AN ESSAY 
 
 THE PROPER RENDERING OF THE WORDS 
 
 ELOlilM AND is* 
 
 INTO THE CHINESE LANGUAGE. 
 
 8 V 
 
 WILLIAM J BOONE, L>. L>. 
 
 MISSIONARY BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES TO CHINA, 
 
 \J to 
 
 ^ n 
 
 « Asjwosara 
 
 PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CHINESE REPOSllOEY, 
 
 1 8 -1 S , 
 
DEDIC ATI ON, 
 
 To 
 
 The President and Directors of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society , 
 
 The President and Directors of the American Bible Society. 
 
 And to 
 
 The Protestant Missionaries in China. 
 
 Dear Brethren : 
 
 I take the liberty of addressing this Essay to you in 
 preference to the public. It is on a subject about 
 which the public in general will feel but little concern, 
 but in which, you on the contrary, from your position 
 and from the responsibilities which that position brings 
 with it, will feel a deep and peculiar interest. I need 
 here say nothing of the importance of the subject dis 
 cussed, as nothing I can say would increase your sense 
 thereof ; but, as the most suitable introduction to the 
 subject I can offer, I will give a short narrative of the 
 circumstances which have led to this discussion, that 
 you may understand the present position of affairs, with 
 respect, to the translation now preparing and appreciate 
 the better what you may read on either side of this 
 controversy. 
 
 The translations made by Drs. Morrison and Milne, 
 by Dr. Marshtnan, Dr. Medhurst and Mr. Gutzlaff 
 respectively, each failing to secure the approbation of 
 all parries concerned, the Protestant Missionaries to 
 China, at a meeting held in Hongkong, August 22d 
 1843, resolved to unite in the endeavor to produce a 
 
IV 
 
 revised version, hoping to obtain for this version the 
 approbation and support of the Bible Societies in 
 Great Britain and America. The plan proposed 
 embraced all the Protestant Missionaries : these were 
 divided into five sub-committees, to each of which dif- 
 ferent portions of the New Testament were committed 
 for revision. It was also agreed, that, when these 
 sub-committees should have concluded their several 
 portions, the whole work should be submitted for a final 
 revision to a committee composed of Delegates from 
 each of the sub-committees. The revision at the seve- 
 ral stations was completed in the early part of 1847 and 
 the Delegates from the sub-committees assembled in 
 Shanghai in the month of June and entered upon their 
 labors. The progress of their work was soon arrested 
 by a difference of opinion with respect to the render- 
 ing of the word deo?, and this being, in the opinion of 
 all, a matter of the greatest importance, the Delegates 
 after a viva voce discussion of a few days, to secure 
 greater accuracy in their investigations, carried on 
 their discussion in writing. The careful examination 
 of the points at issue, demanding a very extensive ap- 
 peal to Chinese writers, this discussion lasted for five 
 months and was conducted amicably by all parties, but 
 unhappily without leading to unanimity of sentiment. 
 
 When the question, how shall the word &so s be ren- 
 dered, was put to vote, two Delegates were in favor of 
 using the word Ti, and two in favor of using Shin, 
 jjjlj). Being thus unable to determine this question, it only 
 remained for the Delegates to decide, whether, they 
 would proceed with their work, leaving the word Sso $ 
 untranslated, or inform their Brethren in China and 
 the Bible Societies in Great Britain and America that 
 
V 
 
 they were unable to perform the task entrusted to them. 
 They unanimously decided to pursue the course first 
 mentioned, and are now daily engaged in the work ot 
 revision, leaving the word untranslated. 
 
 This state of things has rendered it necessary for 
 the Delegates, who maintain the different views above 
 expressed, to appeal to the Missionaries in China — 
 their constituents — and to the Bible Societies to whom 
 they look for aid to publish the version when com- 
 pleted. The version when completed, will be the 
 work of all, and the simple question for the Bible So- 
 cieties to decide will be, whether their funds' shall be 
 employed in circulating copies thereof in which the 
 word is rendered by Skin jjjfjj or Ti jjj' . 
 
