then driven, by the 
 force of the argument, to conclude that there is in- 
 nate in the nature of Jove, both an over-ruling (a 
 regal) soul, and an over-ruling (a regal) mind," a 
 faculty which he attributes (in de Leg. lib. x.) to 
 " the gods," when he says : " avrr) rot, SUy earl 6eS>v, 
 01 "OXvfnrov expvcriv" 
 
 " Ildvra yap TTOV ra roiavra" (says Max. Tyrius),
 
 129 
 
 a-TTopia etyreet)?, fcal dafleveia SrjXaxreus, teal 
 
 T?/Tt, e<f> OCTOV Svvavrai efcatrroi e^aipo/j,evoi rf) 
 
 (JSois av) 7ravra9 Se jracn Sicujtepof^vovs fjbrj yap on ye- 
 
 vo$ yevei, 6/Ao\oyei ev TOVTQIS aXX' ouSe avrjp dvSpl, ov&e 
 
 In the midst of such confusion, it became neces- 
 sary, as we have already remarked, once more to 
 distinguish the true 609 from among " the gods," 
 " ot f " and " al Oeoi." This was done, generally speak- 
 ing, by means of the article; "ou jap 0e6v d-TrXw? 
 Trpocrelirev 6 (aTrocrroXo?) rr/ rov apOpov Trpord^ei rov 
 UANTOKPATOPA ST/X^o-a?" (says Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 iii. p. 460, ed. Col.) and 0e6?, a god, became 'O 
 0EO^, emphatically, the ONLY TRUE GOD of 
 the Bible. 
 
 VII. 
 
 We now come to the three terms found in the 
 Chinese classics, which have been mentioned as ren- 
 dering EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, 0eo9, and o 0eo9, into that 
 language. 
 
 I. T'HEEN, ^ " Heaven." Its radical (37th) 
 is TA -fc " great," with a line above, to denote what 
 "is above," and "great." ("T'heen ta," "Heaven is 
 great," says Lao-tsze, c. xxv. Comp. Ovpavos, " airo 
 rov avco opaadat,^ Phurnut. de N. D. i. etc.) Like 
 " DIV," T'HEEN, both means " the Sky," and is also 
 
 10
 
 130 
 
 frequently used in the sense of " Deus,' r " Oeo?," as 
 the abode of a supreme and intelligent Power, who, 
 ruling from above, observes, and punishes or rewards, 
 the actions of men. We have seen that Confucius 
 had no distinct notions of SHIN"; he therefore men- 
 tions T'HEEN much more frequently. Thus 
 
 1) in the Chung- Yung (c. i. 1), TrHEEN-ming-che 
 wei sing, (which is rendered in the Mandchou trans- 
 lation, Abka-i hesebuhengge-be, Banin sembi:) " That 
 which is ordered by Heaven is called ' nature'." 
 
 2) ibid. (c. xiv. 3) : shang, puh yuen T'HEEJST; hea, 
 puh yew jin : There is no situation in which a wise 
 man is not contented : " above, he does not repine 
 against Heaven ; and below, he does not think evil of 
 men." 
 
 3) ibid. (c. xvii. 3) : T'HEEN-che seng wuh, peih 
 yen ke thsai, eul too yan. (In Mandchou : TJrunako tergi 
 tedun-be dakhame nemebumbi: " In the production 
 of things, Heaven assuredly gives them increase ac- 
 cording to their capacity (or disposition)." 
 
 4) ibid. (c. xvii. 4) : The She-king (or book of 
 Odes) says: Show luh yu T'HEEN, paou koo ming-che, 
 tsze T'HEEN shin-che: " The virtuous man receives 
 his earthly blessings from Heaven. His intentions 
 are only to value and to protect others; and (Mandch. 
 Abka-chi dakhame daptambi) he receives from Heaven, 
 
 avrl %a/HT09, ' favour above favour '." 
 
 5) ibid. (c. xx. 7): "In order to know men, a
 
 131 
 
 man, puh ko-i puh chi T'HEEN, cannot but acquaint 
 himself with Heaven." 
 
 6) ibid. (c. xxvi.): The She -king says: Wei 
 T'HEEN-che ming, 501 muh puh i kae yue T'HEEN-che 
 so-i wei T'HEEN yay: " The power of Heaven alone 
 is without limit ; that, we may say, is the prerogative 
 of Heaven. " 
 
 7) ibid. (c. xxxii. 2, 3) : T'HEEN-TE, " Heavenly 
 virtue" is said (in c. xxxiii. 6) to be, Shang-T'HEEN- 
 che tsae, " a thing from High Heaven." 
 
 8) In the Shang-Lun (book i. c. ii. 4), Confucius 
 says : " At fifteen, chi T'HEEN-ming, I understood the 
 Ming,* or the ' rule of Heaven'." 
 
 9) ibid, (book iii. c. i. 12), Chee-kung, speaking of 
 Confucius, said: Poo-tsze-che yen sing yu T'HEEN- 
 TAOU, puh-ko tih eul wan yay: " As to ' master's' 
 (nature) manner of speaking of the ' way of Heaven' 
 (or Providence, who rewards the good, and punishes 
 the wicked, Shoo-king, iii. 2, 3), I cannot understand 
 it the least." 
 
 10) ibid, (book iii. c. ii. 26), Confucius says: Yu 
 so p'hei-chay, T'heen ye-che! T'heen ye-che! " With 
 
 * Ming, in this sense, is, " the right principles which 
 Heaven has ordered," should form a part of man's 
 nature. (See above, Ch. Yung. i. and Shoo-king, i. 
 5; ii. 2; iii. 2.)
 
 132 
 
 regard to what is evil, may Heaven preserve me from 
 it ! may Heaven prevent it ! " 
 
 11) ibid, (book v. c. i. 10), Confucius says: Wo 
 shwuy k'he, k'he T'HEEN hoo ? " Whom have I op- 
 posed? Have 1 opposed Heaven ?" 
 
 12) in the Hea-Lun (c. xvi. 7), Confucius says, 
 that the wise man has three objects of fear: Wei 
 T'HEEN-ming ; wei ta-jin; wei Shing-jin-che yen. " He 
 stands in awe of the commands of Heaven ; -of men 
 in authority; and of the sayings of holy men."* 
 
 13) Lao-tsze, in the Tao-te-king (book i. 9), 
 speaks of T'HEEN-che Taou " the way" (Taou, 6 ^6709) 
 " of Heaven." 
 
 14) ibid. (c. 10), he mentions the T'HEEN-MUN, 
 " the gates of Heaven" (D?O? ^1 Psalm Ixxviii.). 
 
 Lao-tsze mentions very often T'heen-Tih, " Heaven 
 and Earth," as resulting from the two principles Yin 
 and Yang (see Le-ke, c. viii. x. etc.) (comp. Tala 
 KCU Ovpavbs etc rwv eyevovro Qeoi Hes. Theog, 45, 
 125); e.g., Tao-te-king, (book i. c. 5), T'HEEN-TIH 
 puh jin: " Heaven and Earth have no affection" (in 
 particular for any one) ; that is to say, that " the 
 temporal blessings of both are impartially bestowed". 
 (" He causeth his Sun," etc., and " giveth seed to the 
 sower, and bread to the eater," etc.) To Heaven 
 and Earth, the two great annual sacrifices, "kiao" 
 
 * Or "sages"; or sometimes, also, " the emperor".
 
 133 
 
 and "she" (Ch. Yung, c. xix. ; and Le-ke, c. viii. x.) 
 were offered, -as being both the parents of all things, 
 " Swrrjpes edav" ( Tao-te-king, c. vii.). 
 
 To T'HEEN, then, as to the abode of SHANG-TE 
 and of his ministers (Qeol 'OXv/xTrtot of China), a sacri- 
 fice was offered by the Emperor himself, as the most 
 solemn act of worship ; and in order to promote " Ta- 
 yih," " great unity" in religious rites. For it is ex- 
 pressly said, that, during that sacrifice, every god, and 
 even sse-fang SHIN, " the Spirits of the four quar- 
 ters," received the homage respectively due to them. 
 (See Le-ke, c. viii. x. etc.) Throughout the classical 
 Chinese writings, therefore, we constantly meet with 
 such expressions as these: Shang-T'HEEN, " High 
 Heaven" ; Hwang-T'HEEN, " Imperial Heaven" ; and 
 also HWANG-T'HEEN SHANG-TE, " Imperial Hea- 
 ven -Shang-Te"; T'HEEN-wei, "the fear of Hea- 
 ven"; T'HEEN-WEI, "the Majesty of Heaven"; 
 T'HEEN-sin, " the heart, or intention of Heaven"; 
 T'HEEN-tsae, "calamities sent from Heaven"; 
 T'HEEN-yili, " Heaven's minister"; T'HEEN- yuen- 
 tsze, " Heaven's chief son"; or, T'HEEN-tsze, " Hea- 
 ven's son," meaning the Emperor, who is Heaven's 
 Kegent over T'HEEN-Hea, " under Heaven," that is, 
 the Empire. 
 
 The above examples, all taken from classic authors, 
 go to prove that T'HEEN, " Heaven," is used by the 
 Chinese in a broad, indefinite sense, very much as it 
 is done by Christians, who seem to shrink from the 
 name of " GOD," and substitute "Heaven" or " Na-
 
 134 
 
 ture" in His stead; like Ovpavos, as Trarffevfrwp, and 
 TravvTrepraTos Aai^wv ; OF as 9ewv eSo?, at7Tt>9 "O\u//,7ro?. 
 
 (Hor. Ep. vi.) 
 
 " deorum quidquid in Coelo regit 
 
 Terras et humanum genus." 
 
 T'HEEN, however, would be inadmissible as a sub- 
 stitute for EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, QEO2, or 6 &EOS-, 
 because 
 
 1) being a visible object, it would lead to idolatry. 
 
 2) because the Joo (or disciples of Confucius) and 
 the Shamans (or Buddhists) adopt it, only as abode 
 of the Supreme Being, SHANG-TE; whom even the 
 latter, it appears from the " Rituel Mandchou," 17, 37, 
 acknowledge as " Kuler in Heaven"; in like manner 
 as we use the term " court," for the judgments and 
 decisions of the judge who sits in that court. 
 
 3) because the Taouists, while they acknowledge 
 that T'HEEN ta, " Heaven is great," that T'HEEN 
 kiaou, " Heaven reaches to an immeasurable anti- 
 quity" (or, "is eternal," as some say), they hold that 
 Taou-ta, " the Taou, o ^0705," is greater; for, as we 
 have already seen, " it is the origin of Heaven and 
 Earth"; and (Tao-te-k. c. vii.) is above all: for jin 
 fa Tih; Tih fa T'HEEN; T'HEEN fa TAOU; TAOU fa 
 
 tsze yan, " Man follows the rule of the Earth ; the 
 Earth follows that of Heaven; Heaven follows the 
 rule of Taou ; and Taou follows no rule but his 
 own." 
 
 T'HEEN, therefore, will not do to express " God";
 
 135 
 
 for, by the showing of the Chinese themselves, it is 
 both "indefinite," puh neng kiaou, "perishable"? 
 and " inferior" to a higher Being. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 II. The second term proposed is the dreaded 
 SHIN. 
 
 This word, written in Chinese, ^ is made up of 
 two characters ; viz., its own radical 7^ SHE (113th 
 cl.), and the symbol SHIN, ^ (referred to class 
 102.) It is a " hwei-i," or character " with a com- 
 bined meaning." 
 
 In A. Remusat's Chin. Gr. p. 17, and in four other 
 works in French, which follow him, the meaning of 
 this radical SHE is given simply as " genie terrestre"; 
 and in A. R.'s Gr. p. 85, it is further translated by 
 " to look into." Dr. Morrison, in his Gr. p. 30, ren- 
 ders it by " to admonish"; in his Diet. p. 5, by " to 
 admonish, enjoin"; and at p. 769, he describes it as 
 derived " from a horizontal line, representing Heaven, 
 and three perpendicular strokes, representing the light 
 coming down from the sun, moon, and stars ; a sign 
 from Heaven ; a declaration of the will of Heaven," 
 etc. Mr. Williams (Easy Lessons, p. 17) follows Dr. 
 Morrison. But both Dr. Morrison and his followers 
 omit the important meaning given by the French 
 scholars, who found it, as we do ourselves, in Kang- 
 He's Dictionary, which is the standard work of the 
 kind in Chinese, where it says (Pin-Dsi-hea, p. 18,
 
 136 
 
 racl. "she." col. 2), that the Ta tsung-pin (an officer 
 of the Le-poo, or "tribunal of ceremonies"), presides 
 over T'heen-Shin, Jin-kwei, Tih-SHE-le, the rites con- 
 nected with the " Shin of Heaven, the souls of men, 
 and the SHE of the Earth," from whence SHE hwo 
 tso ke; "SHE" must mean a "ke," or "Spirit" 
 (genii) of the Earth. 
 
 The other element of " SHIN " is its phonetic 
 " shin," which means " to spread abroad," " to mul- 
 tiply again and again." It affects, therefore, the 
 question very materially (placed as it was at first in 
 Dr. Morrison's hands alone, as regards this country), 
 whether " SHIN" means " an expansion of the Divine 
 will," as he says ; or, as it may also be taken to mean 
 (though he says it not), " an expansion of Spirits or 
 Genii," according to the meaning, suppressed in Dr. 
 Morrison's Dictionary, but found in Kang-He's. This 
 omission of Dr. Morrison's is the more significant, as 
 he plainly says (to the probable surprise of his fol- 
 lowers in favour of " SHIN"), at vol. i. p. 804 of his 
 Dictionary, art. " tsung," that it appears from a pas- 
 sage of the Shoo-king (which we shall examine pre- 
 sently), " that the ' SHIN,' or gods, denote a sort of 
 spirits like the Roman genii, or the Greek dcemons" 
 
 For, in vol. iii. p. 772 of his Dictionary, Dr. Mor- 
 rison explains SHIN by " from to extend, and signs 
 from Heaven" Every evanescent, invisible, inscru- 
 table, spiritual, operating power or cause, is called 
 "SHIN." "A spirit; the human spirit; Divinity; 
 God, in the sense of the heathen nations; Divine,
 
 137 
 
 spiritual ; the animal spirit," etc. But not a word 
 about " daemons or genii," as in vol. i. p. 804. This 
 is a singular omission, which, perhaps, we would not 
 have pointed out, were it not that so much stress is 
 laid on Dr. Morrison's example and authority in the 
 matter of SHIN. Mr. Gallery, however (Syst. Phon. 
 p. 104), gives as the only meaning of " Shin," 
 (l spiritus," " genius," " idolum," " mysterium." We 
 shall have occasion, in this matter, to recur to the 
 standard authority of Kang-He. 
 
 But the real meaning of SHIN can only be ga- 
 thered from classical authors. We will begin with 
 Confucius. 
 
 He seldom spoke of SHIN, as we have seen ; and 
 as Mencius also says of him. We do not remember 
 meeting with it in the " Ta-Hio." The first mention 
 Confucius makes of SHIN, is 
 
 1) in the Chung- Yung (c. xvi. A. Rem. ed. p. 
 320), where he quotes the She-king thus : SHlN-che, 
 kih-sze, puh-ko t'hoo-sze, shin ko shay-sze. The proper 
 meaning of which is given in the Mandchou transla- 
 tion : Enduri-i ebudchirengge botutchi odchorako bade, 
 geouledetchi ombi-o, sehepi. " Since we cannot reckon 
 upon (or perceive) the coming down of SHIN ( Spirits), 
 shall we become better ware of it, if we treat them 
 negligently?" This passage is enlarged upon by 
 Confucius, 
 
 2) in the same chapter of the Ch. Yung, when he 
 says : KWEI-SHIN-che-te ! ke shing ee-hoo ! she-che, eul 
 fei kian! t'hing-che, eul fei wun! t'he wuh, eul puh-ko
 
 138 
 
 wei! Yang yang hoo! Joo tsae ke Bhang; joo tsae ke 
 tso-yewj " Oh ! how great are the properties (te, ' vir* 
 tutes') of the ' Souls-and- Spirits '! (Shoo-king, iv. 8.) 
 You look and you cannot see them ! You listen and 
 you cannot hear them ! They form a part of the 
 essence of things, and cannot be separated from 
 them. Like a flood in amplitude, they are, as it 
 were above, as it were all around, on the right and 
 on the left!" 
 
 As " KWEI" very frequently occurs in conjunction 
 with SHIN (KWEI -SHIN), let us at once ascertain its 
 meaning ; for it will throw some light on that of 
 SHIN. In the Le-ke (c. xix.), Tsai-go says to Con- 
 fucius : Wo wxin KWEI-SHIN-che ming ; pub chih ke 
 so wei: l< I have heard the name of KWEI-SHIN; but 
 I do not know what it is." Confucius replied : Ee-yay- 
 chay, SHIN-che ching yay; P'hih-yay-cliay, KWEI-che- 
 ching yay: "The breath is the (completion) mani- 
 festation of the SHIN or spirit (of man); P'hih, or the 
 faculty or sense of each organ,* is the manifestation 
 of the soul." Ho KWEI yu SHIN, kiaou-che-chih yay: 
 " The union of KWEI with SHIN (in one term) is the 
 highest subject of instruction." This term has been 
 framed according to the nature of man's spirit, in 
 
 1 P'hih urh muh che tsung-ming : " P'hih is, in the 
 ear and in the eye, that which hears and perceives." 
 P'hih jin Yin Shin: " P'hih is man's Yin (i. 0., ob- 
 scure, inferior, female, principle), spirit."
 
 139 
 
 order to give a rule or pattern to the people, and that 
 all men should stand in awe ; and for that purpose 
 also have holy men instituted sacrifices to the " Ee," 
 and to the " P'hili-ke." 
 
 It does not appear from the above, that Confucius 
 himself had a very clear perception of the relative 
 difference, between Ee, Shin, P'hih, kwei, Ling, etc. We 
 may gather from it, however, that " Ee," the breath, 
 is a sensible demonstration of the Shin (or spirit) of 
 man; and that P'hih is the sensitive faculty of man, 
 which, through his organs of sense, both impresses, 
 and is itself impressed by, his sentient soul "kwei." 
 For besides that, there is the active and efficient 
 " Ling" (see Shang-Mang, i.). It will be sufficient 
 for our purpose, however, to adopt the definition of 
 " KWEI-SHIN," given by A. Remusat,* of " ghosts," 
 
 * In his edition of the Ch. Yung (Notices et Extr. 
 des Mos. p. 412), KWEI, "les manes des hommes, 
 1'homme mort; etres surnaturels dependant du prin- 
 cipe passif " (P'hih, as we have seen above, which is 
 the Yin-Shin of man). " Les Mandchous les nomment 
 'Hodon' (this word is adopted in the Mandchou 
 New Testament for 'devils' and 'unclean spirits'). 
 C'est en un certain sens, le mauvais ge"nie, le genie 
 passif, mort," etc. 
 
 " SHIN par opposition a KWEI, 1'homme vivant 
 son ame? ce qu'il y a de spirituel, d' excellent dans 
 1'Univers. Les Mandchoun disent, 'Endouri.' Le
 
 140 
 
 " souls of departed men and spirits;" and we shall 
 render "kwei-Shin" (which is meant to express "spi- 
 rits " in general, of the dead and of the living world), 
 by " Souls-and- Spirits." 
 
 3) ibid. (c. xxix.). " A good prince," says Con- 
 fucius, " regulates himself upon Heaven and Earth, 
 and che shoo KWEI-SHIN eul wo i; chi T'heen-yay " : 
 " while he approves himself to the ' Souls-and- Spirits/ 
 nothing doubting ; and learns to know Heaven." 
 
 4) ibid. (c. xxiv.). "A perfect man can even 
 
 Diet. Mandchou explique ce mot de la maniere sui- 
 vante : 
 
 " An-i gengiyen ferguetchoun-be, Endouri sembi. Ni- 
 yalma gingulembime saburako tundchirako tchoktehen-de 
 arboun-be doursoukileme arafl. touborongge-be kemou 
 Endouri sembi." 
 
 " La partie surnaturelle et lumineuse du Yang (le 
 principe actif et vivant) se nomme Endowri. On ap- 
 pelle ge'ne'ralement Endouri tous ces etres que les 
 hommes adorent sans les voir ni les entendre, et a la 
 place desquels ils mettent, pour leur sacrifier, une 
 image qui les repre'sente," etc. 
 
 " Les deux mots re*unis, KWEI-SHIN en Mandchou 
 Endouri-hodou, expriment dans le langage philoso- 
 phique des lettr^s, 1'action des deux principes, leur 
 force inne 1 rente, leur vertu efficace." And he adds : 
 " Bien de plus obscur que ce qui est dit des ' KWEI- 
 SHIN ' dans les livres Chinois," etc.
 
 141 
 
 foresee good and evil; and in this respect he is 
 joo SHIN like Shin (the Spirits)." 
 
 5) Shang-Lun (book ii. 1. 12). Confucius says: 
 tse joo tsae ! tse SHIN, joo SHIN tsae ! " Worship as 
 if it were a reality ! Worship Shin (the Spirits) as if 
 SHIN were present " ! (See above, p. 14.) 
 
 6) Hea-Lun (book iv. 1, 34). The Loi says: 
 taou eul yu shang-hea, SHIN KE: "Pray ye to above 
 and below ; to the Spirits of the air, and to those of 
 the earth." (See also Shoo-King, iii. 3 ; iv. 5 ; v. 1 ; 
 i.4.) 
 
 7) Lao-tsze (Tao-te-k. booki. c. 6) says: koo-SHiN 
 puhsze: "The Shin (Spirits) of the valley do not 
 die." If " Shin " can be taken here in the singular, 
 it is meant for " Taou," 6 ^0709. 
 
 8) ibid. (c. xxix.). "Shin" maybe taken adjec- 
 tively in T'heen-hea, SHIN k'he. The empire is 
 (either, a " divine vase," or) an object to be wrought 
 out by (the Spirits) " Shin " ; a " divine thing." 
 
 9) ibid. (c. xxxix.). SHIN till yih i ling; shingwo 
 i ling, tsian k'hung hee : " The Spirits obtain unity 
 through their (ling) or * spiritual efficacy ' ? If Spirits 
 had not that ' Ling,' they would risk to perish." 
 
 10) ibid. (c. lx.). When the Emperor rules 
 according to the Taou, ke SHIN pun Shin; fei ke SHIN 
 pun Shin; ke KWEI pun shang jin: "The Spirits do 
 not exert their spiritual power; it is not that the 
 Spirits are inactive; but it is because (Souls of the 
 departed) evil Spirits do not hurt men." 
 
 11) In the Shoo-king (book i. c. 1), Shun (B.C.
 
 142 
 2356) is stated to have offered a sacrifice, first, 
 
 yu SHANG TE, to "SHANG-TE;" next to " luh-tsung," 
 the six objects of worship (the seasons, heat and cold, 
 the sun, the moon, the stars and drought) ; he then 
 turned devoutly towards the hills and the rivers ; and 
 last of all, " peen yu k'heun SHIN " " he looked all 
 round on the host of Spirits" (Shin). 
 
 12) ibid. (c. 2). Speaking about music, Shun 
 says ; then, SHIN jin i ho : " the Spirits and men are 
 in harmony together." 
 
 13) ibid. (c. 3). Yu is said to have been a man, 
 shing nae SHIN, " holy and divine " (or, "spiritual"). 
 0eto5 /cal Saifjiovux; avtfp. 
 
 14) ibid. (ibid.). Yu said that even, KWEI-SHIN 
 ke e. " The ' Souls-and- Spirits' consented." 
 
 15) ibid. (ibid.). " Shin tsung," " divine ancestor ;" 
 and, " sincerity," ban SHIN " moves the Spirits." 
 
 16) ibid, (book iii. 3). T'ang says, he had referred 
 a grave matter to Shang-T'heen SHlN-how, " the divine 
 officer (or power) of High Heaven," or "officer of 
 * SHIN 'of High-Heaven." Unless " Shin-how " mean 
 "the Earth," as Dr. Medhurst (1. c.) thinks. 
 
 17) ibid, (book iii. 7). E-yun says: KWEI-SHIN 
 wo chang heang, heang yu k'hih she ; ' ' The ' Souls- 
 and- Spirits' do not always accept an offering made to 
 them ; they only accept it from sufficiently sincere 
 people." 
 
 18) ibid, (book iii. 8). He'a is said to have been, 
 man SHIN ngo ming, " remiss towards the Spirits, and 
 cruel towards the people." Consequently, Hwang-
 
 143 
 
 T'heen, looked for some one else, to set him to be 
 SHIN-CHOO chief (or Lord) over the (worship of) 
 Spirits (or gods). 
 
 19) ibid, (book iii. 13). When a man has con- 
 tracted defilement, it is difficult for him, sze SHIN, 
 "to serve the Spirits." 
 
 20) ibid, (book v. 7). The kings of Chow alone did 
 teen SHIN T'HEEN, " institute the worship of divine 
 Heaven." 
 
 21) In the Kan-ing-Pien (c. i.) we read: she i 
 T'heen-Tih yew sze kwo-che SHIN, that there are in 
 Heaven and on Earth, Spirits who (Mandch. bait- 
 chara, "search out") look after the transgressions of 
 men. There is also 
 
 22) SHIN-KIUN tsae jin-too-shang "the Prince of 
 Spirits," who is placed over the head of men; who 
 writes in a book all their sins, etc. 
 
 23) There are also san SHE-SHIN tsae jin-shen 
 chung; "the three Spirits of the corpse, placed in the 
 interior of man (viz. the head, the stomach, and the 
 intestines), who ascend to Heaven when a man dies, in 
 order to testify against him. And the last day of the 
 lunar month, TSA-SHIN ju yan; "the Spirit of the 
 hearth" (comp. "Lares, and Penates"), the "fami- 
 liar Spirit does the same." Among the sins of men 
 reported on high by those Spirits (Shin) are, ma 
 SHIN ch'hing tsae, " to revile the Spirits, and yet to 
 be satisfied one is upright" ; and yin SHIN-MING-, to 
 call down the brightness of the Spirits on one's own 
 wicked conduct.
 
 144 
 
 24) ibid, (ad fin.). We read: " If your heart 
 conceive a good thought, ere you have acted upon it, 
 KEIH-SHIN i suy, the Spirits of happiness follow 
 you." If, on the other hand, your heart conceive 
 evil, although that evil remain as yet undone, 
 HEUNG-SHIN" i suy che, (Mand. ehe Enduri takhambi,) 
 "evil Spirits of destruction press hard upon the 
 thought." 
 
 25) In the Le-Ke, c. i. we read: " Taou tsze tse ke 
 kung keih KWEI-SHIN, fei le ; puh-ching, puh-chwang." 
 " without rites, there can be nothing either sincere or 
 solemn in the prayers, the offerings, the sacrifices, 
 or the oblations made to the ' Souls-and- Spirits.' r 
 A hint that may be useful to some that are not Chi- 
 nese. 
 
 26) ibid., c. viii. " Le pei pen ju T'heen, heaouju Tih; 
 lee ju KWEI-SHIN," etc. " Rites (or duties) own 
 their origin from Heaven, and they have their appli- 
 cation upon earth; they relate to the ' Souls-and- 
 Spirits,' " etc. 
 
 27. ibid. The holy man (or excellent prince) iden- 
 tifies himself with Heaven and Earth, " ping ju KWEI- 
 SHIN, i chi king yay"; and "with the 4 Souls-and- 
 Spirits,' in order to govern properly." 
 
 28) ibid. " Jin-chay, ke T'heen-Tih-ehe, Yin-Yang-che 
 keaou, KWEl-SHlN-che hwuy," etc. " As regards man, 
 his existence results from the virtue of Heaven and 
 Earth ; from the combination of ' Yin,' (principle of 
 obscurity and decay), and 'Yang' (principle of light 
 and life); and from the blending of 'kwei' (the
 
 145 
 
 ghost of a dead man, manes) and ' SHIN (the Spirit 
 of that same man, when alive)," etc. 
 
 29) ibid. When an excellent prince wishes to set 
 the example to his people, he ought, among other 
 things, " KWEI-SHIN i wei thoo," " to make the Spi- 
 rits his companions." Whereby "see ko show yay"; 
 " his acts will endure." 
 
 30) ibid. The ancient kings fearing lest sacred 
 rites should not become prevalent in the empire, " koo 
 tse TE ju keaou, so-i ching T'heen-le yay," " offered a 
 sacrifice to SHANG-TE on open commons, in order to 
 establish the power of Heaven" ; then to the tutelary 
 god of the empire; next to their ancestors; and 
 lastly, " ju shan ch'huen, so-i ping KWEI-SHIN," to the 
 hills and to the rivers, "so as to (worship) conciliate 
 the ' Souls-and-Spirits.' ' 
 
 Therefore 
 
 31) ibid. " Le-hing ju keaou eul pe SHIN show 
 chih yan," " by public worship in the open coun- 
 try, the Spirits (gods) receive the homage due to 
 them." 
 
 32) " Poo-le peih pen ju Ta-yih; fan eul wei T'heen- 
 Tih." " Those rites assuredly, derive their origin 
 from the Ta-yih (the great principle of Unity). They 
 are apportioned to Heaven and to the Earth " ; they 
 vary according to the seasons ; and lastly, " leen eul 
 wei KWEI-SHIN," " They undergo gradual modifica- 
 tions for the ' Souls-and-Spirits.' ' 
 
 33) When the empire is in harmony, then among 
 other things, " sze KWEl-SHlN-che ch'hang yay," " the 
 
 11
 
 146 
 
 worship (or things) relating to the 4 Souls-and- Spirits' 
 continues uninterrupted." 
 
 34) ibid. c. ix., The wise man is at peace with 
 himself and with others, and " KWEI-SHIN heang te," 
 " the Souls-and- Spirits feast on his virtue." 
 
 35) ibid. ibid. The rites must, "chun ju kwei- 
 SHIN," " accord with the Souls-and-Spirits." 
 
 36) "Shay tseih shan ch'huen clie sze KWEI-SHIN- 
 che tse le yay." u Rites consist in the things relating 
 to the tutelary god, to the god of harvest, to the hills, 
 to the rivers, and to the worship of the Souls-and- 
 Spirits." 
 
 37) " Shay so-i SHIN-Tih yay." " The worship of 
 the tutelary god tends to connect the earth with the 
 Spirits." 
 
 38) The offerings made in sacred vessels, consist 
 of the produce of the soil, " so-i keaou ju SHIN-MING 
 che e yay," " so as to place yourself on good terms with 
 the Spirits" or " divine brightness"; and "so-i keaou 
 ju SHIN-MING chay, puh ko tung ju so gan see che shin 
 yay," " to hold intercourse with the Spirits, or ' di- 
 vine brightness,' is very different from seeking one's 
 own ease and treating them negligently." 
 
 39) ibid. ibid. The ox to be offered to SHANG-TE, 
 is to undergo a certain process of purification ; but 
 any ox may do for an offering to deceased ancestors ; 
 thereby, "pee sze T'HEEN-SHIN yu jin-kwei yay," 
 " making a difference between rites relating to the 
 'spirits,' (gods, or deities) of Heaven and the 'souls' 
 of men."
 
 147 
 
 40) ibid. c. xvi. " Music," says the Le-ke, " tends 
 to calm the mind, and then things go on easy; that 
 tends to long duration," or, (to the raising of one's 
 mind upwards); "keaou tseih T'heen; T'heen tseih 
 SHIN; T'heen tseih puh yen eul sin; SHIN tseih puh 
 noo eul weih," " and that leads to Heaven ; then 
 Heaven to (Shin) the gods. Though Heaven speak 
 not, yet men believe in it; and though (Shin) the 
 gods be not angry, they are nevertheless revered." 
 
 41) ibid. C. XX., "king tsin jan how ko-i sze SHIN- 
 ming sse tse-che-taou yay." " When veneration is com- 
 plete, then a man may do service to the brightness of 
 (Shin) the gods ; such is the rule of sacrifices." 
 
 42) ibid. ib. " The wise man practises abstinence 
 three or seven days ; for the purpose of collecting his 
 thoughts. It is the road to the brightest virtue." 
 "Jan how ke-i keaou ju SHIN-MING yay." "When 
 a man is thus prepared, he may hold intercourse 
 with the brightness of the (Shin) gods." 
 
 43) ibid. c. xxvi., Siao-ia says : " Do your duty, 
 appoint fit men to their respective offices," and, "^She 
 yu SHlN-che shing-che," " that will make the gods hear 
 you, and crown you with blessings," etc. 
 
 So far, the examples in " Koo-wen," drawn from 
 ancient classics within our reach. We will now see 
 what meaning " SHIN" has in more modern classical 
 literature ; as well as in colloquial intercourse among 
 educated men. 
 
 The only book of the kind in our possession is 
 the " Hwa-tseen," written by one of the Thsai-tsze,
 
 148 
 
 and reckoned, in China, a master-piece of its kind. 
 " SHIN" occurs in it twenty-seven times ; and is used 
 also, we expect, in its actual acceptation in pure 
 Chinese. 
 
 44) In Hwa-tseen (p. 30, 1. 8, ed. P. P. Thorns) 
 we read: "tso seaou SHIN-NTT! wang ho sung?" 
 '" Whither has gone the divine maid of yester-eve ?" 
 
 45) ibid. p. 41, 1. 3, Same expression. Compare 
 it with 
 
 46) ibid. p. 62, 1. 7, where that person, Yaou-seen, 
 is said to be, " T'heen-shang niu," " a daughter fostered 
 
 by Heaven" (" 0ewv Tra/Seu/io" " Ovpavov Bvjdrrjp" 
 
 " duMtar DIVA:"); and with the Persian XA\J ^s^ 
 "born of a Pari" for, a "beautiful woman." This 
 corresponds with " SHIN-SEEN " in 
 
 47) ibid. p. 42,1. 13, "Fung-kwang puh Jang SHIN- 
 SEEN foo." That hill " will not yield, in freshness 
 and beauty, to the abode of the (Shin -seen) Genii of 
 the hills" (who are not considered as " gods." See 
 also, p. 79, 1. 2). Or, this passage may be construed 
 differently if "Shin-seen " is made, as in 
 
 48) p. 62, 1. 16; and p. 79, 1. 16, to apply to 
 Yaou-seen;" and to mean " a fairy;" heard of yet 
 unseen, in Persia : for even Sadi says in a parallel 
 passage. "Among men the like of thee ^ ^ { .^^ 
 jjjjj perhaps never did exist. But I have not seen 
 a Pari." 
 
 49) ibid. p. 47, 1. 4, "HWA-SHIN Seng sze lae 
 heen-ioo." " The god of flowers produces colours to
 
 gratify (or benefit) virtuous youths/' (See also the 
 same expression at p. 170, 1. 14; and p. 176, 1. 14.) 
 
 50) ibid. p. 108, 1. 14, "She chang t'hung seay kaou 
 chi SHIN." Leang " wrote a vow of constancy, and 
 made it known to the gods." (See p. 109, 1. 12; and 
 p. 123, 1. 12.) 
 
 51) ibid. p. 110, 1. 5, Three sticks of fragrant wood 
 were offered to " YUE-SHIN," " the goddess of the 
 Moon" (and p. Ill, 1. 10). 
 
 52) ibid. p. 118, 1. 14, " SHIN-TSEEN." "The 
 god of the tablet." 
 
 53) ibid. p. 223, 1. 2, " Sse wang heu-k'hung SHIN- 
 kwei chi." " He told the gods (Souls-and-Spirits) of 
 the four quarters of Heaven." (See also p. 242, 12, 
 where we read, "kwei-Shin," " Souls-and-Spirits.") 
 
 54) ibid. p. 124, 1. 8, " Paou chung tseen ch'hing mo 
 ch'hang SHIN." " Promise again, ere you start, not 
 (to keep up) sorrowful spirits." And p. 133, 1. 1, 
 " Shang-SHIN," u wounded spirits." 
 
 55) ibid. p. 156, 1. 6, " Na te sin SHIN eeih wen?" 
 " Where shall I find 'heart-spirits' to follow my stu- 
 dies?" " Sang sin-SHlN," " mournful heart-spirits." 
 (See p. 146, 1. 4; and p. 143, 1. 5.) 
 
 56) ibid. p. 152, 1. 12, "Yen meen pei-gae ke sang- 
 SHIN." " She veiled her face, and from grief began 
 to be in mournful spirits." (See also p. 172, 1. 14 ; 
 and p. 194, 1. 12.) 
 
 57) ibid. p. 186, 1. 7, Yaou-seen while listening 
 to what occurred, " SHlN-hwan sang," " her whole 
 spirits grew (mournful) sad."
 
 150 
 
 58) In the Tching-yen tso-yaou, p. 3, 1. 5, we read: 
 "Pa chay shen kin-kwuh; hwo-tung, hwo-tung: Jin 
 yeou yew tsing-SHlNV' " Take this body of bone and 
 muscle ; exercise it well, exercise it well ; that is the 
 way for a man to get good spirits." 
 
 59) Premare (Not. Ling. Sin. p. 139) quotes the 
 proverb : " Jin laou wo neng : SHIN laou wo ling." " A 
 man grown old has no power ; a spirit grown old has 
 no spiritual efficacy," or " active energy." This 
 proverb is illustrated in a characteristic dialogue, 
 in 
 
 60) A. Gon9alvez, Arte China, p. 299, seq., where 
 we read of" MUH-SHIN," " the spirits of the door" of 
 the temple; and that the " MEAOU-SHIN mo yow 
 ling,'* "the (Temple- Spirit) idol had no soul," (did no 
 wonders) and so says the interlocutor, " I would not 
 go there again"; and a little further, "SHlN-choo pae- 
 tsze leay tin ling-wei, SHIN-wei, shi-mo pae-shwo"? 
 " What is the meaning of this inscription, ' the seat 
 of the soul, the seat of the Spirit, which is on the 
 tablet of the Ruling Spirit.'" (See also p. 290, 
 " king-tae-SHlN," "to honour the (Shin) god of 
 wealth," etc. 
 
