Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 504

466

Defense of an Essay, &c.

SEP.

his determination to render Elohim and ex always by the same word. The only objection which can be urged to this course, is, that the Chi- nese have no word, that according to its usage among themselves, an- swers to Elohim in both the senses in which it is used in the S.S., i. e. proprié. This objection, instead of being with me an argument against the uniform rendering of the word, seems only to make manifest the necessity there is for our pursuing this course. As Christians, the Chinese will need a word exactly answering to Elobim and ɛos; as heathen polytheists they have no such word; we therefore must by our usus loquendi make such a word for them. So far I entirely agree with Dr. Legge; "We have no option of our own; we must select the most suitable word we can find in the Chinese language, and by our use cure all its defects; in short, make it correspond exactly to Elo- him and e, as these words are used in the S.S. Here, however, my agreement with Dr. Legge ceases. He fancies that he has found a phrase in the Chinese language answering to the words Elohim and ɛs when used proprié, and contends that we should take this phrase, and make it by our use entirely correspond to those words. If he can prove that Shangtí is the absolute name of the Being whom we regard as God, there can, we think, be no doubt of the correctness of his conclusion. But this we are persuaded he can never prove; the first point, absolu e name, a point of vital importance, he does not even contend for; ard as to the second point, that the being designated is the true God, we are constrained to call for much more direct and strict proof than hes yet been attempted. The difference between Dr. L. and myself con- sists in this: he contends that the Chinese have a phrase that answers to the words Elohim and so when used proprié; but have nothing ar swering to these words when used improprié: I, on the contrary, con- tend, that they have no word answering to Elohim and es when used proprié, and that shin exactly answers to these words when used impro- prié. Dr. L.'s view makes the Chinese agree with those nations who have enjoyed a Divine revelation, or who have derived their viens from thence; as the Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, in having a word that corresponds to our word GOD; but differ from Jews, Chris- tians, Mohammedans, and all other people, in having no word answering to our words god, gods. If Dr. L.'s view be correct, it becomes a question of some interest to account for the fact how such a people came to be classed for so long a time among the heathen nations of the earth.

Should however his readers refuse to go with him in the opinion. that the Shangti of the Chinese classics, and the Shingtí of the Chi-