586
Defense of an Essay, &c.
Nov.
be conceived to possess these attributes in the highest perfection," and that those peculiar to a divine being or beings are the originat- ing and governing of all things," he must have had the word God (as understood by us propriè) before his mind when he wrote this; for he surely could not contend that all the Greek C:01, for instance, had power, wisdom and goodness in the highest perfection," or that they all had something to do with the "originating and governing of all things." Accordingly, on reflection, Dr. M. gave up this view, and adopted that of Cudworth, Mosheim, and others, which was presented by me, and in this he was joined by Messrs. Stronach and Milne, and his other friends, who signed the letter of the 30th January; for they therein maintain (see p. 11) that we must have a generic terin, "which, while it is capable of being used for the highest being of whom they have any conception, includes all worshiped beings, and goes no far- ther." This is also apparent from the definition which they give of the transferred word Aloho, in a subsequent part of this letter; viz., "the name of whatever men sacrifice to and worship." Dr. Legge contends that I make "God" and "
"God" and "worshiped being" interchangeable terms, and styles this "A blunder, of which the best that can be said is that it is a very bad use of the second kind of me- tonomy which puts the effect for the cause. The Supreme Being is not God because He is worshiped, but He is worshiped because He is God." Dr. Legge's view here is precisely that quoted from Dr. Medhurst's Reply, “the qualitics or the station of the being or beings must be first allowed before worship can be paid." Dr. L.. seems to have fallen into a strange confusion of mind in the part of his argu- ment quoted above.
In my Essay, I made the fact of being worshiped a test to ascertain whether a given being is regarded as a god or a mere spirit; this is very different from saying that "God" and "worshiped being" are interchangeable terms. With respect to our proposing "religious wor- ship" as the characteristic test by which to distinguish a god from a mere spirit, if Drs. Medhurst and Legge are correct in their theory of worship, there can be no doubt of it. Dr. M. says, “Religious worship is the ascribing honor to a being or beings possessed of divine attributes." If then we find a man worshiping any being, may we not use the fact of his offering worship to this being, to infer that said be- ing is "possessed (in his estimation at least) of divine attributes ?" And if, as Dr. M. says, "the qualities or the station of the being must be first allowed, before worship can be paid," must we not, where the worship is paid, infer the existence (in the brain of the votary, if no
3