 This difference of opinion in respect to the render- 
 ing of dsoc is not of recent origin. Drs. Morrison, Milne 
 and Marshman used Shin to render Elohim and dso? 
 in all cases. Dr. Medhurst and Mr. Gutzluff used 
 Shang Ti ± W’ to render these words, when the true 
 God was referred to, and Skin jjjfjl when the reference 
 was to a false god. At the meeting held at Hongkong 
 in 1843, this subject was referred to a committee con- 
 sisting of Drs. Medhurst and Legge, but they disagree- 
 ing, it was resolved to leave the question for the deci- 
 sion of the committee of "Delegates. This committee 
 have been unable to decide it and now refer it to the 
 decision of their constituents and of the Bible Socie- 
 ties in Great Britain and America. 
 
 The question is one of the deepest moment ; a mis- 
 take on this point affects almost every question in 
 theology, especially our testimony against Polytheism 
 and our teaching on the subject of the Trinity. 
 
 I think it right to state that, during the whole time 
 
VI 
 
 of this discussion, I have labored under a severe af- 
 fection of the nervous system, rendering all mental 
 effort extremely painful, and that nothing but an im- 
 perative sense of duty could have induced me, under 
 these circumstances, to have taken any public part in 
 this discussion. 4dIow me, then , to entreat those of 
 mv Brethren, who are blessed with health and upon 
 whom the responsibility devolves of forming a decided 
 opinion upon this important question, to give to the 
 consideration of it their most earnest attention. 
 
 My most earnest prayer is that what I have written 
 mav aid you, Dear Brethren, in arriving at the correct 
 conclusion, and that the Gracious Saviour will conde- 
 scend to use it as a means to set forward his Blessed 
 Gospel in China. 
 
 1 am. Dear Brethren, 
 
 Faithfully Yours in the Gospel, 
 W. J, Boone. 
 
 Shanghai, Jan. 27th, 1848, 
 

 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/essayonproperrenOOboon 
 
AN ESSAY 
 
 ON THE PROPER RENDERING OF THE WORDS ELOH1M 
 AND 6so; INTO THE CHINESE LANGUAGE. 
 
 By William J. Boone, d. d. 
 
 Missionary bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U. S. to China. 
 
 A knowledge of the Being and attributes of God must be regarded 
 as the foundation of all acceptable worship. Without this knowledge 
 the worshiper, instead of adoring the true God, may, when addres- 
 sing his Deity, be worshiping a mere creature of his own imagina- 
 tion. 
 
 The chief object for which a revelation was given, we may sup- 
 pose, was to supply this knowledge : to reveal the true God — Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost; and to make known to man the gracious plan 
 which this Triune God had adopted for his restoration and salvation. 
 The word God is thus the most important that occurs in the Sacred 
 Scriptures; for with this word is connected all the knowledge which 
 is most important for man to know. “ This is life eternal,” says 
 our blessed Lord, “that they might know Thee the only true God, 
 and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 
 
 From these considerations, we are led to attach much importance 
 to the term by which the word deog shall be rendered in the revi- 
 sion of the translation of the New Testament, into the Chinese 
 language, now preparing. We all know the importance of a name; 
 the great influence it exercises either to aid or hinder us in forming 
 correct conceptions of an object; and may, therefore, easily conceive 
 how much the propagation of correct views of the true God may be 
 furthered or hindered, in China, by the selection that may be made 
 of the term to render Qso;. We must, however, guard against ex- 
 pecting too much from this source ; among a heathen people no word 
 can be found which will convey, by the meaning which its previous 
 usus loquendi has given it, just ideas of the true God. These ideas 
 can be derived alone from the revelation He has made of Himself, 
 This, as I have said above, is the most precious knowledge a tram-, 
 lator communicates to the heathen in rendering the Word of God 
 
