Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 384

346

Defense of an Essay &c.

JULY,

That the first-mentioned of these publications has been left so long without an answer, has not arisen from a conviction that no defence of iny Essay was needed, but from several causes, the principal of which has been the state of my health, which has rendered writing very irksome to me. Instead of encountering the labor of preparing another pamphlet, I have hitherto preferred keeping the Bible socie. ties acquainted with my views by correspondence; and I confess it is with extreme reluctance that I now set myself to the task of writing another pamphlet for publication ; I would so much prefer spending the little strength I have in other work. The question however, which is under debate, is one of such vital importance to the progress of the Gospel in China, that I can not excuse myself from the task, however unpleasant, and I fear that should I refrain longer from printing, it might prove disadvantageous to what I regard as the truth, as many who feel a lively interest in the controversy may have no access to the papers of the Bible Societies, and few who have such access, like to encounter a heavy mass of manuscript. It is due, too, to my mission- ary brethren in China that I should make then acquainted with what I have to say in defence of an Essay, in the views of which so many of them have concurred. I will therefore, without further prelimina- ries, address myself to the task which is before me.

In this defence, I shall not endeavor to follow the above-mentioned writers through their several treatises, but shall endeavor to present, as fairly and as fully as I can, all the objections to the arguments offered in my Essay that are of weight, and discuss these objections in that order, which will serve best to set forth clearly the whole matter in dispute.

The positions taken in my Essay may be expressed briefly as follows: The Chinese are polytheists, not monotheists; they do not know the true God, or any being who may truly and properly be called God; therefore the highest being known to them is to be regarded only as the chief god of a pantheon, and not as the Being we call God. Under these circumstances, we can only choose, I contended, between the name of the chief god of the Chinese, and the name by which the whole class of gods is known in their language." It is derogatory to Jehovah to call him by the proper name or distinctive title of any false god; we cannot, therefore, use the name of the chief god of the Chinese to render Elohim and Theos, and must, according to the al- ternative above presented, use the generic name of the Chinese gods. We must embrace this alternative, because the use of this generic is necessary to the correct rendering of the First Commandment, and