China

In this account, China is not the scene of a narrated event but a point of comparison in a theological argument about writing. The author contrasts Chinese writing, described as using a distinct character for each word, with alphabetic writing, which he regards as a more effective vehicle for conveying revelation across generations.## China in the ComparisonThe discussion acknowledges that China had writing and printing for many ages. Citing Dr. Beattie, it reports that Chinese writing used a separate character for each word, with roughly eighty thousand characters, and that scholars in China used no alphabet. The passage says this system made written language extremely difficult for foreigners and difficult even for native readers. These statements are presented as the book’s account and as part of its argument about writing, rather than as a detailed description of Chinese literary life.## Writing Systems and Their UsesThe author places Chinese characters alongside Egyptian hieroglyphics as alternatives to alphabetic writing. Picture-writing is treated as a natural but inadequate means of preserving revelation; a separate sign for each word is likewise judged unsuitable as a dependable treasury for it. By contrast, letters representing sounds are praised for making written thought more accessible and transmissible. Citing Lord Kaimes, the passage characterizes alphabetic writing as an unusually important invention and contrasts its literary advantages with the difficulties attributed to the Chinese system.## The Providential ArgumentThis comparison supports the author’s claim that writing was designed by Divine Providence to serve as a receptacle and vehicle for the oracles of God. Alphabetic writing, in his account, allowed the revealed will of God to be conveyed more conveniently, intelligibly, and securely through time. Its availability before the first written revelation is therefore treated not as mere accident but as evidence of providential preparation.## The Apostolic CounterfactualThe argument culminates in a question about what might have followed if the Apostles of Jesus had written in Chinese. The counterfactual makes the writing system more than a technical contrast: in the author’s reasoning, the form of writing available to early revelation affected how readily it could be recorded and transmitted. China thus serves as the foil through which the passage presents the alphabet as both a humanly remarkable invention and an instrument prepared for a religious purpose.