 The above quotations, all taken from classical 
 or approved authors, show, generally, that the literal 
 meaning of SHIN is 
 
 a) "An expansion" of "she," which denotes, 
 evidently, not so much "light from Heaven," etc. 
 (according to Dr. Morrison's definition), as "genii"
 
 151 
 
 or u daemons," according to his own opinion (p. 804, 
 vol. i. of his Diet.), and to Kang-he's Dictionary. 
 
 b) That " SHIN," like ,^/r " genii " in Arabic, is a 
 " collective noun," which, when alone, and without a 
 numerical affix to determine its number (like " one," 
 "two," etc.), does not imply less than an "indefinite 
 number"; sometimes a "multitude spread every- 
 where," and "innumerable." 
 
 c) That " SHIN " never occurs in the Chinese 
 classics with such a numerical affix; that conse- 
 quently it never means " one SHIN." 
 
 d) That '-SHIN" (when coupled with "kwei," "the 
 souls of the departed") is taken for "An-i gengiyen 
 fergouetchoun-be," "the supernatural and bright por- 
 tion of the Yang principle " " Spirits," what there is 
 of " good and spiritual " in the world. 
 
 e) That even in the best acceptation, " SHIN" is 
 sometimes good and sometimes bad ; 
 
 /) sometimes male or female ; and that those 
 Spirits are 
 
 g) liable to lose their spiritual efficacy, " Ling." 
 
 h) That those Spirits (Shin) hold an inferior posi- 
 tion in the scale of deities ; 
 
 i) That some of them are not considered as 
 " gods." 
 
 j) Lastly, that SHIN is, mere " animal Spirits."
 
 152 
 
 We must therefore conclude, that the impression 
 made by the term "SHIN" upon the mind of an 
 educated Chinese, who looks upon most of the above- 
 quoted classics as inspired, must be, like the term 
 itself, vague and indefinite. It is hardly one Spirit 
 out of k'heang Shin, a host of other Spirits his fel- 
 lows ; an inferior deity of some sort or other ; but it 
 may be the whole host itself, an aggregate of inferior 
 deities ; apparently something ; and, in fact, nothing. 
 There is no one point whereupon to rest or fix the 
 mind ; and if you try and clench " one Spirit," SHIN, 
 in thought, for aught you know, he may, as we have 
 seen, turn out an old one, who has lost his life and 
 his intelligence ! While, to the uneducated, who form 
 by far the greater portion of a people, whose religion 
 consists almost altogether in rites and ceremonies, 
 SHIN conveys no higher or more elevated idea than 
 that of a deformed idol ; with a licentious, or, at best, 
 an unmeaning worship. 
 
 This ill-defined impression left on the mind by the 
 term SHIN, is owing, not only to the vagueness of 
 the idea conveyed by that term, but also, and in a 
 great degree, to the fact, that in classical Chinese 
 there is neither article to define, nor case to deter- 
 mine, nor gender to qualify, nor any sign of number 
 to limit a term, which may often be read either as 
 a collective, singular or plural noun, an adjective, a 
 verb, or even a particle. 
 
 Under these circumstances inherent in the Chinese 
 language, it must strike every one as of the highest
 
 153 
 
 importance that, in order to express " GOD" in Chi- 
 nese, we should find a term, which, having always 
 been taken in one sense only, is liable neither to an 
 ambiguous meaning, nor to be practically misapplied 
 by the people. "We confess ourselves, therefore, at a 
 loss to understand how, in the face of even the few 
 examples we have adduced, there can still exist so 
 great a difference of opinion on the subject ; if, as the 
 writer of " Shin v. Shang-Te" asserts, the advocates 
 of SHIN " have gone thoroughly into the question," 
 by inquiring into the meaning of the original terms ; 
 and " have rightly understood it," by searching the 
 Chinese classics for an equivalent, with unprejudiced 
 minds. But, as Pindar says (01. viii.), 
 
 'OpOa Suifcpiveiv (frpevl, fj,rj irapa icaipov, 
 
 IX. 
 
 We leave the candid reader to draw his own con- 
 clusion from the above authorities, which are im- 
 partially given. For our own part, having seen no 
 other writing on the subject than the pamphlet in 
 question, we can only speculate as to the considera- 
 tions which have led the advocates of " SHIN" to enter 
 into so close a covenant with that term. 
 
 If one of their reasons is, first that " SHIN" being 
 a " generic term," which in Chinese, is in a way, 
 applied to " all gods," it is therefore appropriate and 
 fit to express ELOHIM and 0eo9, they seem to over-
 
 154 
 
 look the fact, that " Oeol" are neither 0eo9 nor 6 0eo9, 
 and that because Zevs is called " 6 TT/JWTO? Salfiwv" it 
 does not follow that Bai/^wv is Zefa. Or that, because 
 K/36Vo9 is called 0eo9, @e6> is for that reason Kpwo? 
 also. Nor yet that likewise, because " Ba'al-zebub" is 
 PT?? &g "(Elohim) the God of Ekron," D'PiSg 
 " Elohim " is therefore a fit name for " GOD." For 
 in this case it is exactly the reverse: the name of 
 "the true GOD" alone, ELOHIM, was lowered from His 
 " excellent greatness," and applied to " an idol " ; and 
 it was not the name of the " idol " that was raised to 
 mean " the true GOD." This, however, is precisely 
 what must take place in China, and in every other 
 heathen land. SHIN, then, is not an appropriate 
 term for GOD, because it sometimes means " a god." 
 For, as we shall presently see, " SHIN" is, perhaps, 
 " Scufjuov" or "TO Saipoviov" and as "Salfuov" it may 
 sometimes apply to one who is " 0e6<?," like SHANG- 
 TE : but who would say that for all that, ak and 
 Saipw are one? 
 
 It cannot be, secondly that the idea of plurality 
 inherent in the collective noun SHIN (Spirits) can 
 correspond to the same idea as implied in the plural 
 4: ELOHIM." We have already seen that this plural is 
 only a mark of dignity, or of profound respect for that 
 dignity. For the sake of argument, however, let it be 
 granted that it implies " plurality." Of what kind ? 
 Not, assuredly, the necessary doctrine of the Trinity, 
 which cannot be gathered from u ELOHIM " alone ; if 
 so, then, it can be no doctrine of any practical import-
 
 155 
 
 ance. The " plural " a implied or expressed in ELOHIM, 
 cannot be of " two " ; since there is a " dual " in 
 Hebrew to express that number. But it may mean 
 "any number"; and therefore it proves too much. 
 For three is the number to be established. Since 
 then, the number three cannot be determined from 
 "ELOHIM," this "plural" form if taken to imply 
 " multitude " and not " respect " only, may (accord- 
 ing to Aben-Ezra, Rabbi S. Jarchi, the Chaldee 
 Paraphrase, the Arabic, and the Samaritan versions) 
 often mean "Angels," oW?K 03 "sons of God," 
 the Host of the Heavenly ministers of God's will 
 around His throne on high. (See R. S. Jarchi on 
 Gen. i. 26.) 
 
 If therefore " SHIN" is used for "ELOHIM," because 
 SHIN implies " a plurality," like ELOHIM, what does it 
 ihen mean, for a Chinese who, e.g., reads in the Bible, 
 " THEEN-SHIN," " The God of Heaven"? It cannot 
 possibly convey to him any higher or more distinct 
 idea than those very words do in, e. g., Le-ke (c. 
 xvi.), where T'HEEN tsei SHIN applies to the Deity 
 in Heaven, i. e., to SHANG-TE, surrounded as he is by 
 his ministers and their numerous attendants. Now, 
 do the advocates of " SHIN," in worshipping " GOD," 
 include the " Heavenly Host" in their worship ? If 
 not, why do they lead the Chinese to do it ? For it 
 is, we see, inevitable. 
 
 So little, in point of fact, does " SHIN" express 
 " ELOHIM" in this case, that being divested of its 
 primary and classical collective sense of " Spirits" by
 
 156 
 
 the translators who advocate " SHIN," in order to 
 make it mean One Spirit only, whenever ELOHIM 
 governs a verb in the plural (as in Gen. i. 26), 
 " SHIN" must be qualified by adjuncts, which only 
 add to the perplexity of its meaning. While, in other 
 places, where ELOHIM in the original is also construed 
 with a plural verb (as, e. g., Gen. xx. 13; xxxv. 7, 
 etc.), the plural of the original is left out altogether 
 in the Chinese translation; and both SHIN and its 
 verb are then intended to remain in the singular ! 
 
 And, thirdly, if it be alleged that, since SHIN 
 means " Spirits," and " God is a Spirit," SHIN is 
 therefore an appropriate term for " God," that ap- 
 pears to us, either begging the question, or blinking 
 it altogether. Since it is evident that the reason that 
 " God is a Spirit," is also the very reason why SHIN, 
 " Spirits," should not be chosen to render " GOD " 
 into Chinese. 
 
 For, although we believe, as taught by our Saviour 
 Himself, whose words " were Spirit and Life," that 
 " GOD is A SPIRIT," whom we humblyseek to "serve 
 in spirit and in truth," while we " walk not after the 
 flesh but after the Spirit," and "through the Spirit" 
 endeavour " to mortify the deeds of the body;" yet 
 we cannot overlook the fact that, as GOD was to be 
 worshipped by mortal men of limited minds, He, in 
 mercy to their infirmity, did not introduce Himself 
 to them as " a Spirit," indefinite and inappreciable, 
 which no human mind can rightly understand or 
 fully grasp.
 
 157 
 
 But He made Himself known to His people, by 
 speaking of Himself, at first, as of " a PERSON," VTTO- 
 crrao-is, figuratively " endowed" with a " Spirit" ema- 
 nating from Him ; and with active energies compared 
 to those of men. Without some such definite " out- 
 line" or " idea" of GOD, His own people even, much 
 less others, could not have continued faithful to Him. 
 For we find that, even immediately after having 
 trembled at His voice speaking from Sinai, they could 
 not abide forty days without some fresh token of His 
 presence among them ; and so they bade Aaron make 
 them " gods" whom they might see, and who would 
 " go before them." 
 
 GOD, then, out of compassion to men, makes Him- 
 self known to them in characters which address 
 themselves at once to the mind, and make it fast; 
 although that same mind may not be able to under- 
 stand fully the spiritual nature of Him whose attri- 
 butes, however, it embraces at once. 
 
 For instance, we readily seize the meaning of God's 
 words, when He introduces Himself as " our Father" 
 " I am thy Father"" the Father of the spirits of 
 all flesh;" as "king" "a king of old" "the 
 Lord is king ! and reigns over His people ;" as 
 Master, to whom alone "we stand or fall;" as a 
 Judge, " who shall judge the righteous and the 
 wicked;" as a mighty man of war rjpoxi " who 
 shall prevail against his enemies;" as a " defender" 
 a " sure refuge" a "strength to the poor;" a 
 -efuge from the storm ; a " shadow from the heat;"
 
 158 
 
 as the Father of the fatherless; as one who hears 
 all things; who sees all things; who points with 
 His finger, and commands by the word of His mouth ; 
 who makes the clouds His chariot ; whose throne 
 is in Heaven, " His holy habitation ;" and whose feet 
 rest upon the earth ; who is " high and lofty," yet 
 c: pardoning and gracious;" for : ' He dwelleth with 
 him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, and that 
 trembleth at His word." All those are expressions 
 of " personal," and not of exclusively u spiritual" 
 attributes. They are, for that reason, admitted and 
 seized at once ; and thus they are able to sway the 
 mind, and to hold the heart captive. It is evident 
 that it would not be the case if a " Spirit," and 
 " spiritual" attributes only, and not " a person," were 
 to be thought of. 
 
 So uniform is God's dealing with men, in this re- 
 spect, that it was not until four thousand years after 
 He had first created man, that " GOD manifest in the 
 flesh" taught men in plain terms that " GOD is A 
 SPIRIT." Till then, and even after that time, " The 
 SPIRIT," though He be GOD, is yet mentioned as "of" 
 Him; as an emanation from Him, and not as Him- 
 self. In the very outset, and after it had been de- 
 clared that " GOD had created the Heavens and the 
 Earth," we further read, that the " Spirit of GOD 
 moved upon the face of the waters;" not " GOD," 
 though that Spirit was GOD, but His Spirit. " Whi- 
 ther shall I go from Thy Spirit?" says the Psalmist. 
 " The Spirit of GOD hath made me," says Job, " and
 
 159 
 
 the breath of fhe Almighty hath given me life." 
 The " Spirit of GOD dwelleth in you," says St. Paul ; 
 "grieve not the Holy Spirit of GOD;" "for the 
 Spirit of GOD resteth on you," etc. 
 
 How can all those attributes be assigned to SHIN, 
 which to a Chinese conveys no other idea than that 
 of hardly one inferior " Spirit" may be, decrepit, 
 and bereft of intelligence ? one out of a multitude of 
 other Spirits, his equals, but, rather that multitude 
 itself, without creating endless confusion in his al- 
 ready bewildered mind ? How, for instance, can we 
 be understood, when speaking of the hands, the feet, 
 the eyes, the mouth of SHIN, except it be of SHIN 
 as an " idol of wood or stone ?" And how shall we 
 explain (if we understand it ourselves), what the 
 " Spirit" of " The Spirit" (SHIN) can possibly mean? 
 True, we might try the experiment of using " Ling," 
 for the " Spirit inhabiting the other," as Dr. Morri- 
 son has done ; and this would seem borne out by the 
 passage of Lao-tsze above quoted. But, at that very 
 place, Lao-tsze implies that the " SHIN" Spirit may 
 be deprived of " Ling," his " Spirit;" and then either 
 lose his unity (Lao-tsze 1. c.), or, as it is commonly 
 said in China, become " effete from old age ! " What 
 a substitute for the name of our GOD, the MIGHTY, 
 the MOST-HIGH, the KING OF GLORY, who inhabits 
 eternity, and to whose " kingdom there shall be no 
 end!" And what impression of these upholding 
 truths can a Chinese receive through such a medium 
 as SHIN ?
 
 160 
 
 The fault, it must be seen, lies in the term SHIN 
 itself; between which term, and the personal attri- 
 butes assigned to it, there is little or no congruity. 
 For the most impressive and endearing prerogatives 
 of God in Holy Scripture could never have been pre- 
 dicated of a " Spirit" only, without risk of either 
 creating great confusion of ideas, or, perhaps, im- 
 parting no idea at all. And it is not, let us remem- 
 ber, by mere coincidence that the " God " revealed 
 in the Bible is a "personal" God. It was so willed 
 by Him, not only out of condescension towards us, 
 but also as a preparation for the coming "in person" 
 of the " WONDERFUL, COUNSELLER, THE MIGHTY GOD, 
 THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE ;" 
 "who is the image of the invisible GOD;" " the 
 express image of HIS PERSON ;" and in whom the 
 mystery was to be solved of " God manifest in the 
 flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached 
 to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up 
 into Glory." 
 
 So patent, indeed, is the fact, that GOD being a 
 " personal God," is not to be considered abstractedly 
 as "a Spirit only;" that the names by which He is 
 called in the world in general, and in the ancient 
 versions of Scripture in particular, are all expressive 
 of " power," " might," " excellence," or of " glory," 
 but never of " Spiritual" essence alone. 
 
 GOD is called in Hebrew 7tf, EL, the " Mighty;" or 
 the " awful God." Why, then, since " God 
 is a Spirit," was He not called H^n, " The Spirit"
 
 161 
 
 (as in Hos. ix. 7), as patronymic for " the Spirits of 
 all flesh," of which He is " Father"? 
 
 In Chaldee and in Syriac, GOD is sometimes called 
 FPrn, " the object of fear," (as in Hebrew also, H3, 
 "terror,") why not NJ-fcfb, " The Spirit"? 
 
 In Samaritan He is known as *Znr, "the Valiant 
 one," why not as srwv, " The Spirit"? 
 
 In Arabic, GOD is spoken of in the Bible as 
 JUJ1 jjlSN &\* " GOD the Mighty, the Sufficient"; 
 why not as u Ju$\ ol, "the Father of Spirits or of 
 Souls"? 
 
 * Borhan-ed-deen says of the term 4J1, "Goo," 
 that it is OjJrjH ^>~\j>\ <^>\ti\ *J, "a name of the 
 Essence which does of necessity exist." In this 
 sense, it would seem to answer to niPP. Among the 
 Arabs, GOD has ninety -nine names; on which Shahab- 
 ed-deen Abulabas remarks that they are ^J\ **JuJ' 
 
 <d)l y&j cj! JJ! J! trT/ (** (*^^ ^ " Divided 
 into three classes." The first class relates to the 
 
 "Essence" of God; and is contained in <d)l, " El- 
 ILLAH," etc. (See H. Relandi, de R. Moham. p. 
 6, 19, and Goran Sur. xvi. 109, l^cj! on which see 
 
 the note in Maracci's edition, ^Us^l \^\ j\ <dll, 
 where it is stated that the Arabs add a hundredth 
 name to the above ninety -nine ; namely, JaciH *JN , 
 "the Greatest Name"; is it BhlS&Tt DS^ TO 
 
 12
 
 162 
 
 In Ethiopia the name for God, ft^Aft "Amlak," is y 
 as we have seen, derived from "rule and govern- 
 ment"; for God is, as Seberianus writes (Homil. on 
 
 Faith), U^T Jfciujli I? XgJtupftvt p-tutf-UfL-np _ [i 
 *UJutbkuin ^jtun,iu^tut^.njlf q-uihiui t ft- n< ft ^utU^, 
 q.fiuutiuutuuinL.utq iunUniuit^.njli Irfju-lruij* tilC One 
 
 only and true King, neither foremost among others 
 like Him ; nor in appearance more noble among 
 equals," why was He not called in Ethiopic, tf^ft 
 " Manfas," " The Spirit" ? or, as in the book of 
 Enoch, hIHA : tf^tfft^ : " Yg'zia Manafyst," " the 
 Lord of the Spirits?" 
 
 In the Armenian version God is called \^uuim-iulrj 
 "Asdwadz" probably "Astvat" (Sansc. " San"), a 
 term brought from the southern plains of Ariyana, 
 and which in Zend, means " the existing Being, 
 Jehovah" (see Ya9na Not. p. 11). Why was He not 
 called <$nq-ft, " Hoki," Spirit ; a term for the third 
 person of His Most Holy Triune Essence ? 
 
 The Georgian, " Ghmerth," Ghut, or " Ghuti," is, as 
 we have seen, the wide-spread name for God, !jc^, 
 " khuda," self-existing (comp. the Zend " qad'hata," 
 u uncreated, self-existing") from whence is probably 
 " Guth,"* adopted by Ulphilas in his version. Why, 
 
 * " Guth," " God," is more likely to come from 
 " Khuda," " Ghut," and " Qadata," than from 
 "Odin," "Wod," or "Wadda" (Buddha), mentioned 
 by Abulfeda, as worshipped by Noah's countrymen :
 
 163 
 
 then, was not God called in Georgian " Souli," (Soul), 
 "Spirit," and in Gothic, "Ahma," also "Spirit?" 
 especially since Bhagavan, says of himself : 
 
 Aham Atma sarvab'hutasliayast'hita : | 
 
 "I am the Spirit (Atma, in Gothic, u Ahma") 
 dwelling in the bodies of all beings." (Comp. " SHIN 
 t'he-wuii" " SHIN," that enters into the essence of 
 things. Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.) 
 
 The word chosen to render God in the Coptic 
 version is, as we have seen, <H' 5 the ancient wrp, or 
 MTe, with the article n or cf>, still graven deep on 
 the granite pillars 'erected in memory of Rameses- 
 Mei-Amoun, at Thebes. Why was not the word mqi, 
 " breath," or " Spirit," rather adopted to render 
 " God," since we read in Coptic, that all Scripture 
 is iiuiqi KITG 4>"l*7 " the breath," or " inspiration of 
 God"? 
 
 The Slavonian version has " Bogh," originally, 
 perhaps, like ELOHIM, meaning " a worshipful Being ;" 
 why was not the word " Duch," " Spirit," adopted 
 instead ? 
 
 Lastly, we have seen that eo? has in itself no- 
 thing in common with " Spirit," since it first meant 
 the " Sun," or "Heaven;"* how then, is it, that it 
 
 ^jjj "$ \j\jj (Hist, ante Isl. p. 
 14, ed. Fl.) See above, p. 52. 
 
 * The origin of 0e6<: = Zev<$, from the root Diu, 
 Diu-s, or Div, " Brilliancy," " Sun," and " Hea-
 
 164 
 
 was adopted to express " God," and that rZVeO/^a, or 
 rather Aaipwv, was not used in its place ? The reason 
 is obvious. Because a knowledge of the true God 
 was to be imparted through ideas intelligible to men 
 of simple minds; for "to the poor the Gospel is 
 preached." They never could hold only by the in- 
 tellectual worship of a " Spirit" as " Spirit only," 
 which they could not possibly understand, apart from 
 his "personal attributes;" nor could they pledge 
 their allegiance to any but to a " personal God." 
 Nay, we see that even Plato (De Leg. L. x.), after 
 having discoursed to the admiration of all, on the 
 " Train-out So<j>ia K<U Now" inseparable from the " ^v^i 
 rov Koo-fjiov" in God, seeks in Heaven One to whom he 
 may assign that divine Soul. Then, turning his eyes 
 from the Sun, and his hope from his indefinite and 
 uncertain @e6? and ecu, he fixes upon his own per- 
 sonal God, and bows at last to the ruling wisdom, 
 mind, and soul, of Zei>s 
 
 ven," is further shown by the fact of Zefa being 
 pronounced either Zyus (diu-s), or, as in Modern 
 Greek Zevs (div-s); ace. either Zew, @evv, dew, 
 "deum," as from the Vaidic dlil; or Ala, " devm," 
 from divam.
 
 165 
 
 X. 
 
 Why, then, should the Chinese, who suffer already 
 sufficiently from the peculiarities of their ill-defined 
 language, be precisely the one people of all the earth, 
 on which the most ambiguous, and, perhaps, the least 
 appropriate term for " God," is to be forced against, 
 may be, their wishes, and certainly, against the ge- 
 nius of their own tongue, and the evidence of their 
 senses ? Even if Confucius could have unravelled 
 the mysterious import of SHIN" wei Ling, for " God is 
 a Spirit" (St. John iv. 24), or SHIN-CHE shing-fung, 
 "the Holy- wind of (SHIN) Spirits" for "the Holy 
 Spirit of God," etc., what would he have said when 
 reading of SHlN-che tsze, " the Son of the Spirits" 
 (SHIN) ? He would have exclaimed, " Wo ming, wo 
 ming ee!" " It is not clear, it is not indeed!" And 
 pointing to the most ancient records of the kingdom, 
 traced in his own hands, he would have asked : " Can 
 you possibly mean * Hwang T'heen SHANG-TE yuen 
 tsze,' the first begotten of the Supreme Ruler in the 
 Imperial-Heavens?" (Shoo-king, v. 1.) 
 
 For the Chinese, like every other nation under 
 Heaven, have worshipped " one personal God, as 
 Supreme over all." Already, in the days of Yaou 
 (B.C. c.c. 2300), SHANG-TE had long been adored as
 
 166 
 
 alone Supreme over all things in Heaven and Earth. 
 His immediate attendants are, it appears (Kan-ing- 
 P. I. p. 11, ed. St. Jul.), five heavenly chiefs, members 
 also of his council, who are set over the presidents 
 of Heaven, of the Earth, and of the Sea. These, in 
 turn, range in the world of " SHIN," or " Spirits of 
 the air;" of "kwei," "souls of the deceased;" and 
 " ke," " Spirits of, or, from below, the Earth." 
 For, " eva l'&M9 av h irda-r) 7$," says Max. Tyrius, (x<xy. a 
 p. 3), ofuxfxavov vop,ov /cat Xo<yov, on @eo? el? irdvrcav 
 f3acri\ev$ teal Trar^p, Kal 6eol TroXXot, Oeov TralBes, crvv- 
 dpxpmes @ea>. Tavra ical 6 "EhXrjv Xeyet, Kal 6 Bdpfiapos 
 Xeyet Kal 6 <ro^>09, Kal 6 acro<o9." 
 
 But, over all those, and in Hwang -T'heen, the 
 " Supreme," or " Imperial Heavens," One " TE " D 
 
 Ruler, is, "Shang," J* higher than all. He is 
 SHANG-TE, "Apka-i dergi ugheri dalikha edjen-i tergiy- 
 embi," as the Mandchou Diet, explains it, " The majesty 
 of the unseen Lord and Governor of Heaven ;" known 
 to the children of Israel as [V 1 ?? njn^, 6 f/ lNJr to -T09," 
 " tn|r^eS<Bv," and to us as "the LOED MOST-HIGH" 
 (Psalm xlviii. 2). He is " the unknown God," they 
 ignorantly worship, whom "we declare unto them;" 
 and whom we must teach them rightly to worship 
 as the only true God, " in whom we live, and 
 move, and have our being." His name, which is 
 " exalted over all," implies his office and his prero- 
 gatives. He is, as we shall see, Father, Lord, and 
 King or Governor supreme ; and He alone is adored 
 as such.
 
 167 
 
 The first mention of SHANG-TE (as far as we 
 know, at least,) is made in the Canon of Yaou (B.C. 
 2300!). Lao-tsze speaks of him once; Mencius 
 three times. And although Confucius mentions 
 SHANG-TE but seldom (as he does SHIN) in his own 
 writings, we have met with it thirty-eight times in 
 the Shoo-king (the annals of the empire), compiled 
 by Confucius himself from older documents; and in 
 the Le-ke (or Chinese "ritual"), SHANG-TE, like 
 SHIN, occurs very frequently. Those works are held 
 in the highest repute among the Chinese; we will 
 therefore bring forward the most remarkable passages 
 they contain in connection with this subject. 
 
 1) Shoo-king (book i. 11). Shun, as we have 
 seen, offered sacrifices first, to SHANG-TE, the Supreme 
 Ruler, then to the inferior deities, and last of all to 
 SHIN. 
 
 2) ibid, (book i. 5). Yu says to the Emperor: 
 *' Show by your wisdom that" Show SHANG-Te, 
 T'heen ke Shin ming yung hew " you have received 
 the government from SHANG-TE; if Heaven should 
 again make known his will, use it for the blessing of 
 peace." 
 
 3) ibid, (book iii. 1). T'ang (B.C. 1795) said to 
 his people: " The ruler of He'd has transgressed, 
 but" yu wei SHANG-TE, puh kan puh tchi " I fear 
 SHANG-TE; I dare not, not set He'd to rights." 
 
 4) ibid, (book iii. 7). T'ang further says: Wei 
 hwang SHANG-TE heang chung yu hea-ming, jo yew 
 hang Sing. " It is Imperial SHANG-TE alone who im-
 
 168 
 
 parts to these inferior people, their intrinsic goodness 
 (or equity), which enables them to follow the dictates 
 of nature." 
 
 5) ibid, (ibid.) " If I should do evil," says T'ang, 
 " I will not hide it ; I will" wei keen tsae SHANG- 
 TE-ciie sin " only bring it into notice to the heart 
 (mind) of SHANG-TE." ("I said : I will confess my 
 sin unto the Lord," etc.) 
 
 6) ibid, (book iii. 4). E said : SHANG-TE puh 
 chang tso shen heang che pe tseang; tso pun shen, heang 
 che peyang. " SHANG-TE is not always the same (in 
 his dealings). To those who do good he vouchsafes 
 a hundred blessings ; while on those who do evil, he 
 sends down a hundred calamities." (See also book iii. 
 pp. 11, 12.) 
 
 7) ibid, (book iv. 1). " SHANG-TE" is " irawirep- 
 raro? Salfuov" apart from " SHIN." Woo-wang said 
 of the tyrant Show: fei sze SHANG-TE, SHIN, ke. 
 " He serves neither SHANG-TE, nor SHIN (Spirits of 
 the air) nor Ke (those of the Earth)." Show does 
 not k'hung Shang T'heen " honour Supreme Hea- 
 ven," and he has thus brought down calamities upon 
 the people; and (ib. 3), SHANG-TE fei shun chuh 
 heang she sang " therefore, SHANG-TE has not been 
 favourable to him, and has decided on sending down 
 the present season of mourning." 
 
 8) ibid, (book iv. 7). Woo-wang said, when 
 marching against rebels: Yu siao-tsze, kan ke ch'hing 
 SHANG-TE i go iwan leo. " I, a mean man, venture 
 respectfully to receive the order from SHANG-TE, to
 
 169 
 
 suppress revolutionary counsels. Only may you, 
 SHIN (gods), be able to help me, in saving my peo- 
 ple, and, wo tso SHIN sew, do not injure the credit 
 of SHIN." 
 
 9) ibid, (book iv. 9). Woo-wang prospered by 
 following SHANG-TE ming keue T'heen fe shin 
 the commands of SHAJSTG-TE, till Heaven aided 
 his sincerity, and gave him victory (ib. book iv. 
 10). 
 
 10) ibid. (11.) Woo-wang said: "When" SHANG- 
 TE wun, Te e T'heen nae ta ming wen wang " SHANG- 
 TE heard (the pious wishes of the king), he (the 
 Supreme Te) approved of it ; and Heaven then gave 
 full orders to Wen-wang," etc. 
 
 11) ibid, (book v. 1). Imperial Heaven, SHANG- 
 TE has changed Hwang-T'heen SHANG-TE ke kew 
 yuen tsze (his decree) " in favour of his chief son" 
 (the Emperor). 
 
 12) ibid, (book V. 3). SHANG-TE yin yih yew Hea 
 puh shih yih; tseih wei TE heang ke. " SHANG-TE 
 leads by kindness ; Hea however did not yield to 
 mild measures; so that the Supreme Te sent down 
 calamities upon him." 
 
 13) ibid, (book v. 3). " The kings of the Yin 
 dynasty prospered, because they did not dare shih 
 TE ming puh p'hei T'heen to oppose the will of 
 SHANG-TE ; but always acted in accordance with 
 Heaven," etc. ; otherwise SHANG-TE puh paou " would 
 not protect them," etc. 
 
 14) ibid, (book v. 5). Good men like E-chih,
 
 170 
 
 and Chin-hoo kih. yu SHANG-TE influenced (the 
 decrees) of SHANG-TE (by their pious conduct). 
 
 15) " The sovereigns of Hea were wicked men, 
 who pub. k'hih tsun ji k'heuen yu TE-che t'heih. 
 were not able to encourage themselves for the space 
 of one day to walk in the way of SHANG-TE." 
 
 16) ibid, (book v. 8). T'hang promoted SHANG- 
 TE-che kang ming " the glorious will of SlIANG-TE." 
 " Such men Tsun SHANG-TE, t'heilx chi shin seun yu 
 kew tih-che hing obey SHANG-TE, by following after 
 knowledge and real sincerity in the practice of the 
 nine virtues." 
 
 17) ibid, (book vi. 8, 9). SHANG-TE is said not 
 to have excused a fault, on account of which he cut 
 off the generations of the people of Meaou. 
 
 18) Mencius (Shang-Mang, p. 13; pp. 25, 27, ed. 
 St. J.) quotes the Shoo-king, to show that Heaven 
 gives men their kings, etc. ; and that these, tsoo 
 SHANG-TE, assist SHANG-TE to govern the world. 
 He says also in Hea-mang (pp. 3, and 15), that, " a 
 man, although ugly in appearance, if he restrain and 
 purify himself tseih ko i sze SHANG-TE he may 
 then bring offerings to SHANG-TE." 
 
 19) Ching-tsze, in the Ta-Hio (c. x.) quotes the 
 She-king, to show that ere the Emperors of the Yin 
 dynasty had lost the heart of their people, they 
 k'hih p'hei SHANG-TE were able to stand before (or, 
 to associate) with SHANG-TE. 
 
 20) Confucius (Ch. Yung, c. xix.) speaking of 
 the ancient kings, Wou-Wang and Tcheou-Kung,
 
 171 
 
 says, "that they worshipped SHANG-TE, by offering 
 the annual sacrifices of ' Kiao,' to Heaven, and that of 
 'She,' to the Earth."* 
 
 * It was in the Chung- Yung (c. xvi.), that we 
 saw for the first time in classical Chinese the terms 
 " SHIN," and also " SHANG-TE," in this passage. 
 We had before that seen "SHIN" on the title-page 
 of a New Testament, but we had never before 
 met with " SHANG-TE." Neither were we aware at 
 that time, that any difference of opinion existed on 
 the subject. It was not until last year that, while 
 on a visit to the library of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, for the purpose of making extracts from 
 a MS., most liberally placed at our disposal by the 
 Committee of that Society, we learned how much 
 dissension had been created in China, by the relative 
 merits of SHIN and of SnANG-Te, as substitutes for 
 "Goo" in Holy Scripture. But we received no 
 further information on the subject, until lately, when 
 the pamphlet "Shinv. Shang-Te" fell into our hands. 
 
 Our impression on seeing " SHIN" for the first time 
 in classical Chinese (c. xvi.) was: How can such a 
 term be adopted for "GoD"? And when reading 
 SHANG-TE also for the first time in this passage, our 
 spontaneous expression of surprise was : Why is not 
 this term used instead of SHIN, in order to express 
 "Goo"? 
 
 We mention this, not that it can possibly matter
 
 172 
 
 It was on this passage of the Chung- Yung, A. Re*- 
 musat tells us (Tch.-young, not. p. 414), that the 
 Jesuit missionaries framed a memorial, which they 
 presented to the Emperor, Shing-tsou, in 1700, re- 
 lative to T'HEEN, " Heaven," and to " SHANG-TE." 
 This memorial was, we are told, approved by the 
 Emperor, and by the first literati in the Empire, as 
 agreeing with the doctrine of antiquity. It is writ- 
 ten in Mandchou, and runs as follows : 
 
 "Nenehe Ti-Wang-se gemu Apka-de tourolon-be yabuk- 
 hangge, utkhali bit'he'i ursei * kiyao se-i ' tourolon ; dergi 
 Ti-be weilerengge seme henduliengge inu. Tuttu oren-i 
 Pai-de Ti-seme arakhabi. Yasa-de sabure, arbun dursun 
 bishere Apka-be wetchere, dchokderengge waka ; cho- 
 kome Apka-na tumen dchaka-i Edchen-Da-de wechere 
 dchokderengge; olkoro ginggulere ten-de ishenara dcho- 
 kode, gelhun-ako top-seme gisurerako ; * Dergi Apka,' 
 'Gosingha Apka,' 'Deserehe Apka,' sehepi. Utkhaii Ed- 
 chenbe tukiyere-de, * Edchen ' serako, ' Terkin-fedchile,' 
 * Dergiyamun' seme hendure adali. Udu tukiyere gebu- 
 lerengge adali ako bichibe." 
 
 " In adopting the ceremonies practised by the 
 former emperors and kings, in their worship of Hea- 
 ven, ceremonies which have been called 'Kiao' and 
 
 to any one what our private opinion be, but only to 
 show what was the first impression made on a mind 
 ignorant of the subject and totally unprejudiced, by 
 the terms SHIN and SHANG-TE respectively, when 
 found at their proper place.
 
 173 
 
 ' Se' by the learned, and are addressed to Shang-Te 
 (for, as we know, the sepulchral tablet bears inscribed 
 on it, ' To Shang-Te the Supreme Ruler') ; the sacri- 
 fice is not offered to the material Heaven our eyes 
 see; but to the real Lord of Heaven and Earth, and 
 of all things in them. Only, that, through fear and 
 respect, and in awe of his majesty, men dare not call 
 Him by his real name ; but adopt the terms, ' Sub- 
 lime Heaven,' ' Benevolent Heaven,' ' Infinite Hea- 
 ven.' In like manner as, when addressing the Em- 
 peror, we do not call him by his name ; but we say, 
 ' beneath the steps,' ' your footstool,' ' supreme tri- 
 bunal,' etc. Although the expressions of respect are 
 not all alike, yet, in reality, they mean one and the 
 same thing." 
 
 For, says the Le-ke (c. ix.), Ke TE yu kiaou king- 
 che chih yay, "the sacrifice offered to SHANG-TE in 
 the open country, is in token of the highest venera- 
 tion." 
 
 XL 
 
 We again beg those of our readers, who have had 
 patience to follow us thus far, to decide for them- 
 selves, from the above passages, which of the two, 
 " SHIN" or " SHANG-TE," should be chosen to render 
 ^ " the Mighty," or D'nStf " the Awful," and 9e6<; 
 the "Supreme" GOD, into Chinese? We cannot, of
 
 174 
 
 course, pretend to judge of the actual and practical 
 influence of " SHIN" or " SHANG-TE" on the Chinese 
 multitude. We only judge from a few of the standard 
 works, to which every educated Chinese may be 
 referred and brought to book ; and from which works 
 the Chinese people affect to draw their religion. 
 
 These classical works, then, are our starting-point, 
 in common with the Chinese ; and we ask, anxious 
 as we are to learn, whether " GOD" is to be rendered 
 by " SHIN," which, by the showing of those standard 
 authorities, expresses no " person," since it is a col- 
 lective noun, but at best " a Deity" of an inferior 
 rank ; by " SHIN," which, on the testimony wrung 
 from Dr. Morrison himself (Diet. vol. i. p. 184), 
 seems " to denote a sort of Spirits like the Roman genii 
 or the Greek dcemons?" Or is not the " MIGHTY GOD" 
 to be expressed in Chinese by the " ONE supreme 
 personal God" they have, who, according to their 
 notions, rules in Heaven (see San-kiao-huen-lew, pp. 
 9-20), surrounded by his ministers, over whom he is 
 Lord ? In like manner as we worship our own GOD, 
 the LORD OF HOSTS, who reigns and rules over the 
 ministers of His will, over His Angels, and His Arch- 
 angels, supreme. 
 
