page 5); and there is no need of contending for the latter, as we do not deny it but we may be allowed to ask, Will Dr. Boone contend that the word Shin is used by the Chinese to designate the highest being they have ever conceived of? Could it be shown from competent authority, and in unmistakable terms, that the word Shin is used habitually to designate God by way of eminence, in the Chinese language, the question would be set at rest: but to show that the highest being of whom the Chinese have ever conceived is included in the class called Shin, proves nothing. The highest being of whom we have ever conceived is included in the class called spirits; but the word spirit is not used alone to designate that being amongst us, as the word Shin is hot used alone to designate God par excellence amongst the Chinese.

In order to sustain the inferior meaning which he attaches to the word Dod, Dr. Boone then quotes Cudworth as saying, that which seems to be essentially included in the pagan notion of the word god or gods when taken in general, is a respect to religious worship; wherefore a god, in general, according to the sense of pagan theists may, he says, be thus defined: "An understanding being, superior to men, not originally derived from' senseless matter, and looked upon as an object for men's religious worship." Here we may observe, that Cudworth's object in his 4th chapter was to set forth the idea of God, in answer to the atheistic argument; hence he shows (8) that the most compendious idea of God is an absolutely perfect being, including not only intellectuality and necessary existences, but omni-causality and infinite power; that (9) absolute perfection implies knowledge and goodness; and that ($10) this idea of God includes unity in it, since there can be but one supreme and infinitely perfect being. He then supposes an objection ($11) against this idea of God, as artificial and not uatural, because almost all nations have practiced polytheism; which objection he controverts by saying that ($12, 13) the pagan polytheists did not assert the exist ence of many unmade, independent deities. From which he concludes ($14) that the Pagan polytheism must be understood according to another equivocation in the word God, as used for created intellectual beings superior to men, and that are yet worshiped by their votaries; for the pagans," he says, "held both many gods and one God, in different senses; thus the general notion of the word god, as including every intelligent being superior to man, that may be looked upon as an object of religious worship, is again restrained and limited in the division of it, for such a God may be

either unproduced, and consequently self existent, or else produced and dependent on some higher being as its cause. In the former sense the intelligent pagans acknowledged only one God; and in the latter many understanding beings, which though produced were yet supposed to be superior to men, and worshiped. Thus the pagan theists were both polytheists and monotheists in different senses:" that is, if the word God be understood in the inferior sense of produced, and yet worshiped beings, they acknowledged many gods; but if in the sense of the unproduced Supreme, they acknowledged only one God.

Cudworth then goes on to show that most of the Grecian philosophers held the doctrine of one God, while they looked upon the objects of popular worship as naturally inferior to the one Supreme; and adds, "nothing now remains, but to show how the pagans put a difference between the one supreme unmade Deity and all other inferior generated gods. Which we are the rather concerned to do, because it is notorious, that they did many times confound them together. Passages to this affect abounding in pagan writings, it is no wonder if many, considering their theology but superficially, have been led into an error, and occasioned thereby to conclude the pagans not to have asserted a divine monarchy; the contrary whereunto though it be already sufficiently proved, it may not be amiss here to show how the pagans distinguished in many ways between the one supreme God, and their other inferior deities. First, they had many proper names for one and the same supreme God, and distinguished him frequently by the appellatives themselves, when used not for a god in a general, but for the God, or God by way of eminency; and thus eos and so are often taken by the Greeks, not for a god or one of the gods, but for God or the supreme Deity; and as the. singular 80s was thus often used by the Greeks for God, in the way of eminency, that is for the supreme Deity, so was likewise the plural so frequently used by them for the inferior by way of distinction from the supreme."

From the above extracts it would appear that the pagan philoso phers of the western world looked upon the made and unmade gods as naturally distinct from each other; and that when the same terin was applied to both classes, it was used in different senses. The natural idea of God, according to Cudworth, is that of an underived, almighty Being, possessing infinite power and goodness, producing all things and ruling over the universe. The term came to be ap

plied improperly, he thinks, to an inferior class of generated or derived beings; but it could be attached to them, only by lowering the ori ginal import of the term from that of designating infinite power and perfection, to that of merely describing beings who are the objects of religious worship. If we apply this to the subject under discussion, we shall find that exactly the reverse of all this is the case with regard to the word Shin among the Chinese.

Amongst the Greeks, the word sog was used in its primary and complete sense to designate the one all-perfect being, or God by way of eminence; but only applied in a secondary and restricted sense to the various inferior objects of worship; whereas among the Chinese, the word Shin is used in its primary and complete sense when applied to spiritual intelligences of every kind, and is never used (alone and irrespective of other terms) to designate God by way of eminence. We may add, also, that when the word Shin is used descriptively, with reference to the Supreme, it is only employed in its natural sense of a spiritual intelligence, and not in that of a supreme or perfect being.

