Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 641

1850.

Defense of an Essay, &c.

599

sustained by truth and right reason, let it fall, and the sooner the bet- ter; but I am unwilling that all who have used it should be accounted guilty of rendering God's holy word "contemptible." It is well known that Drs. Morrison, Milne, and Marshman used this word Shin as the rendering of Elohim and ☺ɛog in their versions of the SS.; and one would have supposed that this fact would have restrained all of the six signers from speaking in such language of the use of Shin for God in the Scriptures. But in the case of Dr. Medhurst, in addition to his respect for the dead and the living who have used this word, we should have supposed that some regard for his own past course would have prevented his asserting, so broadly and unqualifiedly, that such a use of Shin would render God's holy word contemptible.

I have before ine a copy of a work of his on the Ten Command- ments. The First reads thus:“ Shin spake all these words, saying, I am the Divine Lord (Shin Chú) thy Shin," &c. The ob- ject of the First Commandment is thus stated, 論只拜一神

"Teaches that we should only worship one Shin." Had Dr. Med- hurst never met with a "well-informed Chinese," when he wrote this work, whose opinion he might have asked, and so prevented himself from rendering that important part of God's holy word "contempti- ble," which I am sure the object of his work was to commend to the reverence and obedience of the Chinese? In the Sán-sz' King, Dr. M.

uses the word Shin for God throughout. Such sentences as the fol- lowing occur:. God (Shin) is a Spirit (Ling); P

頌讚神

4. O, all ye people, praise Shin;, Shin (God)

made man; F. God's (Shin) Son, &c., &c. This work

has been distributed by members of the mission who signed this Letter,

since the passages quoted from it were published. How can Dr. Med- hurst and the other signers of this Letter account for their conduct in thus distributing this book, if they really believe that the use of Shin for God renders a work "contemptible," and that the calling God by this name will "provoke the ridicule of every well-informed Chinese ?" And if they were not so fully persuaded of this as to allow it to in- fluence their own conduct, how could they publish such opinions to influence the conduct of others?

When I read this letter, I could not but ask myself, Do these six signers really suppose that Drs. Morrison, Milne and Marshman, never met with any well-informed Chinese; or, meeting with them, never put themselves to the trouble to inquire what they thought of the use of Shin to render the word God? Do they really mean to assert that the result of the many years of hard labor of these zealous