350
Defense of an Essay &c.
JULY,
we Christians call God, is to come infinitely short: to come only near to, and not to be quite one and the same with Him, is to be wholly another Being, a false god.
To clear this matter, we must remember that the word God is always the name, not of an idea, but of a being; that, when used (1st) propriè, by monotheists, it is the name of the self-existent, spiritual Being, who created the heavens and the earth, and all things visible, and invisible that when used (2d) impropriè, by polytheists, or by monotheists in accommodation to the views of polytheists, it is still, in every instance, the name not of an idea, but of a Being or Beings, (ima- ginary Beings it is true, yet still beings, not abstract ideas) to whom their ignorant worshipers betake themselves for aid in trouble, look up to for protection, and endeavor to propitiate with religious worship.
The importance of keeping this distinction in our minds arises from the difference there is between those nouns which are the names of beings and abstract nouns, in the facility with which we can use abstract nouns that are very similar iu meaning for each other, which interchange can not be made in the case of such concrete nouns as those mentioned above. E. g. the use of the word that comes nearest to expressing the idea we desire to convey, if this word is the name of an abstract idea-of a mere mental conception-is unobjectionable, and is often the best expedient we can adopt in conveying our thoughts to another. But in the use of concrete nouns we can not do this. Suppose that I were telling another of a duty or service he owed to a given Being, and I should from forgetfulness of the name of this Being, direct him to render the service or duty to the Being, whose name came nearest to his in sound or signification, or who most nearly resembled him in person or character; the resemblance in any of these respects is not of the slightest importance: on the contrary, being only resemblance, and not sameness, it proves him to be another Being than the one designed, and therefore that by using his name I have defrauded “the Being," to whom the service or duty was due.
If we desire to ascertain whether the Chinese know God, we should not inquire, what the leading or principal idea conveyed by the word God is, that we may see if the Chinese have any word that conveys this principal idea; but rather ask, do they know any Being, who, from what they predicate of him, can be known to be the same Being we Christians call God; then the next question is, by what name do they call this Being, and if we can find, in answer to this query, the abso- lute term, which in the Chinese language designates this being, we shall have found the word in Chinese, that answers to our much sought