 And let no one exclaim at this comparison. It is 
 
 only, ""AYVCIHTTOS eo?" Zev<t " etc rov /cat 7^09 eV/iez/' 
 " rovrov 7<w icarasfye\\(0 VJMV' 6 @eo? 6 Trot^cra? rov tcocr- 
 
 pov" K.r.\. It is, of course, comparing error with 
 truth. But we, like our chief, St. Paul, ought also 
 to try and discover in the error of others, every
 
 175 
 
 approach to the truth we hold, and turn that to the 
 best account, in favour of the truth, and not against 
 it, ev 6e&> je pav reXo?. SHANG-TE is already, by 
 their own showing, Father, Lord, Governor, and 
 Judge, who rewards the good and punishes the 
 wicked; who is touched by righteous deeds, and in- 
 censed at evil ones. What remains for us to do? 
 No more, but, at the same time, no less than what 
 St. Paul did at Athens, and at Lystra. We have to 
 declare to the inhabitants of China, that he " whom 
 they thus ignorantly worship," and not one of the 
 innumerable spirits infinitely below him, is, in fact, 
 " the God who made the world and all things there- 
 in"; seeing he is, as they believe already, " Lord of 
 Heaven and Earth." 
 
 For, why did the inspired Apostle, whose example 
 we may safely follow, preach ""A^VGHTTOV &e6v" 
 TOV AIA, and not TO reOpv^^ov "AAIMONION" of 
 Socrates, which was as familiar as "ZetV to the 
 audience on Mars' -hill, if " SHIN," and not " SHANG- 
 TE," be GOD ? Because, as they now have in China, 
 so also at Athens and at Lystra, St. Paul's hearers 
 had fixed notions of their " evo? 6eov /Sao-tXew? real 
 Trarpo?," whereas, in the Middle-kingdom, as regards 
 " SHIN," in like manner as of old in Greece, " irepl ^kv 
 
 Saipovcov r)v fvravda TO fj,ev OVO/JLO,, SijXov, r) Se oixrla, 
 8e 8wa/U9, d/Lt^)t<r/37;T7/o-i/iO9." (Max. Tyr. 
 
 a.} But, as we see that the Athenians accepted 
 at once the personal attributes of Zey?, announced by 
 St. Paul, so also will the people of China more rea-
 
 176 
 
 dily, and also more easily, receive, how " SHANG-TE," 
 their "personal," though "invisible" Supreme God, 
 who is in " Hwang-T'heen," Imperial Heaven, can be 
 their Creator, their Maker, their Preserver, their 
 Deliverer, their refuge in time of trouble. And they 
 will learn to consider him no longer as they have 
 always done, in the light of "a Lord," or of "a 
 Father" only; when they, like Aquila at Athens, 
 know Him as " their FATHER who is in Heaven, 
 through His Son JESUS CHRIST their Saviour, who is 
 One with Him and His HOLY SPIRIT, GOD blessed for 
 ever. Amen!" But, we think, we may affirm, if it 
 were only from the examples brought forward, that 
 the Chinese never can or will believe all that of 
 "SiiiN," who is "TO Aaipovtov" perhaps " Ja///,<wi/," 
 and not " ( O 0EOS" 
 
 However zealous and well-meaning Missionaries in 
 China may be, they must be sensible of the fact, that 
 they can not coin a new system of their own, and 
 force it upon the people, as if these had never before 
 had any idea of " a Deity." Preachers of the Gospel 
 there, have to deal with a teeming population of 
 sharp, clever, intelligent, sceptical, not naturally 
 devout or religious, but often very learned men, who 
 can claim a national individuality of more than four 
 thousand years; and they have to teach those people 
 through the medium of words in the language, that 
 have become old and hoary in their own intrinsic 
 meaning. This, of course, can not be changed at 
 once to suit a particular purpose. We ought not,
 
 177 
 
 therefore, to delude ourselves so far, as to suppose 
 that the people of China will, as a matter of course, 
 bow to a few scattered emissaries, of a more florid 
 complexion, perhaps, but still from foreign, and, 
 therefore, despised nations. For a missionary " mixes" 
 among the people; he does not "blend" with them. 
 To the Brahman, proud of his archaic ancestry, the 
 missionary is " Mlechch'ha," " a babbler," who speaks 
 a jargon, and not his own sacred idiom, the melli- 
 fluous Sanscrit. To the supercilious Chinese, he is 
 " Pan-kwei," a " foreign devil," or, at least, " Wai-jin," 
 " pdp/Bapos" "a 'man' from without," who (Ming- 
 hien-dsi, p. 5) "is held cheap, although a 'thing' 
 from afar may fetch a high price." This inferior 
 position is especially felt when those messengers do 
 not present a united and well-trained company, 
 under one head, and acting in one spirit ; but, on 
 the contrary, differ as much from one another in 
 dress and discipline,' as they do in mind and creed, 
 one stoutly denying the truth of what his neighbour 
 affirms is the only way to Heaven. 
 
 For, granting that such a strong-hold as the Chi- 
 nese mind might, under exceptionable circumstances 
 at God's bidding, be invested and taken like Jericho, 
 the besieging force should, at all events, be as close 
 and compact as the Israelite army was around the 
 walls of the city " fenced up to Heaven." And 
 "native" preachers of influence, wherein the strength 
 of a mission lies, should be secured from within the 
 citadel to make it surrender. For a missionary may, 
 
 13
 
 178 
 
 indeed, from without, and with a foreign accent, 
 "harangue" the people on the wall, but a native 
 preacher from within, will alone "persuade" them to 
 yield. A few sharp-shooters only, and in their own 
 strength too, we know, did no great things at Ai. 
 
 In like manner, we cannot expect that, unless God 
 work a miracle in our favour, the Chinese, proud of 
 their ancient institutions, will, on the strength of 
 what a few strangers say, give up at once, prejudices, 
 if you like, but still, associations, a creed, and notions, 
 well-nigh four thousand years old. Would we do so, 
 under similar circumstances ? Assuredly not. We 
 ask the question, not, indeed, as doubting the sole 
 efficacy of God's help, for " without Him we can do 
 nothing," and He " hath chosen the weak things of 
 the world to confound the things which are mighty," 
 but we ask it, because nothing is easier than for 
 " self" in every shape of "will" or "way," to creep 
 in under the bright covering of " the will and glory 
 of God." Like the ghost of Samuel under the witch's 
 wand, " self" rises at every man's bidding before 
 him, and is to him as a god. So that even while 
 engaged in God's service, we may come in our own 
 name, and deliver our own message. Even then, 
 we may ascribe to His august Rule, actions and 
 words for which we shall one day blush in His pre- 
 sence. Let us, then, see, that in all things we act 
 by His will alone. For, undoubtedly, our only way 
 to secure God's assistance, or even to dare look 
 for His blessing on our labours, is, first to place
 
 179 
 
 ourselves in a fit state to receive either. We must, 
 as the Holy Apostle says, " stand fast in one spirit, 
 with one mind, striving together for the faith of 
 the Gospel." ""Odev TrpeTrei vfjiiv a-vvrpe^eiv ry rov 
 eTno-KOTrov yv(afj,r}" says St. Ignatius (ad Ephes. iv.), 
 " TO yap dtftovofAacrrov vp,wv 7rpecr(3vrepiov, rov eov afyov, 
 oimw<? crvv^pfjuocrrat TO> eTriaicoTra), to? %op$al tuOdpa. Aia 
 rovro ev ry ofwvoiq VJJLCOV KOI crufAffxovaJ a/yaTrp 'Irjcroix; 
 Xpi<rrb<j aSerai. Xpijcnfjbov ovv zcmv iipa? ev d/jLa)/jL(a evoT^n 
 elvai, tva real 0eov Trdmore /tere^Te." For, says a Still 
 higher authority, " Ov yap ecmv dtcaracrraa-uis 6 eo?, 
 rivw"; would we might add in truth, " co? ev 
 
 rat? e/cX?;o-tat5 TWV cvyuav" ! Then " God, even 
 
 our own God, shall give us His blessing," and " pros- 
 per our handy- work." Then the hope of Heaven 
 among men will appear no longer in the languid 
 throb of intermittent life, but in the continual flow 
 of vital energies, gushing as from the heart into the 
 remotest channels of the Earth, CHEIST Himself 
 being the Head of His body, the Church. 
 
 We have, then, no choice but, as St. Paul did at 
 Athens and at Lystra, to take the people of China 
 as we find them, and to make the most of what they 
 have already that is available towards a more perfect 
 knowledge of the truth. This is evidently our only 
 chance or hope of success ; especially when we find 
 that their religion has, in form, many points in com- 
 mon with our own, one personal God, supreme over 
 all Father who has a Son, and rules in Heaven 
 over His ministers and a multitude of Spirits, " who
 
 180 
 
 bringeth low and lifteth up" whom He will ; and 
 rewards or punishes whom He pleases. One who 
 is worshipped alike by the Taouists (see Lao-tsze, 
 c. iv.), by the Joo, or disciples of Confucius (see 
 Ch.-yung. c. xix.), and even by the Buddhists (see the 
 order given by the Emperor Kien-long, relative to 
 the offerings to be made to " Shang-Si" (i. <?., Shang- 
 Te), apart from all other " gods" "in aedicula Deus 
 unicus." (Rituel Mandchou, p, 27, and the special 
 rites thereof at p. 45.) 
 
 No ! we do not believe that a million copies of the 
 Bible, with " SHIN" in it as a substitute for " GOD," 
 would carry with them to one educated (but as yet 
 unconverted) Chinese, who adores antiquity (and 
 those are the men to be won first, if possible), the 
 weight of either that single passage of the Shoo-king 
 (book i.), where Shun is said to have sacrificed first 
 to SHANG-TE ; and only after he had worshipped in- 
 ferior divinities, to have glanced at the " host of 
 SHIN," or " Spirits," all round; or the warning of the 
 wicked Show, " who refused to serve SHANG-TE, 
 SHIN, and Ke," in due order (book iv. 1). A Chinese 
 only knows, and believes in, SHIN (if he believe at 
 all), as he sees it thus }j}$, in his copy of the classics; 
 or in its more primitive form, as it stood engraved on 
 the bamboo- tablets of the Canon of Yaou. Every 
 attempt to qualify " SHIN," either by " Shang," 
 "High," or "Choo," "Lord" (" Shang-Shin" and 
 " Choo-Shin," as in Dr. Morrison's translation), only 
 adds to the ambiguity of the original term, which,
 
 181 
 
 if it can ever be made to mean #e6<?, u a god" (0eo<? 
 , can not possibly be brought to stand for 6 
 For, be it remembered, ' SHIN" is not sus- 
 ceptible of either article, or of any other denning 
 affix ; and being itself a collective noun, it never once 
 conveyed the "unity" originally taught in " DEUS" 
 or eeo?. 
 
 Clearly, then, the only term available for " 6 0e6?,** 
 the one God GOD, is the name by which alone the 
 Chinese express their belief in the " Unity of Power 
 and of Worship," namely, SHANG-TE, <5 "T^to-To?. 
 Ke TE yu kiaou king-che chili yay! " The worship of 
 SHANG-TE in the open country is the greatest act of 
 adoration"; and "foo le pen yu TA-YIH," those 
 rites have for their origin the " great Unity" says 
 the Le-ke (c. viii.). He stands as high-exalted over 
 SHIN in the mind of an educated Chinese, imbued 
 with classical lore, as, at Rome, he who said of 
 old, 
 
 " Vos quoque, plebs Superum, Fauni, Satyrique, 
 
 Laresque, 
 
 Fluminaque et Nymphse, semideumque genus, 
 Denique ab antique Divi veteresque novique, 
 In nostrum cuncti tempus adeste, Chao ! " 
 
 (Ov. Ibis. 81, sq.) 
 
 or as the LORD MOST HIGH does in our own mind over 
 the " powers of the air" and their " prince." For, 
 as we have seen, the real meaning of " SHIN" (wit- 
 ness also Dr. Morrison, p. 804, vol. i.) as a noun, in
 
 182 
 
 classical Chinese is, "Power," or " Spirits" of the air; 
 So that "Shang-Shin" can only mean the " Highest 
 SHIN"; that is, "Shin-kiun" (Tai-Shang. ad in.) 
 which means, " the Prince of the power of the air." 
 
 We think, therefore, that in forcing upon the Chi- 
 nese the term " SHIN," as it seems to us, a mere 
 mockeiy of the abundant and overflowing meaning 
 of EL, ELOHIM, and 'O 0EOS, in the sense of 
 " God," which it never had, and which is quite our 
 own, we needlessly put a stumbling-block in the way 
 of the heathen whom we wish to bring to the know- 
 ledge of the True God. We do worse. We foster 
 among them their own polytheism. And while, at 
 the outset, we thus undo with the left-hand what the 
 right-hand does, we do not sufficiently consider, that 
 we may be sowing the seed of division, if not of 
 future sects, and, perhaps, of heresies, among the still 
 unsuspecting people of China. 
 
 For SHIN is only a vassal-prince. If we set him 
 up against his liege sovereign " SHANG-TE," we set 
 up Saliva for TOV &e6v ; one of the " plebs coeli," 
 " divum," pro " DEO." And we do little else in the 
 eyes of an educated Chinese, than play the war of the 
 Titans against him who 
 
 " Divosque mortalesque turbas 
 Imperio regit UNUS aequo."
 
 XII. 
 
 We do not presume to think that our sometimes 
 free rendering of the above passages, fixes irre- 
 vocably their meaning. For it is impossible, without 
 native teaching, and with only a very scanty supply 
 of Chinese books, to acquire more than a moderate 
 knowledge of the classical u koo-wen"; and as to the 
 spoken language, the country air does not of itself, 
 like that of Nan-king, tend to infuse much " kwan- 
 hwa" into the system. At the same time, we may 
 hope that the portions in our rendering with which 
 our betters may, perhaps, find fault, do not essentially 
 bear on the most important point, which is, the 
 meaning and acceptation of SHIN and of SHANG-TE. 
 To us, therefore, it would appear, that no other con- 
 clusion can be drawn from the examples brought 
 forward than this : that SHIN in Chinese corre- 
 sponds to TO Aaipovtov, or to JCU/AWI/, and is only 
 seldom applicable to 0eo9, in Greek ; while SHANG-TE 
 alone represents EL, ELOHIM, and 'O 0EOS. 
 
 For we have seen that 
 
 1) SHANG-TE is ONE, over all, Supreme: so is EL 
 and ELOHIM : so is also @e6?, not only in its original 
 meaning, but in its acceptation in Greek writers. 
 See above, p. 126; and also, for instance, Orac. Si' 
 byllina (Procem. and lib. i. 1, seq.)
 
 184 
 
 Els 0eo9 09 povos 
 
 *A\\a @eo9 fj,6vos els TravvTrepraros, 09 TreTrolrjtcev 
 
 Ovpavbv, rji\iov re, K.T.\. 
 
 and Orpheus (fr. ii.) 
 
 .Efc eor' auToreA779, aurou 8' UTTO irdvra re\eirat 
 ou8e ris ecr^' ereo^.- 
 
 In Homer, the "individual god" of the Greeks, 
 " theologice sic vocatur summus deus," says 
 Damm, is : " Har^p avSpwv re 6ewv re," " ocrre Oeouri 
 ical dvOpcaTroicn avda-aei." II. /3. 669. " v\Jr/i/yo9, aidepi 
 vaivv" 3. 166. " peyas /8ao-t\ew" " v^o$t ewv" " \nra- 
 T09 ^ewy fcal api<TTO<>" T. 258, etc. 
 
 Callimachus addresses TQV Ala (in Jov. 91) as 
 
 Xaipe f&eya, Kpovl&t) TrawTrepraTct, Swrop edwv 
 - <TV S' ov Oaves ' e<7<rt <yap alel. 
 
 and Cleanthes (Hym. in Jov. 2, 7) 
 Zev, <f)V(Ta><; ap^^e, vopov fj,era irdvra 
 
 <ro e 7ra9 oe /eoyi09 eXto"cro/iei/09 Trep yaav 
 Trei^erai, $ /cei/ a7275, at e'/cwi; I/TTO tretb Kparelrai. 
 
 and among later writers, Lucian (Philopatr. 12) 
 
 says,-^- 
 
 KPIT. Kal Ttva eTrofjuoa-o/Mii ye ; 
 
 TPIE&. 'T-^nfMe^ovra Qebv, //.eyoi;, apPpoTov, ovpavuova, 
 Tlbv Trarpbs, irvevfjia etc Trarpos K7ropev6/j,evov, 
 "Ev etc rpiwv, Kal e$- evbs Tpia, 
 Tavra vofiite Zfjva, rov S' r/yov @e6v" 
 
 2) As SHANG^TE is " Supreme," so also he is 
 worshipped
 
 185 
 
 a) The first, and before all other deities (see above, 
 pp. 167, 168;) and Le-ke, (c. vi.). " Command the 
 people" " wo-puh hwei chub ke le i k'hing Hwang- 
 T'heen-SHANG-TE ; ming-shan ; [ta-ch'huen, sse-fang-che- 
 SHIN," etc. " not to hesitate to contribute with all 
 their power to the worship of the Imperial Heaven, 
 SHANG-TE ; to that of celebrated mountains ; of great 
 rivers; and of the SHIN of the four quarters," etc. 
 (ibid. c. viii. etc.). That sacrifice takes place in the 
 open country (sub dio), in order " to establish the 
 Rule (or Authority) of Heaven" (see above, p. 133; 
 and Le-ke, c. viii.). In consequence of that sacrifice, 
 " the winds blew and the rain fell moderately" (c. ix.). 
 The object of those rites is the " Ta-yih," or " great 
 unity"; and they are "graduated from those ordered 
 for SHANG-TE, downwards, to the ceremonies intended 
 for the worship of the tutelary gods, of the hills, of 
 the rivers, and of Shin" (c. viii.). That worship of 
 SHANG-TE "ju keaou king-chih die yay " is per- 
 formed in the open country in token of the highest 
 possible veneration" (c. ix. ad f.); and the victim 
 appointed for that sacrifice is an ox, purified by a 
 certain process;* whereas any kind of ox may be 
 offered to ancestors. This is intended, says the Le- 
 ke, to show the superiority of the Deity over the 
 
 * Compare " 'lovFe KpairovFi rpe j3ov<}> <perov" offer 
 three oxen "Jovi Grabovi" (Iguvinian tab. iv. 6, 2, 
 sq.). They were " rpetp fiovtp Ka\epov<f>" " tres boves
 
 186 
 
 kwei, or "souls of men" (c. x.). That sacrifice again 
 brings happiness, if duly performed (c. xvi., and 
 xxiv.), or misery if it be neglected (c. xxvii.). 
 
 b) The rites of the worship of SHANG-TE are 
 always conducted by one man, set apart for that pur- 
 pose, viz., by the " T'heen-Tsze" " Son of Heaven," 
 the Emperor (Le-ke, c. v.), who, being thus set apart 
 by Heaven, says of himself (c. ii.) " Yu yih jin" " I 
 am one man," i. 0., " alone of my kind ! " The Em- 
 peror is thus both the High Priest, the King, and the 
 Prophet of his people; for he alone has the power 
 (Ch. Yung. c. xxviii. 2), to enforce the rites and 
 ceremonies of that sacrifice, which, he alone also, can 
 offer before going to battle (c. v.), while his officers 
 preside over the worship of inferior deities. He 
 
 candidi" (comp. Liv. xxii. 10, " bubus Jovi trecentis, 
 multis aliis divis bubus albis," and Sibyll. Or. 
 
 Zd\evKoi ravpoi Se At,os irapa ficopbv 
 "H/m, fjiTjBe re VVKTI ) 
 
 or at other times one only (Ig. tab. v. 6, 24) : " ' 
 .ae, re<j>e <rrov Ftrkov" "Jupiter, Sausi, tibi esto 
 vitulo"; andv. 4, " lovFe Trarpe povp, irepaicve" " Jovi 
 Patri bovem castum," etc. He, like Shang-Te, was 
 worshipped the first (ibid. tab. ii. 22, sq.): " lovFe 
 Tlarpe irpov^ov apirevTov" " Jovi Patri primum rem 
 divinam facito" (see Grotefend. Rud. L. Umbr. iii. 
 19, sqq.).
 
 187 
 
 regulates that worship, and conducts it, dressed in 
 his robes, and in other suitable apparel (Chow-Le, 
 pp. 13, 89, ed. Gingell), made of a particular silk, for 
 the manufacture of which the Empress herself gathers 
 mulberry leaves in the third month of Spring (Le-ke, 
 C. vi.). It is only " Shing-jin wei neng heang TE" a 
 " holy man," a " man eminent in virtue," who can 
 suitably worship SHANG-TE: and we read (c. xxiv.), 
 that so great was the piety of the Emperor T'ang, 
 " kit che-che SHANG-TE " that it gradually reached 
 SHANG-TE unhindered (by any sinful actions), 
 " She che TE ming shih ju kew kwo " and that, as a 
 reward for his devout conduct, TE ordered that T'ang 
 should become the pattern of the whole empire. 
 
 We may compare the salient points in the worship 
 of SHANG-TE, as distinguished from that of SHIN, and 
 of other inferior deities, with the worship of @e6? or 
 Zev9 among the Greeks ; and we may then see which 
 comes nearest in dignity and importance to the ser- 
 vice rendered -m @e&5, or to D7PN, ELOHIM, in Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 3) SHANG-TE, like EL, ELOHIM, and 0eo9, dwells 
 in Heaven (see above, p. 169), which is, " oltcos 
 fiaicdpwv" Orph. H. IV. " fjuucdpea-fft Seals eSo<? 
 
 alel" Hes. Th. 128. " Spatium coeli domus." Lucr. 
 ii. 1109. "Palatia coeli" (Ov. M. i. 175), etc., 
 where " e<m /^eya? ev ovpavti Zev<s" (Sophoc. El. 174); 
 and 0eo9 (Orph. fr. ii.) 
 
 auro9 eTTovpdvios, KOL eVt '\6ovl Trdvra
 
 188 
 And as to our God, f)^ W, " The Mighty Most- 
 
 " fDD tt&BTi n-n pxrrW wr-hx n# own 
 
 7 I : - T - | v AT T v: T : . - 
 
 *6 DW'ri ^ ^0#, will He really 
 dwell on the Earth? For behold the Heavens " are 
 His dwelling-place," and the Heavens of Heavens 
 cannot contain Him who yet D*fiB>3 fYlNlS TWbH 
 
 / . T T o ! 
 
 pXl} "humbleth Himself to behold what is in 
 
 I V IT T 
 
 Heaven and on the Earth." 
 
 4) " Heaven," T'heen, as abode of " SHANG-TE," is 
 called "Imperial" (Shoo-k. iv. 9, 11; and Le-ke, c. 
 VI.), " Koo-poKpdrmp" " TravvTreprare Sal/jLOvl" Orph.H.lV. 
 Thus, e. g., as abode of " ELOHIM," Dan. iv. 23, *Tp 
 NW |b?^ n yW, "until thou hast learnt, 
 king! that the HEAVENS rule"; and, Eccl. viii. 4, 
 K*/tplj? |p VlttTHK, " they are decreed from HEAVEN." 
 
 5) Heaven is identified with SHANG-TE, with EL, 
 ELOHIM, and 6 0e6?, and thus, as it were, personified 
 (see above p. 130; and Le-ke, c. ii. viii. etc.; Ch. 
 Yung. c. xx. 7, etc. ) " Initio primus in terris," says 
 Euhemerus, " imperium summum Uranus habuit" 
 (Ennii rel. p. 65, ed. Gil.); and Hes. Th. 45. 
 
 761/05 
 ous Tata Kal Ovpavbs evpixj enicrev, K.T.\. 
 
 Plato, Tim. sec. 15, etc. ; and St. Luke, c. xv., 
 
 rjfjiapTOV ei? rov ovpavbv Kal evoymov crov." And jiEsch. 
 fr. i. 96, " Zevf <rriv aldrjp Zev? 8' oupai/6?," /e.r.X. 
 
 (Comp.Jobxxii. 12, D^ nhi ?rt&|f"Ifify) Andfor 
 that reason, 
 
 6) " Heaven," T'HEEN, is worshipped
 
 189 
 
 a) as abode of SHANG-TE, and with him (see p. 
 169; and the Shoo-king throughout). Le-ke (c. x.), 
 ts'heu tsae ju Tih, ts'heu tsae ju T'HEEN. She i tsun 
 T'HEEN, eul ts'hin Tih yay. " We receive our wealth 
 from the Earth, and our laws from Heaven. We 
 ought therefore to obey Heaven, and to feel attached 
 to the Earth." We read further, that SHANG-TE is 
 worshipped in the open country, " for the express 
 purpose," says the Le-ke, c. viii., so-i tching T'HEEN"- 
 wei yay, " of establishing the Eule (or Majesty) of 
 Heaven." (See also, c. v.)* 
 
 b) "Heaven" is worshipped as abode of eo? or 
 
 * The name and worship of " T'heen," Heaven, 
 seems to have passed from China into the neigh- 
 bouring countries. Thus, " T'heen-li," " Reason of 
 Heaven," " Providence," became, probably, " Tan-ri," 
 when roughly pronounced by the Uighurs, arid 
 adopted by them to denote both " Heaven" and " God 
 Most-high." " Tan-ri" is also used in Uighur as an 
 adjective, very much like "Shin" in the Chinese 
 "Shin-niu," " Sia yvvai" " Saifu>vio<; avijp" " divus 
 Augustus," etc., to mean " Heavenly," or " divine." 
 For instance, we read in petitions from the inha- 
 bitants of Chamul to the Emperor of China, " Tan-ri 
 khakhan serintchib (' lan-min') neder ma." " The hea- 
 venly Emperor will graciously accept," etc. (See 
 Klaproth's Spr. u. Schr. der Uighuren, pp. 9, 28, 29; 
 and A. Remusat's LI. Tartares, lang. Ouigour.)
 
 190 
 
 Euhemerus (1. c. p. 67) says: " Ibique in eo 
 monte (Panto) aram creat Ccelo, primusque in ea ara 
 Jupiter sacrificavit; in eo loco suspexit in coelum* 
 quod Ovpavo? nominatur ; idque Jupiter, quod aether 
 vocatur precans primum ' Ccelum' nominavit ; eam- 
 que hostiam quam ibi sacravit, totam adolevit." 
 And Orpheus (H. iv.) Ovpavov Ov^ia^a, \l/3avov, as 
 quoted above, says (Talav Ovpavov re Trpoaicwfav 
 
 jEsch. P. 491). 
 
 Ovpave Trcvyyeverwp TravvTreprare Balpov 
 
 eTrdycov ^wrfv ocrirjv fjivarrj ve6<f)avrrj, etc. 
 
 c) " Heaven" is " taken to witness," as abode of 
 ELOHIM. " This day I take to witness dpi *rn#n 
 pKH-nKI D^BTI n Din Heaven and Earth 
 
 I v T T v : - T - 
 
 against you," said Moses to the children of Israel 
 (Deut. iv. 26; xxx. 19; xxxi. 28). 
 
 7) SHANG-TE, like ELOHIM and 6 eo?, rules in 
 Heaven, surrounded by his ministers (see Kan-ing- 
 pien, pp. 10, 11 ; and " San-kiao huen-lew," pp. 9-20). 
 They are inferior to him, for he alone is " Shang," 
 Supreme, over them. And as regards ELOHIM and 
 6 eo?, those inferior Spirits or gods are either their 
 creatures, or their offspring. Porphyrius (in Stob. 
 
 Eel. Phys. i. 2, 53) Says: "TO Be TrX^o? TWV Oewv epjov 
 
 * Comp. the Chinese Emperor, ascending a high 
 hill to worship Heaven, etc. (Le-ke, c. ix. ; and Yi- 
 tringa in Is. ii. 899, A.)
 
 191 
 
 e'ort TOV Sij/Aiovpyov, afia rr3 /cocr/ioj <yev6/j,evov." @eo? ad- 
 dresses them (Plato Tim. sec. 16) thus: " Oeol 6e>v, 
 wv eya> Sr/[j,i,ovp<yb<> Trarrip re epycov, a Bi efiov ryevofteva a\vra 
 7' e#eXovro<?. /u/ioufteyot Trjv ep,r)v Suvafuv Trepl TTJV 
 yevecrtv" K.T.\. " Nam miiiistros regni sui 
 Deus genuit," says Seneca (in Lact. lib. c. v. vii.), 
 and Manu (Sanhita, i. 22) 
 
 karmatmanan-cha devanan so f srijat pranimam 
 
 Prabhu : 1 
 sadhyanan-cha ganam suk'hsman jagyan cliaiva 
 
 sanatanam. | ] 
 
 " The Supreme Ruler created a host of gods, endowed 
 with principles of .action and with living souls ; as 
 well as a number of subtle genii, and also the per- 
 petual sacrifice." That "plebs coeli," " TrX^tfo? Oe&v" 
 those " ministri regni dei," are in Holy Scripture, the 
 D:nS 33, Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 26, etc. (rendered in 
 Chaldee by N^N 1 ^ TO, "legions of Angels"), and 
 
 the DWn ^^, arparia ovpdvto?" St. Luke ii. 13. 
 
 They are mentioned in Carm. Samarit. c. iii. 8, as 
 5fA^iZA^ S'W^v, " copies divinaB" (frequently al- 
 luded to by the Sabseans in Lib. Adami, as V'^ol 
 " genius," from >A* " to excel," (Psalm ciii. 20, 
 "Angels that excel in strength"); as, e. g., lib. i. 
 
 p. 174, liHioo V>1 liZol ]L> IjiLo AJ! "Thou Ge- 
 nius, harbinger of life, thyself ready, and making 
 others ready also," etc.); and the tMtfZflrei "Potes- 
 tates," egova-lai,, Carm. iv. 8. They are the arp/eXoi TOV 
 6eov" in one sense "fyxwe? fyavol (Pyth. Aur. c. 2), on 
 which Hierocles remarks :" TOU? 8e aurou<? K<U
 
 KaXelv e#o<?, o>? ovra? SaTj/Aom? teal 
 vofjiwv. -Odev /cat ' eoO 7rat8e<?'' ot ^/xoe? et/eoT6>? 
 vrai" They are, as the Clarian Apollo said 
 at Colophon (Orac. v. ed. Gall. p. 14; Lact. lib. i. 
 c. 7):- 
 
 Se 06ov fjuepk ajje\oi, i^efc." 
 
 who, (Orph. fr. iii. p. 454, ed. H. ; and Euseb. Pr. Ev. 
 p. 686, ed. Col.) around 0eov 
 
 v(a 
 olcn ie,r,e^ yorot9 (09 
 
 and stand " -n-orl irparov 0ebv Kal voarw," says Onatas, 
 " woTrep ^opevral TTOTI Kopv(f>alov, Kal crrpariwrai irorl arpa- 
 ov" (Stob. Eel. Ph. i. 2, 28), " a-rparia 6eo>v re KOI 
 " (Macrob. Sat. i. 23). They are (Orph. fr. 
 iii. 3) subject to him, 
 
 ov fypiarcrovcri, Oewv 8e SeBoiKev 
 
 and they obey (Aristoph. Nub. 555) 
 
 a jj,ev Oewv 
 rvpavvov - " 
 
 a) As regards ELOHIM, we read in his word, " The 
 
 Scripture of Truth," of the apxal Kal egovcruu ev rot? 
 
 e-rrovpavloi? (Eph. iii. 10; comp. with Asc. Isaiae v. 
 vii. 9); and that even TTX^O? (St. Luke ii. 13), "a 
 multitude" is but a small band of that Heavenly 
 Host. We are told of njnj-fcOpb, " The Prince," 
 or " Captain of that Host" (Josh. v. 14) ; of " Che- 
 rubim" (Psalm Ixxx. 1; xcix. 1) l
 
 193 
 
 u/> "who stand nearest to God" (Hyde, 
 Rel. Y. P. p. 262) ; of " Seraphim" (Is. vi. 1-7) ;*- 
 of "Archangels" (1 Thess. iv. 16; St. Jude, 9; Eev. 
 xii. 7); of "Watchers" (Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20) ;f- 
 
 * The Eastern Church teaches that Angels are 
 
 arranged in three Sta/eooy^o-a? ; each of which contains 
 three rdgets. I. ra Xepov/31/j,, TO, ^epa^lfj,, KOI roi><i po- 
 vovs. II. r9 KvpiorijTcis, T9 '-Eov<r/a9, r9 
 III. T9 '^4/3%a9, TOW 'Apxasy<ye\ovs /cal TOV? 
 
 (See Metroph. Critopuli Conf. p. 52), or, "ev 
 
 Xopovs Siaipovvrai,, /cal ol evvea TOVTOI? et? rpefc rd^eis" 
 (Confessio Orthod. p. 80, ed. Kimmel). It is in 
 accordance with these hierarchical orders in Heaven, 
 that the same Church praises God, for that He has 
 also in His Church upon Earth, " chosen faithful 
 men to do His will ; 
 
 . 
 
 and having distinguished their several or- 
 ders one from the other, has made them ' superior' 
 and 'inferior' (middling) according to the number of 
 the nine orders of Angels." (Codex Liturg. Eccles. 
 Univ. ed. J. A. Asseman. v. ii. pp. 13, 49, 74, 132, 
 137, etc.; but see especially the learned note of 
 J. Morinus, in the Appendix to that volume.) 
 
 f We read in Dan. iv. 10, 20, &*$[ 
 nm K*^-pP, "Behold a Watcher and a Holy One 
 were coming down from Heaven ;" and v. 14, 
 
 mm, "This
 
 194 
 
 of an " innumerable company of Angels" (Heb. xii. 
 22; comp. Asc. Is. ix. 6), whose honour and pri- 
 vilege is, as Seberianus (Horn. i. ad. f.) says: 
 
 UfiuutfiL. < [i h pin ui Ifiurj Ufn^UjQfiutlfiuq IftujuAg^ tO 
 
 matter is by the decree of the 'Watchers/ and the 
 demand by the word of the Holy Ones." (A. V.) 
 Whether or no, those " Watchers" were a Zendic 
 notion (see Rhode, die Relig. des Zend-V. p. 332, 
 341, sq.\ we find them mentioned very frequently 
 among the Rabbis, and in the early writers of the 
 Eastern Church. They were oonpn PPT>I '2ft>p, says 
 R. Saad. B. Ga'ou, called p'V "Watchers" (Oescn. 
 1. c.), according to S. Ben. Melech, oiwi> ID f>7>P 
 "because ftf is always on the watch" (Hyde 
 de Y. P. Rel. p. 269). We cannot find that, as 
 Winer (Real- Wort. 1. c.) and Gesenius (1. c.) say, 
 they have much in common with the " Farohars," or 
 
 " Fravaharis," of the Zend-Avesta. But their office 
 
 t 
 
 seems rather to correspond with that of the ^IK7D 
 
 . 
 in Job xxxiii. 23, which A. Ezra explains to be 
 
 7)P ppp) nr>p3 7 ( pp to? 7nf> ]f>M5, "an Angel who 
 frequents a man to preserve him from evil (' Angels,' 
 comp. ' Serosch,' in the Z. Av. ) ; and to make him 
 understand the secret of his intricate walk in life." 
 For, there is via &PPPP \im -70" pip -jft>p O7f> bti p 
 " to every man an instructing Angel who directs his 
 star (fortune), and who intercedes for him" (Eisen- 
 meng. Entdekt. Jud. ii. p. 389; in Gesen. Thes. 1. c.).
 
 195 
 
 stand around the throne of God" (Rev. v. 11, vii. 11), 
 "whom they worship" (Psalm xcvii. 7; Heb. i. 6; 
 Rev. vii. 11); "and do His commandments, hearken- 
 ing unto the voice of His Word" (Ps. ciii. 19, 20). 
 
 The word ")*y in Dan. iv. 10, 17, 20, is rendered 
 in the Arabic vers. by ^Uaju "vigil"; in the Ixx., 
 by eip, which means nothing in Greek. This figures 
 in the Coptic version of Daniel as or HP (ed. Tattam, 
 p. 298), and ovip (ed. J. Bardelli, pp. 46, 47). In the 
 Armenian version it is rendered by " qnt-iuppniJ*" 
 " watching," " vigil," eypyyopos; which is exactly 
 given in " bodrii" of the ancient Slavonic version. 
 p*p "Watchers," are the "Tpwopoi a\<j>i<rrrjpe<;" (of 
 Orac. Sibyll, p. 90), the f>V^ " vigiles," often 
 mentioned in the "Book of Enoch" (0. </., c. xii.), 
 said of "good Angels," (DrWV : *H14, : ^ftA : fc&tt : 
 <<*ftA : ^TV^ : n<*T6A : H,ftt> : : " And they did 
 it all with the Saints and with the * Watchers' in 
 those days," of "fallen" ones (ibid. v. 5), 
 
 : "0 Enoch ! scribe of righteousness ! 
 go and make known to the ' Watchers' that they have 
 left Heaven," etc. It does not, however, occur, we 
 believe, in the " Ascension of Isaiah," which is a book 
 of a probably very early date ; nor yet in the " Di- 
 dascalia ^Ethiopica;" except as an adjective applied 
 to a "Bishop" (p. 25), etc. 
 
 " Sed Vigiles," says J. Morinus, " Syris post Da-
 
 Further, we may take comfort from the thought 
 that they are all ministering Spirits, sent forth, by 
 our Heavenly Father, "to minister for them who 
 shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. i. 14). 
 
 nielem sunt celeberrimi." In the Lib. Adami, 
 
 generally means "a guardian Angel" (as, e. g., lib. i. 
 p. 148) " How shall we speak of the superiority in 
 }'D] Voi> "jjioib ^io "Ljco ^iAj }jL3 ..A nature 
 
 of the guardian Angel who goes about, over that of 
 the word of a Speaking Spirit?" and ii. 318, etc. In a 
 Syriac Liturgy, quoted by J. Morinus (in Appendix ad 
 vol. ii. Codic. Liturg. Eccles. Univ. p. 242), we read 
 that the choir of " Watchers" is higher in rank than 
 even the Cherubim and Seraphim. .oouk> 
 
 . ai2o> Oil, ^Sl^D JJO 
 
 uOUJO.m>0 
 
 " God is far from the 
 sons of men in appearance, and they cannot com- 
 prehend His majesty; nor yet the Seraphim with six 
 wings, nor the Cherubim with four faces. These 
 carry his throne, and dare not look at Him. But as 
 to the Watcher who never slumbers, no man can 
 describe his office." This order, however, varies, 
 even in the Syrian Church. 
 
