Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 447

THE

CHINESE REPOSITORY,

VOL. XIX.-AUGUST, 1850.—No. 8.

ART. I. Defense of an Essay on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and 39g into the Chinese language. BY W. J BUONE. (Continued from page 335.)

THE issue made with us by Dr. Legge on this point was thus express- ed in proposition b :-

*

Adınitting that the Chinese do not know the true God, (Dr Legge) contends that we should use a relative, not an absolute generic term to render Elohim and sog, because these words are relative, not absolute terms.'

11

On this point Dr. Legge writes: “First of all, I deny that God is a generic term. If I can substantiate this, then there is no room for the single question,' to which Dr. Boone ‘narrows' the controversy, viz., ' What is the generic name for god in the Chinese language?' If it were intended in speaking of the 'generic name for God ' merely to say that God is a term that may be applied (right or wrong) to more than one object of thought, I should let the use of the word pass without animadversion. 1 profess myself as much opposed as any man can be to the trifling of logomachies. But it has been employed accord- ing to its true application, which is not in questions of grammar and logic, but in the representations of natural history. Much has been said of the 'genus of gods,' as if there really were in nature many gods, while at the same time and on the same page, it is stated that there is in truth but one God,' and that there is no other being in the universe but Jehovah entitled to this name." We are told that * the existence of a generic name for God is owing entirely to poly- theisar.

puge t

VOL XIX

YIII

52