Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 613

1850.

Defense of an Essay, &c.

571

one thus designated is;" the answer would be, the word God "does not indicate the essence, nor express anything of the being of Jehovah.” The only question to be asked would be, Does this word or phrase clearly express the fact that the being so designated does sustain the definite relationship indicated by the words Elohim and Osog? If so, then it conveys all the information that the term which renders “those relative words elohim and 8sog” should convey. If Dr. Legge's view of the word God is correct, these answers to my mind would be amply sufficient.

If however, the words Elohim and ✪sog are the absolute appellative names of Jehovah, the reader will agree with me that to render them by any mere relative term whatsoever is wholly out of the question ; and that if no absolute appellative name of the Chinese gods can be found, then the ground taken by Dr. Medhurst and his friends in their letter of the 30th of January, viz., that we must transfer the original term-we must make such an absolute appellative for the Chinese- is the true solution of our difficulties.

I must confess that ever since the question of rendering elohim and Asos by the generic name of the Chinese gods has been agitated, I have had the strongest impression that they must have such a term in their language. That such a people as they should have never con- ceived of the existence of any gods at all; or that, having the beings, they should have no general name for them-both of these things have seemed incredible to me; and the more I have inquired into the mat- ter from the Chinese around me, and looked into their books, the 10ore firm has my conviction grown that the Chinese people are poly- theists, and that Shin is the general name of their gods-let us decide by what test we please, who and what the Chinese gods are.

'This is the definite point for our consideration at present, and I must be allowed to say that it can only lead to an endless war of words for one party to affirm that “ Shángti is not merely the chief god of the Chinese, but is the true God also," to be denied by the other party, while they affirm that shin is the generic name of the Chinese gods, and that these shin are not mere spirits but gods; to be denied again :- unless both parties will consent to define their terms God (propriè) and god (impropriè), and make proof according to their definitions.

I have urged above the importance of our regarding the word God, whether, used propriè or impropriè, as the name of a Being or Beings (as the case may be), and not as the mere symbol of an idea. If the views there expressed were correct, they should guide us in the pre- sent part of our inquiry. To try the points here at issue, viz., Is