 In S. Ephraem, H. vii. " adv. Scrutatores," God is 
 called l-li? )& " The Lord of the Watchers,"
 
 197 
 
 al KOV(j)loVTe<> Trpo? rrjv 0iav Tro\ireiav O.TTO TT}? ev 
 Siarpiftrj? KOI eKfyalvoines Kal 8uxrfye\\ovTes r)p2v row 
 
 ev&tav Kavovas" says even the heathen Hierocles 
 (com. in Aur. Carm. iii. 2). And, lastly, we ought 
 to take warning, and live in awe of that cloud of 
 unseen witnesses, who at present, either grieve or 
 rejoice over us, according to our walk in life. For 
 we shall one day see them face to face; and before 
 them, assembled on high, our Lord JESUS at whose 
 ineffable name they bow (St. Luke, xii. 8, 9) will 
 either " confess " or " deny" us 1 
 
 b) As regards the Greek notions of 0eo?, we find 
 that, as Joh. Lydus (de Mens. p. 52, ed. Roeth.) says : 
 SeSiv Se (rwv ev <yeve<rei) tpia 761/77 ovpdviov, CTriyeiov, Kal 
 TO /u,era|u rovrwv." "created gods are of three kinds: 
 
 H. iii. adv. ib. );!&, ^iSo r 1 ^: 1 *- ' Qs " before 
 whom the Watchers (are ashamed) veil their faces." 
 (See also Sermo v. throughout.) Ibid. Can. Funeb. 
 
 xv. 38, laib? ^SD ^'r 1 ^ Vr*^ " a "Watcher will 
 
 awake thee out of thy sleep." See also Opp. T. ii. 
 455, 456; but especially 546, etc., and Seven Patr. 
 lib. rit. p. 110, .oil ffiVno ] ^tioo;io> oil 
 
 ^iSnV), "praise belongeth to Him whom Watchers 
 extol, and whom Angels serve," etc. S. Ephram 
 was followed or carried to his grave by Angels and 
 "Watchers." (See Acta S. Ephraemi. Opp. v. ii. ; 
 and Assem. B. Or. v. i. 52, sq.)
 
 198 
 
 of Heaven, of the Earth, of the middle space." 
 " TI egova-ia rov aepo?," Eph. ii. 2. " evaiOepioi rives Sv- 
 vdpeis" (according to Plato, a\vyoi Se elaiv real acra)- 
 fjuirot) dyjeXoi (ovpdvioi) ijpcoes (eTTtryeioi), Safaoves (TMV 
 
 a/j,<j>l atcpwv d7re%oz/) (Hierocl. iii. 2). But over all 
 
 those " dvcordraj 8e vrdvrwv vovv evcuOepiov elvai 0eov," 
 "God exists, a celestial mind above" (Stob. Eel. Ph. 
 i. 2), to whom they "plebs Dei" (Ov. M. 1) are 
 subject. For (Orac. Vet. p. 43) 
 
 oi <j>otrS)O'i irepl %06va Kal Trepl TTOVTOV, 
 aicdfuiToi,, Bd/j,avrat viral p,d<TTvyi Oeolo." 
 
 c) As regards SHANG-TE, we see him alone " Shang," 
 supreme over the other five Te's or " elements," and 
 over the inferior gods, who preside over the air, the 
 land, and the sea. He alone is mentioned in the oldest 
 annals of the Shoo-king, in the Le-ke, and in the works 
 of Confucius ; while the other Te's are not once alluded 
 to in those books, and only in later and modern 
 works. But the Earth, the air, and the sea, are in 
 their turn peopled with innumerable " Spirits," some 
 of which are of the Earth, and are called She, or 
 Shay; and others of the air, and are called " SHIN." 
 
 " SHIN," then, in our opinion, is no substitute for 
 EL, ELOHIM, and 6 605. As an "emanation" from 
 Heaven, and as the " Ling" of the " Yang" principle, 
 it answers to nvevpa or Aai^wv; and, perhaps, not 
 even to that. For Aal^wv is declinable, and like eo?, 
 both masculine and feminine : it may be either 6 or 
 r) Sa//Liaw, ol Satire?, etc. Whereas SHIN does not even
 
 199 
 
 possess the shadow of " personality" which exists in 
 the masculine 6 Sal^v ; but it is indeclinable, and 
 can take neither article, number, nor gender. The 
 
 Arabic word ^ " genn," " genii," which, like SHIN, 
 is a collective noun, or TO Saifwviov in a collective 
 sense, seems to come nearest to it.* 
 
 * As a collective noun, SHIN seems to correspond 
 best with the well-known Arabic (i fr " genii" (from 
 
 (lj p r "to cover, hide; to be obscure and indistinct"). 
 It is thus described by Djeuhari: 
 L^S-U-J Jlib i^c^T /*** 
 < 2Ju " (The race) i genn' is opposed to 
 man. One 'genn' is called ^Jcy The race of 
 
 them is so named because they are dreaded and not 
 seen." (See Ch.-Yung. c. xvi.) They, too, like 
 SHIN are both "good and bad," e. g., in the Goran 
 
 (Sur. 72, 11, 14), one of them, says: U< U\j 
 
 ^ w w 
 
 bjji jj\Jy li cJliJ UJt > U^j u jc)Ul "Behold, 
 some of us are good, and some of us, on the 
 contrary, are wayward," etc. The bad ones are 
 called " Sheitan," as Djeuhari says : 
 
 What " Sheitan" means is well known. Every one, 
 either among the "genn," men, or beasts, who is 
 either rebellious or disobedient, is a " Sheitan," devil. 
 (See H. Reland. de Rel. Muham. p. 185.)
 
 200 
 
 XIII. 
 
 It is evident that, were it only for the writ of 
 accusation against Socrates "aSt/cet 5WpttT?79, ofc ^ev 
 37 770X49 vofti^ei 0eou9, ov vo/Mifov, eTepa Be /caiva Aaijjuovta 
 ela-(j>ep(ov" (Xenoph. M. i. 1) there existed a differ- 
 ence among the Greeks between 6e6? and Bafawv; 
 although they were sometimes apparently taken one 
 for the other, e. g., II. (p. 98), 
 
 " OTTTTOT' dvrjp e0e\r) Trpbs Salftova ^xw 
 ov K debs rt/ia, TCL^CL ol fj,e<ya Trfjfta KV\Mhj t " K.T.\. 
 
 We have seen the original meaning of 0eo9, but 
 what is that of Salpav ? hie, fateor 
 
 " male laxus 
 In pede haBret calceus" - 
 
 So that, with Max. Tyrius (\6y. a) " irepl //-/ 
 
 afjL<j)La-ftr)rS)v, Xoyov \6<y(a <^>eptw, Kal ave^o^ai rrjv crrdcnv" 
 " $epe, (\oy. K%) epdopeda TO Bai/j,6viov wSe TT&J?, Kara rbv 
 rov 'OfjLrjpov 'OSu^ro-ea 1 (Od. ^. 150.) 
 
 vv rot r) /poro9 ecrcrt'Ka 
 " El /J,ev n<i ^09 ecr<rt rot ovpavov evpvv 
 vSev Set \6yo)V la-jjuev yap ra <rd' 
 
 "El Be Tt9 evert fiporwv rol eirl ftOovl vaierdovaiv 
 
 apa rotovrov xpfjfjia, oiov 6fM07ra0e<; re elvai rjp.lv Kal o/^o 
 
 /cal (rvyxpovov, r) Kara rrjv Siairav e^ecrrtov rfj 777, Kara Be
 
 201 
 
 OIKTMV Kpeirrov avrfjs ; ov yap adpices at, Sai/jiovwv <f>v- 
 
 But even "TO 6Vo/aa," is by no means so "8r)\ov" as 
 our author seems to think it (\oy. a.) Is it from Sda> or 
 Saico ? " ut adeo Safaav proprie sit ' distributor,' quod 
 in deum et genios recte quadrat?" (Et. Gr. V. Lennep) 
 " aut ut Possidonius dicit quia ex eetherea substantia 
 parta atque divisa qualitas illis est?" Macrob. (Sat. 
 i. 23.) Or rather, as Plato says (Cratyl. sec. 33, ed. 
 Bek.) : " Tovro roivvv Travros fta\\ov Aeyet ( f flcrto&o9) 
 &>9 e/ioi So/cei, row Salfj,ova$, on <f)povi/j,oi Kal ' SaiifAOves' 
 fjaav, ' Sal/Aovas 1 avrov? wvopacre" K.T.\.* And Hesiod, 
 Op. et D. 314: " Safaovt, & olos e^a-da" " Safacov hie 
 non est deus, sed ' peritus,' ' consultus.' " Hesych. : 
 , Sajfuw" Et. M. pp. 35, 24 : " Safauv 6 avro- 
 ." Archilochus in Plut. Thes. 5 : " rain^ 7^ 
 8alfj,ove<t elcri /ta^9," etc. (See Gottling's note, 
 1. c.) We confess, however, that at the risk of " O 
 (}>aai rrjv yXavxa 7rdo")(eiv, 77/909 rov ij\iov afiavpov^ev 
 " being thought an owl in broad daylight," " et <ydp 
 
 * Compare Sarjpcav with the Sanscrit " D'HIMAN," 
 "sensible, wise, learned;" a name of Yrihaspati, the 
 preceptor of the " gods," etc. Thus, in Nalod. 
 tava shishyena d'himata," etc., " by thy clever pupil," 
 etc. Or, compare according to Prof. Bopp. (Comp. 
 Gr. v. i. p. 164, Eng. tr.), Safawv with ATMA; which, 
 in spite of the manifold virtues of the jEolic digamma, 
 appears somewhat far-fetched.
 
 202 
 
 e? ra9 ITXaTOi>i>09 (frfova? ep/rrecriav erepav Setrat \6ya>v ovS" 
 av rov ij\iov I'Sot avio-xpvra" (Max. Tyr. Xtty. a ) W6 
 
 might wish for some other etymology for Sat/taw; 
 and one clearer than Plato's words. 
 
 Whatever, then, be the origin of " Safawv" let us 
 see in what respects it corresponds with SHIN in 
 Chinese. 
 
 1 ) The primary meaning of Safatov, as distinguished 
 from 0eo9, seems given in these words of an uncertain 
 author (Stob. Eel. Phys. lib. i. ii. 39): "6eos /*/ 
 
 ojv evri, KaOairep ev dpx& TOO \6y(o etirov, avro? yap dp^a 
 
 Kal rrp&rOV' 010$ & 6 KOCrfAOS* K(U TO, V tlVTW BlVV/J,Va 
 
 Trdvra' &>9 6/to/o>9 re Kal Satftcov evrl a ^v^a, avra yap 
 apyei Kal Kivel TO Si6\a> &ov." " God, then, exists, as I 
 said in the beginning of my argument ; for He is both 
 the beginning and the first principle. The universe 
 is of God (06M9), as well as whatever moves in it; 
 while Aaipwv (the deity) is the soul thereof (' Sarva- 
 gatam Brahma,' 'the deity that pervades all things' 
 Bhag. G. iii.) for it rules and sets in motion the 
 whole living world; which world, said Thales (Diog. 
 
 L. lib. i. 1, 6), is eyu/\/rt^o9 Kal Saipovwv 7r\r)pr)s" 
 
 This acceptation of Safauv exactly agrees with the 
 
 * " eTTOtija-ev &v rov Se rov KOO-JAOV eff aTrdtras ras v\a$ 
 /a, fjuovoyevr), reXetov, ep-^v^ov re Kal \oyiKov ov 
 VTT aXX&) amo>, e^<w rw avrov 
 
 &ri\ero avrov 8ia\vev" (Timseus Locr. de 
 Aninia M. p. 545, sq. ed. Gale.)
 
 203 
 
 collective sense of "KwEi-SmN," " 
 (Philo J. de Gig. 4), which, as we have seen (Ch.-Yung, 
 c. xvi. ), " you look for and cannot see ! you listen to 
 and cannot hear ! " '* t'he-wuh, evil puh ko ee 1 Yang 
 yang hoo! joo tsae ke shang; joo tsae ke tso yew." 
 " they enter into the very essence of things and cannot 
 be separated from it ! Like the waves of the Ocean, 
 in amplitude, they are above us, and they surround 
 us on every side ! " dalfjuov, then, corresponds not only 
 
 to the Arabic ^fr, but also to the Vaidic " Vishwa- 
 devas," or " PE-SHIN"; for, says lamblichus (de Myst. 
 sec. i. C. vi.) : " ridefiat, Sr) ovv TO p,ev Baifjioviov <f>v\ov 
 ev TtS evl 7r\,Tj6vv6nevov, Kal a-v^tjvvf^evov ayni<y<w9," etc. 
 It also partly agrees with the words of Seneca (Ep. 
 Ixv. 24), " quern in hoc mundo locum Deus obtinet, 
 hunc in homine animus; quod est illic materia, id 
 nobis corpus est." And Lucan. (Phars. ix. 578), 
 
 " Estne dei sedes, nisi terra, et pontus et ae'r, 
 Et coelum, et virtus 
 
 Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque mo- 
 veris." 
 
 nam et " Jovis omnia plena." (Eclog. vi. 60.) 
 
 But here "Deus" is "animus"; whereas " SHIN," 
 which "t'he-wuh" gives entity to the material world 
 (like Saifjwv the -^vxn thereof), is inferior to SHANG- 
 TE (see Shoo-king iv. 1), as Safawv (77 tyvxn) is to 
 
 " @09 O9 CTTOLtJO'ev TOV KOCTfAOV e/i>|rin^OV Kttl ~\0yiKOV." " Ol 
 
 &e rrjv Saifjuoviav GTriaracrLav StaAa^oz/re?," Says lambli- 
 
 chus (de Myst. sec. i. c. xx.),
 
 204 
 
 rov tcoafAOV fcarareivafjievoi ravras Karev6vvov<nv" (comp. 
 "sse-fang SHIN," above, p. 149). " f 'OX<w9 Se TO pev 
 Oelov e<rriv riyefjioviKov teal Trpoia-rd^evov TTJS ev rot? 
 oven &aTafeo>9," K.T.\. For, let this important fact be 
 well borne in mind, even if " SHIN" be granted to 
 correspond, as it does, in Chinese ideas with f] tyvyv] 
 
 rov tcoapov of Plato, or with his " TT^eO^a" (in Phi- 
 
 lebus), where he mentions " ra irepl T^V r&v crw^drwv 
 
 T<WV %cao)V IIvp, Kal f 'TSa>p, KOI Hvevpa 
 
 TTOV Kal TV, rt that the comparison goes 
 no further. For, he plainly says, " "On 
 TOVTWV eKOGTQV Trap rjftiv eVeem teal <j)av\ov, KOL 
 ovSa/j,><} etkiKpives ov" " that we are individually made 
 up of a small, insignificant, and not particularly 
 pure, portion of each of those four elements" : and 
 
 Says again, " TO Trap* r)/uv a-w^a up* ov tyvxyv <^>r]cro^v 
 
 Xw ; Sr)\ov on $r)aonev." " Shall we then say that 
 our body contains no soul ? Of course it does." 
 7r60ei/, o> </>t\e IIpa>Tapxe, \a@6v. "From whence, my 
 good friend, does it receive that soul efaep ^ TO ye 
 
 rov TTavTO? <7<w/ia efjsjfvyov ov ervyxave; if it be not a 
 part and parcel of the body of the universe, which 
 is e/ii/rin^oi/, endowed with a soul?" 
 
 According to Plato, then, our ^vxn is a part of the 
 7rvev/jia, or " spiritual essence," in the Universe. But 
 SHIN is not that as regards ourselves; for our " soul" 
 is " Kwei," which is always distinguished from SHIN 
 (see Le-ke, c. xix.); where "Kwei" and "Shin" are 
 explained as differing materially; " SHIN," as apart 
 of ourselves, being taken to mean our " spirit," and
 
 205 
 
 "good or bad spirits," dependant on health. More- 
 over, SHIN, even as " -^v^ rov /coo-^ou," is not the active, 
 intelligent " Ling," which, we presume, takes the place 
 of the "mind" or Now, in " SoQia, Now Kal V\?7" of 
 Plato's world. Now we read in Lao-Tsze (c. iv.), 
 that SHIN may lose "Ling," or W^, rov Now 
 either by accident, or, as the Chinese say, from " old 
 age"! What, then, remains of SHIN to make it into 
 " GOD," the MIGHTY, the EVERLASTING GOD ? 
 
 2) According to Xenocrates (Stob. Eel. Ph. i.2,29), 
 there is : @e6?, in Heaven ; QeoL 'OAu/u/Tuot, the hea- 
 venly bodies; and erepoi vTroa-eXyvot BatfAoves aoparoi, 
 " other sublunary Aalpoves, Genii, who are invisible" 
 the power of the air, as Porphyrius says : " Kard- 
 rat9 &(ov fio> 77/309 ra aldepia, Baipovwv Be 77/309 ra 
 depia, -^rv)(wv Be TUV irepl <yrjv, alriav elvai," (ap. Iambi. 
 
 de M. c. viii. 5). 
 
 This, too, agrees with SHIN, as being also " sub- 
 lunary Spirits." For they are every where in the 
 atmospheric regions; and, as such, they are, as we 
 have seen, always worshipped last of all, SHANG-TE, 
 in the Imperial Heaven, being worshipped first. 
 
 3) As 0eo9 and OeoL were generally held to be aryaOoi 
 " e-rreiBrj 7ra<? 0eo9 07^09" (Sallust, c. xii.), the Greeks 
 ascribed calamities, and other divine judgments, to 
 that "irresistible," (TravBaprjTcop, Soph.) "unseen," 
 
 B' ai'<TT09, Pind.) and " intermediate," (rov 
 7eVo9, Hierocl.) agency between the gods and 
 men 6 &U/LMOJ/; which, being unknown and ill-defined 
 (97 oopto-T09 Suo9, Bafawv according to Pythagoras),
 
 206 
 
 they alternately courted " t'Xao?, & Sat/jiov, "Xao9," 
 (Soph.) or dreaded, "a*, a*, at, at Sat/ioy, Sat/xoi/' 1 
 (id.), as either propitious or adverse ; 
 
 " Aainovd T' rjydOeov, Aaipova irfytava Ovrjrwv" 
 
 (Orph. H. i. 31.) 
 
 This Saipwv, or Sat/Mves, were the agency, as well as 
 the instruments of the justice of the gods,* who made 
 over the wicked to " Aafaoo-i /coXacn-t/aw" (Sail. c. xiv. 
 ad. f.) for punishment; while as regards the good 
 (Pyth. v. 164),- 
 
 " Aios rot voos fieyas /cvfiepva 
 Aaip,ov dvSpwv (j>{\wv" 
 
 According to the Greeks, then, a man's daily lot in life, 
 was either " Sat/iow? asyaOov" or " Baifiovos Kdfcov, S6cri9." 
 (Creuzer, s. iii. 776, sqq.) " El yewcuos, &>? iSovn" said 
 the stranger to GEdipus, " 7f\r)v rov Sa/yuoi/o?." And 
 
 8' e 
 
 ravTct ev ro 
 
 KOI rfjSe <j>vvat xarepa" - ((Ed. Col. 76, 1446). 
 So also " good fortune" was " 6 Se^to? Saipav" (Callim. 
 
 <ydp rt9 pe^la-TV] rera/crai, & refcvov, Says Hermes 
 (ap. Stob. Eel. Phys. lib. i. 3, 52), eV /ieVw rov Travros 
 eiXou/iei^, Travrairep opwcra ra ejrl 7779 jtv6/j,eva VTTO rwv 
 dv6pa)7ra)V. KaOajrep ovv e?rt T^9 6eta<; rd^ea)? rj Trpovoia teal 
 dvdj/cr) reTaicrcu, rov avrbv rporrov teal ITTI rwv dvOpdorroyv 
 rkraKrai r) Sltcij, ravra avrois evepjoixra. 'Exeivr) /j,ev yap 
 Kparel rrjv rdgiv rwv ovrwv 009 Oelwv 'H Be Slfcr) rerafcrai 
 CTTI 7779 apapravbvrwv dvOpa>Tra>v, ic.r.\.
 
 207 
 
 Cal. C. 32) ; and " bad luck," on the other hand, was 
 (Find. P. iii. 62)- 
 
 " Aaipwv ' erepo? 
 
 <? KdKOV 
 
 This, again, agrees best with SHIN, which, we have 
 seen (pp. 144, 151), is both "good" and "bad"; both 
 served and dreaded. But it does not agree with 
 SHANG-TE, who like 6 0eo9, is always good ; and like 
 o 0eo5, also, is only feared and worshipped. 
 
 There is also a coincidence between wyaOoBaif^av and 
 Ka/coSal/jicov, as applied to a man's estate, and the fami- 
 liar expressions " Sang," or " Shang-Shin," mournful 
 or wounded spirits, and "tsin-Shin," bright or good 
 spirits, etc. " Shin" is also used as a term of endear- 
 ment, e. </., " Shin-niu," " divine maid," " Shin-seen," 
 etc., like " Sa^toiW in e. g. Odyss. xiv. 443, " Sat/wvie 
 
 geivcav" etc. 
 
 4) Those Sat/loves were not 6eoi. For 6 eo?, we 
 have seen repeatedly, "made them all": "ov/c 
 7rou9 eSei fcal %>a pova Troieiv, d\\a Oeoix; re Kal a 
 xal AalnAvas" (Sail. c. xiii.), etc. In like manner, 
 SHIN, in itself, is not even " a god," much less " GOD." 
 For we read in the Hwa-tseen (see above, p. 148), of 
 " SHIN-SEEN," or "Hill-genii," who are eight in num- 
 ber, and (like 6 or ^ Sai/j,o>v) both male and female. 
 (Comp. the "Pattinee Devi" of Ceylon, Uph. H. B. 
 p. 54.) They, however, "are not considered as gods, 
 nor worshipped, nor have they temples erected to 
 them," says Dr. Morrison, Diet. vol. i. p. 70.
 
 208 
 
 5) Since SalfjMv was ato-ro?, "hidden," and 
 "indefinite," the "agency," Sal/Mov, was often iden- 
 tified with the " agent " 0eo?, who was equally hidden 
 and unknown, and it was then mistaken for him. 
 Thus, e. g., perhaps, Marcus Anton, (de seipso. lib. v. 
 8) says, " efeo-rt /xot fjLVj&ev irpda-^eiv irapa rbv ep,ov 6eov 
 KOI Salfwva." Thus also, Zevs 0761/777-09, who " icvfiepva 
 
 Saliva" is himself addressed as Sai^wv (which is 
 fM rov eeot)=Jtos), by Cleanthes (H. in J. 14), 
 " oySe n yiryverai epyov eirl %0ovl <rov St%, Saipov" 
 
 and in II. a, 222, Homer calls all the Oeol ' 
 also SaifAoves. 
 
 _ ^ g' Ov\vfj,7r6vSe faffitcet 
 Sw/iar' e? al<yi6%oio Albs /itera Saiyu.ova9 a 
 
 This exactly suits " SHIN." For, as we have seen 
 above (p. 155), and Le-ke (c. xvi.), although we 
 read, " raise your thoughts to Heaven, ' T'HEEN tsei 
 SHIN,' and from Heaven to SHIN," yet the col- 
 lective noun, " SHIN," does not here apply to any one 
 in Heaven in particular ; but it applies to SHANG-TE, 
 and to his eight attendants and their satellites, col- 
 lectively. Even in this passage, then, which seems 
 at first sight to favour the advocates of SHIN, SHIN 
 not only can not mean 6 0e6<?, but it does not even 
 stand for Oe6$ ; it honestly means only " TO Sai^oviov 
 (j>>\ov" or, at best, the " deal 'OXuyu,7rtot." We are, we 
 confess, really at a loss to know why the term, which 
 even according to its stanchest advocate means 
 "genii, or daemons" (or only " deity," Diet. i. p. 178),
 
 209 
 
 and can only apply to the whole "plebs superum," 
 should be preferred to the term belonging exclusively 
 to the Chief Ruler in " Hwang T'heen," or Imperial 
 Heaven atVu? "OA,V/ATTO<? to SHANG-TE alone. 
 
 But when Safawv was assigned to any particular 
 object, it then became a "personal" Aat^wv or "tfeo?" 
 " a god." Does not this show how men, one and all, 
 Sought a " personal" god ? Thus Ovpavbs ira^everwp 
 is also " TravvrrepraTos Safacov" (Orph. H. iv.); $vo-i9, is 
 
 " TTOXV/CTITOS Sdl/jLWv" (ibid. X. ) ^77/^77x77/3, IS " TToXf WtVV- 
 
 /U09 Bat/uiwv" (ibid, xl.) and Ne/j,e<n<; is " TravvTrepraTOS 
 Scu/itoz/" also (ibid. Ixii.), etc.; all, and the like of 
 which, when once "personified" after the manner of 
 heathen nations, by being either worshipped under a 
 visible, or represented in a material form, became, 
 each not " 6 0eo9," which was One, alone, and above 
 them all but only " 0eo?," "a god," or an "ayaXpa 
 faov" as, 6. g., "AvOpcoTTOS rt?, %v\ivov e'xatv Oeov eppityev 
 t? TO eSa^o?-* (^Es. Fab. 128, etc.) Sophocles (in 
 Euseb. Pr. Ev. lib. xiii. p. 680, d. ed. Col.) says to 
 the point : 
 
 " El? rat? a\.r)0eiai(Tiv, et? <m 609, 
 
 "O? OVpaVQV TT6U^6, KOi 
 
 * See Menand. fr. (Perinth. 3. ed. Cl. p. 148). 
 
 vS 1 avro<{ el/At crvv Beats t^ro^fXo?" 
 
 9 KaXeirat ra aryd\fj,aTa o?9 e'/c 
 T<rKvao-fJ.evoi<; eTriTrdXfy eVe\7\aTO apyvpos rj 
 
 Hermog. ad not. 1. c. 
 
 15
 
 210 
 
 l Be 7ro\\ol rcapSlav 
 
 e/c cov, r 
 "H %pv(roTev/cTWV, rj e\e<j>avrivo)v TVTTOI; 9. 
 Qv<ria<i re TOVTOLS, /cal Ka\as 7ravr)<yvpe<t 
 evcrefieiv 
 
 For, as we have said, generally speaking, " Oeos" ap- 
 pears to have been the " personal agent," inhabiting an 
 unseen abode oUov Oewv paKdpwv in Heaven. Whereas 
 "Sat/M>v" as "1/0^7 TOV tcoo-fjuov" was the "hidden 
 agency, power, or energy," through which " ^09" 
 wrought effectually in the eyes of men. Even the 
 " a-Koreivos AvKo^pcov" is clear on this point. He ad- 
 dresses " Aai^iova" as the "agency" (Cassand. 281): 
 
 " */2 Scufwv, olov Ktov d'ia-Taxreis 
 
 v Epei<r/jui Trdrpas Svcmrxpvs vTrocnraaax ! 
 
 and "0em>" (ibid. 909), as the "agent" who e3 ft 
 . S. Th. 21) "*%>," " Shop 
 
 ""A\\t)v 8" eir a\\r) tctjpa rewrja-et, 
 Awyprjv Trpo VOGTOV crv/Ji^opav 
 
 But the " agent ^e6?," and his " active agency 
 being both unseen and unknown, they were often also 
 both taken one for the other. We find accordingly, 
 that, in like manner as " Sai/iaw" is both masculine 
 and feminine, (even in Christian writers, e. g., Const. 
 Apost. i. 7, 8, temeruiA. TAP, OTAeutuu wc?mi) 
 according to circumstances, so is also 0eo9. For 
 instance, in this passage of Lycophron (Cassand. 
 864),-
 
 211 
 
 ovvetca dea 
 
 Swpeircu KTUTCU" 
 
 where " #09" is both feminine (like 0ed) and mascu- 
 line also, exactly after its original " Dius," in San- 
 scrit. 
 
 In this sense alone of " a god," or " idol," is SHIN 
 an equivalent for " tfeoV' For SHIN is, we have seen, 
 also both masculine and feminine. But the resem- 
 blance goes no further. For the " ONE GOD and 
 FATHER of all, who is above all," is always masculine, 
 and singled out as such by the article 6. But SHIN 
 is of both genders. Therefore in this respect also, 
 SHIN is no substitute for 'O &EOS. 
 
 Again, let it be well remembered, that SHIN being a 
 collective noun, means 6 or ^ Satpw, ol Saifioves, or 
 Sat/iwe?, " TO 8afc/ioVtov," " TO Sai/j,6viov <>OXoi>," and more 
 too, all in one. But we do not often find " Saifuw" 
 still addressed as " Saipvv" when it has assumed a 
 material or bodily form : it is then called " 0eo9," " a 
 god." Whereas SHIN, whether it be worshipped as 
 the unseen " -^rvxn rov KOV^OV 6 Sa/uv" or under an 
 ideal form, as " Hwa-SHlN," the " Spirit," or " god 
 of flowers"; " Yue-SHlN," "god or goddess of the 
 moon"; or under a visible form, as " Meaou-SHlN," 
 "the god or idol in the temple," or " Kea" or " Mun- 
 SHIN," the "lares" or "penates" of the family, is 
 still called " SHIN," whether as BUI/MOV or as 6e6<;, or 
 even as " ^09 %v\iv6s" 
 
 But Safaow, we have seen, is not " ^69," although
 
 212 
 
 " &-09," when unseen, is sometimes addressed as " <& 
 Saifwvl" For 0eo9 is " cvyevvrjTos" "05 Ovpavbv Tereu%e," 
 etc., whereas " Sa^v" is " woti7/*a 0eoO" inferior, like 
 " SHIN," which, Ching-tsze (as quoted by Wen- 
 t'hang, in his Com. on the Ch.-Yung, c. xvi.) says, 
 " SHlN-chay Yang-che ling," " is the active energy of 
 the Yang-principle." This " Yang," we have seen, is 
 superior to the " Yin "-principle. But both the " Yin" 
 and "Yang" are subservient to T'HEEW, "Heaven," 
 which, says the same commentator (ibid. c. i.) "i 
 Yin Yang woo hing hwa-sing wan-wnn," " creates the 
 life of all things by means of the five energies of 
 4 Yin' and ' Yang.' " (See below, p. 220, note.) SHIN, 
 then, is an inferior agency in the formation of Nature. 
 Yet, according to some, " SPUN" is the only term in 
 Chinese, which expresses " #609." (Shin v. Shang-Te, 
 p. 8, sec. 7; and p. 10, sec. 8.) 
 
 Granting, however, it may sometimes do for " 0eo9," 
 " a god," when and how will it convey the real idea 
 of "6 0609, o eVt Trdvrcw, 6 TravroKpdrwp ical /now? Sv- 
 For, we see that " SmN-tfeo?" is not " SHIN- 
 We have shown, however, that " SHIN" is 
 and that w SHiN-Sat/iwz/" is sometimes also 
 u SmN-0eo9 n ; but we" -see that " SmN-^eo9" cannot 
 always be " Smx-Safawv." Then, 
 
 " per Genium, dextramque deosque penates 
 Obsecro et obtestor, " 
 
 which is which ? 
 
 The writer of /Skin v. Shang-Te (p. 11), therefore,
 
 213 
 
 is quite correct in quoting Dr. Medhurst's words 
 that " SHIN is comprehensive enough, and too much 
 so": and he might have added Dr. Morrison's con- 
 fession too, that SHIN is " genii or daemons." For 
 in the mouth of a Chinese, " GO SHIN," by which 
 *hx or WX. "My God!" is rendered in Dr. Morri- 
 
 VI ' / 
 
 son's version, is at least as comprehensive a prayer 
 as that of Orpheus (ad Mus. i.) : 
 
 " Zev /9a<rtXe{) ere 
 
 'HeXiov, Mrfvys & lepbv creXa?, acrrpd re Trdvra 
 Kal fieydXovs Hwrrjpa? 6/io>, Albs afidira reicva' 
 Mei\i^LOv<f re 6eov$' -- 
 
 Aal/j,ovd r rjjddeov, Kal Saifwva irrj^ova Ovyrwv ' 
 Aaifiovas ovpaviovs re Kal eiVaXtou? Kal evvSpovs, 
 Kal xdoviovs Kal v7r<y%6ovLovs, ^8' ijepifoirovs ! " 
 
 The foregoing remarks, we hope, may tend to 
 
 show, 
 
 I. That, practically speaking, 7$ and rpg are ap- 
 plied to GOD in Holy Scripture, not as " generic" 
 terms, common to Him with others, but to Him 
 " specially," as " The Mighty," " The Worshipful." 
 If not, why are those terms not always rendered 
 by u a god," and by " 0eoy," without the article ? 
 
 IT. That, in general, D^H^ is not used as a " col- 
 lective" noun, nor yet " as a remnant of poly- 
 theism," but as an intensitive expression of respect 
 for Sx and nS. If not, then Sx, fiStf, and 
 D\T?, would imply different persons; which is 
 not the case. 
 
 III. That since those terms apply to one and the
 
 214 
 
 same person, they are rendered in general, not by 
 "tfeo?" and "0eo/," "a god," "gods," or "deity," 
 respectively, but by " 6 0e6?," with the article ; GOD. 
 IV. That *?K, !!PK, DVT>$, 0eo9, DEUS, and JUPITER, 
 who is, as Valer. Soranus (in August. Civ. D. vii. 
 c. 9) says: 
 
 " Juppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque 
 Progenitor, genitrixque deum, deus unus, et 
 omnis," 
 
 are not " proper" names, like (in one sense) 
 " JEHOVAH," but are names of nature and office, of 
 the " One Supreme Being," GOD, who is and was 
 worshipped as Mighty, Father, Protector, Lord, etc. 
 
 V. That also in Chinese, " SHANG-TE" is not a 
 "proper" name, but a " common name," used as a 
 distinctive appellative of the " One Supreme 
 Being," worshipped as "Ruler" by the Chinese, 
 according to their own ideas. 
 
 VI. That " SHIN," on the contrary, is a " collective" 
 noun, for " Spirits," which tseih chih eul SLin- 
 chay wei SHIN " are multiplied to the uttermost," 
 says Wen-t'hang (Ch.-Y. c. xvi.); and thus cor- 
 responds best to ' TO Scupoviov (j>v\ov ev rS evl ir\rj- 
 
 0w6[4vov" to ^/r "genii," to the "Nat-gods" of 
 Burmah and of Ceylon, or to " Safatov" as " ^v^rj 
 rov Ko<?fj,ov" and sometimes to " 0eol 'O\vfj,moi." 
 VII. That since " SHIN" can never be taken in a 
 singular sense, except with an adjunct, like " Yue- 
 SHIN," " Meaou-SHIN," etc., the " SHIN," " Spirit,"
 
 215 
 
 or " deity" of the " Moon," or " idol" of the 
 "temple," etc., it only represents " fleo?" in that 
 sense, and is not applicable to " Se6<s n as " IlavroKpd- 
 rcop;" since "gods" is the plur. of " a god," and not 
 of " GOD," who is One and alone. For SHIN is an 
 inferior agency, like Balfjiwv, inferior to T'HEEN, 
 Oupai/05, which is identified with SHANG-TE, (like 
 Dan. iv. v. 23, with % v. 22, etc.) 6 
 'O SEOS. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 We now come to the last, and, perhaps, also, to 
 the most interesting part of our investigation; that 
 is, to the application of SHIN, or SHANG-TE, to the 
 rendering of the term " GOD" in Holy Scripture. 
 
 The passages brought forward are taken, almost 
 promiscuously, from a beautiful edition of the Bible in 
 Chinese, in 21 vols. 8vo, printed at Malacca, in (the 
 seventh year of Taou-kwang) 1828. It is, if we 
 mistake not, one of the " old paths," about which so 
 much is said by a correspondent in " Shin v. Shang- 
 Te" p. 19. Let us follow them awhile. 
 
 I. First, then, as regards 7K " EL." 
 Gen. xiv. 20. fl^-Stf ^ " Blessed be the 
 Most -High God." Sam. *Z?ffT3 'sZrrrei -anr^a 
 " Blessed be the Powerful in strength." Arab.
 
