Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 448

410

Defense of an Essay, &c.

Aug.

Though this seems to puzzle Dr. Legge very much, there is to my mind no difficulty about the inatter as it was stated in my Essay. The question was asked at the outset, if the Chinese knew the true God, if they were mono-theists or poly-theists? To this question the answer was given "they are polytheists, they do not know the true God;" in which answer, as I understood, all then discussing this question agreed. Not knowing the Being we call God, they could have, I contended, no name for Him-no word answering to our word God, when used propriè. Under these circumstances, it was inquir- ed, What is a translator to do? If he takes the name of the chief god, by the admission above made, this would be only the name of a false god, which it would be derogatory to Jehovah to use as his appellative; the name of any other particular deity inferior to the chief god, would be still more objectionable: it was therefore contend- ed that, among polytheists, where the true God is unknown, the only course to be pursued is to use the generic name of their gods to render Elohim and Osos; and to prevent mistake, this phrase was de- fined to be "the name of the highest genus, or class of beings, to whom the Chinese offer religious worship." Still further to guard against misapprehension, I wrote: "There being in truth but one God, the existence of a generic name for God is owing entirely to polytheism. If none other than the true religion had ever prevailed, there could have been no such genus as this conceived of. The gods of a poly- theistic people are merely imaginary beings, who have no real exist- ence. The true God claims the right to displace the whole class; and this is the reason that, in translating the Scriptures into the language of such a people, the generic term for god must be used: Jehovah claims the right-not to be recognized in the place of the chief god of such a system, but—to take the place of the whole class of gods. He will not consent to propose Himself to polytheists, as their Jupiter or Neptune, their Tien For their Fuh

<

He claims to be the all and in all.'.

Budha.

We must therefore

take for Jehovah the name of the whole class, and affirm that it pro perly belongs to Him alone; that there is no other being in the universe entitled to this name; that those whom the heathen have, in the days of their polytheistic ignorance, called gods, are mere imaginary beings who have no existence except in the minds of their blinded votaries.

(

'The generic name for God, when thus claimed for Jehovah, undergoes a change by Christian usage: according to this usage, it is employed in a proper sense, to designate Jehovah alone; and, but

F