their deceased great men, we were induced to turn to the Sz' Ki, Ching, the work quoted in Kánghi as authority on this point, to see which of the two words, Shin, or Ti, conveyed the highest idea of that which was to be esteemed and venerated. The Chinese have a regular system-a gradation of merit, by which these titles are said to be conferred; we felt assured therefore, that in this table of posthumous titles, if any where, we should find the relative value of words accurately pointed out. Upon turning to the table given in the Sz' Ki, we find that Shin, is the first and highest title, that Hwang, is the second, and that Ti, ranks third. This furnishes us with a very strong presumption against Ti meaning God xa?' εğoxlv, as those maintain who favor its use to render Asos. 4. The encyclopedia called Pei wan Yun fu gives three meanings. 1st., "Ti, means a Judge.' 2d. 王天下之號 "the style or title of him who rules over the empire." 3d. Kiun, "a prince." These meanings are the same as those given in Kánghi's Dictionary, and the same works are quoted to sustain them, viz.: the Shwoh Wăn and the Urh Ya.

We next turn to the Dictionaries which have been prepared by foreigners.

5. Dr. Morrison defines the meaning of Ti as follows: "The appellation of one who judges the world; or of one who rules over the nations: an epithet of respect and honor applied to one who rules as a lord or sovereign; an emperor; an independent monarch; celestial virtue. Wú Ti,, five ancient emperors; also the God of Heaven, and the gods of seasons. The name of a star; the name of a place. Hwang, Ti, Wang, E according to some, express the three degrees of sovereign rule, of which Hung is the highest, Ti the second, and Wing the lowest. Hwang Ti is a common appellation of the emperor of China. Sháng Ti,

the Highest Sovereign, the Supreme Ruler; Heaven, or T'ien chi Shin, F, the God of heaven; or, according to others, all the gods of heaven collectively; Ti wang, E, a sovereign po

tentate." These are all the meanings and illustrations given by the Doctor, from which it is plain he regarded Ti as a title, and not as an appellative name of any class of Beings.

6. Dr. Medhurst's Hok Keen Dictionary: "Tay, an emperor, Te wei

a ruler, a sovereign. Hwang Te, the emperor.

, the emperor's throne. San Hwang Woo Tt,

皇五帝

the three sovereigns and five emperors, a very early period of Chi

nese history."

Here the word is treated throughout as a title and no intimation is given of its being a generic name.

Dr. Medhurst's Chinese and English Dictionary: “Ti Emperor, a Sovereign, a Ruler, the Supreme. Hwang ti an Emperor, Sháng ti

the Supreme Ruler, Wu Ti

an

the five ancient Emperors. T wáng a Sovereign Prince. Tien tithe Ruler of Heaven."

Here again we have the same thing stated. Tí (Te) is treated throughout as a title, and not the slightest intimation is given that it is ever used as the appellative name of any class of Beings.

If there is any faith to be placed in these Dictionaries, made by eminent native and foreign scholars, the matter is clear beyond all reasonable ground of doubt, that Ti is not the appellative name of God in Chinese. There is no difference of opinion here to be settled by an appeal to the usus loquendi of this word in the works of good writers; but all, with one voice, tell us that Ti is a title, that it is a relative term and therefore cannot be the appellative name of God in Chinese.

To the objection that Ti is a title and means Ruler, in all cases, and not God, its advocates reply as follows. It is not merely the government of all things that is predicated of Ti, but Ti is said "to produce all things,"*"to confer the virtuous nature on the people,"

This phrase," to produce all things," unexplained, would mislead those unacquainted with the Phraseology used in Chinese cosmogony. The Chinese phrase is sang wán wuh, “to engender, or beget all things," which does not refer to the original creation of matter, but, as the phrase "engender" would lead us to suspect, the begetting of all things around us by the primordial substance, which, in the view of Chinese Cosmogonists, is eternal. This sang win wuh,

"begetting of all

things," is ascribed to Heaven, to Heaven and Earth, to the five elements, to the yin and yang, and occasionally to Ti, or Shing ti. This production of all things, is however only ascribed to Ti by modern writers; for as we have learned from M. Visdelou in a former part of this Essay, this title, according to the view of the modern Doctors, was given by Confucius and the ancient writers to the primitive Reason, (a name these writers give to Tien the chief Divinity) only when it is said to act in the government of the world. His words are, "comme Confucius dans le livre canonique des changements a fait plus d'une fois mention du Chung ti, c'est-a-dire du suprême Empereur et du Ti c'est-à-dire de lEMPERUER, et que cependant on ne voit nulle part dans ce livre, ni dans les autres que le Chang ti ait engendré la matiere, c'est-a-dire, le ciel et la terre; les philosophes concluent dela que LE TITRE DE CHANG TI ne peut convenir à la raison primitive, que quand il s'agit seulement du gouvernement de l'univers."

