1850.
of the true God.
Defense of an Essay, §é.
383
With this sin we must, here in China, charge our hearers; but what conviction of sin could be expected to be produced from a sermon or tract charging the Chinese with the worship of false Alokos or false so? Would not their answer be that so far from hav- ing sinned in this particular, they had never so much as heard there were any such beings or things in the universe?
If we maintained that the Chinese had never had this subject up be- fore their minds so as to have predicated anything either right or wrong about it, then it would be consistent to contend that we must either transfer a foreign word, or invent a new Chinese character to represent this perfectly new subject : but if we admit that the Chinese have worshiped false gods, then we admit that they actually have had the subject up before their minds, though under a false aspect, and we must inquire by what name they themselves have called this subject : for we may rest assured we can best teach them the truth with
respect to this subject, by predicating said truth of the Chinese name thereof. We must teach them what their errors with respect to this subject are; so that, being properly instructed, they shall understand that the Being designated is one, not many as they have incorrectly supposed; that He is self-existent from eternity, the Creator of all beings and things, &c. Now to point out their past errors, to convict them of their past sins with respect to this subject, and to warnt hem against the false gods they have been in the habit of worshiping, of what avail will the use of either of the foreign words, Aloho or Oɛos be? They have never written or spoken of any Alohos or ; they have never worshiped them; it would be a mere waste of breath to preach against false Alohos or false dɛ01.
I need not however detain the reader any longer to prove that the generic name of god, if such exists in the language of a polytheistic people, should be used to render Elohim, if such can be found, for Dr. Medhurst and his friends expressly contend for this, and differ from us only in denying that the Chinese have such a word in their language. Dr. Legge insists upon the use of a native appellative in opposition to any transferred term, differing from us only in contending that this appellative must be a relative, and not an absolute term.
The points on which we differ from Dr. Legge have been sufficiently discussed : let us now inquire if the Chinese have any generic or absolute appel- lative name for god in their language.
As in the case of the word God when used propriè, we inquired what is the difference between a being who is truly and properly God and a mere spirit, so here we shall inquire what is the characteristic