Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 508

470

Defense of an Essay, &c.

SEP.

ought to belong to Jehovah ;" and we must therefore use this title as his appellative name? If Shángti meant "a Supreme Ruler," or "a Ruler on high," thus conveying only a general idea, which would be correct as far as it went; though such a phrase would not suit as the rendering of Elohim and dog, still there could be no objection to de- signating Jehovah occasionally by this title, as we say in English, King of kings, &c.; but since the phrase Shángtí is understood, not in this general way, but as the specific designation of a false god, the case is entirely changed; and if we, knowing a man would understand us to refer to this false god, should notwithstanding exhort him to worship Shangti, how can we doubt but that we should be held responsible for the consequent idolatry that would ensue upon his complying with our exhortation ?

Dr. L. admits that Shingtí designates a definite, individual being; this being he has persuaded himself is the true God; he therefore can have no scruples in exhorting any one to worship Shingt. In this he is quite consistent; but if Shángti designates a definite individual being, and this being be not the true God, how can Dr. L. tell his brethren who take this view of the case, that "such difference of opinion will not justify them in rejecting the term as not being the proper rendering of Elohim and 8805? I am constrained to pause here, and ask Dr. Legge if the fact that a phrase is the distinctive title of a false god, will not justify (!!) a Christian missionary in rejecting it as the rendering of Elohim and 88og, what would, in his eyes, serve as

bɛog, a justification for rejecting any phrase? He justifies his extraordi- nary adherence to the phrase Shángti, whether it designates the true or a false god, on the ground that it is "a relative term," and "not a proper name; " and he appeals to his missionary brethren to say whe- ther "the idea which they get from the characters themselves, and which they know the multitude of the Chinese get, does not terminate (observe, not in a spiritual being, or one of the spiritual beings so call- ed, but) “in THE Spiritual Being so denominated." Here then, Dr. L. agrees with me; Shangtí designates "the Spiritual Being so de- nominated:" if THIS Spiritual Being" be the true God, it is our duty to exhort the Chinese to worship Him; if he be a false god, we can not, as we fear THE jealous God we serve, either worship him ourselves, or exhort others to do so. To show that the Spiritual Being, “denom- inated" Shangti, is the true God, appears to me essential to Dr. Legge's success; even if he prove to the satisfaction of us all that god is a relative term. If the phrase Shángti, by its usage in the Chinese classics, designates the definite individual being Tien, and