&c., &c., which acts are not properly predicated of a Ruler, but of God; therefore Ti must in these cases be rendered “God,” and not "the Ruler." In answer to this we remark, that in the passages mentioned above, and in all similar passages, it is admited by all that the Being referred to is Tien, of whom these things are repeatedly predicated in the ancient Canonical Books.-It being then the Chief God of whom these acts are predicated, it is indifferent whether this chief God, the subject of discourse, be pointed out by the use of his title, or his name. Nothing is more common than the use of a title, for such a purpose; if then, in any case, the title and not the name is used to designate this individual, when the act said to be performed is not done in virtue of the authority implied by said title, we are not therefore to infer that the writer uses this title in some unusual sense not sustained by the common usage of the word, but suppose rather that he merely uses it to designate the particular individual whose well known designation it is; and the individual, who is the subject of the discourse, being thus pointed out, he proceeds to mention some act of his without any reference to the manner in which the subject of the discourse was designated. We have a familiar instance of this use of a title to designate an individual, when we are about to affirm something concerning him that has not the slightest connexion with the meaning of the title used, in the following sentences. "The King dined at Windsor," "The King is dead," &c., where no one would contend that anything more was designed by the use of the title King than to designate a particular individual as the subject of discourse. The use of the title Ti, to designate Tien, the chief God of Chinese in the instances quoted by the advocates of Te, is entirely analogous.

It being shown, on the authority of all the Dictionaries, that Ti is a relative term, denoting office, and not an appellative noun, a serious objection to this word sos, may be founded on its unsuitableness to express the doctrine of the Trinity. We are taught in Scripture, that the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity sustain distinct offices in the economy of Redemption, and yet that they are but one in essence, or consubstantial. To express this doctrine we say, "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and these three Persons are one God." To designate the different Offices they sustain, we say," The Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier." Now suppose we were to render "The Father is Ruler, the Son is Ruler, and the Holy Ghost is Ruler, and these three Persons are one Ruler" there

would be no unity of substance, or even of nature implied by the use of the word Ti; for, as we have seen, it is used as the title of living men, as well as of Shin (gods)-beings belonging to entirely different species And this word T, denoting as it does, a definite office, would, if used as above, clash with the statement of the three dis tinct offices sustained by the several Persons of the Blessed Trinity. From this difficulty we can see no way of escape, if we use Ti to render θεος.

That T is not the appellative name of God in Chinese, appears also from the following facts. In the classical works of the Confucianists, from which we learn who are the objects of worship in the state religion, this epithet, which is constantly used as the title of the five emperors, is only applied to six Beings, (as we have said above,) who were the objects of religious worship, viz: “to Tien, Heaven, or the Tien chí Shin, Z, Shin (God) of Heaven," who is styled Shängt, and to Shin who preside over the five elements, who are called Wȧ Tr. Each of these six individuals, 90 distinguished by the title of Ti, Ruler, we have seen, belong to the class of Beings called Shin. Ti therefore is not a generic term, denoting a distinct class of Beings; but a relative terin, marking relationship. Neither of these invisible Beings, distinguished by the title of T, have ever been worshiped by the people of China; but the worship of them has always been confined to the emperor, and the people have been forbidden by severe penalties to worship them.

The worship of the "Five Rulers" was discontinued by the Ming dynasty, A. D. 1369, and has never since been resumed. So that the title T is applied to only one Being who, is now an object of worship in the state religion, viz.: Tien, and this being is not worship. ed by aay of the people of China, but only by the emperor, the honor of worshiping the Shing ti, "Ruler on High," being reserved exclusively to the Hwing ti," August Ruler," on earth.

How can it be maintained that such a term is the appellative name of God?

The agreement of all the Dictionaries is so entire in representing Ti as a title, and the inferences derived from this fact are so conclusive against its use, that it appears to us it would be a work of supererogation to write any thing more against Ti, as the appellative name of God in Chinese. We shall therefore content ourselves with illustrating the impropriety of using this word to render Elohim, by testing it on the first commandment, e. g. Ti yuch, chú wo

wải, 'rh puh k'o yú pich tí yé, †E, A

别帝也

Before translating this, please read again the meanings of Tí given

་་

by the Shwooh Wún, The title of him who rules over the Empire," and that of the Lah Sha Ká. The honorable designation of a Sovereign Ruler," and say whether by so rendering this commandment, we should not be guilty of propagating, in the name of God, a precept the most disorganizing and subversive of civil government that was ever propounded. The Ruler says, besides me thou shalt have no other Ruler." What does this say but that He who is "the Ruler," par excellence forbide men to sustain the relationship of “the ruler" towards any other Being than himself. If this is the meaning of the Commandment, civil government is rebellion against God. That this commandment, rendered into Chinese as above, would be open to this construction, cannot be denied, for the word Ti, as it is found in Chinese books, refers to the man who is, or has been, at the head of the Chinese government, at least a hundred times to where it refers to any invisible being once. This single consideration we think conclusive against the use of this word.

帝

But in answer to this it is said, the Jewish Kings and Judges are sometimes called Elohim, and that therefore the Emperor's being called Ti is no valid argument against the use of this word to render Elohim and eo. To this we reply, the cases are by no means similar. We know it is common to say that the Jewish Judges and Kings are called Elohim, but we prefer much the view that Hengstinberg takes of this use of Elohim in the first volume of his Christology, when treating of the 45th Psalm. He contends that no Theocratic Prince or Conqueror is ever called Elohim, in the Scriptures and says, "Nowhere is any single magistrate called Elohim, but always only the magistracy as such, representing the tribunal

of God."

If this opinion of Hengstinberg is correct, this use of Elohim in Hebrew is not at all like that of Tin Chinese, since Ti is used in the classics as the common title of Yau and Shur and of other Emperors. But even if Elohim is occasionally used for individual Kings and Judges, as the advocates of Ti contend, still the cases are by no means similar. If Elohim had been the common title by which the Jewish Kings or Judges were known, e. g. God David," "God Solomon," as in Chinese they say Ti Yau, Ti Shun, then the use of Elohim in the old Testament would be a case in point. But we all know that Elohim is not the common title of any Jewish officer :

་་