Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 567

1850.

Letter to the Editor.

525

generic term appears equally illogical. He points out a remarkable property of certain nouns not applicable to generic nouns, with one exception (this has been ably handled by others, but at present I waive the question of its accuracy), but he does not say that this is what constitutes the class of non-generic nouns,-in logical language, the differentia, or even a proprium of the class; indeed the admission of an exception prevents this supposition. Now, no doubt it is true that flying is a property of birds, but it is also one of some kinds of fish; if I were to infer, therefore, from an animal flying that it was a bird, I should clearly be reasoning illogically. So this test may be a re- markable property of non-generic terms, but it must be shown that necessarily it is peculiar to them (and this not by numnerous examples, but from their very nature), and the acknowledged exception of the word "

man" prevents the possibility of this.

In syllogistic form, Dr. Legge's reasoning will stand thus (I may remark that I use the word "non-generic," because Dr. L. applies the test to several classes of nouns as well as relatives)

Non-generic terms satisfy this test;

But God satisfies this test:

Therefore God is a non-generic term.

Now the logician will at once see that here there is an “undistributed middle term.” As, however, some of your readers may not be familiar with the technicalities of logic, the fallacy of the reasoning may be shown by a parallel case:

Birds are flying aniinals;

That fish is a flying animal; Therefore that fish is a bird !

Lastly, Sir, it is not God we wish to translate; it is Elohim and Theos. It must be shown, therefore, that these are relative ternis, and Dr. Legge's test of course fails to do this. When the people of Lystra (Acts xiv. 11.) said that “the gods (hoi theoi) are come down to us in the likeness of men," I would ask Dr. Legge did they not mean that there were two classes (or genera) of beings-gods and men, they themselves being in one class, and the Apostles in the other? "True," it may be replied, "but the relation of worship was supposed to exist between the two classes, as shown by the conduct of the priest and people." I have no objection to grant this, but it must be remembered that if this constitutes God a relative term, it also con- stitutes men one (for they are clearly correlative in the passage), and Dr. Legge I believe, has not yet stated that man is a relative term. Again, in Isaiah xliv. 17, we find the prophet showing the absurdity