 216 
 
 JUN jjUH " the Powerful, the High." Syr. Peschito, 
 ]So;k> loil} OOT ^^ " Blessed be God Most-High." 
 This is rendered in Chinese by Chih-Shang-SHlN, 
 " Most-High SHIN" relatively, of course, to all other 
 " Shins." Thus, when SHIN is used alone, as, e. g., 
 Gen. i. 1, it must necessarily convey the idea of a 
 SHIN (or god) inferior to the " Chih-Shang-SniN," 
 Most-High "SHIN," or "God." That some such 
 confusion is inevitable, is clearly shown by the ex- 
 pressions familiar to every Chinese, " Shin-kiun," or 
 "Choo-Shin" (as we find it in the Shoo-king), i. e., 
 "Lord over Shin"; the latter of which is a title or 
 office, which is conferred by the Emperor on one of 
 his ministers. So that in this Chinese Bible, SHIN, 
 who created the Heavens and the Earth, is inferior, 
 not in power only (and who can adequately render 
 the sustaining idea of jl ytf 7tf ?), but in rank also, 
 to " chih-shang SHIN." How much better to render 
 " EL," "the Mighty God," by SHANG-TE, who is above 
 all, in power and strength; and. for ]iytt "Most- 
 High," to adopt (perhaps) " Hwang-T'heen," or in the 
 very words of the Shoo-king, " Hwang-T'heen SHANG- 
 TE," "Imperial- Heaven SHANG-TE"; i.e., SHANG-TE, 
 " highest in the Heavens"; especially, as immediately 
 after (v. 22) we read, flN) D^ fOp "who owns 
 the Heavens and the Earth." This, as it is rendered 
 in the Chinese, " Chih-Shang-SHIN T'heen-Tih-che- 
 Choo," implies to any Chinese who has learnt to read, 
 not from books published by missionaries, but from 
 his own classics, nothing else than that " the Most-
 
 217 
 
 High SHIN" is alone " Lord of Heaven and Earth." 
 So that plain " SHIN," wherever it occurs, although he 
 is said, like Viraj (Laws of Manu, i.), u to have made 
 the world," is inferior to " Chih-Shang-SHlN," as Viraj 
 also is inferior to Brahma, from whom that inferior 
 creator came forth. It reminds one of the Greek 
 proverb, 
 
 The Chinese, moreover, is a rendering of the 
 English version, and not of the original, although it 
 professes, in large characters, on the title-page, to be 
 from the " pen-wen," " the radical text." 
 
 Gen. xvii. 1, ^ ^"OK "I am the Almighty 
 God." In this rendering of the original, either the force 
 of ^W is impaired, or that of 7K is lost altogether. 
 The LXX. omit HS? ; and in this they are followed 
 by the Ethiopic, Slavonic, Armenian, and Coptic ver- 
 sions. The Samaritan reads *3V?2^ '^Znrei 'sfo^, 
 exactly like the Arabic ^UUl j<jU31 " the Powerful, 
 the Sufficient" (as if it had read, ^Tt^ avrapK^). 
 The Peschito gives the Hebrew loi^l ^r*^1 \i\ ]i] 
 " I am God El-Shaddai." 
 
 The Chinese reads, " tsuen-neng-che SHIN," " the 
 SHIN of complete power" (Almighty). So that when 
 " SHIN" stands alone, it must be "one SHIN" not so 
 powerful as the " SHIN of complete power." This is 
 self-evident. For it does not follow, that because 
 " the Most-High God" conveys to our mind no idea 
 of "superiority" over, but only an "attribute" of,
 
 218 
 
 GOD" for that " God," and the " Most-High God," 
 imply to our mind one and the same Person, it is 
 so in Chinese. Far from it. For whereas we never 
 had any idea of God apart from the " only true God," 
 the Chinese have had, and have, every kind of idea 
 of God, except a correct one of the true God, which 
 is the only God we know. Their notions and im- 
 pressions, therefore, must, as regards " GOD," be en- 
 tirely different from ours. 
 
 If, then, in order to express our " only true God," 
 we adopt a term which in their classical and daily 
 language is capable of a multitude of different mean- 
 ings, many of them inapplicable to our " God," what 
 else can happen, but that the Chinese and ourselves 
 be always at issue on the subject ? and that the 
 idea conveyed to them by us, through this distorted 
 medium, be anything but the image of the original ? 
 Clearly, then, if we take " SHIN," and sometimes 
 qualify it by adjuncts and sometimes not, when it is 
 qualified by us, as in this case of " tsuen-neng-che 
 SHIN," it must convey an idea different from what 
 it does when it is not qualified by us, that is, when 
 it is left in the state in which it usually occurs in the 
 Chinese classics. Since, then, when it is qualified, it 
 must of necessity imply a different person from what 
 it does when it is not qualified, nothing remains but 
 either to qualify it always, or never. If the term be 
 " appropriate," it may safely be qualified to convey 
 a rectified meaning, if necessary; for it will then 
 always imply the same " person," with only different
 
 219 
 
 attributes. Thus " SHANG-TE," which, like " GOD," 
 is one and not many, may be qualified without risk 
 of error. If, on the other hand, the term be not 
 appropriate, no qualification will do. Now, " SHIN" 
 is, we have seen, " a Host of Spirits," " good and 
 bad," " genii or daemons/' TO Saifwviw <f>v\ov, Sai/iav or 
 ^vyr) with, or without vows " an idol," " a god," 
 "breath," and, may be, "a disordered stomach." 
 Can any qualification of ours ever make it into ^$ 7K, 
 "THE MIGHTY GOD OF VALOUR"? 
 
 In the same verse also, <"ljrV, "Jehovah," is ren- 
 dered by " SHIN CHOO," either " godly Lord," or the 
 " Lord of Spirits." A Chinese will understand there- 
 by, either that this " divine or godly Lord" is some 
 worthy personage, like Yu (Shoo-king, i. 3), who was 
 " Shing nae Shin jin," " a holy and a godly (flew? real 
 Saifjiovtos avrip) man"; or that it implies his office; 
 or that this " Lord of Spirits" is far higher than 
 " SHIN," Spirits, alone. What a substitute for " I AM 
 THAT I AM," " JEHOVAH" ! Better, by far, adopt the 
 name itself, as the Shang-hae translators have done, 
 " Yay-ho-hwah" ; or even, perhaps, borrow it from the 
 fancied Chinese authority of Lao-tsze, who in c. xiv., 
 speaks of three properties of the Taou, " I, Hi, WEI " ; 
 in which A. Remusat and others have thought they 
 discovered " Jehovah"! (See Lao-tsze, ed. St. Julien, 
 p. 46, sq. ; and Introd. pp. v. vi. sqq.) This " SHIN- 
 CHOO," " Lord of Spirits," moreover, must be a dif- 
 ferent person from " SHANG-SHIN," the "Most-High 
 God," who in Chinese stands, as regards " SHIN," in
 
 220 
 
 precisely the same relation as SHANG-TE does to TE 
 alone, when this is applied either to the inferior Te's, 
 or to the Emperor. But rather " SHIN-CHOC " will 
 be to a Chinese only as another name for the " snm- 
 KIUN," or " Prince of Shin," Spirits, mentioned by 
 Ta'i-Shang in the Kan-ing-Pien, as " standing over 
 the head of men, and writing down all their sins." 
 
 Such confusion is inevitable if " SHIN" be used for 
 " God"; in which case it is made to represent "per- 
 sonal" offices, which as "Shin," Spirits, ll ^y-, TO Aai- 
 HOVLOV, or SaifjuwGi, it never can do. Nothing is left, 
 therefore, but to invent new names for "Jehovah," 
 " Most-High," etc. But that would be to multiply 
 " gods." On the other hand, much ambiguity would 
 be removed, it appears to us, by rendering the idea 
 of a "personal" Powerful, or High God, by the " per- 
 sonal" SHANG-TE, whose very title already tells that 
 he is both "Mighty" and "Most-High": and since 
 he stands alone supreme,* his name may be qualified 
 
 * The scholiast, on She-king (book v. sec. 8, 
 od. 2) says, that " SHANG-TE T'HEEN-CHE-SHIN," 
 " SHANG-TE is SHIN of Heaven." And Ching-tsze 
 adds : " i ke hing t'he wei che T'heen ; i ke choo-tse 
 wei che Te." In Kang-he's Diet. (Nieou-dsi-hea, 
 p. 35), he is called T'HEEN-SHIN, and T'HEEN-CHOO, 
 " SHIN," and " LORD" of Heaven; while the " some 
 half-dozen" other Te's (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 4) are 
 thus mentioned by the same high authority : " Woo-Te
 
 221 
 
 by adjectives, as it often is in Chinese classics, with- 
 out any risk of error or mistake. 
 
 The force of 7tf, " EL," in such expressions as, e.g., 
 K3D 7N (Ex. xx. 5), in which the meaning of 75* , 
 " EL," " God," is doubly felt by the side of "jealous," 
 (in Arabic, j^\ jjUJI "the Powerful, the Jealous"), 
 is quite lost in the Chinese " SHIN." Even admitting 
 that "Shin" might stand for "God," what is the 
 jealousy of " SHIN," " genii or daemons," which is 
 only "fiendish spite," to the "righteous zeal" for 
 good of the MIGHTY GOD ? 
 
 And in Deut. vii. 21, fcnfo 1 ! Sil5 7, "the great 
 and terrible God," (in Arabic _j^*ll *J&*M jjUJl, 
 " the Mighty, the Magnificent, the Terrible" ; words 
 which even "sound" great and terrible), the force 
 of 7K, EL, is, of course, utterly lost in Chinese as, 
 indeed, in English too. For even " God" is no ren- 
 dering of 7tf . It conveys the idea of the " person," 
 though not of his attribute of "power" and "might." 
 But not a vestige of either the "person," or of his 
 
 Shin-ming," " The five Te's is a theological defini- 
 tion." When Confucius was asked the name of the 
 five Te's, he replied: " T'heen yew woo hing: kin, mo, 
 shwuy, ho, t'hoo, fan shin hwa-yuh i ching wan-wuh, ke 
 Shin wei che woo-Te," " Heaven has five elements of 
 operation ; metal, wood, water, fire, and earth, where- 
 with he transforms, supports, and perfects all things. 
 Those SHIN are the 'five Te's.'"
 
 222 
 
 "attributes," is left in " SHIN," although both one 
 and the other are found in " SHANG-TE." 
 
 In the sublime passage, Deut. xxxii. 4, the force of 
 h& in njtiDg Stf, " the Mighty in Truth," is also lost, 
 except in French and in Arabic,, which reads, 
 *iUj(\ j3 jjUM, "the powerful in" (or "possessor 
 of") " Truth." Dwell awhile on the immutability of 
 purpose in "njM3K 7tf," and then turn to its sub- 
 stitute in Chinese, " Shin shih-che SHIN," which, to 
 an educated Chinese, is a parallel in words and 
 meaning with this passage of Tai-Shang (and al- 
 most every man in China has read the Kan-ing-Pien, 
 which is sometimes distributed among the people by 
 rich Chinese, as an act of piety), " Keih-SHlN i 
 Shuy," "the (Shin) Spirit of happiness will follow 
 you": and " Hexing-SHlN i suy-che," "the (Shin) 
 Spirit of destruction (or of adversity) will follow 
 hard upon the thought of evil." 
 
 In Job xxxvi. 5, we read, DKfc? NT) *V33 Stf, "the 
 Mighty is great and glorious, and He will not despise 
 (me)." Arab. ^\ &\ (comp. aNU- Jsj-), "the 
 Magnificent, great and glorious God" is meager and 
 "powerless" with "SHIN"; whereas it would afford 
 comfort to a poor Chinese to believe that the 
 " Mighty" SHANG-TE Most-High, looks down upon 
 him from Heaven, and that He will not despise him 
 though he be one of the " black-heads," or common 
 people. 
 
 In Psalm x. 11. The wicked saith in his heart, 
 "the Mighty hath forgotten": where Stf
 
 223 
 
 was doubtless adopted by the Holy-Ghost in apposi- 
 tion to np>, as implying the "power" dreaded by 
 the wicked, who flatters himself that that Power 
 hath forgotten him, and he is safe. But in Chinese, 
 whereas Stt, "EL," would exactly apply to SHANG- 
 TE, it loses much of its meaning, and all its force, by 
 being rendered " SHIN." And this applies equally to 
 every case in which ;$ is, if we may say, used design- 
 edly ; but, evidently, in no way whatever rendered by 
 " SHIN;" as, e.g., in (Psalm 1. 1), 1^ nj!t oVl$ ^, 
 " The Mighty, the Awful God, the Eternal ONE, hath 
 spoken, and hath called the Earth," etc. 
 
 In Isaiah xlv. 14, for instance, we read, ^3 ^ 
 
 Q*n^N DSN Ity |W hi*. Not only is the force of 
 . ..... ... ... .. . .. j 
 
 7K lost in Chinese, but by saying " Surely, in thee, 
 land, there is SHIN," out of thee, no SHIN " Spirits," 
 it says what is not true; for SHIN is, or are, every- 
 where. (Ch.-Yung, c. xvi. etc.) But it would be 
 both true and intelligible if it were said of SHANG-TE, 
 worshipped as the true God. 
 
 Even in such passages as Judges viii. 46, where 
 7K as "god" only, is said of an idol, SHANG-TE would 
 be much more appropriate than SHIN. For SHANG- 
 TE being, like 7K, the name of "the one God," it 
 would, in this case, be given in precisely the same 
 way to a false " SHANG-TE," as "EL" is to a false 
 " EL"; whereas this can not be said of " SHIN" with 
 the same justness, since there are more " Shins" than 
 one, and they, too, are both good and bad. 
 
 This is so obvious, that when EL, meant for
 
 224 
 
 " God," is connected with a particular place, as, e. g., 
 Gen. xxxv. 7, " The God of Beth-el," the translators 
 take very great liberties with the sacred text. If 
 consistent with themselves, they should translate 
 SNTV5 h& by "Shin-kea," or " Shin-Meaou SHIN," 
 i. e., "Shin of the Shin (El) House (Beth), or Shin- 
 temple"; or, " Peti-ii-che SHIN," the " SHIN" of Beth- 
 el, taking " Bethel" as a proper name only, apart from 
 its intended meaning. But what else can that con- 
 vey to a Chinese, than the idea of either the patron 
 "Shin" of a particular village, or, " Meaou-SHlN," 
 which is in every mouth, for the "Shin" or "idol" 
 of the temple, may be in the next street ? The 
 translators, however, have cut the matter short ; and 
 they have sunk the beauty of the passage, and the 
 force of the words 7tf~JV5l 7K, into the proper name 
 " l-li-pe-ti-li" ! How comforting to a Chinese convert ! 
 True, the "Authorised Version" here, reads "El- 
 beth-el"; but it points to the original Hebrew, "the 
 Mighty (and faithful) God of Beth-el," who had been 
 with Jacob in Padan-Aram, and ever since. We 
 are led to wonder what the " pen-wen," or " original 
 texts" of the translators, can have been, besides the 
 English Version, and perhaps, also the Vulgate. 
 
 This is, however, little, to what we read in Chinese, 
 Numb. xvi. 22. The searching words, "0 Mighty 
 
 God!" *1g$ty rtrvnn nj^j SK " Awful God of 
 
 the Spirits, for all flesh ! " are rendered by " SHIN 
 yu! fan jow shen-che-ling-che SHIN yu!" (a verbal 
 translation of the Author. English Vers. ) "0 Shin !
 
 225 
 
 Shin of the 'Ling' of all flesh-bodies!" contrary 
 to the plain meaning of the Chinese words. For here 
 "SHIN" is said to be of "LiNG." But Lao-tsze 
 teaches (c. iv.) that " LING" is of " SHIN"! and that, 
 moreover, "Shin" may lose that "Ling"! For 
 " Shin," when old, loses " Ling," say the Chinese. 
 The translators may, possibly, have held the doctrine 
 of Lao-tsze in extreme contempt. Since, however, 
 they find themselves compelled to adopt the same 
 words that Lao-tsze used, it ought assuredly not to 
 be in a sense opposed to that which those words have 
 had, even before the days of Lao-tsze, and for the last 
 three thousand years, or more. 
 
 In Joshua iii. 10. " Ye shall know that the living 
 God *H ?K is among you." In the Chinese trans., 
 " hwa-SHlN," the " living- Shin," then are the other 
 
 " Shins" dead ? This cannot be, for Confucius speaks 
 
 r 
 
 of their "t'he-wuh" entering into the very essence of 
 things, and as being manifested, in man, by the 
 breath of life." Then what is the " living Shin," if, 
 as we see, all " Shins" have life in themselves, though 
 not exempt from old age? But speaking of " GOD," 
 it is perfectly true that all other "gods" are either 
 "dead" or false; for they are "not GOD." Deut. 
 xxxii. 21. 
 
 In 1 Sam. ii. 3. fii.T fityl h$ >3, " The Lord is a 
 
 T : ~ " 
 
 Mighty God of knowledge," is rendered by " SHIN- 
 CHOO, wei chi shth-che SHIN," " Shin Lord, is Shin 
 endowed with knowledge." It is exactly as if we 
 said, " SHIN-KIUN," i.e., "the Shin-Prince" is,
 
 226 
 
 "keih-SHiN," "the 'Shin' of prosperity," etc., as in 
 Tai-Shang (K.-I.-Pien, towards the beginning, and 
 at the end). 
 
 In 2 Sam. xxii. 32. PrtJT H*?^ hp*&, "Who is a 
 Mighty God, save the Lord?" In the " Old Paths,"- 
 " e SHIN-CHOO wai, shuy wei SHIN hoo?" " Besides 
 the Shin-Lord, who is Shin?" If there is no " Shin" 
 but the " Shin-Lord," what is " Shin" when it stands 
 alone ? 
 
 "We might easily weary our readers, by following 
 up this investigation. We will only once more advert 
 to the fate of Stf, " EL," the " Mighty God," at the 
 hands of the friends of " SHIN." And this, in no less 
 a passage than the sheet-anchor of our faith, Is. vii. 
 
 I4 tf -*btgx&o W n*npi ra mSh mn fijt&yn run 
 
 T : T|T: I ;'': T T T : - T 
 
 "Immanuel! the ' MIGHTY GOD' with us! therefore 
 will we not fear, though the Earth be removed!" 
 The Chinese follows the Authorised Version, in read- 
 ing at vii. 14, and viii. 8, "Immanuel;" and at 
 viii. 10, " God is with us." There is no sufficient 
 reason for that difference ; though the Vulg., LXX., 
 Syr., Arab., and Targ. Jonathan do not all agree 
 together in the reading. Be that as it may, " GOD 
 with us" is rendered by " SHIN kae go teng," " SHIN 
 with us." What sort of comfort, or of consolation, 
 can it possibly give a Chinese, to be told that 
 " SHIN" is with him and his ? He has learnt, 
 almost with his mother's milk, that Confucius said 
 " SHIN" are above and all around him (Ch.-Yung, 
 c. xvi.), "like a flood in abundance"! And if
 
 227 
 
 "with us" mean " in us," he knows, too, full well, 
 what is the difference between his being in "sang- 
 SHIN," or in " tsin-SHlN," in " low" or in " good 
 spirits"; for even his breath, which is " ching-SHlN," 
 the "showing forth of his Spirit," is quick or slow, 
 according to the mood in which he is ! 
 
 So much for /N and "SniN." We now come to 
 consider how far SHIN is a fit substitute for !;PK or 
 , ELOAH or ELOHIM. 
 
 XV. 
 
 In Dan. xi. 36, 37, we have the three terms, 
 and fjPfcJ, /$, each intended, no doubt, to be 
 taken in its own meaning. We do not think that, 
 were it possible, it would be advisable, to have more 
 than one term in Chinese to express "GoD," especially 
 as the term already in use, SHANG-TE, conveys the 
 idea of " Power," " Might," and " pre-eminence," 
 implied in "EL" and "ELOHIM" not a vestige of 
 which is left in SHIN. 
 
 But the expression that the king would speak mar- 
 vellous things D vX /tf /$. against the " Mighty of 
 Mighties," rendered by " Wan-SHIN-che SHIN," " the 
 SHIN of ten-thousand SHINS," can only make a strange 
 impression on the reader's mind. It must lead him
 
 228 
 
 to think, either that the " SHIN" he is trying to single 
 out from the rest of the " host of SHIN" is no more 
 than his " fellow-SmNS," or else that he exercises a 
 sort of command over that host. In this case, what 
 amount of power has " SHIN" when standing alone, 
 for " GOD," in the Chinese translation ? Would there 
 be the same confusion or ambiguity, if SHANG-TE 
 were used instead of " SHIN"? 
 
 In like manner as SHIN fails to render 7K EL, so 
 
 also it is, we see, no better substitute for ^PK or 
 . ~ 
 
 CTPK, except in so far, and no further, as SHIN 
 inspires a Chinese with a certain dread or fear. For 
 "SHIN" is, TO Saipovwv, Sai^ves, "Spirits"; but ELO- 
 HIM, like EL and ELOAH, is a " personal" God. The 
 meaning inherent in " SHIN," therefore, must put in- 
 superable difficulties in the way of its ever becoming 
 an appropriate term for " GOD" in Holy Scripture. 
 
 For instance, Gen. i. 1. " In the beginning, N'lS 
 "m D^N, God created the Heavens and the Earth." 
 SHIN, " Spirits," cannot create. It is the action of 
 a " personal" God. This idea, which is incongruous 
 with " SHIN," is perfectly intelligible with SHANG- 
 TE," who, it is true, does not " create" ; for the Chi- 
 nese appear to believe the Heavens and the Earth 
 to have been uncreated (Lao-tsze, c. vii. com.), and 
 sometimes not (ibid. c. xxiii.)* But he " commands" 
 
 * Yet Kang-he (Diet. Nieou-dsi-hea, p. 35) says: 
 " T'HEEN-SHIN yin-chuh wan-wuh-chay yay." "As
 
 229 
 
 (Shook, i. 5) and he is "feared" (ibid. iii. 1) he 
 " bestows or withholds his blessing" (ibid. iii. 3) he 
 has " a heart or mind," and " looks into the thoughts 
 of men" (ibid. iii. 3) and "treats them accordingly " 
 (ibid. iii. 4) he " orders the affairs of kingdoms" 
 (ibid. iii. 11, 12; iv. 1) is above " SHIN" (ibid. iv. 
 1) (for " SHIN" are requested to assist the Emperor 
 in fulfilling his responsibilities towards' SHANG-TE, 
 ibid. iv. 5) and he "punishes in his anger" (ibid, 
 iv. 6; v. 5) etc. 
 
 Gen. iii. 5. B7&K3 Dr^ni., You will be like 
 (LXX. eeo(, Vulg., Slav., Eth.,"Engl.) "gods" (Syr., 
 Armen.) "God." (R. S. Jarchi, A. Ezra; Samar. 
 Arab.) " angels " ; (Chald.) " princes." '^Old 
 Paths" " sse-SHlN," like SHIN. We presume that 
 
 to SHIN of Heaven bringing forth all things," Seu 
 explains SHIN thus : " T'HEEW-choo heang khe i kan 
 wan-wuh.; kaou yen yin-chuh wan-wuh," "The Lord 
 of Heaven sends down a Spirit of life to animate all 
 things; therefore it is said that he brings forth all 
 things." Here we have both T'heen-Shin, and T'heen- 
 Choo, proposed by the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v. 
 Shang-Te, p. 19), applied in classical Chinese to 
 SHANG-TE ; and also SHIN (comp. Weri-T'hang, in 
 Ch.-Yung, c. i.) like "TO Saifioviov (f>v\ov" holding an 
 inferior place as " SMIKOVIKOV" to SHANG-TE, " TO delov 
 
 rf^efjLOViKOV Kal TT poia-r dpevov ov." (lamblich. de Myst. 
 
 sec. i. c. 20.)
 
 230 
 
 SHIN is here meant in its classical collective sense of 
 Salfjioves, or 0eot; since whenever " One God" is ex- 
 pressly stated (as in Dan. ii. 26; St. Mark xii. 29; 
 Gal. iii. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5; St. James ii. 19, etc.), the 
 " Old Paths" do violence (as it appears to us) to the 
 Chinese language, and affix yih, or yili-ko, to SHIN 
 " one," or a " certain SHIN." But if " SHIN" is to be 
 taken for 6eol in this passage, is it to mean "gods" 
 also whenever it stands without yih or yih-ko P Would 
 not SHANG-TE be betterj? 
 
 Ibid. v. 2. ptffcg tin. "The Spirit of God," as 
 rendered in the " Old Paths," " SHiN-che fung," the 
 " wind of Shin," is, we regret to say, peculiarly ob- 
 scure. What is it? Why not, at once, follow the 
 Chaldee, and render it "a wind from before God"? 
 Or with Philo Jud. (De Gigant. p. 58, ed. Tchn.), 
 " Aeryercu Be 0eov TrvevfMi Kaff era fj,ev rpOTrov 6 pewv arjp 
 ejrl 7^5, rpirov (rToi^etov eiro^ov^evov vSan" Or With A. 
 Ezra, " a wind sent by the will of God," as S. Ephraem 
 says (in Gen. p. 8) : ft&k> Zooi ]-^< ILkSoi 001 ]**oi 
 . Zooi X>^D ooi} oi^> " a wind thus blowing ac- 
 cording to the purpose for which it had been 
 created" (to dry the waters). Or the translators 
 might have followed other authorities, and might 
 have rendered "the Spirit of God" by a still much 
 more Chinese idea, namely, by " Ta-fung," "a ty- 
 phoon," in short, on the chaotic waters ! How much 
 better would it not be to adopt even here, at the 
 outset, the "personal" God SHANG-TE, and with 
 R. S. Jarchi, to contemplate the " Spirit of God"
 
 231 
 
 ]p?-3r> npmP wvs " as a dove fluttering, or brooding 
 over her nest" (an image found in Rig.-V. i. 2; xiv. 
 4, "vayo na vasatirupa"), and then take " SHIN" to 
 mean what it is "a Spirit," an "emanation" from 
 SHANG-TE ; and thus render this passage by " eul 
 SHANG-TE-che-Shin gaou-chung yu suy-meen yay," " the 
 Spirit of God moved to and fro upon the face of the 
 waters" of the waters, first called " Nara" : 
 
 nara iti prokta, apo vai Narasunava : 1 
 
 ta jadasyayanam purvam, tena Narayana smrita: 1 1 
 
 " as being at first created by Nara, the Eternal One; 
 who made them His first abode, and thence took the 
 name of Narayana" (Manu-Sanhit. c. i.). 
 
 It is evident that the translators took the " Spirit 
 
 -- ~x 
 
 of God," in this solemn opening of the Creation, to 
 mean "wind"; from the fact that they render the 
 " Spirit of God," in, e. g., Ex. xxxi. 3, by " SHIN-CHE 
 LING," the " spiritual efficacy" of SHIN. This phrase 
 is classically correct; and, therefore, it is, in words 
 and in meaning, precisely the reverse of Numb, 
 xvi. 22. The translators, therefore, contradict them- 
 selves entirely. One reading only can be correct; 
 the other, therefore, is wrong. For as "Ling is of 
 Shin" (see Lao-tsze, c. iv.), "Shin cannot be of 
 Ling,"* which is said to be the case in Numb. xvi. 22. 
 
 * Kang-he's Diet. ( Seuh-dsi-chung, p. 93), says, 
 "Shin Ling yay," "Shin is Ling"; and explains 
 "Ling" to be, Yang-che-tsin-khe yue, "Shin"; Yin
 
 232 
 
 All this confusion proceeds from the use of " SHIN" 
 in our sense of " GOD," which it never had. 
 
 Again, Gen. vi. 3, "And the Lord said" }W~tih 
 $? Cn*?? ^D^, " My Spirit shall not always strive 
 with man," is rendered by "Wo SHIN che fung," 
 " My wind of Shin," etc. What idea can this possibly 
 give of the original, or, indeed, of any thing ? " My 
 wind of Shin," for "my Spirit"! It is painful to 
 read the Word of God thus handled. But when one 
 
 che-tsin khe yue " Ling." The spiritual essence, or 
 "pure breath" of Yang (the creative, bright prin- 
 ciple in nature) is called " Shin"; while the spiritual 
 essence of Yin (the obscure, passive, female, prin- 
 ciple), is called "Ling." From whence it is clear, 
 that since " Ling" belongs to a principle opposite to 
 that of " Shin," when Kang-he's Diet, further says, 
 "Ling Shin yay," "Ling is Shin"; Shin is here to 
 be taken as an adjective, meaning " spiritual," as 
 opposed to " material." From this authority alone, it 
 is clear that fan jow-shen-che Ling che Shinyu! (Numb. 
 xvi. 22) is absurd, and cannot possibly be understood 
 by a Chinese. Compare with the Chinese notion of 
 the soul, etc., the words of Hermes Trismegistus 
 (Poemand. c. x. 13, ed. Parth.), "^v^n Be 
 rov rpoirov TOVTOV ' 6 vov<? ev rc3 Xo7&>, 6 
 
 ev T&> Trvev/jLan, TO Trvev^a ev ro> 
 and ibid., 17, " e'XoySev ovv (vow) axnrep irepiftoXrjv rrjv
 
 233 
 
 is further called upon to receive such renderings, 
 without asking any question for conscience-sake, 
 under the heavy penalty of " disregarding the Word 
 of God altogether" (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 10), then 
 private judgment rebels in good earnest. All we 
 can say is, that, if such a translation of " My Spirit," 
 said by God, rests on good authority, it must be one 
 of which the way -faring men in the " Old Paths" 
 have alone the secret. 
 
 Likewise, in Deut. xxxiv. 9, i"l&?n nVl, " Spirit 
 of wisdom," is rendered in the Chinese translation by 
 " Chi-che-fung," " the wind of wisdom." We do not 
 find in Kang-he, any thing to sanction the use of 
 "fung" for "Spirit"; although it says that "fung," 
 " wind," is the result of " disagreement," or of 
 " anger" between the Yin and the Yang principles ! 
 
 In 1 Sam. x. 10, however, this same D^rPN fiVl, is 
 rendered, " SHiN-che SMng-SHiN." The holy SHIN 
 (Spirit) of SHIN (Spirit or "God," as meant here). 
 Thus the same word, " Shin," is taken in two dif- 
 ferent senses in a sentence of four words! One is 
 meant for " GOD" the other for God's SPIKIT ! Is it 
 not hard upon the poor Chinese, to give them such 
 riddles to make out ? But in 1 Sam. xvi. 13, 14, 
 the same " Spirit of the Lord" is rendered again 
 differently : " SHIN-Choo-che SHIN-fung," " the divine 
 wind of the Lord of Spirits"; while in v. 23, DV1 
 D^n/K, " the Spirit of God," is freely translated (as 
 also in v. 13, 14) by "Yew SHIN-che go SHIN," 
 " from the evil Shin (Spirit) of Shin (Spirit)" ! So
 
 234 
 
 that within a few verses, the same word, " SHIN," is 
 by the translators held out to the Chinese as a sub- 
 stitute for "Goo," and for His "Spirit"; and that, 
 too, both good and bad ! 
 
 No wonder that " Spirit" should have given the 
 translators so much trouble. It becomes in their 
 hands almost optionally, "fung," ling, khe, go-Shin, 
 " Shing-Shin," etc., " wind," " intelligent and active 
 soul," " animal spirit," or " breath," " evil Shin," and 
 " holy Shin," etc. All this confusion of ideas is the 
 result of choosing a term which means " Spirits," in 
 order to express a " personal" God. "Would it not 
 be more intelligible, because more correct, to sub- 
 stitute " SHANG-TE" for "SHIN"? and to translate 
 " Spirit" in all those, and similar instances, by 
 " Shin " or " Ling," according to the context, as 
 " Spirit emanating from God"? 
 
 If those combinations appear so incongruous, what 
 can a Chinese gather from, e. </., Psalm xlii. 9, 
 go tsiang yu SHIN, go pwan-chay yen. " I will say to 
 SHIN (Spirit) My rock?" In Psalm Ixxiii. 26, the 
 English (not the Hebrew) is rendered SHIN, go sin- 
 che ill "Shin! strength of my heart!" while the 
 Hebrew reads, ^j?"")^, "Rock, strong-hold of my 
 heart." But in Psalm Ixxviii. 35, the Chinese ren- 
 ders DTK, "their Rock," by "pwan-shi," "Rock of 
 stone." There is a very sudden transition from a 
 
 "Spirit" to a "Rock," and that of "stone," too. 
 / ./ 
 
 But not so to 7K, or DWN, the Mighty and Most- 
 High SIIANG-TE.
 
 235 
 
 We will not weary the few readers we may have, 
 with further investigation of this kind, It only now 
 remains that we should mention one or two instances 
 in which D7P&$, " God," governs a verb in the plural. 
 
 For instance, in Gen. i. 26, where God says, 
 DTK nb>itt, "Let us make man," etc., the "Old 
 
 T T V -: - / 
 
 Paths" read, " Yew go-teng tsao jin-luy choo go-luy 
 slang," " Let me-kind (us) make man-genus, like the 
 image of me-genus," (us). 
 
 This is a verbal rendering of the English version, 
 and not a literal translation from the Hebrew. For 
 though "Yew" sometimes means "to let," it is never, 
 we believe, used in Chinese, as a sign of the impera- 
 tive. Then, " Go-teng," " me-genus," said by " SHIN", 
 what else does it mean in Chinese, than the SHIN 
 
 Spirits, (1 fr genii or daemons (even according to Dr. 
 Morrison), mentioned by Confucius in the Ch.-Yung, 
 and in the Shoo-king, as innumerable ? But whether 
 n^i refers to the plurality of persons in God, or to 
 " Angels" in company with Him,* certain it is that 
 "go-teng" can only refer to a host of "Shin" or 
 
 * As the Samaritan, which in Gen. ix. 6, reads, 
 *^:y\3 '?3V -atrrraZia -AS^-ma (God) made man 
 after the similitude of Angels; and in Carm. Sa- 
 marit. xii. 18, 19. Chald. prPK, " Gods." Arab. 
 UaL^ <uJu> #yUS\ *^ (God) " made him after the 
 similitude of Angels; to rule" (endued with 
 power).
 
 236 
 
 " Spirits." It would seem better, assuredly, to adopt 
 SHANG-TE, the term for a "personal" God, which is 
 ready to hand. And since " Go," in good Chinese, 
 means both " I," and " we," it might be left as it is, 
 in order to avoid the ambiguous affixes, "teng" or 
 " luy," which, in connection with " SHIN," a collective 
 noun, must tend to a confusion of ideas, if not to 
 favour polytheism in the mind of a man already in- 
 clined to it. 
 
 In Psalm cxxxviii. 1, where D*!T?K is generally 
 rendered by "Angels"; Syr. InVn 5*)^ ; or, as the 
 Chaldee reads, KW Sag, " before the judges," the 
 Chinese has, tsae choo SHING-che ts'heen, " in the 
 presence of all Shins" which must lead to a mis- 
 conception in the reader's mind. As also in Psalm 
 Ixxxii. 1, where " SHIN" staiideth ko SHlN-che chung, 
 "in the midst of Shins" of the "host of Shins," etc. 
 
 In Psalm Ixxxii. 6, we read : " eul-teng nae SHIN- 
 luy yeou eul chung nae cni Shang-che-tsze pei." ' You 
 are Shin-genus (gods), and you all are (son-class), 
 sons of the Most- High." This passage seems of itself 
 to call for the use of " SHANG-TE," who, as we have 
 seen, has a " yuen-tsze," "august son" upon earth; 
 rov 7<zp Kc ^ 76^05 eV/iez/. Whereas, as it now stands in 
 Chinese, either the Most-High is not " SHIN," or 
 " SHIN" Spirit, has sons, a statement which is 
 doubtless by no means clear to the Chinese reader. 
 (See also Gen. vi. 2, where " Shin-che tsze pel," " the 
 sons of Shin," must be equally ambiguous.) 
 
 Lastly, in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where
 
 237 
 
 " gods ascending," refers to the ghost of Samuel, the 
 translators have erroneously adopted " Kwei-Shin," 
 which means nothing else than the " Souls-and- 
 Spirits," which are constantly worshipped (see Ch.- 
 Yung; Shoo-king, and Le-ke, etc., throughout); 
 whereas they probably meant "kwei" alone, which 
 means the " soul of the departed." 
 
 We see that we cannot depart from the " usus et 
 norma loquendi," without defeating our own ends, by 
 creating endless confusion in the reader's-^ mind. 
 Unless, indeed, we can, like the author of " Delphi 
 Phoenicizantes " (p. 21, sq.\ find the secret of show- 
 ing that two opposites are identical, when he tries to 
 prove that Joshua and Apollo are one and the same, 
 Joshua because he " saved" the Israelites, and Apollo 
 because he " destroyed" the 'Anakim! 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Let us now examine briefly, how far " SHIN" can 
 supply the place of 0e6<? or 6 @e6?. 
 
 St. Matt. i. 23. tfff JHI&V 6 @eo?. " Old Paths" 
 read, " SHIN kae go-mun," " Shin with us"; whereas 
 the Shanghae translation has, " tseih SHANG-TE go 
 kae yan," " Shang-Te with us"; much better, both 
 in sense and grammar.
 
 238 
 
 Ibid. iii. 9. Svvarai 6 @eo? K rwv \i6a>v, " SHIN 
 neng yew tsze ko chi," etc. " SHIN can from these 
 stones," etc. (translated from the English). It is 
 much better rendered in the Shanghae translation: 
 " SHANG-TE neng peen tsze chi wei." " SHANG-TE 
 can make these stones to become," etc. 
 
 Ibid. 16. elSe TO Ilvevpa rov Qeov. " Old Paths," 
 
 "SHIN che shing-SHiN." "the holy SHIN of 
 SHIN"; (same confusion in St. Luke, i. 47.) Shang- 
 hae v., " SHANG-TE-che SHIN," "the (Shin) Spirit 
 of Shang-Te." 
 
 Ibid. iv. 3. el wo? el rov Qeov. " Old Paths," 
 " SHIN-che tsze," "the son of Shin" (Spirits ( ^ r }. 
 
 Shanghae v., "joo SHANG-TE tsze," "if thou art 
 the son of SHANG-TE": more grammatical, and borne 
 out by the Shoo-king, v. i., as we have already 
 seen. 
 
 Ibid. V. 4. Sia aroparos 0eov, etc. " Old Paths," 
 " Chuh SHIN-kow-che yen," " (Every) word coming 
 or walking out of the mouth of Shin." Shanghae v., 
 " SHANG-TE so ming," " What Shang-Te has com- 
 manded" : much better Chinese, and more intelli- 
 gible. 
 
 Ibid. V. 10. Kvptov rov Oeov <rov TTpoa-Kwrja-eis. " Old 
 Paths," " Choo eul SHIN," etc." the Lord thy 
 SHIN," etc. Shanghae v., " Choo eul-che SHANG-TE," 
 "The Lord thy SHANG-TE": much better. For in 
 this place, SHIN is clearly one of the " Host of Shin," 
 qualified, or singled out by " Choo," " Lord." Where- 
 as SHANG-TE being one and alone, the epithet
 
 239 
 
 " Choo " creates no confusion of idea ; for " Choo," 
 Lord, belongs already to the " Supreme Ruler." 
 
