1850.
Defense of an Essay &c.
347
many other passages of Scripture; its use is absolutely necessary to forbid the reigning polytheism. This generic name is Shin; therefore we must use this word Shin, malgré all objections, to render Elohim and Theos into Chinese.
On looking at the above abstract of my argument, it will be seen that the conclusion, "We must use shin to render Elohim and Theos," rests on the following propositions:
1st. The Chinese do not know any being who may truly and proper- ly be called God; they have therefore no name for such a being, no word in their language answering to our word God.
2d. That, this being the state of things, we must seek the general name of their gods, and content ourselves with the use of the word in Chinese that answers to our words a god, gods, as the best that can be done under the circumstances.
3d. That shin is the general or generic name of the Chinese gods; and therefore it follows, That this word should be used to render Elohim and Theos into Chinese.
From the nature and connection of the above propositions, it will also be seen, that, to invalidate this conclusion, one of the five follow- ing propositions must be sustained.
(a.) The Chinese do know a being, who is truly and properly God; or in other words, the highest being known to them is not a false god, but is the very Being whom we call God, whose name is therefore the proper word by which to render Elohim and Theos in all cases; or,
(b.) Admitting that the Chinese do not know the true God, contend that we should use a relative, not an absolute or generic term to render Elohim and Theos, because these words are relative, and not absolute
terms; or,
(c) Admitting that the highest being known to the Chinese is not truly and properly God, yet affirm that his name or title, and not the generic name of the Chinese gods, should be used to render Elohim and Theos in all cases; or,
(d.) Admitting the facts to be as stated in Prop. (b.), affirm that, we should render Elohim and Theos only when these words are used propriè, by the name or title of this highest Being, i. e. Shángtí; and when used impropriè, they should be rendered by Shin, or Shin-ming, or, lastly,
(e.) Admitting that under the above-mentioned circumstances, the generic name of the Chinese gods should be used, if such can be found, deny that Shin is this generic name, and affirm, on the contrary, that as the Chinese have neither a name for any being who is truly