Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 630

593

Defense of an Essay, &c.

Nov.

dered in English by God, and Shin by spirit. We can no more trans- late Elohim and sog into Chinese by Shin, than we could translate them into English by spirit.” This is Dr. L.'s assertion. Mine is, that, though Shin does not answer to Elohim and Osos when these words are used proprie (having never been used as the name of a self-existent, almighty, spiritual Being), still it does answer to these words when used impropriè, and should therefore be rendered into English, not a spirit, spirits, but a god, gods. The question is, How the Chinese re- gard the class of beings they call Shin; what are they to them-gods or mere spirits? Dr. Legge says they regard them as a class of mere spirits; I say, as a class of gods. Hereupon I propose as a test the characteristic difference between gods and mere spirits, given by such men as Cudworth, Mosheim, and Waterland. I show that, according to Dr. Medhurst's theory of worship, and that advanced by Dr. Legge himself in the very context in which he charges me with "blunder- ing," and putting "the effect for the cause," &c., that this test is CHARACTERISTIC; that worship does imply the belief on the part of the worshiper of" divine attributes" in the Being worshiped; and Dr. L. instead of pointing out my “blunder," and showing how I had put the effect for the cause, contents himself with saying, "Dr. Boone's rea- soning is too trifling to be examined at length.'

*The difference between Dr. Legge and myself here, arises from the different view we take of the word God. He argues as if this word were a simple, in- complex term, the symbol of an idea, and demands a word in Chinese that conveys this idea. I, on the contrary, regarding the word God as a complex term, the absolute name of a Being (when used propriè), and of a class of beings (when used impropriè by polytheists), fancy, that instead of looking for the name of this idea, what we want is, just the name of said Being or beings as the case may be; so that if a word in any foreign language is proposed as corresponding to this word, I ask, is the being of whom this foreign word is the name, the saine as the Being of whom our English word God is the name; if so then, the foreign word answers to, or means (if you like) the same thing as our English word God means when used propriè: If the question be with rea- pect to the word god, as used impropriè by polytheists, when it is the naine, not of one Being merely, but a name common to a class of beings; then I ask, does the class of beings of whom this foreign word is the name, answer to the class of beings called by us, a god, gods. It is of no importance how any people came to give the name in question to the Supreme Being, or to the class of beings of whom we are speaking, the only question of practical importance is, Is this word in said language the absolute name of the self-existent first cause, the all-wise author of all things on the one hand; or on the other, the absolute name of the class of beings of whom we are speaking?

There is one additional point to which I would advert in this note ; the peculi- arity of the beings of whom we are speaking; they are mere imaginary beings, and not like Dr. Legge's oatmeal and rice. They have no existence except in the minds of their blinded votaries; hence it is that we must look into the mind of their worshipers, and not to anything in rerum naturâ to find our mark or test of the differentia between them and mere spirits. The differentia between spirits and gods consists no doubt in the one having “ divine attributes " as Dr.

Page 630Page 631