 Ibid. v. 8. rbv Gebv fafavrcu. " seeing" agrees better 
 with SHANG-TE, a personal God, than with " SHIN," 
 a Spirit (^s*-, by nature invisible). 
 
 Ibid. 9. viol Geov K\<r)dij(TovTai. Shanghae v., " SHANG- 
 TE tsze," " sons of SHANG-TE" : classical, and better 
 than " Old Paths," " SHIN-che tsze pel," (son-class) 
 " sons of SHIN." 
 
 Ibid. 34. Opovos ea-rl TOV 0eoO, suits better the 
 " Supreme Ruler," SHANG-TE, than the collective and 
 indefinite noun, " SHIN." 
 
 Ibid. vi. 33. fiaaCtelav TOV 6>eoO, agrees also better 
 with "SHANG-TE," as "throne" does, than with 
 " SHIN," " Spirit." 
 
 Ibid. viii. 29. 'lyo-ov vte TOV Geov. "SHANG-TE 
 tsze," "son of SHANG-TE": classical, and perfectly 
 intelligible ; since the phrase, " SHANG-TE yuen tsze," 
 " the chief son of SHANG-TE," is found in the Shoc- 
 king. 
 
 Ibid. ix. 8. eSogao-av TOV 9e6v, "they gave glory 
 to SHANG-TE," the " Supreme Lord," is more natural 
 than " to Shin." 
 
 Ibid. xiv. 33. dx^w? 6eoC wo? el (TV. Shanghae 
 v., " Chin SHANG-TE tsze," " truly, thou art the son 
 of SHANG-TE"; readily believed, though, perhaps, 
 not understood, " Verily thou art a son of SHIN," " a 
 Spirit," will startle, and rather shake than win the 
 heathen's belief.
 
 240 
 
 Ibid. xv. 3. rr)v evro\r)v TOV Qeov. Shanghae v., 
 " SHANG-TE keae," " the commandment of the ' Su- 
 preme Ruler' " : " SHANG-TE," is assuredly more to 
 the purpose than, "the commandment of SHIN" ( ( J=TI 
 Spirits or genii). 
 
 Ibid. xvi. 16. 6 vlbs TOV Qeov TOV iwi>ro<?. " Old 
 Paths," " hwa SHIN-che-tsze," " son of the living 
 Shin." Are there any dead "Shins"? The Shang- 
 hae v. renders, " yung sing SHANG-TE tsze," " the 
 son of SHANG-TE who lives eternally" : there is no 
 ambiguity here. 
 
 Ibid. xix. 17. El ^ el? eo?. Classically rendered 
 in the Shanghae v., " Wei SHANG-TE eul e," " only 
 SHANG-TE, that is all" : very well. In " Old Paths," 
 " Besides Shin, there is no good" : no rendering of 
 the Greek. 
 
 Ibid. xxiL 16. rrjv 6obv TOV Qeov. Shanghae v., 
 " SHANG-TE Tao." " the way of SHANG-TE." Al- 
 though this phrase does not, that we are aware of, 
 occur in classical Chinese, yet " T'heen-Tao," " the 
 way (or Providence, or Rule) of Heaven," is so con- 
 tinually forthcoming in the koo-wen, that " the way 
 of Shang-Te," " Hwang-T'heen SHANG-TE," will be 
 readily understood. Not so, the " way of Shin" 
 (Spirits). 
 
 Ibid. 30. &>5 dyyeXoi TOV Qeov. " SHANG-TE-che sze," 
 " the ambassadors of SHANG-TE" : very natural. 
 But what is the meaning of the " Old Paths," " the 
 ambassadors of Shin" (Spirits)? 
 
 Ibid. 37. arya7rrj(ri<; Kvpiov TOV Qeov (TOV. We must
 
 241 
 
 love a "person." SHANG-TE, therefore, is more ap- 
 propriate than " SHIN." 
 
 Ibid, xxiii. 22. opvvei ev r&> 6pbva> TOV 6eou. " The 
 throne" of " SHANG-TE," is natural. For, as T'HEEN- 
 che-SHlN, he rules in Heaven, and is for that reason 
 styled (Schol. She-king, book v. p. 24) T'HEEN-che 
 CHOO-TSE, " the Lord Governor of Heaven." But 
 the throne of " SHIN," what is it, but the stand on 
 which kea-SHlN "the household god" is seated? 
 
 Ibid. XXVli. 46. See [tov, &ee fiov, Ivari pe ey/c. " Old 
 Paths," " Go SHIN! Go SHIN!" is quite objectionable, 
 if not offensive. We have seen that " Shin" means 
 "Spirit," "the Spirit in man." So that " Go Shin!" 
 "My Shin!" can mean nothing else than "My Spi- 
 rit!" especially when said at the last extremity. 
 Whereas, " My SHANG-TE!" is an exclamation liable 
 to no ambiguity. 
 
 St. Mark, iii. 35. TTO^O-T; TO 0e\r)/J,a TOV Qeov. " The 
 will of the Supreme Kuler, SHANG-TE," is classical, 
 and more intelligible than the will of a Spirit, SHIN. 
 
 Ibid. V. 7. vie TOV Qeov TOV v^larov. " Old Paths," 
 " chili Shang-SHIN-che tsze," " son of the Most-High 
 Shin." We have seen above (p. 216), that this must 
 create confusion. But there can be no ambiguity if 
 SHANG-TE be used, for He stands alone. Besides, 
 "in/rta-To?" is not true of " SHIN," which t'he-wuh, 
 enters into the very nature of created beings. 
 Whereas, T'heen, yew san-chih-san T'heen; yuh-hwang- 
 ta TE-CHOO tsae tsing-T'HEEN. " As to Heaven, 
 there are thirty-three Heavens; and the Perfect, 
 
 17
 
 242 
 
 Imperial, Great Ruler, Lord, dwells (in the highest 
 of them) in the azure Heaven" (Dr. Morr. Diet. i. 
 577.) 
 
 Ibid. xi. 22. e^ere irltmv eov. Shanghai v., 
 " Tang sin SHANG-TE," " You ought to believe 
 (or to have faith in) SHANG-TE." The " Old Paths" 
 translate the English verbally, "have faith in (or 
 to) SHIN." 
 
 Ibid. xvi. 19. e* Segi&v TOV eov. The right hand 
 or the left, is more applicable to SHANG-TE, sitting 
 upon his throne, in his kingdom, than to SHIN, 
 " Spirit." 
 
 St. Luke, i. 6. evwmov TOV eov, may also be said 
 more appropriately of a " personal God," than of 
 SHIN, " Spirit." 
 
 Ibid. xi. 20. ev Sa*x&> eov. If " finger" is re- 
 tained, it can only be with " SHANG-TE." Shang- 
 hae v. has " Show," " the hand'," for " power." The 
 " Old Paths," more freely, " i SHlN-che che," " by 
 the express will of SHIN." 
 
 Ibid. 28. TOV \6jov TOV eov. " The word of SHANG- 
 TE," is better than " the word of SHIN." 
 
 St. John, i. 1. J Ev dpxfi fy 6 ^0705, is remarkably 
 well translated in the Shanghae v. by " Taou." It is 
 unintelligible in the " Old Paths," which read " yen," 
 TO XaXeti/, for 6 Aoyos. 
 
 Ibid. iii. 34. S&axriv 6 @eo? TO Trvevjjia. Shanghae 
 v., "SHANG-TE gives him the Holy-Spirit" (Shin). 
 " Old Paths" read, " SHIN gives him the Holy-wind" 
 (fung)!
 
 243 
 
 Ibid. 36. opri TOV Oeov, agrees better with SHANG- 
 TE than with SHIN. 
 
 Ibid. iv. 24. Trvev^a 6 @eo9. This is a passage likely 
 to test the relative merits of SHIN and SHANG-TE. 
 Shanghai v. reads, naturally and clearly, " SHANG- 
 TE nae SHIN," " SHANG-TE is SHIN." The " Old 
 Paths," "SHIN wei Ling," "Shin is Ling"; which 
 would have been more classically said, " Shin Ling 
 yay": in the very words of Kang-he's Diet. (art. 
 Shin; and above, p. 139; and at p. 150), where we 
 saw that Shin may lose his spiritual life or soul, 
 "Ling." 
 
 Ibid. V. 18. Trarepa iSiov eXe<ye TOV eov laov eavrov 
 iroiS>v ra> eft>, are expressions which agree better with 
 the "personal" SHANG-TE, than with the "ideal" 
 SHIN. 
 
 Ibid. IV. 29. Mwafj \e\d\rjKev 6 609, IS the act of 
 a "personal" God. "THE SPIRIT," however, "said" 
 to Philip and Peter (Acts viii. 29; x. 19; xi. 12). 
 "A Spirit" may "have spoken" (Acts xxiii. 9), and 
 even "cried" (St. Mark ix. 26). But a person 
 "speaks" as "THE SPIRIT" gives "utterance" (Acts 
 ii. 4), or "moves" him "to speak." 
 
 Ibid. x. 33. Trotei? aeavTov e6v, is more applicable 
 to SHANG-TE than to SHIN. 
 
 Ibid. 34. 70) et?ra, Qeoi eo-re, cannot but bring a 
 smile on the countenance of a Chinese, who reads in 
 the " Old Paths," "I said" ye are " SHiN-pei," a class 
 of SHIN (Spirits). But he will understand at once 
 the reading of the Shanghae v., " I said, tsaou wei
 
 244 
 
 SHANG-TE hoo!" " Ye are of the same order as 
 SHANG-TE." 
 
 Ibid. xiii. 3. arro eov er)\0e, /cat Trpbs rbv Gebv 
 vTrdryei, is plain as regards " SHANG-TE"; for in the 
 Hiao-king (c. ix.), we find that Wen- Wang, phei 
 SHANG-TE, " associated with SHANG-TE" during his 
 life, until after death, he, phei-heang, " was deified in 
 his presence" (see also Dr. Morr. Diet. iii. 539); but 
 it is unintelligible as regards " SHIN." 
 
 In Acts xiv. 11, the excellence of SHANG-TE over 
 SHIN is very apparent. They said : ol Oeol o/moiwOevre? 
 av0pdnroK. "Old Paths," " lee-SHlN," the order, 
 series of SHIN, Spirits; whereas Shanghae v. reads, 
 " choo SHANG-TE," " Shang-Te's," which exactly 
 renders ol 6eoi in the Scriptural sense; since, ac- 
 cording to the Shoo-king, She-king, Hiao-king, Le-ke, 
 and the Sse-shoo, to have believed in more " SHANG," 
 Supreme "Ts" than one, would have been as hea- 
 thenish, as to believe in more than one " 0eo9," is in 
 our own eyes. 
 
 Rom. i. 7. airo eov rrarpos T^IWV, is more applicable 
 to him who has a " yuen tsze," or " chief son," than 
 to " SHIN," " Spirit." And the expressions, Sofa 
 eov; 0e\r)fj,a eov; Bucaica^a rov eov; TO yprjo-rbv 
 TOV Oeov; 7rpocro)Tro\r)-^r{a irapa TW e5; TO ovofMa rov 
 Seov; aBitcos 6 @eo9; avo^r) rov eov; e7ray<y\ta TOV 
 Seov; wyaTTfj rov eov; TUG-TO? 6 0eo9, and the like, 
 
 are far more intelligible when said of the " personal 
 God," SHANG-TE, than of " SHIN," Spirit. But what 
 are those expressions in importance to these, the key-
 
 245 
 
 Stone of our Holy Faith : " #9 etrrtv elicow rov 0eov" 
 (2 Cor. iv. 4) " el/cobv rov Qeov rov dopdrov" (Col. i. 
 15) and " yapaKrvp rr>$ vTroo-rdcretos avrov" (Heb. 1. 3) 
 
 / /V I *f ' \ J 
 
 "the express image of His PERSON"? where 
 " SHIN-che siang," " the image of SHIN," or " wo-hing 
 SHlN-che siang," " the image of the immaterial (dopd- 
 rov) SHIN," would have scared Confucius. Whereas 
 he would have been prepared to hear it said of 
 " SHANG-TE," whom he worshipped as an invisible 
 " person," whose " yuen-tsze," first -begotten son, he 
 also knew personally. 
 
 In Rev. xi. 13, and xvi. 11, 6 0eo? rov ovpavov, is 
 rendered in- the " Old Paths" by T'HEEN-che-SHm, 
 and by T'HEEN-SHIN. But this, in Chinese, means 
 either collectively 1 ) " the whole senate of celestial 
 gods," or singly 2) SHANG-TE, and 3) the Sun. 
 
 We saw above (p. 220, note), out of the She-king, 
 that SHANG-TE is T'HEEN-che-SHnsr. And in Kang- 
 he's Diet, (art. Shin) we read, T'HEEN-che-SHm, tse- 
 hoo JIH; JIN-che-SHIN, tse hoo YUE, "that the 
 ' SHIN' (Life-Spirit) of Heaven resides in the Sun, 
 and that of man in the Moon." The Sun is, for that 
 reason, called Tae-Yang, "the Great Yang"; and the \ 
 Moon, Tae-Yin, "the Great Yin."* Very much like 
 
 * Kang-he's Diet. Mow-dsi-chung, p. 19, says, 
 " Yin-yay Tib. taou yay; Ts'he taou yay; Chhin taou 
 yay." " The Earth, the female sex, and inferiority, 
 may be called Yin." See also Dr. Morr. D. i. p. 581.
 
 246 
 the Egyptian idea (Hermes, ap. lamblich. de Myst. 
 
 sec. viii. 3), that etrri Srj ovv ical a\\v) Tt? rpye/jLovLa Trap 
 avrois TWV Trepl yevea-iv o\a>v oroi^ewwi/, KOI TWV ev airroi<> 
 Svvdfjo)v, rerrdpajv /u,>, apaevucwv, rerrdpwv Se, 
 rprriva airove^ovcnv 'JFTXio). /cal aXXi? rfj<; ^ucrew? 
 yeveviv dpxrj<i tfvriva 2e\ijvr) SiSoaa-i* Both Yin and 
 Yang, however, are subservient to T'HEEN-che-CHOO- 
 TSE, " the Lord-Governor of Heaven" SHANG-TE 
 (above, p. 220, note; and p. 241), who "neang," 
 sends them down from Heaven to animate and to 
 work out Nature. f 
 
 * The Ethiopians, accordingly, sacrificed boys to 
 the Sun, and girls to the Moon (Heliodor. ^Ethiop. 
 L. x. p. 465, ed. 1630). 
 
 f This is, we believe, the origin of ^, SHIN as 
 
 "expansion" ( ^ Shin) of 7J^ She, in the sense 
 
 *of "light from Heaven" (Kang-he, and Dr. Morr. 
 
 Diet. art. She and Shin), i. ., from the Sun, who as 
 
 Tae-Yang, chief source of light-and-life Spirit, was 
 
 styled CHOO-JIH, the " Lord Sun " (Le-ke, c. x. 
 
 xviii). But as in India, so also in China, the Sun, 
 
 as " Giver of Life," was worshipped as in a measure 
 
 ' inferior to the ONE "Paternal, Protecting HEAVEN" 
 
 ' O 
 
 (in India, INDRA, i. q., THEEN-CHOO, SHANG-TE, in 
 China), who, in that respect, is held superior to the 
 Sun. Thus, in Egypt, they said, 0eo9 appev60r)\v<; &v 
 
 dTreKvrj&e \6y<a erepov vovv Srjfjaovpybv Oeov rov Trvpos 
 
 (Hermes Tr. Poem. i. 9) rov ijXiov Srwiovpyov (Ib.
 
 247 
 
 T'HEEN-che-SHiN, then, said of the Sun, is dif- 
 ferent from T'HEEN-che-SHiN said of SHANG-TE, and 
 is inferior to him. For in Chinese as in Greek, 0eo9 
 JAW &v evri dpx a Ka ^ 1 irp&TOv, Salpow d ^u%a, SCUJJLOVIOV 
 8e rb <rw/Aa (6 /cotr/tto?) Kal ra rovrca ye Trdvra, Si wv oyro) 
 Siaipev, @ebv Kal 0elov, Kal &at/j,ova Kal SaifAoviov (Onatas 
 in Stob. Eel. Phys. lib. i. c. 2, sec. 39). Clearly, 
 then, SHIN, though it be the best part of Yang, is yet 
 but one of the two principles which are inseparable in 
 giving existence to Nature. And as such, SHIN is 
 but a part of Him with whom alone is " the fountain 
 of Life" one half only of "Brahma stripunlinga:" 
 which is masc. and fern, as " Creator"; and neut. 
 (sarvagatam Brahma) as Sat/iwv, of " Jupiter, pro- 
 genitor genitrixque deum" of DIU-S, Deus, 0eo9, 
 ** dppev60r)\v<; wv, Saw) Kal <<w9 vTrap^wy" (Hermes Tris- 
 meg. Poem. c. i. 9, seq.). 
 
 SHIN, therefore, is no equivalent for 0eo<?, o 0eo9, 
 GOD, either in meaning or in dignity. And T'HEEN- 
 CHE-SHIN, even in the " Old Paths," can not be 
 taken for anything else than for SHANG-TE, the Most- 
 High. 
 
 in Chasremon, Cory's fr. p. 287). But in Mesopotamia, 
 where the worship of the Sun probably began, he 
 was 7X, or ^Sul, "the Mighty God"; and there, his 
 name $$, told also the nature of the special rites 
 of his worship. (See Targ. Hier. Gen. xxvi. 10; 
 Lev. xviii. 14, 20, etc.; and Lib. Adami, i. 212.)
 
 248 
 
 XVII. 
 
 The above are a few examples only, taken from 
 the translation of the Bible into Chinese, which is 
 generally known as the joint work of Dr. Milne and 
 of Dr. Morrison. They are a few clods of the " old 
 ground on which they stood" a few steps only in the 
 " old paths" which we are told to follow (see Shin v. 
 Shang-Te, p. 19), may be, at the peril of our life. 
 No "new inventions" will satisfy the reverend cor- 
 respondent, who is quoted as an authority, for he 
 thinks "the old is better." The "old" is indeed 
 "better" but which? 
 
 For SHANG-TE is the oldest. His worship dates 
 as far back as B.C. 2356 (we do not exactly know 
 what took place in China before that time), when 
 Shun offered, first luy yu SHANG-TE " a special 
 sacrifice to SHANG-TE," and also to keuen-SHlN, " the 
 host of SHIN"; but to these only after he had wor- 
 shipped the seasons, hills and rivers; and last of 
 all. (Shoo-king, book i. c. ii. Canon of Shun.) It 
 is, therefore, a very modern, and also, we fear, a 
 dangerous "invention," to put the "aptote" SHIN (as 
 in the " Old Paths") in the place of 
 
 1) SB, "the Mighty," 2) &***, "the Awful,"- 
 3) D'<7?N, " the Majestic" GOD.
 
 249 
 
 4) 0eo5 and o eo?, GOD, and Kupto?, Lord, 5) #609, 
 
 a a god," and 6) 0eoi', "gods" or "angels." 
 7) IIvevfM, " Spirit," of GOD (1 Thess. iv. 8), and 
 that too 8) holy (ibid.), 9) good (1 Sam. 
 x. 10), 10) evil (ibid. xvi. 14, 16), 11) of man 
 (Eccl. iii. 21), 12) liable to faint (Ezek. xxi. 7), 
 -14) of beast (Eccl. iii. 21), 
 
 15) TLveviJuara "Spirits" of angels (Heb. i. 14), 
 
 16) of just-men (Heb. xii. 23), 17) of devils 
 
 (Rev. xvi. 13, 14) which are 18) unclean (St. 
 
 Matt. xii. 43). 
 
 19) TTvevfutTiKo? (Gal. vi. 1), 20) 07409 (St. Mark, 
 
 i. 10) 21) 0e>9 (2 Pet. i. 3). 
 
 22) probably ai/e/w)?, since SHIN-fung, Shing-fung, 
 and Shing-SHlN, are used, it seems, indiscrimi- 
 nately for THE HOLY GHOST.* 
 And lastly, in the place of 23) Trvevfui, i. q., <j>dv- 
 Toa-fta, a " Spirit," " ghost," " goblin," or " phan- 
 tom" (St. Luke, xxiv. 37; St. Mark, iv. 49). 
 Is it not evident, then, even to the warmest advo- 
 cates for SHIN, that a term which assumes in their 
 hands such protean shapes from " The Mighty 
 GOD" to a "ghost or phantom," inclusive is thereby 
 rendered an unfit substitute for 6 9eo?, the One and 
 only true GOD ? For, it will be granted that 
 
 I. 75* , JiPK, DVTOf) and 0eo?, were applied first 
 
 * Shing-SHlN also reads " holy gods," in Dan. iv. 
 8; and " Holy GOD," in 1 Sam. vi. 20, etc.
 
 250 
 
 of all to the only GOD. Or did the worship of One 
 GOD, grow out of the worship of "many gods"? 
 Those terms became "generic" only when, in process 
 of time, they were applied by catachresis, to inferior 
 objects of worship. As Philo (de Somn. p. 464) 
 says: "6 fiev a\^6elq Oebs els eort ol 8e /cara'^pijcret 
 yevoftevoi Trteiovs" which " sic fraudibus suis obduxe- 
 runt humano generi tenebras; ut oppressa veritate, 
 summi ac singularis Dei nomen in oblivionem 
 veniret," says Lactantius (Epit. c. xxviii.). For 
 0eo5 " appev60T]\us &v" is " Tr/aeoro?"; and 0eol, 0at, 
 
 0ed, and 0eat,va, like dei, dea, diva, devi, are "after- 
 thoughts" of comparatively modern date.* And, 
 
 * A clear proof that the worship of GOD dete- 
 riorated more and more, as it fell lower from the 
 Unity of the Godhead. (See, e. g., St. Aug. de Civ. 
 D. lib. iv. c. 11, etc.) Not only did deva-s, divus, 
 0eo<?, " a god," become daevas, daemon, in Zend., in 
 Pers. "dro," Arm. "tiev" or "tev," Edd. Icel. "fo'0," 
 Mod. Icel. " dif-tt," a, " dev-tt" (or evil "dew"), al- 
 though derived from the " Father of gods and men," 
 INDRAGNI=DIU-S; but we find the same depre- 
 ciation of merit in the plural number of even inferior 
 objects of worship. Thus, for instance, Safawv, as 
 (Lat.) "Genius" (Arab. (J s r " genn"), is rather 
 " good " than " evil." The Arabic translator of 
 " Tabula Cebetis," therefore, renders Saifjuov" and 
 "Sat/^tozV not by ( ^a r ^ but by LJCL., "Angel" 
 (pp. 11, 55, etc., ed. Salmas.), as if a "guardian
 
 251 
 
 although in Rabbinical Authors we find the fern. 
 pi- fYlPTPtf , " goddesses," as a term of contempt for 
 the. " gods " of heathendom, yet in Biblical Hebrew 
 there is no feminine for 7X, FPK, or D^PPX, GOD, 
 who has nothing in common with " gods " and 
 "goddesses"; for they are Stf Wt] "not GOD" (Deut. 
 xxxii. 21). Dri^J, *6 fifcH) DTl'Stf, (Jer.ii. 11) 
 
 " uti (bvaei ofcn Oeofc" (Gal. iv. 8). 
 L - L L 
 
 II. 7K, ft/N, &v?K, and 0eo9, then, are not 
 
 applied to GOD as "generic" terms; as if He were 
 "one" of many "gods," and on a par with them. 
 But they are each given Him as a "special" "indi- 
 vidual" appellative, which was His ere it sank to any 
 one else. For "gods" is the plural of "a god"; it 
 cannot be the plural of " GOD," who, though He be 
 THREE IN ONE, is yet alone, and has neither dual nor 
 plural. It follows, then, that 
 
 III. Since GOD has no identity whatever with 
 " a god" and " gods," the assumption that " SHIN" is 
 a fit substitute for 6 0e6?, because it is a " generic" 
 term for " God, gods" (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 1, 5, 
 etc.), necessarily falls to the ground. "Goo" and 
 "gods" are not of the same genus, for he says of 
 Himself, PI7IN *\m JTPlN, "I AM THAT I AM" 
 
 (Ex.iii. 14); 
 
 Angel," (j^>- L_Ll. Whereas "mischief," rather 
 than "goodness," predominates among the plur. ^U-, 
 or "genii," " Sat/io^," (daemones,) which became in 
 Ethiopic MWh "devils."
 
 252 
 
 " for I am the Mighty, and there is none besides ; 
 I am the Majestic GOD, and there is no One like Me" 
 (Is. xlvi. 8). We do not, therefore, want a "gene- 
 ric" but a " specific" an " individual" term for 
 Him who is One and alone of His kind, fcttn PlirV *3 
 nJpfc Tiy p D'PlWl, "for Jehovah He is GOD 
 Himself; there is none besides Him." (Deut. iv. 35; 
 Ps. Ixxxvi. 10; Is. xxxvii. 16, etc.) " Neque eniin 
 ilia (Dei) sublimitas," says St. Cyprian (de Idol. 
 Van. v. ) " potest habere consortem, cum sola omnem 
 teneat potestatem." But 
 
 IV. SHIN is both a " collective" and a "generic" 
 noun ; and it can not be restricted by any definite 
 article, which does not exist in Chinese. Clearly, 
 then 
 
 V. the only substitute available in Chinese for 
 the "generic" Oeol, "gods," when this is restricted 
 to one individual by means of the article, 6 
 
 * The use of the article with 0eo<? varies in different 
 writers. For instance, Pindar, a " pious" poet for 
 his time, scarcely ever uses the article with @eo<?, 
 either as " Deus summus," i. q., Zefa; e. g., " Qeov 
 twipa" " God's providence," " 0eo9 arrrav eVt e\TrlSe<r<ri 
 TK/JMp avverat," etc., or as " nva 6ebv" e.g., " 0ebs yeve- 
 <r0ai" etc. Whereas Hermes Trismegistus, almost 
 always uses the article with Oeo?. This seems to 
 argue a later date for his writings; and to justify 
 Casaubon in bringing the Poemander down from the 
 times of Moses to those of the early Church.
 
 253 
 
 must be a " special" or " individual" term, applied 
 only to one Being, and that, too, the highest object of 
 worship in China. That term is SHANG-TE, And if 
 it be argued, that according to some Chinese philo- 
 sophers (e. g., Choo foo-tsze) the Tae-Keih, or " first 
 cause," is higher than SHANG-TE, we reply, that Tae- 
 Keih is not an object of worship. And, that it is 
 only owing to ignorance on the part of the wor- 
 shippers of SHANG-TE, that they admit a higher prin- 
 ciple than the highest object of their worship. This 
 only requires to be rectified by teaching. 
 
 SHANG-TE, once adopted for 0eo<?, 6 0eo?, GOD, and 
 Him alone, there will be no difficulty in providing, 
 according to the context, suitable terms for 0eo9, 
 when used in the generic 'sense of " a god," " gods," 
 that are " not God." We are inclined to think, 
 therefore, that the Shanghae translators might have 
 rendered " your goddess," in Acts xix. 37, by " your 
 tutelary deity," " eul shay," more literally, than by 
 " your SHANG-TE," as they have done. 
 
 For in translating the Word of GOD, we are to give 
 the sense or intention of the inspired author i. e., 
 the " literal," and not the " verbal" meaning of the 
 sacred text. We are to render the Hebrew and 
 Greek idioms into idiomatic Chinese, and not into 
 expressions of our own, quite foreign to that language. 
 It is then, assuredly, a great, if not a fatal mistake, 
 to jumble into one in the translation, both GOD, 
 " who is GOD alone," and " gods," that are " not 
 GOD." As if GOD, " besides whom there is none else,"
 
 254 
 
 and " a god" and " gods," that are neither " GOD" 
 nor "gods," was a " genus" like to "man, a man, and 
 men," all made by GOD " of the same blood," and 
 born of the same man ! 
 
 And yet upon this the advocates of " SHIN" " feel 
 rather confident that Shin will, before long, convey 
 to the Chinese mind what 0eo9 did to the Greeks, 
 and Deus to the Latins, and God to the English," 
 etc. (Shinv.Shang-Te,ip.B.) What will it be then? 
 in Greek 0eoi or 0eo9, always without the article 
 " TO apBpov TOV IlavTOKpdTopa Sr)\ovv" as Clemens AL 
 sa y S ? an d in Latin, what? "quicunque Deus," as 
 
 " Olim truncus erat ficulnus, inutile lignum, 
 Quum faber, incertus, scamnum faceretne 
 
 Priapum, 
 Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego" 
 
 (Hor. Sat. i. 8.) 
 
 or is it not rather "Diespiter"? namque 
 
 u Valet ima summis 
 Mutare, et insignem attenuat Deus,* 
 Obscura promens." (Od. i. 34.) 
 
 For the manifold aspects of " SHIN" in the " Old 
 
 * This acceptation of " Deus" for " Deus summus," 
 like Zey?, appears a strong proof in favour of the 
 terms " Deus" and " Aev<;=Zevs" having had the same 
 origin. If not, and if so be that "Deus" is derived 
 from DEVA-S, "Divus," and not from DIU-S, then
 
 255 
 
 Paths" do not suit " Deus," according to St. Cyprian, 
 who says: "Nee nomen Deo qua3ras, Deus nomen 
 est illi. Illic vocabulis opus est ubi propriis appel- 
 lationum insignibus multitude dirimenda. Deo, qui 
 solus est, Dei vocabulum solum est" (de Idol. Yanit. 
 v. ed. Routh). 
 
 And as regards " GOD" in English, to join together 
 the " SELF -EXISTENT," " ETERNAL ONE" (above, p. 47), 
 with "a god" or "gods," the "work of men's hands," 
 is, in very deed, to make a " genus" in which, 
 
 " velut aagri somnia, vanaa 
 Finguntur species, ut nee pes, nee caput uni 
 E-eddatur format. 
 Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici?" 
 
 Yet a " genus" of this kind is to represent the 
 one personal GOD of the Bible, 7N, D7PK, 6 @eo<? ! 
 Since, however, 
 
 VI. SHIN is, even by the showing of the " Old 
 Paths," far better rendered by Sai/Mov, etc., than by 
 0eo9, the fact of the insurgents (Shin v. Shang-Te^ 
 p. 5) using SHANG-TE for the " Supreme God," and 
 "SHIN" for "gods" in general, only shows that they 
 speak and write consistently with the idiom of their 
 
 there is no " GOD," but only " a god," in the poor 
 Latin, which has one disadvantage in common with 
 the Chinese a great deal of confusion from want of 
 an article.
 
 256 
 
 own language. But it no more favours the advocates 
 for " SHIN," however much they may wish it, than 
 Calling Zeus, " o TTpwros Saifjww" proves Saipwv to be 
 Zew. SHANG-TE being one of the " Spirits" or 
 " gods" worshipped by the Chinese, is styled by them 
 T'HEEN-SHIN. But since he alone is " Supreme," he 
 alone also is worshipped as T'HEEN-CHOO-TSE and 
 THEEN-TE, "the Lord or Ruler of Heaven" (schol. 
 She-king v. p. 24, vi. p. 3). He, like Zew, is SHIN 
 = Baifuov ; but "SmN" is not SHANG-TE, i. e., not 
 " specially" o T^MTTO?, any more than Sal/uov is " spe- 
 cially" Zev<j=o 0eo5. 
 
 VII. So far, then, the form of religion of the in- 
 surgents has this advantage over that of the wor- 
 shippers of SHIN alone, that it admits of " One 
 Supreme God," which the latter do not, since they 
 worship "Goo" "in every thing." For 
 
 a) SHIN, in Chinese, is applied to the " deity," only 
 because as Ling of the Yang principle, it is, as the 
 Mandchou Diet, explains it well, "An-i gengiyen 
 fergouetchoun-be," " the bright and wonderful ele- 
 ment of Yang." And KwEi-SniN is also commonly 
 adopted for " deity," as representing the Ling of both 
 the Yin and of the Yang principles. But this "bright" 
 vital principle, Confucius says, t'he-wuh, eul pun ko i 
 (Ch.-Y. c. xvi.), "forms a part of the entity of 
 things, and cannot be separated from them." Wen- 
 t'hang (Ch.-Y. c. i.) and Kang-he (Diet. art. Shin) 
 declare, that this " bright, vital" agency is "heang," 
 " sent down" by the "Lord of Heaven," SHANG-TE,
 
 257 
 
 to give life to the world; the insurgents probably 
 believe that ; and in their creed, " SHIN" holds his 
 proper place, which is inferior to SHANG-TE. But 
 
 b) If " SHANG-TE" be deposed from his throne in 
 the thirty-third Heaven by the worshippers of " SHIN," 
 and " SHIN," a very motley group indeed, be raised 
 in his stead, then " SHIN," as that "bright," "vital" 
 principle, no longer "comes down" from the "Lord 
 of Heaven," to animate Nature; but it becomes both 
 " the agent" and the "agency" at once; and Nature 
 is no longer the work of a Creating GOD, but every 
 visible object becomes a part of the deity embodied 
 in it. Wen-t'hang explains the above passage to that 
 effect, thus : She ke wei wuh-che-t'he, eul wuh so-puh- 
 neng i yay, " This Yin and Yang (KwEl-SniN) is t'he 
 (flesh and bones, part and parcel) of wuh, or existing 
 beings ; and these are wuh (living, being), by KWEI- 
 SHIN being inseparable from them." If we do not 
 altogether mistake the Chinese text, we do not see 
 how such teaching can lead to any other result than 
 to PANTHEISM. But, " Si mundi animus Deus est," 
 says St. Augustine (DeCiv. D. iv. 12), "eique animo 
 mundus ut corpus est quis non videat quanta im- 
 pietas et irreligiositas consequatur ? Nolo omnia 
 dicere qua? possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem 
 sine verecundia non possunt." 
 
 So long as the Chinese nation exists, and the 
 Chinese language is read and spoken, so long also will 
 SHANG-TE continue the " Supreme God" of China; 
 as Zev? and @eo?, both of like import, were in Greece. 
 
 18
 
 258 
 
 Owing to the chequered fortunes of the Greek na- 
 tion, and to its manifold dialects, the Apostles, and 
 before them the Septuagint, followed the philo- 
 sophers, who having to choose one of two identical 
 terms, Zev? and @e6?, both "agents," chose the one 
 most in use 0eo9. They did not choose the " agency " 
 Sai/jiwv, although it was "^y%^ rov KOO-^OV" But in 
 China there is no choice between two identical terms 
 for the same Person, Zev<? and 0eo9. The choice lies 
 between the "agent," SHANG-TE, and the "agency" 
 SHIN ; between Zei><; as 0eo? and Bai/awv, or TO Scupoviov. 
 Much, therefore, depends on this choice, which rests 
 on the interpretation given by those who translate 
 into Chinese the words "IlveS^a 6 609," whether 
 " GOD is Spirit"; or "Spirit is GOD." But, in our 
 humble opinion, it would be easier to convert the 
 worshippers of Zeu?, as St. Paul did, than those of 
 Safawv, to the knowledge of the " One True GOD." 
 
 We cannot, therefore, but agree with a writer 
 quoted in Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 5), that "plain com- 
 mon sense is all that is needed," but, in order to 
 come to as it appears to us precisely the opposite 
 conclusion to his own. For it does not, as he says, 
 require " much depth of learning," to see, however, 
 that a "generic" term, like " SHIN," does not of itself 
 define the "species" or "individual"; that Sa^to)/, or 
 TO 8aifj,6viov, is neither " 6 TT/XWTO? SaifMw" nor " Oeol" 
 " o eeoV' nor yet every Spirit GOD, though GOD is a 
 Spirit. We conclude, therefore, from the showing of 
 the advocates for "SHIN" themselves (unable as we
 
 259 
 
 are to discover any other reason), that the choice 
 of that term is by them made a matter of " con- 
 science" (Shin v. Shang-Te, pp. 10, 15), principally 
 from want of a far higher authority in translation 
 that is, correct idiom and etymology. 
 
 Still, that "conscientious adherence to SHIN" on 
 their part is the less to be accounted for, as the very 
 makers of the " Old Paths," and leaders of the host 
 of SHIN, whom we are charged to follow (Shin v. 
 Shang-Te, p. 19, etc.), do not scruple to call him 
 by no better names than " a deity," and " genii or 
 demons," as Dr. Morrison does (in Diet. i. pp. 178, 
 804 ) ; while he pays homage to SHANG-TE, whom he 
 styles "God," and even "Supreme-God" (Diet. i. 
 p. 163, and iii. p. 539). 
 
 Nay, Dr. Milne even went so far as to inscribe 
 on the title-page of the edition of the Bible from 
 which the above quotations are taken : SHIN-THEEN 
 SHANG--TE k'he-she kew wei chaou-shoo, "The Old 
 Testament, the revelation of SHANG-TE of the divine 
 Heaven." But, if SHIN-T'HEEN here, means "Goo," 
 as it does in 1 Cor. vii. 40, then this title (if we 
 understand it aright) will read, in Dr. Milne's own 
 words, " The Old Testament, the revelation of 
 SHANG-TE who is GOD."
 
 260 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 " Quo nunc certamina tanta?" " raXaiTrwpoi" I 
 says even Jocaste to the rival factions of SHIN and of 
 SHANG-TE, 
 
 " rt rrjv a/3oiAov, & 
 
 ovroj vac-ovar)?, i8ta /civovvres 
 
 u Why quarrel among yourselves, luckless citizens, 
 and leave the state to perish?" Earnestly, Why 
 do Christian missionaries among the heathen, dispute 
 among themselves about the God they preach, and 
 place His Church in peril ? 
 
