Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 612

570

Defense of an Essay, &c.

Nov.

clearer view of the whole case to point out this contrariety at this stage, before entering upon the defense of the argument of the Essay. Dr. L. maintains that the Chinese Shángti is truly and properly God. We maintain that the Chinese know no being who is entitled to be called God propriè. Dr. L. maintains that even if Shángtí is not the true God, this title should be used as the rendering of Elohim aud Oế95; as such a title can properly belong to God alone, and the words Elohim and so being relative terins-mere titles, which "do not in- dicate the essence, nor express anything of the being of Jehovah "- they must be rendered by a relative term. We maintain, on the cou- trary, that as the Chinese do not know the true God, we must not use the name of any individual god, but the general name of their gods; that this appellative name must be absolute, and not merely a title, because Elohim and Oɛog are absolute names that do “indicate the essence, and express something about the being of Jehovah." If it is objected that, according to Chinese usage, this general name has never been employed to designate the Being we design to call by this name; we answer, that the absolute name of a class of invisible beings, who among them govern the world, and are sacrificed to and addressed in prayer by all persons in the empire, in all places, and at all times-a class, who divide among them all the attributes and acts of GOD that the Chinese have known or discoursed about,—that such absolute term "ought to belong to Jehovah;" that to predicate-e. g. the hearing of prayer at the same time in every house in China of any invisible Being but Hin is false; therefore this name of right belongs to Him, and we must give it to Him, and maintain that He alone can properly be call- ed by this name; and this we must do to reduce the Chinese polytheisin to monotheism.

Dr. Legge's view of the character of the word God differs fun- damentally from mine and from that taken by Dr. Medhurst and the other signers of the letter of the 30th Jan., and this difference affects our whole systems. If this word is, as Dr. L. contends, only a title of office or dignity, the mere exponent of a relation, and not the absolute appellative name of the Being so designated; it would seem only ne cessary to decide definitely what the relation indicated by this word is, and to render it accordingly. If God mean Creator, this is easily expressed in Chinese ; if Ruler, Ti is ready to our hand: indeed, any relationship can be easily expressed. If this too is the character of the word God, it can be no objection to the use of the term pro- posed as its rendering to say, "The Chinese have never so called any Being;"-"

"-"This term will give them no idea what sort of Being the