Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 629

1850.

Defense of an Essay, &c.

687

where else) of the qualitics or station so allowed, in the being wor- shiped?

Or, let us take Dr. L.'s illustration. "The Supreme Being is not God because he is worshiped, but he is worshiped because he is God.” Now then substitute "a being," for "the Supreme Being," and " a god" for

" for "God," and what Dr. L. says, will prove the propriety of using the test I propose. Remember, our object is not to prove that a being who is worshiped is a god (for I am firmly persuaded there is only one God in the universe), but that he is a god in the eye of his worshipers; and then, with Dr. L.'s statement changed as above suggested, the matter will stand thus: "A being is not a god because he is worshiped, but he is worshiped because he is (i. e. in the mind of his worshiper) a god." May we not then take the fact that a be- ing is worshiped to prove that in the opinion of his votaries he is a god? Instead of putting the effect for the cause, is not this, accord- ing to the theory of worship of both Drs. M. and L., from the effect inferring the cause?

To this explanation of my meaning, Dr. L. thus replies in his Let- ters at p. 34 :-" From this, and similar passages, and the general strain of his Essay, I supposed, when 1 published my Argument, that he un- derstood God as meaning object of worship. I could not otherwise make out any connection in his reasoning. I have been given to un- derstand, however, that his reasoning is not that God means object of worship, or that Shin incans object of worship, but that the Shin be- ing worshiped, are to be regarded as the Gods of China, and that therefore Shin is the generic name for God; and God, a God, and Gods, ought to be translated by Shin. If it be grauted to him that the Shin are to be regarded as the Gods of China, I do not see the bridge from that to the conclusion that Shin is to be translated God, or that Elohim and ɛog are to be rendered by Shin. We may regard rice as the oatmeal of China, but if I were to translate a treatise upon oatmeal into Chinese, I should write to little purpose if I spoke all through of fan. If the first sentence were, “Oatmeal is a farina- ceous food, much used in certain countries,” the Chinese could not possibly understand me of anything but rice. Unless Shin and God have the same meaning, Dr. Boone's reasoning is too trifling to be examined at length."

To judge whether my reasoning be too trifling or not to deserve an examination, the Reader should observe what the question at issue between Dr. Medhurst, Dr. Legge and myself is. Dr. Legge, says shin does not meau what Elohim and so mean. They are correctly ren