Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 506

468

Defense of an Essay, &c.

SEP.

being thus singular and relative, it is the distinctive title, not of the true but of a false god:-these points constitute the very ground on which we enter our solemn protest against the use of this phrase to render Elohim and ɛ0s, when used either proprié or improprié. We have already discussed two of these points, viz., Whether the Chinese Shángtí is the true God, and whether god is an absolute or relative term, at sufficient length. We shall therefore here only inquire whe- ther the phrase Shángti, when standing alone, is according to Chinese usage, classical and popular, a common or a singular term.

And first, of the use of this phrase in the Chinese classics. On this point we have the most unqualified testimony from the pen of Dr. Medhurst: "Dear Sir, you ask me if we must not give up the use of Shángtí. I answer, No, until we can find a better. It is not the name of the chief idol among the Chinese, as your correspondent argues, but (when standing alone without any prefix) always and invariably, in every Chinese book of note and worth, means the Supreme Being, and him only." Letter to the Editor of the Chinese Repository, Vol. XVI, p. 34. The italics and capitals are Dr. M.'s.

"Mistakes are anticipated and sought to be corrected by the Chi- nese commentators on the classics, who supposing it possible that such misapprehensions may arise, tell us distinctly that it is a mistake to imagine that the (wú-ti) five rulers, presiding over the elements, are synonymous with (Shángtí) the Supreme Ruler, that it is wrong also to think that the Supreme Ruler is unequal to the Five Rulers, &c. Thus out of 175 instances in which the word Shángtí is used in the Chinese classics, only one refers to human rulers, and all the rest to the Supreme Ruler." See Theology of Chinese, p. 273.

Dr. Medhurst afterwards in a pamphlet, entitled “ Reply to the Few Plain Questions of a Brother Missionary," states the character of the phrase Shángti, and the facts of the case to be directly the reverse of what he so plainly and unequivocally testifies they were in the quotations above given. In this pamphlet, he says,

"The phrase Shángtí, even according to the Literati, is not the name of an individ- unl being, but a generic term at least for the six beings above men- tioned "—i. e. Tien, and the shin who preside over the five elements, the Five Rulers, who, Dr. M. says in the quotation above, are so carefully distinguished by the classical writers. As in the case of his testimony about the word Shin, mentioned in a previous part of this Defense, so here, Dr. M. takes not the slightest notice of the plain, explicit testimony to the contrary of the statement he is now making, that he had published only a few months before. To sustain his first