6
at page 10, we further read, that "the advocates of 'Shin' have never wavered or doubted the fitness of that term to render Elohim and ΘΕΟΣ, since they entered thoroughly into the question, and rightly understood it. Therefore, to surrender it for any other name or title, would be to violate their conscience, and disregard the Word of God altogether." How then is it, that if "they have thoroughly entered into the question, and rightly understood it," they have left "out of the question" El, Eloah, and Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ, three out of the five names for "God" in Scripture? for they only mention Elohim, and ΘΕΟΣ.
"Tantane vos generis tenuit fiducia vestri!"
But since the "life-member" is at head-quarters, and corresponds with friends in China, he must have had ample opportunity to follow this debate through its successive stages; and he speaks, no doubt, from book. We regret we are not so fortunate; for we have no friend engaged in the cause; and our only source of information, and, therefore, our only authority on this subject, is the pamphlet before us. We can therefore only venture to submit to its author, that it is just possible others than the advocates for "Shin" "may have entered thoroughly into the question," may have understood it, at least, as "rightly," and may be as anxious to "do no violence either to their conscience or to the word of God," as the stanchest "Shin"-friend the writer of that pamphlet may have. For the inuendo at pages 10 and 15,
