1950.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
433
absolute appellative, and not a relative term, the fate of Shángti, Dr. L. admits, is decided; indeed he has precluded himself from saying one word in favor of using it as the rendering of Elohim (regarded as absolute) unless he hereafter discovers that "tí, ruler" is absolute. If then the reader, who does not understand Chinese, wishes to have the issue upon which this question, viz., Whether Shángti should or should not be used to render Elohim? presented to him in such a way that he needs no knowledge of Chinese to enable him to judge for himself, Dr. L. here brings the matter perfectly within his reach. He admits that tí means ruler, and that the whole case turns on the decision of the point, Are God and ruler both relative terms or not? If then the reader should conclude that God and ruler differ in the one being an absolute term and the other a relative, he may conceive, from the lively picture given us by Dr. L. above, what sad conse- quences would follow from rendering Elokim and so by Shángti, And if he wishes to realize more fully the sad consequences that would follow from such a rendering, let him read over the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, substituting the words "Supreme Ruler" and
Supreine Rulership," for the words "God" and "Godhead" where- ver they occur; and we think he will be as firmly convinced that “ Su- preme Ruler" and “ Supreme Rulership” (i. e. Shángtí) will never answer as the rendering of the words "God" and "Godhead," as Dr. Legge can be of the correctness of the point on which he "takes his stand."
Dr. Legge confounds the name with the being. The Being we call God sustains numerous relations to us and to other beings, and when we wish to refer to these relations, we call him Creator, Ruler, Father, &c.; but these relations are not implied in the name God, as he was God before these relations had any existence. And from this fact, that God sustains to us not one, but many relations, we derive an additional argument against the use of any relative term to render this word. Relative terms can strictly and properly be used to designate only a single relationship. Dr. Whateley defines them as follows: "When any object is considered as a part of a whole, viewed in reference to the whole or to another part, of a more complex object of thought, the noun expressing this view is called relative; and to relative noun is opposed absolute, as denoting an object considered as a whole: Thus "father" and "son" are relatives, being regarded each as a part of the complex object father-and-son; the same object designated absolutely would be termed a man," &c
This complex object of thought is changed in every new relation, so
VOL. XIX. NO. VIII.
55