into their language, and lie must not expect to find this knowledge 
 stored up in some word ready for his use. The possession of a cor- 
 rect knowledge of God is not, what the Christian teacher can expect 
 to find among the heathen, at the commencement of his instructions ; 
 it is rather the goal, which he can only expect to reach after many 
 days of painful labor. 'This being the case, the translation of the 
 Scriptures, into the language of the Chinese, may be regarded as 
 having for its highest aim the making them acquainted with the 
 true God and the relations they sustain to him. It becomes then a 
 matter of much importance to decide what their knowledge on this 
 subject is, and what are the chief errors into which they have fallen : 
 above all, to inquire, whether they are monotheists or polytheists? 
 To this question there is but one response. The Chinese have 
 been polytheists from the highest ages to which their history ex- 
 tends: the great enemy to be here beaten down is polytheism : the 
 first great truth, with respect to the Divinity, to be taught them is, 
 t be Unity of the Godhead. Therefore, — 
 
 In rendering dso.r , a translator, whilst hr, endeavors, in the. selec- 
 tion of the term he. makes, to take advantage of all the knowledge of 
 Divinity in general that may exist among the. Chinese, will he ex- 
 tremely careful lest J-hnvah may be'ronto mdtd with any one of their 
 numberless Deities, and especially anxious to avail himself of the 
 term that will prove most efficient in assailing polytheism. 
 
 Unhappily great difficulty has always been felt by Christian mis- 
 sionaries, in China, to agree upon a word by which to render 
 Elohim and &eos. The Romish missionaries had formerly much 
 controversy on this point ; and now, alas, the Protestant missionaries 
 find themselves divided in opinion on the same point. These facts 
 would lead us to suppose that there mast fee some inherent difficul- 
 ties in the case, arising either from the theology of the Chinese or 
 from some peculiarity of their language. We shall see in the sequel, 
 perhaps, to which to attribute it. 
 
 The decision which was made of this controversy, in the Romish 
 church, is considered by Protestants rather a cutting of the knot than 
 the untying of it : and, for reasons which will appear in a subse- 
 quent part of this Essay, none of them are disposed to unite with the 
 Romanists in the term they have adopted. 
 
 The chief reason, that the inquiries on this point have not led to 
 a result commanding general concurrence, appears to the writer to 
 be the neglect, on the part of the various inquirers, to come to a 
 definite understanding oil the general question, how the difficulty’. 
 
n 
 
 arising from polytheism, is to be met. In con sequence of the neg 
 lect to settle tins previous question, they have wandered in the wide 
 fields of Chinese literature without a definite object; the results of 
 their several inquiries, though clashing, have not led to any distinct 
 issue, and the question has remained undecided. 
 
 It is, however, surely of the utmost importance, in a case of this 
 kind, at the very outset, to determine definitely what' we shall seek 
 for, before our minds become engaged in the examination of the 
 multifarious evidence that may be submitted. 
 
 If it ire admitted that the Chinese do not know the true God, 
 (which we understand is admitted by all the Protestant missionaries,) 
 then it appears to us one of two terms must besought for : viz. either 
 the name of the chief God of the Chinese, or the name by which the 
 whole class of Gods is known in their language. We must either 
 seek the name of the Being to whom they have ascribed the most 
 glorious attributes; or, discarding this, we must use the generic 
 name for God, i. e. the name of the highest class of Beings to whom 
 the Chinese are in the habit of offering religion $ worship There is 
 no middle course between these two points: which of these two 
 terms shall be sought for, is the previous general question, which 
 should be definitely settled, if we wish our discussions to lead to a 
 direct issue. It is manifest that two parties, the one of which is 
 seeking for the name of the highest Being known to the Chinese, 
 the other for the name of the highest <7ass of Beings to whom the 
 Chinese offer religious worship, are not likely to agree upon the 
 same term as the result of their inquiries. 
 
