G06
Defense of an Essay, &c.
Nov.
15, but for the other shin who are styled ti, rulers; but it is now ad- mitted that fi is a relative term “that does not indicate nature,” and the whole argument of the Inquiry of course goes for nothing. Dr. Legge asserts it as his opinion that "there are to the minds of the Chinese people three orders of intelligent existences—men, shin or spi- rits, and Shingtí." If Dr. Legge had proved this instead of merely asserting it; if he had shown that the authors quoted by me in my Essay, who assert "That Shingtí is the Shin of Heaven;" "the great- est of the celestial Shin ;” “the most honorable of the hundred Shin,” &c., &c., were mistaken, and had degraded him by such a classifica- tion; and above all, that he was never worshiped among this class, and under the name of shin; it would have had more weight than such a naked assertion, without any attempt at proof; for I can not consider the assertion that “Shángtí is the Lord and Governor of the other two," as affording the slightest proof that the nature of Shingtí is higher than that of the shin he governs. If this be admitted as proof of superiority of nature, then I am sure, quite as good an argument can be constructed to prove that the Emperor, who is styled Hwảng tí August Ruler, is of a higher nature than the men over whom
be rules.
That shin has never been used, when standing absolutely, to de- signate the highest being known to the Chinese, has been, I believe, the greatest hindrance to its universal adoption as the rendering of Elohim and Gɛog by the Protestant missionaries now in China. Under all the circumstances of the case however, I fancy, that this word is better adapted to our purpose, which is, to teach this people the know- ledge of the true God, not having been thus applied, than it would have been, if by previous Chinese usage, it had designated, when standing absolutely, their highest being, their chief god Tien. This Tien not being like the monadic og of the Greeks ayevalos; not be- ing the maker of the heavens and the earth; not a self-existent, inde- pendent being, who can be regarded as truly and properly God; had the word Shin, when standing absolutely, designated this being, we should have had to unteach them this meaning of the word, and to have taught them to understand by it when so used, not their t'ien, but Jehovah, the self-existent, the living and true God. Instead of an assistance, such a use of the word xa?' ¿ğoxǹv would have been a hindrance to us. Being the absolute appellative name of god in Chi- nese, we should have been obliged to use this word; and its having already been employed, when standing absolutely to designate a false god, we should have had the double work, first to unteach, and next