1850.
Defense of an Essay &c
353
In his "Reply to the Essay of Dr. Boone," on page 2d, he ex- presses the opinion that the Chinese may be regarded as Cudworth regards the Greeks, viz. as both monotheists and polytheists at the same time; that is, understanding the word Theos combined in the two terms in different senses; in the first, as conveying what he calls the na- tural idea of God, viz. an all-perfect Being, the Ruler of the universe; and the other, as alluding to certain supposed invisible intelligences, who were the objects of religious worship, but subordinate to one Supreme." On the next page he gives his opinion on what should be the object of search, as follows: Dr. Boone says that it is necessary to determine what we shall seek; and thinks that seeing the Chinese do not know the true God, we must either seek for the name of the chief god of the Chinese, or the name by which the whole class of gods is kno:vn in their language. To this we reply, that as the true God was as little known among the Greeks as among the Chinese, it is cer- tainly necessary, in order to express the idea of God to determine what we shall seek; for Dr. B. thinks we must seek for one or other of the two things specified by him, viz. the name of the chief god, or the generic name for god. In our estimation we should seek for a name which will convey to the mind of the Chinese the same idea which was conveyed to a Greek by the use of the word Theos; if the same be likewise that by which the whole class of worshiped beings is known in the language, so much the better. Now it so happens, that the name used for the chief object of worship, or God by way of eminence, and the whole class of worshiped beings, was one and the same terin among the Greeks: among the Chinese these two ideas are represented by different terme, which constitutes the difficulty."
If I understand his meaning, the view here expressed seems to be, that the Being called by the Chinese Shúngti, answers to the monadıc Theos of the Greeks, but that neither the one nor the other of these be- ings is the Being the Christians call God, i. e. the true God. As the argument in my Essay was based wholly upon the assumption that the Chinese do not know the true God, observing the indefinite manner in which Dr. M. spoke in his "Inquiry," where he seems to imply that the Chinese Shángti is to be regarded as truly and properly God, to draw out a full discussion on this point, I under the signature of "A Brother Missionary," addressed “A few plain questions to those mis- sionaries who in preaching or writing teach the Chinese to worship Shingti." This paper was written previous to the appearance of Dr. M.'s "Reply," and was published in the Chinese Repository Vol XVII., page 357. It gave great offence, I am sorry to say, to Dr. Med
45
VOL. XX. NO.