1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
17
605
par excellence,
this genus in China obey, is never called "the man but is distinguished either by his proper name, or by some title.*
(th)
To upset the conclusion that shin is the absolute appellative name for god in Chinese, it should be shown who the Chinese gods are; that they are a higher class of beings than the shin, and what their absolute appellative name is; this last word being found, the claim of shin would be set aside at once. Dr. Medhurst wrote his Inquiry to prove that ti
was this word, the "generic for God in Chinese." This ground, however, he abandoned in his letter of the 30th January, 1850, and it has since been most peremptorily overruled by Dr. Legge, who says, "The question 'what is the generic term for god in Chinese' is futile, as there is no such word in any language. It (24) means Ruler." According to Dr. Legge, god is a relative term; he goes therefore in quest of an appellative relative, and finds all he wants in Shángtí; this, however, can not content Dr. M., who must have a generic term, and who all through his writings has regarded the word god as an absolute appellative. Having fallen out with shin, and being obliged to abandon ti as this absolute appellative, there was no resource left him but to fly to a foreign language for aid. Ac- cording to his principles, and that of those who signed with him the letter of the 30th January, that we must have a generic term, he should I think, have returned to shin, and adhered to this term, until some higher absolute appellative noun in the language was produced, or he became convinced that the Chinese have no gods at all; for the fact that shin is never used when standing absolutely to designate the chief Chinese god, can not prove that it is not the general name of all their gods. If the fact could be proved, which it is the object of this argument to imply, that because Shángtí, the chief god, is never de- signated by shin when this word stands absolutely, he therefore belongs to a higher class of beings than the class called skin; i. e. that he is something more as to his nature than the chief one of this class, then indeed there would be great weight in the argument. Dr. M.'s In- quiry was written to make out this point, as I said, not only for Sháng-
*The argument of Dr. M., that, because shin is never used for God par ex- cellence, it can not therefore be the generic name for god in Chinese, is based upon the assumption that the word for god in every language must first be used propriè, and then afterwards improprie, but I think I have sufficiently shown that this is bare assumption The first use of the appellative name for god, when standing absolutely, to designate a disposing mind, the author of all things, may be long subsequent to the use of this word as the general name of the gods of a people, as we have shown above in the instance of Ănaxagoras, who is said first to have used the Greek word &sog in this way.