Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 650

GOS

Defense of an Essay, &c.

Nov.

If we compare the Chinese views on the subject of deity with the views which Dr. Barrow has given as first, those which have "been a constant opinion in all place and times;" and secondly, those which have been "the general sense of the most ancient, most wise, and most noble nations among men," we shall find that the Chinese agree in every particular with the first class, but have never attained to the second. E. g. they have believed, to use Dr. Barrow's words, “that in the world, there are beings imperceptible to our senses, much superior to us in knowledge and power, that can perform works above and contrary to the cause of nature, and who concerning themselves some- times to do so for the interest of mankind; for these qualifications and performances deserve extraordinary respect from us;" and they have to this "sort of beings given one general name” (skin) “as hath been in all languages assigned, answering to that of god among us.” But they have never gone on to the second class described by Barrow; they never believed that “of such beings there is one, supreme and most excellent, incomparably surpassing in all those attributes of wis- dom, and power, and goodness, from whom the rest and all things be- side, have derived their beings, do depend upon, are sustained and go- verned by; the author of all being, and dispenser of all good, to whom consequently supreme love, reverence, and obedience, is due:" and in consequence of this they have not, as "the wisest and noblest ua- tions among men have done," appointed "this general name" (God or shin) “in a peculiar and eminent manner to this one, so that when the word is absolutely put, without any adjunct of limitation or dimi- nution, he only is meant and understood." This is the plain fact of the case, the Chinese have not used the absolute appellative name of their gods, as Barrow says the noblest nations of men have done; the rea- son I have supposed is, that their highest being wanted the essential characteristics (self-existence and omni-causality, as Cudworth calls them) of the highest being of these noblest nations.

But however it may be accounted for, the fact is undoubtedly so, and the question is, What are we, under the actual circumstances of the case, to do? How are we to teach the Chinese the knowledge of such a being, and to lead them on even beyond this, to monotheism. I answer, follow the example of these noblest nations; use

"the gene- ral name of this sort of beings, without any adjunct of limitation or diminution, when absolutely put," to designate, not their highest be- ing, but ours—to designate Jehovah, the true Shin. By this course we shall teach an unmistakable monotheism; the general name of their gods is challenged as proper to Jehovah alone; the other skin are all