 It is the concourse at Ephesus over again, but 
 without a town-clerk to make the peace. Meanwhile 
 the tumult increases, though not much to the " godly 
 edifying" of Chinese converts, who know " who 's 
 who" of SHIN or SHANG-TE, and therefore stand 
 looking on, amazed at their teachers, who cry, one : 
 "Down with ' SHANG-TE !' "another : "Up with 
 4 SHIN-SHANG-TE ! ' " " No ! " says his fellow, " Great 
 is ' SHIN-T'HEEN ! '" " Never!" shout a good many 
 all at once, " Great is SHIN of China ! SHIN, for ever, 
 SHIN!" while a small knot of men try to raise a 
 voice of "Audi alteram partem"! but in vain, for 
 the assembly is confused, and some, it appears, do 
 not quite know wherefore they are come together.
 
 261 
 
 Then, one Demetrius (we believe), inveighs against 
 the Bishop of Victoria (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 19), for 
 his having proposed " T'HEEN-SHIN" and " T'HEEN- 
 CHOO," as a " compromise, in favour either of Hea- 
 thenism or Popery"; instead of respectfully reminding 
 His Lordship, that both those terms are, as we have 
 seen, classic synonyms for "SHANG-TE;" and that 
 he might as well adopt "SHANG-TE" at once. But 
 that reverend friend of Shin v. Shang-Te (p. 10), 
 though " a man of peace," is nevertheless " resolved 
 to renew the contest." He therefore makes ready to 
 battle in earnest, and with great ardour he utters 
 his war cry, " No surrender!" " No peace with 
 Pope or Pagan!" 
 
 It is well he should follow the advice of Rabbi 
 Judah B. Tamai (Pirke Av. V. 20): ^ifctt ty 'IP! 
 
 *fm pn nwS -n&o TM M no pi -"ira hp\ 
 
 *D'2Dt?3B? "Be strong as a leopard; swift as an 
 eagle ; fleet as a roe ; and valiant as a lion, to do 
 the will of thy Father who is in Heaven:" and also 
 "wise as a serpent," but "harmless as a dove," says 
 our Lord and Master. Let that zealous missionary, 
 by all means buckle on his harness in the name of 
 GOD ; then take in hand " the sword of the Spirit," 
 and we trust, also, hide a stout heart under the 
 " breast-plate of righteousness." For his errand re- 
 quires it; and even Pindar reminds him that 
 
 " 6 fj.&ya<> KivSv- 
 vo<} avaktciv ov <>a)- 
 TO,
 
 262 
 
 But as he goes forth to battle, let him not forget to 
 " be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of 
 peace"; and not carry on his preaching among the 
 heathen, as if he were on a crusade against them. 
 
 "No surrender!" says the reverend writer. No! 
 none to the enemies of our Lord. But as to those 
 we make for ourselves, how often do they not prove 
 better than we are! Let us, therefore, understand 
 against whom we fight. When the soldiers of Christ 
 look less to themselves, and more to the Captain of 
 their salvation, many of their own enemies vanish 
 from before the first encounter; for then the cause is 
 God's not man's own and the day is won. If true 
 to their calling, the knights of Christ rally round 
 the standard of His Cross, and not under their own 
 colours : if they follow Him, and not their own way, 
 and fight in His name and not in their own strength, 
 they must overcome, and proclaim victory from the 
 stronghold of their foe. For the battle is the Lord's. 
 He leads His men by day, and watches over them by 
 night. If they faint, He comforts them. If in delay 
 they doubt, He bids them be of good cheer. And if 
 in their last struggle, they stagger at the sight of 
 death, He prays "that their faith fail not"; while 
 His hand, riven on the Cross for them, holds out " a 
 crown of life"; and His gentle voice whispers to 
 them, as of old to His veteran saint, " 'AvSplgav, 
 noXvKapTrel" " Quit thyself like a man, my son ! thy 
 reward is great ! " 
 
 For, " to him that overcometh will I grant to sit
 
 263 
 
 with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and 
 am set down with my Father in His throne." " No 
 surrender ! " then, for the soldier of Christ ; he must 
 overcome! " 6>eXet9," says even a heathen, " 0eXa? 
 vucr\<Taii Kayo), vrj rot9 8eov<}' Koy^ov yap eariv. 
 crtcoTrei /cat ra KaOrjyov/jieva, teal ra ciico\ovda' KOI 
 omw<? a-rrrov rwv epywv." (Epict. Enchir. C. XXXV.) 
 Then, "ovrw rpe^ere," says St. Paul, " iva tcara- 
 
 "No peace with Pope or Pagan!" Yea, rather, 
 peace with both! If the reverend writer has had 
 experience, either of Popery garbled by designing 
 men, as in this country, or of Popery as it is 
 throughout the Continent of Europe, and especially 
 in that least Popish of all Romish cities, Rome itself, 
 he can have, assuredly, no leaning towards it. At 
 the same time, he must have found God-loving souls 
 in that communion souls who will be saved, not 
 through, but, as it were, in spite of their polluted 
 Church; not by their religion, but apart from its 
 practical workings of priestcraft on ignorance ; of 
 barefaced imposture upon its harmless and willing 
 dupes. It is not clear, on the other hand, whether or 
 not that writer feels any sympathy with that " free 
 and easy" worship, in which "familiarity" with GOD 
 before whom Angels veil their faces is taken for 
 "the spirit of adoption" in sons; forgetting that the 
 most "dutiful" children, are also the most "respect- 
 ful." But if he be of "that pure and Apostolical 
 branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church," which
 
 264 
 
 inclines to neither extreme, we almost wonder he can 
 express himself as he does. For he must have learnt 
 from her, as she teaches her sons to be (St. Poly- 
 carp, Ep. Philip, vi.): " Ol irpeafivTepot, Be eiWXoy%- 
 voi, et? TrazTa? ekerj^oves, eVtcrTpe<ovTe9 TO, a 
 TrpovoovvTe? ael rov KaXov evdtmov 0eov ical 
 uTrexp/Aevoi, iracrt]^ opyijs, 7rpo(ra)'7ro\'r)'^ui^, Kpiaews dSlicov 
 fj,rj arroropot, ev Kpicrei, elBore? on, rrdvres 6<f>ei\ercu 
 eafiev dpaprias. El ovv SeopeOa TOV tcvpiov, a/a vjfuv dcpfj, 
 6<pei\ofjt,ev /cal "fj^el^ dfplevat ' anrkvavn yap TG>V TOV fcvplov 
 /cal 0eov ea/j^ev o^>^aX/z,wv, /cat Travra? Bel TrapaaTrjvcu ro5 
 ftijftaTi rov XpiaTov, Kal zKaarov vTrep eavrov \6yov Sovvai." 
 And as to Pagans, who are " alienated from the life 
 of GOD" only "through the ignorance that is in them," 
 what have they done to forfeit all hope of " peace" 
 from one of the " same body," " partaker," with them, 
 of "Goo's promises in Christ," and to deserve no 
 pity? If a man's duty be, as Lactantius says (Epi- 
 tome, c. xxxiv. p. 634, ed. Routh), that "unum Deo 
 debet ut patri, alterum homini velut fratri. Ab 
 eodem enim Deo geniti sumus. Oportet enim scire 
 nos quid Deo quid homini debeamus ; Deo scilicet 
 religionem, homini charitatem," what is that same 
 man's duty when he goes forth as "messenger of 
 peace" to those same brethren, sent from Him who 
 " is our peace," and who set His servant an example, 
 when He came down from Heaven "to preach peace" 
 to him, who, like his Pagan brethren, was himself 
 "afar off"? Could he, could any servant of Christ 
 who feels his own utter unworthiness and his Lord's
 
 265 
 
 unbounded love, see, for instance, a Brahman raise 
 his eyes towards Heaven, in anxious hope of his final 
 emancipation in Brahin, and hear him, in fervent 
 devotion, say: 
 
 ADITI-r-nu patu no, dushtaram tramanam vacha : ! 
 
 "May that ETERNAL ONE (invincible, saving word!) 
 protect us evermore!" (Sama-V. i. 4; i. 1, 7.) 
 
 mad'hu DIATTR astu na: PITA! 
 " May our Father, Heaven, be favourable to us," 
 shradd'ha M te, Mag'havan, parye DIVI. 
 
 " for faith in Thee, Thou rich in blessings ! exalts 
 us to Heaven" (Rig.-V. i. 6, xvii. 7; Sama-V. i. 2, 
 3, 4, 8), without holding out to him the right hand, 
 with, " My brother ! let me bring thee to .know Him 
 aright who is thy Father as well as mine, through 
 His Son JESUS CHRIST, the Saviour of thee and of me, 
 poor sinners"? Or could he hear a Chinese, while 
 kneeling before his idol-god, mutter these words of 
 " the Master," 
 
 " Tse joo tsae, tse SHIN joo SHIN tsae," 
 
 "Worship as a reality; worship 'the Spirits' as if 
 the Spirits were present" (Shang-L. ii. 1), without 
 yearning to teach him to worship his " unknown 
 God" "in spirit and in truth"? 
 
 Let that servant bear in mind his own debt of 
 talents freely forgiven; the account to be given by 
 the servant "to whom much has been given"; the 
 fate that awaits him "who knew his Master's will
 
 266 
 
 and did not do it" ; he will then forgive his brother's 
 debt of a few pence, and love and pity him " who 
 knows not his Master's will." He will then feel the 
 beam in his own eye, and think less of the mote in 
 his brother's eye ; and he will not turn from him, 
 saying, We may be brethren, but I see and thou 
 art blind " no peace with thee" ! But, thanks be 
 to God, "the Father of all mercies," His Church, in 
 unprejudiced love for every man, whether Jew or 
 Gentile, whether Puritan, Pope, or Pagan, though 
 not for the errors of his creed, says to him : PEACE ! 
 Free pardon and peace with God to us all, who are 
 all equally under sin, through the atoning blood of 
 JESUS CHRIST our Lord. 
 
 We would, therefore, gladly ascribe such an ex- 
 pression as the above, to the trying effects of climate 
 on the nerves, the temper, the whole being of man. 
 We fear, however, lest such A sentiment be common 
 to many who go forth as preachers of the " Gospel of 
 Peace" to the Heathen. And although it is not our 
 place, while working under shelter in the humble 
 sphere of a country parish, to read a homily on the 
 duty of being cool and calm, to men toiling in the 
 heat and bearing the burden of the day, at the post 
 of honour the missionary station, yet the question 
 forces itself upon us, What becomes of the Apostolic 
 office of "Ambassador for Christ to the Gentiles" 
 when undertaken in such a spirit? 
 
 It proves a failure, of course. For the fruit of it 
 is blighted in the seed thereof. Hinc " sunt lacrimse
 
 267 
 
 rerum." And why ? The fault lies not in the work, 
 which is "unto life eternal"; neither is it in the 
 reward, which is " to shine like a star" in the firma- 
 ment of Heaven, for ever and ever. The fault is 
 in the workmen themselves. Many of them well- 
 meaning and zealous, but misguided, independent, 
 and as good as irresponsible men, often come too 
 much in their own name, and often speak too much 
 their own words. With the best intentions, and 
 wishing to do GOD service, such men turn their 
 pruning-hooks into weapons, in order to fight their 
 own battles ; and they make the standard of the 
 Cross the badge of a crusade, carried by them even 
 unto the ends of the Earth. For there too, as well as 
 here, the Church of Christ is rent in pieces by feuds, 
 in which even the new commandment, "THAT YE 
 
 LOVE ONE ANOTHEE, AS I HAVE LOVED YOU," becomes 
 
 a dead letter, and out of date. There too "man" 
 eclipses " GOD," and brings on darkness at noon- 
 day. And then converts emerging from the gloom 
 of heathenism, open their eyes to the flickering lights 
 of human opinions, instead of at once drawing breath 
 and life in the sunbeams of " One LORD, one Faith, 
 one Baptism, one GOD and FATHER of all, who is 
 above all, and through all, and in us all." So that, 
 when they cry for a draught of living water, the 
 cup is held to their parched lips in the name "of 
 Paul," " of Apollos," and " of Cephas," and but 
 seldom in the one blessed name of " CHRIST WHO 
 is OUR LIPE."
 
 2B8 
 
 Then the labourers sow, but, of course, in tears. 
 They pray, as the Athenians did of old: " vo-ov, 
 V<TOV, 5) <i\e ZeO, KOTO, Ta? apovpas ra<? ^Adtjvaiwv Kal TWV 
 ireSuov !" but they receive in answer a few partial 
 showers only, over patches of the Lord's inheritance. 
 Then they look for the fruit of their labours ; and 
 the Lord of the harvest, in pity, bids them go and 
 glean over hill and dale a few handfuls of corn, 
 instead of their reaping his gracious promise of an 
 abundant harvest, when they bind their sheaves on 
 high with joyful songs of thanksgiving. And why is 
 it so ? Because, instead of " els 6 KaO^rir^ 6 Xpto-ro?," 
 there are " TroXXol &8aovcaW and " /o^^ra/," who, 
 nevertheless, call themselves " SoOXot rov Xpia-rov" and 
 who, when their Lord bids them go forth and pro- 
 claim aloud, " Peace ! Peace ! to him that is far off, 
 and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will 
 heal him," say, "We give you no peace!" No! 
 " Peace on Earth and good- will towards men," but 
 only to those who think as we do ! 
 
 Not so St. Paul. At Athens and at Lystra he 
 spoke more kindly; he showed more feeling, more 
 pity. He went through the city as " one bringing 
 glad tidings of good things"; and his preaching on 
 the Areopagus was the voice of him " who preacheth 
 PEACE" even from the citadel of the god of war. 
 He did not battle with his hearers. But, in order to 
 preach to them " JESUS and the resurrection," he, first 
 of all, told them he and they were " brethren," 
 children of the same Father, their "unknown God";
 
 269 
 
 whom he, however, knew, and whom he came to 
 teach them to worship aright. In so doing, he won 
 their hearts to himself and their souls for Heaven. 
 He brought them in among "the first-fruits of his 
 Apostleship " ; and they will be gems in his "crown 
 of rejoicing" in the presence of our Lord JESUS 
 CHRIST at His coming. That holy Apostle has left 
 us an example. Let us at least endeavour to be 
 followers of him, as he also was of Christ. 
 
 Our own estimate of antiquity differs also greatly 
 from that of the reverend writer quoted above. For 
 his tastes are decidedly modern. He seems to dote on 
 " SHIN," which is recent as a substitute for " GOD," 
 although he is bent on treading in the footsteps of 
 his predecessors, in paths which he considers " old 
 and safe." But he is, perhaps, not aware that those 
 "old paths" were not made at first by Dr. Morrison, 
 but by Jesuit Missionaries ! " Idem occurrit," says 
 Mr. Callery (Syst. Phon. p. 80), "pro Sinica Scrip- 
 turae Sacraa versione quas ejusdem auctoris (Dr. 
 Morrison) calamo tribuitur; etsi de facto sit mera 
 publicatio versionis a Jesuitis relictae, cujus manu- 
 scriptum Anglis oificiose traditum fuit ab incauto de 
 Propaganda fide Procuratore, J. Marchini" (See 
 also that popular and valuable work, " The Bible of 
 Every Land," p. 4.) 
 
 Such is that " old ground," such are those " old 
 paths," which only lead to another " Shibboleth" at 
 the fords of the Yang-tsze-keang, where, it appears, 
 many a good heart is slain in cool blood by the ruth-
 
 270 
 
 less " men of SHIN." And yet, it is they, and not the 
 " Bishop of Victoria," who force upon others " the 
 simple and chaste style of the Jesuits" (see Shin v. 
 Shang-Te, pp. 10, 19), by defending as " a matter of 
 conscience," from which there is no appeal, a version 
 of the Bible, originally made by the Jesuits them- 
 selves, and apparently not much improved by those 
 who revised it. They fold to their bosom the very 
 style they denounce in others ; and blame the Bishop 
 of Victoria for what they do themselves. So much 
 for zeal without knowledge, which is but another 
 name for " party-spirit," and that, too, " in the 
 name of GOD," and for the sake of the " PKINCE OF 
 PEACE"! "Brethren," says St. Ignatius (ad Philad. 
 Vlll.), " trapaKaXw u//,a9, /^^Sey KCLT epiOeiav Trpdcrcreiv, 
 a\Xa Kara Xpt,<rrofjua6iav" And again (ad Smyrn. viii. ), 
 " Tou9 &e pepiarfjiovs (pevyere, &>9 ap^rjv icaicwv. 
 TO) eTricrKOTro) afco\ov8eire, a><? 
 
 Se Siatcovovs evrpeirea-ffe, a>9 Seov evro\rfv" For, says 
 another venerable follower of the Holy Apostles (St. 
 Clement, ad Cor. xlvi.), "To a-^la-^a v^& 
 
 lrei/, TTO\\OV<; el<j aOvpLav e/3a\ey, 7ro\\oi><; 
 
 "We are, however glad to find, that so self-denying, 
 and so deserving a man as Dr. Morrison, is in part, 
 at least, innocent of what, even to our limited know- 
 ledge of Chinese, appears an inferior style and in- 
 correct readings, and that, too, quite apart from
 
 271 
 
 " SHIN" or " SHANG-TE." With all due deference to 
 our betters, we cannot but regret, to think that 
 Christianity among the Chinese should, in a measure, 
 rest upon such a substitute for " the pure milk of the 
 Word" which alone "is able to save their souls." At 
 the same time, we confess ourselves unable to believe 
 that this version can be understood and liked by the 
 Chinese, who only know their language in its own 
 unadulterated style. And we fear the " old ground " 
 must sometimes prove rather swampy ; and the " old 
 paths" little else than the recent tracks of wandering 
 men. 
 
 It would seem, assuredly, both better and safer to 
 follow the beaten road of Yaou and Shun, of Woo- 
 wang and of Confucius, in the field of their own 
 literature, than pretend to know better than they, 
 what they meant. One of us might as well presume 
 to have taught Isaiah an improved meaning of his 
 own sublime style, or to have given Plato a lesson 
 in Greek, as to lay down, on our own authority, 
 what the sense of this or that word is in Chinese, 
 and thus sit as "Judge and jury" over "SHIN" and 
 " SHANG-TE." And, however anxious some missi- 
 onaries may be to " go a-head," they must " 'bide 
 their time." They cannot give a new meaning to 
 words by an " ipse dixit ;" for they are amenable " to 
 the law and to the testimony" of the Chinese in 
 matters of this kind. These know best, assuredly, 
 the value of their own words. For our own part, 
 therefore, we should be well satisfied to adopt as a
 
 272 
 
 substitute for Ttf, EL, S^rPN, ELOHIM, Oeo9 and 
 6 6>eo9, the " one personal GOD," endued with power 
 and majesty; and worshipped, first, alone, and apart 
 from all other deities, by Yaou and Shun, upwards 
 of four thousand years ago, and ever since that time 
 by Kaou-yaou, Yih, Tseih, E-yun, Confucius himself, 
 and their posterity; while we would adopt other 
 terms, as occasion may require, for 6eot, or for any 
 one of them that is " not GOD." We leave alone 
 " innovations," as alike foreign to the Chinese, and 
 opposed to their highest authorities. 
 
 And, how those people cling to their authorities ! 
 We were, one day, reading a portion of the " Yishnu- 
 Purana" with a learned Brahman, and the subject 
 matter brought us to discuss the shape of the Earth. 
 He talked gravely of the flat surface of the seas and 
 continents, and of the brilliant and lofty summit of 
 Mount Meru. On the other hand, we made plain to 
 his senses that the Earth is not such as he thought. 
 He then paused for some time, and at last he said : 
 Satyam etad, Mahashaya! Satyam asti, bate! tat'hapi 
 matpushtake na kirtitam! "It is true, Sir! very true f 
 still, it is not so stated in my book ! " A lesson, is it 
 not, to many a Christian teacher ! 
 
 We should, indeed, be sorry to find that, while we 
 endeavour to make peace, " others make ready to 
 battle." For we have, in this respect, only one wish, 
 and that is, to contribute our mite in helping others 
 to teach the people of China to serve " GOD" in 
 spirit and in truth. Not to worship a certain Spirit,
 
 273 
 
 or Spirits, an inferior, ill-defined Deity" SHIN," in- 
 herent in every created object, but to learn the 
 purified, soul-enslaving service of the " one personal 
 and supreme GOD," who is above SHIN, and whom 
 they " ignorantly worship" from the highest anti- 
 quity. St. Paul, at Athens, brought his hearers, 
 through " "Ayvojo-Tov e6v" TOV Aia by whom Critias 
 
 even SWOre, " Nq TOV "Ayvwvrov ev 'A9r,va^ n (Luc. 
 
 Philop.) to believe in "the living God." Why not 
 bring the people of China by gentle means also, to 
 look up to " SHANG-TE," tyipeSw, since he dwells 
 in the Highest Heaven, as to Ttf, " The Mighty," 
 DTi^f, " the Awful," and &&, "the Supreme" GOD, 
 " who sits on the circle of the Heavens, and makes 
 the Earth his footstool"; and yet hath humbled 
 himself to come " and dwell among men"? instead 
 of forcing a new system of expressions, adopted, 
 perhaps, by ignorant and submissive congregations, 
 " addicti jurare in verba magistri," but alike un- 
 welcome and unintelligible to the educated among 
 the people. Then will " SHIN" continue as of old, to 
 be, as it were, an emanation from " Hwang-T'heen 
 
 SHANG-TE," TO irvevpa Au>$ fiaaikefa, of Plato; no 
 
 longer, however, as " power of the air," with the 
 "SHIN-KITTN" for "Prince"; but now, only as 
 
 ' The Spirit," " 'AyvaxrTov 0eov TOV e<f>evpr]fj,vov, TOV 
 
 Oeov TOV &Wo?" as the Comforter, as the breath 
 of the Almighty that gives His people life. 
 
 But, we must feel, that in order to impress the 
 Chinese with correct and lasting notions of "GoD,"
 
 274 
 
 our teaching must bear the indelible stamp of 
 UNIFORMITY. It must come home to each indi- 
 vidual with the convincing proof to him, of UNITY 
 among the teachers. For it is better to say nothing 
 of GOD, than to misrepresent Him to those who know 
 Him not. And if, in this respect, every man has a 
 right to claim the exercise of " private judgment," it 
 can only be to a certain point, not affecting either 
 "Truth" or "principle." Now, "various creeds" 
 form no part of GOD'S Truth; they are only the 
 "filthy rags" of human ignorance, hung about TRUTH 
 by men who " as yet only see in part"; and " self- 
 conceit" which is wide apart from " sincerity" 
 forms no integral portion of the principle of " doing 
 GOD service." For in such matters, "private opinion" 
 is but the result of " our seeing only as in a glass, 
 darkly," a sad and searching proof of our earthly 
 and still imperfect state. And when we know GOD 
 as we are known of Him, all " private views" will 
 cease. We shall then see how gross were our " pri- 
 vate opinions" of Him, when we hear them told one 
 by one in the dazzling light of His glorious presence. 
 That ought to make us more forgetful of " self." 
 "TV? ovv ev vfuv yewaios;" says again St. Clement 
 (ad Cor. llV.), "TI? eva-TrXay^vo^; rfa 7reir\t)po<f>op'r}- 
 etTraTw, El &t e/u-e <rrd<ri<;, Kai ept9, real 
 
 1 I * 
 
 e/c^a>p<y, aTret/zt ov eav {SovX/rjcrOe p.6vov TO 
 TOU Xpurrov elpijveveTO)." It ought to lead US 
 to strive more earnestly, and more unitedly toge- 
 ther, in our service of God in His Church. We all
 
 275 
 
 of us know, what amount of chaff, of stubble, and 
 of other rubbish, "private judgment" heaps upon 
 the " foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," by 
 way of " rearing a holy Temple unto the Lord." 
 But if these defects be deplorable at home, where 
 there always is an opportunity of appealing from 
 error to a better teaching somewhere, what effect 
 must they produce in India and China, where no 
 such opportunity exists? There, the " TRUTH as it 
 is in JESUS," is now proclaimed in greater variety of 
 form than already exists among the sects of the 
 Heathen themselves: and the " Only True GOD," 
 " whom to know is Eternal Life," is there preached 
 under more different names than the principal idols, 
 which the knowledge of Him alone is to abolish. 
 u If the LORD be GOD, follow Him: but if Baal, 
 follow Him." If " SHANG-TE" be your God, worship 
 him. If " SHIN" be your choice, serve Him, but serve 
 Him alone. Halt no longer between " two" opinions 
 or more, but choose one and keep to it. But look 
 well to your decision. And if you come in the 
 " name of God," " seek not your own." " "Hr<y rls 
 7TK7TO5 St/i/aro? <ro<f)o<f civyvbs .v 6/37049' Toeroi/Tft) fj,aX\ov 
 TaTreivcxfjpoveiv o^>etXet, ocrw SoKei JJM\\OV fjieifav elvai, teal 
 tyjrelv TO tcoiva)<f)e\e<; Trdcriv, Kal fir] TO eauroO" (ot. Clem. 
 
 ad Cor. xlviii.). Do not lay bare your own frailness 
 in the sight of the Heathen. But "in the name of 
 GOD," and " for the sake of CHRIST," let the Heathen 
 at least see that " His SPIRIT" is ONE, however 
 manifold be His gifts. 

 
 276 
 
 Well might that shrewd Hindoo reply to the 
 Missionary who introduced himself as a teacher of 
 the " Truth," " ' Truth,' indeed ! first agree among 
 yourselves as to what is ' Truth,' and then come and 
 teach us ! " 
 
 XIX. 
 
 It was, therefore, with real satisfaction, that having 
 stumbled many a time in the u old paths," we found 
 ourselves, at last, on more even ground. It may, 
 perhaps, be want of taste on our part; but still we 
 like it better. And we believe that those of our 
 readers who will follow us, will find their feet move 
 along more easily on Lao-tsze's causeway, than on 
 the rugged "old paths" of modern make. Let us 
 compare only one verse as a sample of the latter, 
 with the same passage, in the Shanghae version of 
 1851, already quoted. 
 
 St. John, i. 1, 2. 
 "Old Paths": 
 
 TANG CHI I YEW YEN EUL 
 
 7T/309 rrjv dpxnv tf&n %v TO \a\iv, Kal 
 
 KE YEN KAE SHIN YEOU KE 
 
 T00TO TO \d\lV (TVV AaifjLOVi KCU TOVTO
 
 277 
 
 YEN WEI SHIN TSZE-CHAY TANG 
 
 TO XaXeo/ ecrrt ACUJJUOV TO rovro 7rpo9 
 
 CHI KATi SHIN YAY. 
 
 TTJV 
 
 Shanghae version, 1851 : 
 
 YUEN CHI YEW TAOTJ TAOU YU 
 
 ev rfj TT/xoTT? ap%fj fy 6 ^0709 . o ^0709 7r/>O9 
 
 SHANG-TE K'HUNG TSAE TAOU TSEIH 
 TOI> Oeov 6/i&>9 fjv, 6 A6>yo<; ovrcos 
 
 SHANG-TE. SHE TAOU YUEN CHI YU 
 o Oeo9. OVT09 o ^0709 ev ry irfxa-rr) &PXP irpo? 
 
 SHANG-TE K'HUNG TSAE YAY. 
 TOV Qeov 6/iw9 TJV 
 
 These passages, verbally rendered into English, 
 will read thus : 
 
 u Old Paths" :- 
 
 "About beginning already there was speech; and 
 that speech with Deity (or Spirit), and that speech 
 was Deity (or Spirit). This same about beginning 
 with Deity (or Spirit)." 
 
 Shanghae version : 
 
 " Very-first beginning there was the Word. The 
 Word with Most-High (Goo) indeed existed; the 
 Word indeed Most-High (Goo). That Word very- 
 first beginning with Most-High (Goo) indeed ex- 
 isted." 
 
 We do not at present recollect any classical
 
 278 
 
 authority that throws light on the above rendering 
 of the " Old Paths." But there is that very remark- 
 able passage in Lao-tsze (Tao-Te-k. c. iv.) already 
 alluded to, which bears, in words even, a striking 
 resemblance to the above verse of Scripture in the 
 revised version of Shanghae : TAOU-yay I Iwan hoo ! 
 sze wan-wuh-che tsung! Woo puh chi shwuy-che tsze; 
 siang TE-che-sian. " The Taou, (o ^6705) how pro- 
 found ! He appears to be the ancestor of all things ! 
 I know not whose Son He is ; He seems to have 
 existed even before SHANG-TE"! To which may be 
 added, from C. XXV. : " Yew yih wuh hwen-ching ! 
 Sian T'heen-Tih seng! Too li, eul puh ke; ko-i wei 
 T'heen hea Moo!" "(The Taou) is one Being; not 
 perfectly discernible (apratarkyam, avigyeyam, Maim, 
 c. i. ) ; He was born before Heaven and Earth. He 
 alone stands and changes not; He may be consi- 
 dered as the Mother of this world." And further, 
 in c, xiv., where Lao-Tsze assigns to TAOU these 
 three attributes, I-HI-WEI, " without colour" 
 "without sound" and "without substance." Those 
 three characters in Chinese would read I-H-V; and 
 that led A. Re"musat (as we said above, p. 219) to 
 see in it the name of PlIJT, " Jehovah." 
 
 The Shanghae translators, therefore, deserve great 
 credit for having, through good scholarship, rendered 
 one of the most important passages in the New Tes- 
 tament in almost the very words of an author anterior 
 to Confucius; and who is held in China for, as it 
 were, inspired. It would have been well, perhaps, if
 
 279 
 
 the Mandchou and Japanese translators had done the 
 same, instead of following the " Old Paths" in this 
 place, and rendering 6 ^6709, by " Gisoon" and " Kasi- 
 koi," both of which mean " word," i. #., TO pfjfJM, 
 instead of adopting the Chinese word, TAOTJ, which 
 is current in the classics of both those languages as 
 " Doro," and Tawoo or Mitsi. 
 
 And we cannot admit for one moment, that the 
 Shanghae translators (not one of whom is personally 
 known to us) had in view " to establish their repu- 
 tation as scholars" only (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 15). 
 But rather, we feel assured by the proofs before us, 
 that they strove to do their best in rendering literally 
 the idea and intention of the Sacred Text, into good 
 Chinese; " rerc/jMipet, xpnt* CKCLVTOV" If they have suc- 
 ceeded equally well in the other parts of Scripture, 
 they need not fear either reproach or obloquy. But, 
 on the contrary, they may wait and see which of the 
 two, under God's blessing, succeeds best in China; 
 whether the crooked " Old Paths" of an Europseo- 
 Chinese, and, we fear also, Pantheistic version of the 
 "Word of GOD," or that same Word rendered as 
 well as men of judgment and scholars can do, with 
 the best available means at hand. And if scholarship 
 be not honoured by being devoted to the glory of 
 GOD, for what other purpose can it be used ? for even 
 a wise man 
 
 TevcraTO 8" e? &eov e\0a)v" 
 This, however, is far too solemn a subject to be
 
 280 
 
 treated otherwise than sternly and soberly. We 
 would not, therefore, have alluded to the " Old Paths" 
 further than to show that they do justice to the time 
 at which they were made. But since they have be- 
 come, with some, a matter of " conscience," a test of 
 " Truth," and of " honesty of purpose," we have 
 endeavoured to show on what grounds those high 
 pretensions rest; and how easy it is for " conscience" 
 to continue both " tender and dark," and for " Truth" 
 to be so far obscured, as to lead its advocates to fight 
 honestly for a mere shadow. And we have ventured 
 to suggest also, that since all this difference is about 
 the sacred text, the subject should be made, by every 
 one engaged in the translation of that text, a matter 
 of earnest thought and of deep study. 
 
 These, however, are not to the taste of every one 
 " Kov(f)6Tpai <yap cnretpcnwv <j>peve<t." To some, it is 
 easier at once to prejudice their mind in favour of a 
 particular view of the case, till that alone appears 
 correct; and then put it as a matter of " conscience" 
 only; as if scholarship had little or nothing to do 
 with it ; and as if it followed that because a man has, 
 as he thinks, an honest intention, that alone can 
 supply the place of fit words and of pure idiom. In 
 our humble opinion, however, he is most conscien- 
 tious, who takes most pains to get at the root of the 
 matter, till he has satisfied his conscience that he is 
 neither led by prejudice, nor defending a favourite 
 scheme of his own, but that he rests on the only 
 foundation beyond which he cannot go. And this,
 
 281 
 
 in translating the Word of GOD, is, undoubtedly, 
 classic language. The purest gold, as well as the 
 purest idiom, are for The service of His sanctuary. 
 But pure diction is to be borrowed from classic 
 authors alone. The opinion of Leang-Afa, therefore, 
 against Dr. Gutzlaff's translation ("The Bible of 
 Every Land," p. 5), that it consists of "passages 
 from classic authors put together to render the "Word 
 of GOD," is a compliment to that late remarkable 
 man. In China, as well as in Europe, a man may 
 affect to underrate that to which he has not attained ; 
 he may hold " classics " cheap because he knows 
 little or nothing about them; and thus save himself 
 the trouble of studying them, on the specious plea 
 that " Hath not GOD made foolish the wisdom of 
 this world?" Yea, verily, and thanks be to HIM, it 
 is "made foolish" as means of redemption, which is 
 through " Christ crucified" only. But he who wrote 
 that, was himself a good scholar, who spoke good 
 Greek; or they would not have said to him, at 
 Athens, " Atcovo-opedd a-ov 7rd\iv" " We will hear thee 
 again." Nay, by his own example, he teaches us to 
 search in the writings of classic authors, for that 
 which, without imparting the " fear of God," can alone 
 educate the mind and form the judgment, of the " re- 
 deemed of Christ," who have learnt the "fear of God" 
 from His own revealed Word. Some men, therefore, 
 might take, if not a leaf, at least a paragraph, out of 
 the book of the Jesuit missionary, Premare, one of 
 the most accomplished of Chinese scholars, past or
 
 282 
 
 present, who says to young missionaries : " vellem 
 ut quod nemo me facere monuit, alii facerent, dum 
 viget memoria, et anni adhuc florent : quatuor libros 
 classicos memoriter discerent eo plane modo quo 
 solent pueri Sinaa; repuerascendum nobis est, si vo- 
 lumus Christum Jesum his gentibus cum fructu 
 annunciare; quern, amabo, laborem talis spes non 
 leniat?" And Confucius, who is seldom wrong in 
 practical matters, says, much to the point : " Woo-tang 
 tsun ji pub-she, tsun yay puh sih, i sze; wo i! pub joo 
 hio yay! " I have spent whole days without food, 
 and whole nights without sleep, in order to meditate. 
 But it availed not. There is nothing like the study 
 of ancient authors" (Hea-Lun, c. xv.). 
 
 For, adds Hien- wen-shoo (sent, xlvii.) "puh teng 
 Shan, puh chi T'heen-che kaou. Puh lin ky, puh chi 
 Tih-che how. Puh wun sian wang-che y yen, puh chi 
 hio-wun-che ta." " In like manner as without as- 
 cending a mountain, we cannot estimate the height of 
 Heaven ; nor the depth of the Earth without descend- 
 ing into a valley : so also we cannot know the great- 
 ness of learning and wisdom without listening to the 
 sayings left on record by kings of old."
 
 283 
 
 XX. 
 
 It is now high time, our readers will say, that we 
 should conclude. We will, therefore, in a few words, 
 briefly sum up the whole. 
 
 So far as we can gather from Shin v. Shang-Te, 
 the principal arguments against the use of " SHANG- 
 TE," as a substitute for " God," are these : 
 
 I. That " SHANG-TE" is the Chinese " Jupiter." 
 
 What of that? By "Jupiter" is not meant, we 
 hope, that elderly man sitting upon a throne with a 
 thunder-bolt in one hand, a wand in the other, and 
 an eagle at his feet ; not to mention a monstrous tale 
 of the foulest absurdities by way of a biography. 
 For SHANG-TE has nothing in common with him. 
 
 But SHANG-TE is identical with " Jupiter" as 
 " Zet? TTdTnp" Dies-piter, Diu-s or Diaus-piter, " Hea- 
 venly-Father" personified. " Te-chay," says Kang- 
 he (art. T<2), " T'heen-che-ming ; so-i ming Te, Te-chay, 
 Te-yay," " Ruling," or " Ruler," is a name of Hea- 
 ven; it is called "Ruler" because it "judges and 
 decides," and is " Shang" as being " Supreme" (ibid.) 
 "Zet>9 'Oi>pai>6<?"' " Hemp ij^aprov et? TOK Ovpavov,"
 
 284 
 
 for the "Heavens rule" (Dan. iv.), i. e., the "Most- 
 High" (ibid.), and " GOD is the height of Heaven" 
 (Job xxii. 12), etc. And though SHANG-TE is not 
 expressly "progenitor genitrixque," like "Jupiter," 
 yet he sends down the Yin and Yang principles to 
 work out Nature ; which is nearly the same. He is 
 in the words of the Holy Apostle, " "Ayvaxrros 609" 
 -(DEUS, ZEYS), "TOV ^p Ka l 7 &o 9 r/*&" "o 
 0609 o Troirja-as TOV Ko&fiov" " Si&ovs Trafft ZOJTJV" (Zevs, 
 "oOev exofiev del TO ^jv") K.T.\. (Actsxvii. 23, 28, etc.). 
 And we add, from the seventh Iguvinian Table: 
 " lovFe IlaTpe irpf- irea-vipov" " worship him first" : 
 for he alone is " lovIIaTep" called in Phrygia Bar/aios, 
 "worshipful," (from the Vaidic B'haga;) or among the 
 same people, " Maev9," (also from the ancient Maha- 
 Diu-s, or, perhaps, Mahi-Diaus, of India,) their 
 "unknown God," whom Christians alone know, and 
 call, " OUR FATHER which art IN HEAVEN" ! 
 
 II. That " 0eo9," and not " Zefa" having been 
 adopted by the Apostles, " Zew," " SHANG-TE," 
 should not be used by Christians. 
 
