1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
C
443
here:" and he finds it in the shin, the spiritual being here called “the Supreme Ruler." If then god is an absolute term, the nomen ipsius substantiæ," as Tertullian explains it, Dr. L. here makes shin the "substans" or "ens" in which this Supreme Power inheres, "the god of heaven," and Shángti, the mere title of this god.
If it is my calling t'ien, the chief god of the Chinese, instead of calling him, or it, "God over all, blessed for ever," that Dr. L. regards as "the rash statement" he is bound to expose, I can only plead all I have said in the previous part of this paper, on the cosmogony and worship of the Chinese, to show that Shangtí is not the true God, in extenuation of my offense. Amidst all the various and conflicting opinions advanced by the Chinese, one fact seems to be certain, viz., that t'ien ✯ heaven, and ti earth, have been worshiped in the kiáu sacrifice from the earliest times recorded in their books, and that this is the highest act of worship offered in China. It follows therefore, that these words, whether we are to understand them strict- ly and properly, or metaphorically, are the names of their two greatest gods. This matter can be put into a nutshell. Unless Tien is the on- ly God, he must be the chief god, or some or all of the other gods must be his equals, or some other god must be superior to him. Which of these will Dr. L. take? Ile can not say that Tien is the only god the Chinese have ever acknowledged or worshiped, and he is welcome to any of the other suppositions he prefers. Dr. Medhurst sets up a claim, in behalf of the Chinese, for a monotheism similar to that which Cudworth claims in behalf of the Greek philosophers; but his state- ment is, I think, very rash, and calculated to mislead those unacquaint- ed with the facts of the case-stating these facts, even as Dr. M. has himself stated them in other parts of his writings.
Dr. M.'s statement of the Chinese monotheism is as follows: “Cud- worth thinks that the Greeks were both monotheists and polytheists at the same time; that is, understanding the word eos combined in the two terms in different senses (see Vol. I, p. 374). In the first, as con- veying what he calls the natural idea of God, viz., an all-perfect being. the ruler of the universe; and the other as alluding to certain sup- posed invisible intelligences, who were the objects of religious wor- ship, but subordinate to the one Supreme.
What Cudworth pleads for in behalf of the Greeks may be allowed to the Chinese, and they may be considered as monotheists, because they believe in one supreme God, the Author and Ruler of all." Reply, Vol. XVII, page 490.
Cudworth claims for the monadic ɛog of the Greeks, as Dr. M. him- self shows on pp. 553, 554, that he was an absolutely perfect Being,