Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 667

THE

CHINESE REPOSITORY.

VOL. XIX.-December, 1850.—No. 12.

ART. I. Defense of an Essay on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and Oɛog into the Chinese language. By W. J. BOONE. (Concluded from page 618.)

Ir, however, the adoption of this proposition is urged on the ground that the Chinese have no word answering to the word God when used propriè; I answer, the transfer of the appellative name of God does not do away with, but only removes the difficulty one step. Who is this Aloho? the Chinese must immediately ask: Is he a man, or a shin, or a Fuh (Budha); or to what class of beings does he belong? If you answer, He is the only true and living Shin, or that he is the Shangti who has been for thousands of years worshiped in the national rites, of what use is the clumsy intervention of this foreign word? These two considerations seem to settle the claims of Aloho: it offers us no advantages for teaching the Chinese the knowledge of the true God, and it is wholly useless in attacking their polytheism. Nevertheless, when this word was proposed by Dr. Medhurst and Messrs. Stronach and Milne, Dr. Bridgman and I immediately withdrew all opposition to their obtaining funds from the Bible Societies to make the experi- ment, which they are now so confident is the true solution of all our difficulties. We did this that we might put an end, if possible, to our sad controversy, and leave the case to a fair experiment of this new expedient. We felt constrained, however, at the time we communi- cated to the Bible Society the fact of our withdrawal of all opposition to Dr. M. and his friends having funds to print our common version with the transferred term, to suggest our firm conviction that it would never do any good, and that it would be ultimately abandoned.

VOL. XIX. No. XU.

79

Our