1850.
Defense of an Essay &c.
357
nese language has no word which fully and correctly conveys the idea which we Christians attach to the word God." He advocates the use of Shangti, on the ground that “it has from time immemorial been employed in China in a sense more nearly approaching to that which we attach to the word God than any other, which at present exists in the language of the country." I am very sorry that, from the over- sight of friends in England, I have never received a copy of Sir George's pamphlet. I only had the loan of the copy I read for two or three hours; I am afraid therefore to attempt to sketch the draft of his argu- ment lest I may unintentionally misrepresent him. From a quotation in Dr. Legge's pamphlet, p. 35, I learn however that he only contends for the use of Shángti to render Elohim and Theos when these words are used propriè. His words are, "It is always to be borne in mind that it is only when the true God is intended to be signified, that Shangtí is contended to be the most appropriate term. Whenever the false gods of the heathen generally, or any specific false god by name is in question, the word Shin is not only proper but necessary. On the one hand, the word Skin is too low and too wide in its accep- tation to be applicable to the True God; and on the other, the phrase Shángti is too high and too exclusive in its meaning to be applicable to any purpose less exalted." From these extracts, I conceive Sir George maintains the views expressed in the proposition marked ɗ
above.
The “American Missionary in China" advocates the use of Titte with an adjunct, as either Shung Tor 天帝 Tien Li.
He does this on the ground that Shángti (see p. 3) especially in moral character resembles far more the true God than does any of the Theoi of the Greeks. He is a being, to whom no beginning is attributed, a being of perfect moral rectitude, and is represented as rewarding the upright and punishing the wicked; a being too of universal sovereign- ty and providence. The distinguishing title, by which this being and all other entities supposed to resemble him are known among the Chinese, is Sháng Tr. This too is a title used by way of
上帝 eminence to distinguish Deity, long before the Chinese were led by their pride either to assume or apply it to mortal man. This was likewise at a time when it is clear, from their ancient books, the Chi- nese possessed a purer theology and more correct notions of the Div- ine Being and character than they do now.” This writer, it will be seen, only contends here for resemblance to the true God. On p. 27 he
says, "That it is extremely doubtful whether any being worship- ed by the Chinese is by them regardel as divine. At most there is