 Doubtless, if there were in Chinese a term cor- 
 responding exactly to " 0eo9." But we know of none. 
 For " SHIN," when thus by itself, has a collective 
 sense, and means neither "0eo9" nor "6 0eoV' but 
 " Deity," and, perhaps, " 0eoL" Whereas " SHANG- 
 TE" combines both the "individual" God of the 
 Greeks, "Zeik," and the "personal" God of the Greek 
 language, " 6 0eo9," both always in the singular. For
 
 285 
 
 which may have been the " TrpwTo? Safawv" of 
 the first tribe that ever spoke Greek, "Zev? jEoli- 
 bus, antiquissimis temporibus, in primis proprium 
 videtur fuisse," says V. Lennep (Or. Ling. Gr. p. 
 917), was thus probably anterior to eo?, " Atticis 
 proprium, et communi usu tritum." Since, however, 
 the Chinese language is limited to the Chinese nation, 
 and is not universal, like the Greek, the "individual" 
 God of China, is also the " personal " god of the 
 Chinese language that is practically, both Zev? and 
 6 0e<fc in one. 
 
 III. That there are " some half-dozen Shang- 
 Te's" in China. 
 
 We reply, 
 
 1) Not a vestige of more than One " SHANG-TE" 
 is to be found in the oldest works in Chinese, which 
 are the highest authority in China. So far as we 
 know, in the " Shoo-king," which begins with the 
 deeds of Yaou (B.C. 2356), in the She-king, the 
 Hiao-king, in the works of Confucius, of Mencius, of 
 Lao-tsze, and in the Le-ke throughout, no allusion 
 whatever is made but to ONE Supreme " SHANG-TE." 
 The "five TE'S," according to Confucius, were only 
 a name for the five elements (see above, p. 220, 
 note). 
 
 2) Consequently, the worship of more than One 
 " SHANG-TE," if such a worship really exists in 
 China, must be of a comparatively recent date ; and 
 therefore it does not bear, so far as we can find from
 
 286 
 
 the few books we have, the stamp of " antiquity," 
 i. e., of " authority," for the Chinese.* 
 
 IV. That "the use of SHANG-TE for God will 
 delude the Chinese with the notion that they 
 are serving the true God while worshipping 
 their idols under that name." 
 
 We ask, would that be less the case, when instead 
 
 * We find mention made of the five " TE'S" of 
 Heaven, and of the three " kiun," or " presidents," 
 in the French translation of a modern commentary 
 on Ta'i-Shang's " Kan-ing-Pien" (pp. 7, 8). But 
 even there, they are spoken of as " TE," Rulers only, 
 over whom one is alone " SHANG-," Supreme. And 
 in our copy of the " San-kiao-huen-lew," a work on 
 the rise and progress of the sects of Tao, Confucius, 
 and Buddha, in China, there are only two mentioned 
 as " Shang-Te," viz., " Yu-hwang Shang-Te" (p. 7), 
 and " Hiuen-T'heen Shang-Te" (p. 14) ; with a num- 
 ber of inferior gods and goddesses. 
 
 The print of this article in our copy of that book is 
 so indistinct as to be illegible. In the absence of other 
 information, we should think " Hiuen-T'heen Shang- 
 Te," i. e., " Shang-Te of the deep-blue or highest 
 Heaven," identical with the " Yu-hwang Shang-Te," 
 thus termed by the Taouists, and no other than 
 SHANG-TE, who inhabits Tsin-T'heen, the azure or 
 purest and highest of the "thirty-three Heavens" 
 of Chinese theology.
 
 287 
 
 of being deluded by one idol of one SHANG-TE, they 
 would have far more frequent opportunities of being 
 deceived by hundreds of idols of hundreds of different 
 
 "SHINS?" 
 
 V. Great stress, also, is laid on the fact, that 
 some idolatrous Chinese, even the Emperor 
 Kang-he, ignorant of the spiritual worship of 
 the real SHANG-TE, thought, very naturally, that 
 his own mode of worship was the right one. 
 
 But errors of this land are inevitable at the be- 
 ginning. For converts from heathenism, like prisoners 
 emerging from a dark and gloomy dungeon, are, as 
 it were, dazzled by the light to which their eyes are 
 not accustomed, and they discern objects imperfectly. 
 But, for this very reason, they require tender ma- 
 nagement ; like the poor blind man of Bethsaida, 
 who at first only "saw men as trees, walking"; and 
 on whose eyes our compassionate Saviour, " who 
 came to give sight to the blind," laid his hands a 
 second time, "until he was restored and saw every 
 man clearly." Men in that state are like children, 
 who must be fed with the " milk of the Word" (so 
 that it be pure!) until they gradually come to use 
 more solid food suited to their growing wants, out of 
 the same inexhaustible store. Meanwhile they should 
 be dealt with according to their amount of know- 
 ledge, after the example of the Holy Apostles, to 
 whom " assembled with one accord," and " to the 
 Holy Ghost," it seemed good to lay upon the " bre-
 
 288 
 
 thren of the Gentiles," u no greater burden than 
 necessary things" 
 
 And these were not many. " If thou believest 
 with all thine heart," said Philip to the Ethiopian, 
 " thou mayest be baptized." He answered and said : 
 
 " I BELIEVE THAT JESUS-CHKIST IS THE SON OF GOD." 
 
 Upon this foundation, than which none other can 
 be laid, the " wise master-builder" rears an edifice 
 unto GOD. But he does it slowly, deliberately; re- 
 membering that a temple which is to last for ever, 
 is not " run up" in one day. He therefore aims at 
 opening the understanding, and at training the heart 
 of his neophyte " in sanctification of the Spirit and 
 belief of the Truth" ; giving him at the same time a 
 correct idea of a Church, not of a spectral dream 
 of human conceit ; not of a sickly, spare, ungainly, 
 figure of a Church in sectarian trim, but of the 
 broad outline, and stately form of the Church Catho- 
 lic, left on trust by the Holy Apostles of Christ, and 
 modelled after them by their immediate successors. 
 
 The task of a Missionary, then, although it may be 
 chiefly to impart the rudiments of doctrine to " babes 
 in Christ," is not an easy one. For we all know, 
 that it often requires more knowledge, more patience, 
 and more judgment, to teach well the first principles 
 to children, than to develop those same elements 
 to men of mature mind. And a good beginning is 
 always slow, if not also difficult. Even the kingdom 
 of GOD, as well among the heathen as in our own 
 hearts, progresses, like leaven in the lump, slowly
 
 289 
 
 and from a small beginning. Yet, " he that believetfi 
 shall not make haste." But he will " pray without 
 ceasing," even while at his work ; he will " hope unto 
 the end," and "have long patience," until he receive 
 genial showers of blessing from Him who alone 
 " giveth the increase " to the seed springing and 
 growing up, " first the blade, then the ear, after that 
 the full corn in the ear," " he knoweth not how." 
 
 But the leaven should be new, and the seed good. 
 And the special errand of Missionaries is to provide 
 for that. Their teaching, then, is, like leaven, to 
 transform the people among whom they live into new 
 creatures. Their "preaching of the Word" is the 
 seed which will either be told ten or a hundred-fold 
 by the Angels of GOD, " in that day" " when every 
 man's work shall be made manifest," or else be by 
 them cast into the fire. And their example, like rays 
 from the Sun of Righteousness, is intended to shed 
 around them a continual influence of " true light" and 
 "everlasting life," freely sent from Heaven to men. 
 But, what if the leaven is old and the teaching un- 
 sound ? what if the seed sown is mingled with tares ? 
 what if the light of the teachers is dim, and their life 
 torpid and cold? How shall "the Gentiles see the 
 righteousness of GOD," and " their glory be like a 
 flowing stream"? 
 
 There is, then, enough in this, assuredly, to make 
 many a man pause ere "he puts his hand to the 
 plough" in the field of Missions. For assurance is 
 not faith; nor is presumption authority. And the
 
 290 
 
 boast of him who " girdeth on his harness," is not the 
 song of the warrior who "putteth it off" after the 
 victory. " "AvOponre" says a wise man, " Trpwrov eVi- 
 trKe^rai OTTOLOV e'ort TO Trpdy/Mi' etra /ecu rr)v creavTOV <f>ixnv 
 Kara/Add e, el Svvacrai ftacrTaaai. ITeWa#Xo<? elvcu /3ov\ei, rf 
 TrdkaHrrr)? ; iSe cravrov roix; ^pa^Lovas, TOU<? /z^pou? rr^v 
 6<T(pvv Kardp&Oe' aXXo jap Trpbs a\\o Tre^v/ce. /doet<?, on 
 ravra troiwv, cocrainajs Bvvacrcu ecrdiew, two-aura)? iriveiv, 
 o/iot'ty? Svcrapecnelv ; dypVTrvfjo'ai, Set, novr/crai, airo 
 TWV oliceiwv dire\6elv^ VTTO TraiSaplov KaTa(j>povr)0rjvai, 
 ev irainl rjrrov fyeiv, ev rt/jifi, ev dp%f], ev Sitcy, ev 777307- 
 fjMTiw iravrL" (Epict. Ench. c. xxxvi.) If the reward 
 of duty well done is great, great also is the regret 
 of duty left undone from a want of aptitude for it. 
 For " a man feels most acutely," says Simplicius 
 
 (comm. in Ench., ad loc.), " TO afo-^o? ra>v KCLTCL 
 Trpoalpeaiv olrceuov dpuprrjpArwv" " the disgrace of his 
 own short-comings that result from presumption on 
 his part." 
 
 If, therefore, after having examined himself, a man 
 finds his strength unequal to the glorious calling of 
 a Missionary, let him, by all means, desist, and rather 
 labour in the Church at home; or better, perhaps, 
 choose another calling in life. There is yet ample 
 scope, even for the most moderate abilities, in a 
 country parish ; where, ignoring and ignored, the ser- 
 vant of Christ may do GOD service in doing good to 
 his neighbour. Yet even there, he will find it easier 
 to preach than to practise, to give advice, than to 
 act up to it. Even in the retirement of his rural
 
 291 
 
 life, he may find it hard " to walk humbly with his 
 GOD" ; and even there he will often start from dreams 
 of self-complacency, at the searching voice, " BEHOLD 
 
 I COME QUICKLY, AND MY REWARD IS WITH ME," that 
 
 warns him to " watch," and to " take heed unto 
 himself," lest after he hath preached to others, he 
 himself " should be a castaway." 
 
 XXI. 
 
 On the other hand, the principal plea in favour of 
 " SHIN," seems to be that of 
 
 I. A great majority for that term. 
 
 That argument, we apprehend, comes to this: 
 The multitude of Israel proclaimed Baal, GOD; one 
 prophet of GOD, only, was left in the land, and they 
 even sought his life. Therefore, Baal is GOD ! Poor 
 Galileo, too, was in the minority, and therefore, it 
 would appear, in the wrong, when in his prison he 
 comforted himself in saying of the Earth, " It turns, 
 however ; and in spite of them, too ! " 
 
 II. The opinion of residents in China. 
 
 This, it must be admitted, carries with it some 
 weight. For residents in China have opportunities, 
 without which it is impossible to come at a perfect
 
 292 
 
 knowledge of Chinese. But unless it can be proved 
 that all the residents in China, implied in the as- 
 sertion, have availed themselves to the full extent of 
 those opportunities, and have profited thereby, this 
 plea is of little value. The air of China does not of 
 itself, that we know of, infuse knowledge ; nor are 
 men's minds there, more proof against prejudice than 
 in other countries. 
 
 III. That " Shin" is a generic term for " God 
 gods." 
 
 That is the very reason why it should not be used 
 for " GOD"; for we have shown, 
 
 1 ) That " GOD " has nothing in common with 
 " gods," for 
 
 2) that " 0eoi" are not " @e6V'; still less, "6 eo?." 
 8) That Oeo?" is not "SHIN"; and that " SHIN" 
 
 is still further from being " 6 @eo?." 
 
 4) That "SniN," DEITY, is AaL^wv-, or " 
 taken collectively sometimes &u/ioz/e<?; and 
 only when this implies Safaova under some visible 
 form or " 6ebv %v\wov" 
 
 Therefore, that since "SHIN" is applied to num- 
 berless " idols," and is itself inferior to the " Supreme 
 Being" SHANG-TE; not only it is not an appro- 
 priate substitute for "6 @eo<?," " GOD," but the ob- 
 jection of there being " more than one TE," made 
 against SHANG-TE, is far more applicable to the case 
 of SHIN. For, as we have said, there must be greater 
 danger of fostering Polytheism in China, with SHIN,
 
 293 
 
 a "host" in itself, than with two or more SHANG- 
 TE'S ; admitting, for argument sake, that these are 
 all equal in rank and power. 
 
 IV. That SHIN being of such comprehensive 
 meaning, it seems to correspond best with the 
 plural O'JlVg, Elohim. 
 
 We have seen, 
 
 1) That practically, the plural in ELOHIM, implies 
 respect only. When taken in a plural sense it may 
 apply to the " Host of Heaven." Now we do not 
 "worship" that host; nor do we wish to mislead the 
 Chinese into the " worship of angels." 
 
 2) That the collective noun, " SHIN," does not 
 represent ELOHIM in the singular sense of "GoD"; 
 but only sometimes "Elohim," "gods"; and that it 
 neither has anything in common with the "unity" 
 implied in the term " 0eo9"=Deus, in its original 
 sense, nor with "God" in its probable meaning; and 
 still less with the Might and Majesty of "EL" and 
 of "ELOHIM." 
 
 V. SHIN is declared to be the true rendering of 
 DTlTtf by " Hebraeists and divines" (Shin v. 
 Shang-Te, p. 11)- 
 
 who, however, candidly confess (ibid. p. 16) that 
 they " know nothing of Chinese" ! 
 
 VI. With a crowning effort, the author of Shin 
 v. Shang-Te, summons his renitent brethren to 
 his own tribunal. And, then and there, in foro
 
 conscientice, he challenges them, either to adopt 
 his views in the matter of " SHIN," " now so 
 plain" (p. 20), "plain enough," he says (p. 9), 
 " for any serious-minded, sensible Christian, who 
 is willing to be guided by the Word and Spirit 
 of God, to form a sound judgment in this im- 
 portant matter;" or to continue under the ban 
 of his displeasure, as neither " serious-minded," 
 " sensible," " conscientious," nor " candid." A 
 pleasant alternative, it must be owned ! 
 
 It is owing, probably, to our being dazzled by the 
 excessive clearness of the subject, that anxious as we 
 are to escape the blighting imputation of seeing and 
 speaking double, from " the only person in England" 
 (as we read in his own pamphlet, p. 20), " capable of 
 giving a determined exhibition of his views regarding 
 Shin" we try in vain to see as he does 1) that 
 "Goo" is a "generic" term, and 2) that " SHIN" is 
 an equivalent for that term. 
 
 We would gladly, for the sake of peace, stretch a 
 point or two; stroke down difficulties; waive al- 
 together the relative difference between the singular 
 7K, ft/K, and eos, and the plural DVl/tf; draw no 
 distinction between 7N, D'PPN, and 0eo?, with or 
 without the article; and render all those terms by 
 the one word " GOD." And, so far, we should pro- 
 bably join issue with the " men of SHIN." 
 
 But when they further appeal to "conscience," 
 in proof that " GOD, gods," and " SHIN," being both
 
 295 
 
 "generic" terms, they are either identical or equi- 
 valent, the plea is so solemn, that we feel obliged, 
 even at the risk of being tedious, once more to ask, 
 for the sake of our own conscience and of that of 
 others, If " GOD" is a "generic" term given to GOD 
 as such, of what sort of " genus" is it ? 
 
 We shrink from assimilating the unapproachable 
 Majesty of GOD'S holy Name with earthly things. 
 But we are driven to inquire : Is " GOD," then, a genus 
 like certain genera in Natural History (Apterix, 
 Didus, etc.), which embrace only one species or indi- 
 vidual? If so, we might possibly be at one with the 
 " men of SHIN." But a " genus" of this kind will 
 not suit them; for they always couple "God, gods" 
 together (Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 1, etc.); from whence 
 we must infer that they look upon the singular term, 
 " God," as the " genus," and upon the plural, " gods," 
 as the " species" of that genus. The plural, D^rPK, 
 therefore, cannot be, as they say, a "generic" term, 
 for a "generic" term is in the singular. Take, for 
 instance, the generic term "man," with which the 
 term " God" is compared in Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 6. 
 " Man," as a " genus," does not convey the thought 
 or idea of the individual ADAM, from whom all men 
 came; but " man" is the idea left on the mind by the 
 aggregate of " mankind." So that while talking of 
 " a man," " men," " tall or short," " good or bad," 
 the type, " man," runs through them all, for they all 
 share it in common. Do the friends of " SHIN," then, 
 look upon " God" in the same light ? Does the term
 
 296 
 
 "God" in the Bible, convey to their mind one idea 
 formed by the aggregate of all that is or was wor- 
 shipped, whether the One Eternal GOD, who alone is, 
 or the foulest images of a corrupt imagination that 
 AEE NOT ? And are " a god," and " gods," in their 
 estimation, a part of "Goo"? We trust not. Yet 
 D^n/N must, from their own showing, imply the 
 "species" of the singular "genus," 7K or H/tf. If 
 so, then, why are those several terms in the singular 
 and plural not rendered accordingly, in the various 
 translations of the Bible? for the "genus" can not 
 stand for the " species," nor vice versa. Especially 
 in this case. For the type of this would-be genus 
 " GOD," is " Essence," " self-existing being." This 
 type, however, is limited to the so-called "generic" 
 term " GOD," who alone is, and it excludes the 
 " species," " a god, gods," which AKE NOT. 
 
 And why is DTPK ever construed with a verb in 
 the singular after it ? Because, in reality, the Hebrew 
 language has no "generic" term for "GoD." If it 
 had, 7$, n^N, and EWN, would not imply the 
 same person which, however, they do. But in 
 Hebrew there is no other GOD than "*lgte PPn^" 
 
 ttin nirv ^" " D^K rnrv'" " PPPIK 
 
 for He alone says I AM. All other 
 " Oeol TroXW (1 Cor. viii. 5) are only " Xeyo^evoi, Geot" 
 " said to be gods " ; as the Georgian version 
 renders it, sakhel-debul ghmertni, "gods by name- 
 given" only; since in the words of Scripture they 
 are " W K?" and "DnS tfS," neither "God"
 
 297 
 
 nor " gods." For that, adds the Ethiopia, 
 
 A^AfttlT^ : -fltf-ft : MttttT^ : : " their many 
 gods are so many devils." Their name, therefore, 
 cannot possibly be applied to " GOD," who is called 
 
 STPIK, " I AM," DT&K " GOD," and JW, " THE 
 
 ETERNAL ONE," in the same verse (Ex. iii. 15, 16), 
 as if He were of their "genus" for He is, and they 
 ARE NOT. And to say of Him the "genus" that He 
 is TRUE, and of them the species, that they are FALSE, 
 is but, 
 
 Divino "capiti 
 
 varias inducere plurnas 
 Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum 
 Desinat in piscem" 
 
 and does not, assuredly, go far to make a consistent 
 "genus" of the whole. EV^, GOD, then, is in itself, 
 we believe, no " generic" term. It belongs first, to 
 GOD alone.* 
 
 * The very words, " I am JEHOVAH, that is my 
 name," etc. (Shin v. Shang-Te, title-page), show that 
 plainly. For the term IEHOVAH, PrtPl! (Fut. K.), 
 which implies ETERNAL ESSENCE (GOD), or IAVE 
 PlJiT (Fut. H.), which expresses the AUTHOR of that 
 ESSENCE (DIU-S, 0EO2), belongs for this very 
 reason, to GOD alone. And although in itself a 
 common term, like 7K, D'Pl/K, &EO2, etc., it be- 
 comes GOD'S NAME, as belonging to HIM alone; and
 
 298 
 
 For, except a few instances in which, as S. Ephrasm 
 says (Serm. adv. Scr.xxix.) 
 
 "GoD, out of loving-kindness 
 to mortal men called them 'gods,' as of 'grace'"; 
 or other places in which His august Name is degraded 
 when given by misnomer to " thoei vistai ni sind 
 gutha" "them which in essence are no gods" says 
 Ulphilas (Gal. iv. 8) D'pfttf in Scripture, belongs to 
 GOD alone. " AvrapKe? ovv wiv &rnv" says S. Hip- 
 poly tus, " fjLovov elBevat on ffvy^povov Qeov ovBev 
 avros %v, avrbs Be fjuovof wv TroXu? rjv Traina Be fy ev 
 auro? Be fy TO Trav" (contra Hseres. Noet. 10, ed. 
 Routh). Nay, even the plural or collective sense of 
 D^rPN, as implying the Persons of the MOST-HOLY 
 TKINITY, is meant for ONE when said of Him, who 
 Seberianus says (Horn. i. p. 6): //_// ^ L. uyintfj* 
 
 fi Jfa filtf IfUfuiiMfttrutff L- n< fi fnaqnL-tf* fipiug ft 
 JJi fifif tj.niftuftrj.-iuijh'tuj* j>uitt afi nf t&f jutn-iuQ 
 
 "neither consists of several other in- 
 
 it is also INEFFABLE as implying the ESSENCE of Him 
 whose nature is INCOMPREHENSIBLE. Now, JEHOVAH 
 and GOD are, as we have seen (above, p. 47, etc.), 
 closely allied in meaning. So that the term GOD 
 (Self-existent) can no more be applied correctly to 
 other beings, than the term JEHOVAH (Eternal) can 
 become the NAME of others than of Him who alone 
 is, without beginning and without end.
 
 299 
 
 dividuals combined into One Being, nor of many 
 things included in one thing; since there is nothing 
 anterior to Him." For (p. 12) L. Jfr fr ^ Pt L. Jfr 
 
 uicr t L- JJi p-ufa.uiL.nji* LL. nt utkrutpu t LL. nf tu^ru t 
 LL. nt p-uttj.utL.nftu rL.tUL.tuuhtf^ a^Tf*. aJk-nnnftrL.nL.pfilt* 
 
 "there is ONE Lord, and ONE God, and ONE King; 
 we do not acknowledge ' Lords,' ' Gods,' or ' kings,' 
 in the Holy Trinity." And (p. 14) fiu^ talr tun, ialr 
 
 ujutrr uiunL^t uij IT t \j^ r tun, u/a~ t LL. ns uicrp t 
 
 " verily, to say ' GOD with GOD,' is but to call GOD by 
 His name. * GOD with GOD,' and not ' GODS.' " We 
 are, therefore, at a loss to conceive (although it may 
 be ignorance on our part), how any one can feel his 
 " conscience " urged to believe that " GOD, gods," 
 who have nothing whatever in common but the 
 accident of being " objects of worship," one true and 
 the others false, can ever be a "genus," and that 
 the Eternal " GOD " is a " generic " term for all the 
 "gods" of heathendom, taken for His species! 
 
 The "generic" term for "object of worship" which 
 such a "conscience" looks for, is not " GOD," but 
 "DEITY." For the practical acceptation of "DEITY" 
 as " object of worship," forms a " genus" consistent 
 throughout; since both the Only True GOD, and 
 every one of the "gods" of the heathen, are each 
 "the DEITY" of their respective worshippers. To be 
 true to themselves, then, the "men of SHIN" ought to 
 adopt "DEITY" instead of "Goo," in their English 
 version of the Bible. But what cold consolation, to be 
 told that " the DEITY," and not the " SELF-EXISTENT
 
 300 
 
 ETERNAL GOD," is " our refuge, and a very present 
 help in time of trouble"! No! We cannot say: 
 "My soul, wait thou only upon the DEITY"; for in 
 "the DEITY is my salvation and my glory": "the 
 rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in the DEITY." 
 And yet " DEITY, Sainw" not " 6e6?, GOD," is, 
 practically, the equivalent of " SHIN" as " object of 
 worship." 
 
 Once more, then, what is " SHIN"? 
 
 Kang-he (art. Shin) says: SHIN meaou woo fan. 
 " SHIN is subtle and spiritual, and it cannot be dis- 
 cerned." Yin Yang pun ts'hih-ehe " it is the un- 
 fathomable part of Yin and of Yang ;" of the 
 bright and of the obscure, of the male and of the 
 female principles of life and of decay. 
 
 " SHIN," then, is " SPIRIT" or " SPIRITS," in general. 
 But, in particular, " SHIN" is the Ling of Yang, i. e., 
 the best, brightest part of the better principle of the 
 two, literally, " SPIRIT," tear egoxnv, and practically, 
 " DEITY" ; while the Ling of Yin is called KWEI, soul. 
 The two ("KwEi-SniN") are constantly coupled to- 
 gether in Chinese worship, " KWEI," as inhabiting 
 the Moon (Tae-Yin), and " SHIN," as resident in the 
 Sun (Tae-Yang), from whence it is shed abroad on 
 the Earth as " light and life giving SPIRIT." SHIN is 
 worshipped as such only; as the best and brightest 
 element in Nature, to which it gives existence (t'ne- 
 wuh eul pun ko ee), and from every object in which 
 it is inseparable. 
 
 Some of those objects are worshipped for the sake
 
 301 
 
 of the Spirit supposed to inhabit them; and which 
 Spirit those objects, says the Mandchou Diet. 
 duboroungge-be gemou enduri sembi " are said to re- 
 present." This constitutes the POLYTHEISM, or PE- 
 SHIN of China (i.q., KWEl-smw, She-king, vi. p. 45, 
 and com.), which corresponds to the like worship in 
 Egypt, where " Hermes ^Egyptius, sensit et scripsit 
 visibilia et contrectabilia simulacra, velut corpora 
 deorum esse; inesse autem his quosdam spiritus in- 
 vitatos. Hos ergo spiritus invisibiles per artem 
 quandam visibilibus rebus corporalis materia3 copu- 
 lare, ut sint quasi animata corpora, illis spiritibus 
 dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere, 
 eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse 
 homines potestatem," etc. (St. August, de C. D. 
 lib. viii. c. 23.) 
 
 But since " SHIN" is inherent in all objects in 
 Nature, exactly like Safaayv, a ^v%a TW Koa-fiw, of 
 Onatas, which makes the world of Thales " efjnfaxos 
 KOI Saipovwv 77X77/9779," the Chinese are evidently liable 
 to PANTHEISM. And nothing saves them from being 
 mere Polytheists or Pantheists, but their worshipping 
 also One Supreme Being, SHANG-TE, to whom " SHIN" 
 is inferior and subject. Yet although " Deus unus 
 est, et ubique ipse diffusus est" (St. Cypr. de Idol. 
 V. 5), 1>|> .nAlD p> " He is neither confined in 
 any one place," like " SHIN" in an "idol;" ^-u Q^ 
 0^0 oia.inj> ]-'Ajn V"Oi> 001 ]**&& ^1 nor 
 " does He manifest Himself by issuing forth like 
 winder light" as "SHIN" does from the Sun (St.
 
 302 
 
 Ephram, Serm. adv. Scr. xxx.). But GOD is One, 
 alone and Supreme ; Lord-Governor of Heaven and 
 Earth; like T'HEEN-CHOO-TSE, SHANG-TE, who is 
 called T'HEEN-SHIN, "the Deity of Heaven," but only 
 by catachresis, and in like manner as a block of wood 
 or stone is called Spirit (" SHIN"), or "Bright- 
 Heaven" (8609). For the "vivifying energy," 
 "SniN," or "Spirit" of Heaven, dwells in the Sun; 
 from whence it radiates upon the Earth, as both light 
 and life, by the will of SHANG-TE, whose name is one 
 with W and INDRA, the SUPREME RULER of Heaven. 
 As we conscientiously believe that " GOD" is not 
 a "generic" term, and that " SHIN," according to 
 Chinese ideas, answers best not to "Goo," but to 
 "DEITY," which, they say, animates all bodies, we 
 again repeat, that to urge " SHIN" upon the Chinese 
 as the only equivalent and sole representative of 
 " GOD," is to lead them, unwittingly, to POLYTHEISM, 
 if not also to PANTHEISM.* At least, it appears to 
 
 * We are not singular in thinking that the worship 
 of " SHIN" must have even worse results. Mr. Abel 
 Re"musat, the first Chinese scholar of his day, in 
 Europe, says : " On pourrait cependant conclure du 
 passage qui nous occupe (Chung- Yung, c. xvi. 3) 
 que le sentiment de Confucius sur ces esprits se 
 rapprochait beaucoup du Spinosisme, et des id^es 
 exprim^es dans le fameux passage de S&ieque, si 
 souvent cite" (Quaest. Nat. ii. c. xlv.). " Eundem
 
 303 
 
 us, that it is doing what even Plato would not do. 
 It is making " 77 tyv%T) rov Koo-fwv, Aia" instead of 
 leaving it " ^-v^ Aw o<nXe<us." It is, in short, 
 drawing " GOD" from " Spirit," instead of drawing 
 "Spirit" from" GOD." 
 
 In Chinese, then, the emanation SHIN is practically, 
 DEITY, AAIMHN ; and SHANG-TE, from whom it 
 emanates, is the nearest equivalent for GOD, 0EO2. 
 
 We, Christians, know and believe that " GOD is a 
 SPIRIT," infinite, invisible, eternal; but we think of 
 Him habitually as of a Person, who is " tender 
 Father," " Almighty Creator," and " Just Judge." 
 Our heart dwells on His attributes as such ; and that 
 is the habitual idea we have to impart to the people 
 of China. Now they already worship SHANG-TE and 
 SHIN, " GOD and DEITY," eo? and Aaiptav. A decided 
 choice of the only proper term, therefore, appears to 
 us, at once easy and unavoidable. 
 
 VII. The writer of Shin v. Shang-Te brings also 
 forward an argument, not " ad misericordiam" 
 but " ad sororem" " Would the British and 
 
 quern nos lovem intelligunt (altissimi homines) cus- 
 todem rectoremque universi, animum ac spiritum, 
 mundani hujus operis dominum et artificem, cui 
 nomen omne convenit. Vis ilium fatum vocare ? non 
 errabis. Vis ilium providentiam dicere 1 recte dices. 
 Vis ilium naturam vocare? non peccabis. Vis 
 ilium vocare mundum? non falleris," etc.
 
 304 
 
 Foreign Bible Society stand aloof from the ex- 
 ample of her sister in America, who has adopted 
 " SHIN"? 
 
 What, may we ask, has that to do with the real 
 merits of the case? It is well we should follow the 
 example of others, with a view to union and peace ; 
 especially when the example set forth, as in the case 
 of the American Bible Society, commands attention 
 and respect, for the learning of its principal members, 
 and for the disinterested motives, enterprise, and 
 devotedness, of its members abroad. But, first, let 
 us be sure in our own mind, and satisfied in our own 
 conscience, that in so doing, we are doing that which 
 is in itself right. No love of union can palliate evil. 
 Better that of two, one should be right, than that 
 both should be wrong, for the sake of being both 
 alike.
 
 305 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Lastly, many great and good men are brought 
 forward in Shin v. Shang-Te, in support of " SHIN." 
 It causes us, we can truly say, great regret, to 
 find ourselves unexpectedly placed, as it were, in 
 antagonism to some revered individuals, men of 
 profound learning, and of earnest piety ; well-known 
 Gamaliels, at whose feet already trained scholars 
 would long to sit and learn. We would, however, 
 venture to remind the writer of " Shin v. Shang- 
 Te" that the mere acquisition of learning, how- 
 ever deep, of a particular kind, will not always avail 
 for another object totally distinct. We could not, 
 assuredly, dispense with the labours of the Sacred 
 Geographer, whose " Eesearches in Palestine" render 
 his name alike honoured and celebrated. But un- 
 less he has paid particular attention to the Chinese 
 text, we can, from experience say, that neither an 
 excursion to "the springs of Pisgah," nor a ford 
 across " the brook Jabbok," nor yet a short residence 
 in the deserted " halls of Sennacherib," can of them- 
 
 21
 
 306 
 
 selves, give a clear insight into the relative merits of 
 " SHIN" or of " SHANG-TE," both of which must be 
 looked for in their own sphere. 
 
 We can, it is true, speak with less certainty of the 
 Talmud, which we have not yet had the courage to 
 read through. But a great scholar, mentioned in 
 Shin v. Shang-Te, p. 16, candidly acknowledges that, 
 in all his Rabbinical researches, he has not met with 
 much that can throw light on the language and 
 literature of China. Now, a translator, like a me- 
 diator, " is not of one," only. If so, his rendering is 
 incorrect, and his judgment is altogether one-sided. 
 
 After all, however, we have done little more than 
 skim over the surface of the subject, and that too, 
 perhaps, under the dire sentence (Shin v. Shang-Te, 
 p. 14) of "not taking up this question in a serious, 
 becoming spirit, and. not submitting to be guided by 
 the Word of God." 
 
 " bone ! ne te 
 
 Frustrere" 
 
 For this reason, perhaps, because our range of Chi- 
 nese literature is unfortunately very narrow, we can 
 as yet draw no other conclusion than the one to 
 which we have come, that in Chinese " SHIN" is' 
 Aalfjwv or TO AaifjLovwv, DEITY, with a collective mean- 
 ing, and " SHANG-TE" is 6 0e6?, as far, at least, as 
 the Chinese can express it. 
 
 Still, we earnestly hope that the Committee of the 
 Bible Society will pause awhile, ere its members
 
 307 
 
 think of retracing the important step they have al- 
 ready taken, and thus decide on giving the Chinese, 
 "ancipitem deum" " SHIN" Aaipova, "a deity," or 
 at best " divum pro Deo," to worship, instead of 
 the only substitute they have for 7tf, DVPtf, and 
 6 0eo5, their own " personal" God, " SHANG-TE." 
 That would, indeed, be worse than giving the Chinese 
 "a stone instead of bread"; it would, perhaps, prove 
 a no greater boon to them than Dr. Bowring's , 
 "nigrum theta" (Pers. Sat. iv. 13) " letalis juguli 
 nota " " mortiferum quaestoris signum " (Mart. 
 Epig. vii. 37) "nota condemnations " (a Odvaro?) 
 for a symbol of their reconciled Father in Christ ! a 
 mere shadow of "a god," for the "person" of the 
 ALMIGHTY. 
 
 But, we admit, that it might, perhaps, appear out 
 of place, in one who 
 
 TToifivais ra 7r\eicrra TOV fBiov 
 
 vaicov opeatv, ev6a 
 ou/u-6? KiOaipow OUTO? 
 
 is called to lead a "pastoral life" on distant hills, 
 " to come down and see the battle," if it were to fight 
 such authorities as those in array before us. We 
 only come " to salute our brethren, and to take their 
 pledge" for the public good. For we are all, we 
 trust, on the same side, that of the "Lord our 
 God"; and we all have at heart the advancement of 
 His kingdom only. We may, therefore, we hope, 
 treat matters of this kind as friends, without ill-will,
 
 308 
 
 private motives or party-feeling, which are, one and 
 all, unworthy of being even named in such a cause 
 as this. 
 
 We should, then, be sorry to have to be reminded 
 of the adage 
 
 that " Every man's opinion is perfect in his own 
 eyes"; for we know, from our own experience, how 
 truly Pindar says, that 
 
 " afJb<j)l avOpca- 
 TTWV <f)pe<rlv a 
 avapidfjutrai, 
 
 We only venture to remind our brethren in China, 
 that their responsibility to GOD is great, at the pre- 
 sent time, perhaps, greater in China than it might be 
 in many other countries. That therefore they, one 
 and all, ought earnestly, and apart from all private 
 motives, to consider what is best for the good of 
 those among whom they live. For life is too short, 
 our work is too urgent, and the reward is too great, 
 to allow of our wasting irretrievable time in aught 
 but "saving souls alive," first our own, and then 
 those of the people committed to our charge. And 
 since " there is one GOD" and "one Faith," so also 
 there ought to be, as much as possible, " one Spirit" 
 only. At all events, " in the multitude of counsellors 
 there is safety" ; and the hints above given will show, 
 that on this important subject " counsel" is not al-
 
 309 
 
 together out of place, from whencesoever it may 
 come. For, as a wise man says, 
 
 " there is a chance of a good hint even from one's 
 own antagonist." 
 
 But the same sage also warns us that 
 
 " in the multitude of words the pen, as well as the 
 tongue, is apt to slip." Enough, then, has been said. 
 If in any way we have erred unwittingly through 
 ignorance, or through a partial view of the case, 
 while endeavouring as mediator between " SHIN" and 
 " SHANG-TE," to show that " SHANG-TE" alone is 
 " GOD," let the blame be ours only. For we have 
 carefully avoided borrowing other men's views on 
 this subject, in order to make no one but ourselves 
 responsible for our errors. 
 
 We would fain hope, on the other hand, that since, 
 
 DpnnS nsiD -DW &vh wr\w npfcnD hi 
 
 P1B1D J 'DW wh (Pirke Av. v. 18.) 
 " Every controversy which is for the sake of the 
 Name of Heaven, will be finally established, whereas 
 every other ^sort of discussion will come to nothing," 
 our own earnest wish to assist our brethren in their 
 decision may not prove altogether fruitless. If, then, 
 we have been allowed to say aught that may, directly 
 or indirectly, " fall out rather unto the furtherance of
 
 310 
 
 the Gospel" in China, and help even one poor man 
 there " to choose," as the pious Anthon says (Asc. 
 Is. v. p. 78): A : /mMlfh : TV*> : T>^ : <Uftf> : 
 AtfT^ : ft^-flH^ : ^H'Ml 1 ^ : : " the Word of GOD 
 for his provision by the way, rather than much trea- 
 sure" then, 
 
 " To GOD ONLY WISE, BE GLORY, THROUGH JESUS 
 
 CHRIST, FOR EVER. AMEN." 
 
 From the Catacombs at Rome.

 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which It was borrowed. 
 
 2 7 
 
 'AW? 1
 
 3 1158 01078 6449 
 
 A 000104312