Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 394

356

Defense of an Essay &r.

JULY.

and goes no farther. As they have, therefore, no appellative for God. in the Scriptural usage of the term, we must introduce one, and the one we propose is Aleah, accompanied by the following translation, “Whenever Aloak is used, it refers to the beings whom men sacrifice to and worship. They do not know however that the most honorable and without compare is only one Jehovah, besides whom no other o ght to be worshiped. Jehovah is the proper name of Aloah.”

In direct opposition to the ground taken by Dr. Legge, the six signers of this letter regard their transferred word as a generic term, "as the generic for all worshiped beings." They say, p. 12, "It will be proper to remark here that we intend to use the transferred word generically, as the representative of El, Eloah, Elohim, Theos and Theoi, whenever they occur, whether for the false gods or the true. Should any object that we are calling the contemptible divinities of the heathen by the same appellative, which we use for the true God; we can only say that we feel safe in following Scriptural example. The Apostles had the option of calling the true God Theas, and the false gods daimones, in every instance, if they chose; but they did not choose; and in alluding to the heathen deity Remphan, they have called him Thoes with the article before it. So in recording the false views entertained by the Lycaonians in regard to Paul and Barnabas, whom they supposed to be Jupiter and Mercury, the term hoi Theoi is used with reference to those beings." On p. 13 they say,

"We by no means admit however, that, we cannot as effectually oppose polytheism by a transferred word, as by using a native term. We call our God Eloah, we use Eloah as the generic for worshiped beings, and we tell them that they are not to worship any other being that may be called Eloah, but the one who made heaven and earth.”

From the above it will be seen that Dr. Medhurst and his friends agree with me in opposition to the two main propositions of Dr. Legge, viz. that the Chinese Shángti is not the true God, and that the word God is generic and must be rendered by a generic term.

The only issue they make with me is that stated in proposition e; i. e. they ad- mt that under the above mentioned circumstances, the generic name of the Chinese gods should be used, if such can be found, but deny that S'in is this generic name; and affirm, on the contrary, that, as the Chinese have neither a name for any being who is truly and pro- Ferly God, nor any generic name of their gods, and the words Flohim and Theos must be rendered by a generic term, we have no alternative, and must transfer the original term.

Sir George Staunton, as we have seen above, admits that the Chi-