804
Defense of an Essay, &c.
Nov.
name for spirits in the Chinese language, including a larger range of beings than what are usually termed gods in any country, while it is never used for God, par excellence, by any Chinese writer." This reply only brings out the necessity, above insisted on, of some charac- teristic test by which to distinguish between gods and spirits. To say the shin include "a larger range of beings than what are usually term- ed gods," is so vague that we can determine nothing from it, as the Chinese may have used the appellative name for god in their language to include a larger range of beings than any other people have ever done.
With respect to the next point, on which Dr. M. evidently lays the greatest stress, that as shin is never used for God par excellence, there- fore it can not be the generic name for god in Chinese, it appears to me a complete non sequitur. It is in effect contending that, because an appellative noun has never been used to designate by way of emi- nence a certain one of the class of which it is the general name, ergo, it can not be the generic name of that class. The questions, I con- tend, are perfectly distinct. Is shin the generic or absolute appellative name of the Chinese gods? And, has this word ever been used to designate by way of eminence the chief one of the class; the highest being they have ever conceived of? It can serve no purpose but to entangle the argument to merge these questions into one.
We say the class called gods is the highest class of beings acknow. ledged by polytheists, therefore the word god is the highest absolute appellative noun in the language of said polytheists: in accordance with this we show that shin is the highest absolute appellative noun in the Chinese language; in other words, it is the absolute name of the highest class of beings known to the Chinese, and we conclude that this word must either be the name of their gods, or that they have no gods. We show that Shángti is merely the chief one of this class; that he is worshiped as one of this class, and that it is said it would be no use to worship him if he did not belong to this class; but, be- cause it has not pleased the Chinese to use the general name of this class when standing absolutely to designate the highest being they know, but choose to call him either by his proper name Tien, Heaven, or by his title Shangti the Supreme Ruler, or the Ruler on high, Dr. M. contends that shin can not be the generic name for god in Chinese. As well might he contend that the word jin is not the name of the genus homo in Chinese, because the chief one of this genus, he who has most power, to whom the most honor and reverence is shown, and whom all the other individuals of
★