We have no need to lower or restrict the import of the term Shin, according to the usus loquendi of the Chinese, in order to apply it to the lowest and most vicious spiritual intelligence; for it is as fully applicable to the human soul, and to mischievous sprites, as it is (with reverence we speak it) to the Supreme Being in the same way as the word spirit among us is used in one and the same sense when describing the spirits of heaven, as when speaking of the animal spirits of human beings. It does not therefore correspond to is and Deus, as those words were used by the Greeks and Romans.

Further, Cudworth assures us, that the words 80s and 80s were among the Greeks often taken for God, by way of eminence, or the Supreme while the plural form of the word so was frequently used by them for inferior beings, by way of distinction from the supreme. We may safely affirm, however, that this is not the case among the Chinese: the word Shin is never used in the singular and alone, to designate God by way of eminence; and when it is

One Chinese writer quoted in the Tsz-sz Tsing-hwa, £## ⇓ says, Heaven is the root [or origin] of invisible and intelligent beings, and 天受道之英華以生 神明 Heaven received the essence reason in orcer to produce invisible

and intelligent beings: so that the idea entertained by the Greeks is not unknown to the Chinese.

used in the plural, as in the case of peh shin, the hundred shin, it is not at all lowered or restricted its in meaning; but every one of those hundred shin, the Shin kwái, ghosts and hobgoblins, or thengok shin, which Morrison calls evil spirits, yea even the yik shin, the Shin of pestilence, is as much and truly a Shin, (that is, a spiritual being) as Shangtí is. In respect to their spiritual nature, the Shin of every kind are in no way distinguished from the Suprerne.

With regard to Cudworth's definition of the word god or gods, as indicating "an understanding being, superior to man, and looked upon as an object of men's religious worship," we have already seen that in his estimation such was not the natural idea ́ of God; but only a definition to which he thought himself compelled to resort, under the circumstances of the case; because the Greeks had been in the habit of using so for God by way of eminence, and applying the same term to a variety of generated and inferior beings; in order to reconcile which inconsistency, he was induced to enlarge the signification of the word so. We may observe, however, that that same necessity does not exist with regard to the Chinese; they having never been in the habit of designating God by way of eminence, Shin, while they constantly apply that term to every kind of invisible intelligences. It is not necessary, therefore, for us to adopt such a wide definition of the word God, as far as the Chinese are concerned.

Further, on reference to the Chinese classics and dictionaries, we do not find such a definition employed with the view of explaining any term that can possibly be construed to mean Divinity. The word which most readily conveys to the Chinese the idea of Divinity is Tien, Heaven; and yet in defining Heaven they do not say that it is the Being who is the especial object of religious worship: but say, that Heaven is the one great one, who dwells on high and regulates all below. They call Heaven the great Framer from whom all things originally come, and who disposes of all things according to his own decree; in short, in the words of Morrison, Heaven is the unknown God of Confucius. In illustrating anything as divine, the Chinese do not say that it is an object of religious worship, but that it resembles Heaven; when they wish to say, that means God, they assert that Ti is synonymous with Heaven, and is one of the names of Heaven; when they wish to exalt their living monarchs by ascribing the most exalted epithets

to them, they call their emperor Heaven or the Divinity; his throne is Heaven's throne, his presence, Heaven's countenance; his envoys, Heaven's messengers; and his troops, Heaven's soldiers, &c. When they intend to pay divine honors to imperial ancestors after death, they associate them with Heaven in sacrifice. From all which we conclude, that in the estimation of the Chinese, the criterion of divinity is that it resembles Heaven, and not that it is merely the object of religious worship.

In endeavoring to ascertain what any given people think of an object or being, we should take such rule of judgment as they are themselves in the habit of using. A criterion adapted for the sphere of Christianity would not assist us in forming an accurate estimate of the opinion of Greek and Roman philosophers; and so a rule of judgment which would be applicable to western pagan's, might not suit those of the eastern world. To judge of the system of either, a criterion acknowledged by themselves must be employed.

It may be well, however, to inquire how far the definition adopted by Cudworth, as a description of the gods of Greece and Rome, will suit the Shin of China, viz, "an understanding being superior to man, and an object of religious worship.". It has been demonstrated in the Inquiry, that Shin includes the soul and mind of a living man, together with the vivacity and spirit displayed in his conduct, which qualities and portions of his being are never worshiped. It has been shown also in the preceding pages that Shin, in the concrete, frequently refers to ghosts and hobgoblins, fairies and elves, which are not with the Chinese objects of religious veneration; there are also many Kwei, or manes of dead men, called also Skin, which, on account of the neglect or extermination of their descendants, are never worshiped. So that it is not an exact and complete definition of Shin to say that it is an object of religious worship. But let hs endeavor to ascertain whether, in the estimation of the Chinese, worship is considered as distinctive of Divinity.

It is well known that the word pái, means merely bowing the head, or letting fall the hands, as a token of submission and obedience. It is used with reference to the act of homage paid to sovereigns, parents, and teachers, and is even employed to designate the acts of civility which take place among friends. It is not confined to the act of homage paid to invisible beings; indeed Kánghí, in his definition of the word pái, does not refer to invisible beings at all. The word tsung, which, according to the Imperial Dictionary, means "high and honorable; to fill and pile up high; to reve