 We shall, therefore, first discuss .this general question. In trans- 
 lating the Scriptures into the language of a polytheistic nation, 
 should the name of their chief God, or the generic name for God in 
 their language, be used to render Blo/iim and 6eo;1 
 
 The following considerations have convinced us, that, in such a 
 case, the generic name for God should be used ; and that the use of 
 the name of the chief Deity of any polytheistic nation to render 
 Eloltim would be wholly inadmissible. 
 
 S. Eiohini, in the Old Testament, is not a proper name of the 
 true God, but is a generic term, applied to heathen Deities as well 
 as to Jehovah. It must therefore, be rendered by a generic term 
 and not by a proper name. 
 
 2. In using the generic name for God, under the circumstances 
 we are considering, a translator follows the example of the inspired 
 men, who \yrofe jp the Greek atjd Latin languages. The Greesk 
 
 * 
 
4 
 
 and Romans were polytheists : the inspired writers of the New Test- 
 ament, and the Apostles who preached the gospel to the Greeks and 
 Romans, were precisely in the same circumstances in which we are 
 now seeking for a general rule to guide us in our inquiries. The 
 question, then, how did they act under these circumstances, is one 
 of great interest to us. It is well known that the Septuagint trans- 
 lators used tisnc; and not Zeus to render Elo/mn into Greek, and that 
 the Apostles used the same term in the New Testament. The same 
 course was pursued at Rome; the generic name was preferred to 
 the name of the chief Deity : Dens was used, not Jupiter. If then 
 a translator, engaged in rendering the Sacred Scriptures into the 
 language of a polytheistic people, desires to follow the example of 
 inspired men, he must employ the generic name for God used by 
 them, and not the name of the chief Deity. 
 
 It is necessary to use the generic term for God, in order to 
 render correctly the first Commandment, and many other parts of 
 Scripture which forbid polytheism. 
 
 The First Commandment reads as follows: “ I am the Lord thy 
 God who brought thee out of the land of Egqpt, out of the house of 
 bondage. Thou shalt have none other Gods but me.” Let the 
 reader substitute Jupiter, or the name of the chief God of any poly- 
 theistic system with which he is acquainted, for God in the first 
 clause and God in the second, and he will see how completely the 
 bearing of this Commandment, on polytheism, is nullified. 
 
 Again : Is. 45:5, “ I am the Lord, and there is none else; there 
 is no God beside me.” Is 44:8. “ Is there a God beside me ? 
 Yea there is no God, I know not any.” 
 
 The object of these passages, and of the First Commandment, is 
 to forbid men to put any trust, hope, or reliance in any but God and 
 to direct them to Him as the only proper object of religious worship. 
 Should the u'ord God, in the passages above quoted, be rendered by 
 the name of a chief Deity — e. g. Jupiter, — is it not plain that their 
 only force would be to forbid men to worship more than one Jupiter, 
 whilst they w'ould be left free to worship as many other Deities as 
 they please, under the name of Neptune, Apollo, Mercury, &,c. &c. 
 
 In China, our first great warfare must from the necessity of the 
 case, be against polytheism ; and a correct rendering of the above, 
 and similar passages of the Scriptures, so that they shall bear a clear 
 and unequivocal testimony on this point, is of the utmost importance. 
 To us it seems clear that, to obtain this testimony against polythe- 
 ism, we must use the name of the whole class worshiped as Gods by 
 the Chinese, and not the name of any pne Deity. 
 
5 
 
 [ said above that the Romanists have adopted a term for God 
 which ttie Protestant missionaries are unwilling to use : this is, per- 
 haps, the best place to state the reason, as it will throw light on the 
 point we are now discussing, viz: the necessity there exists, from 
 the very nature of the case, for using the generic term for God to 
 render Eluhim. 
 
 Much controversy, with respect to the proper word by which to 
 render God, had existed among the Romish missionaries for many 
 years before this point was decided by the Roman See. The use of 
 T'icn, ^ Heaven, Sit ing Tt ' ± Supreme Ruler, or Ruler on 
 high,’ and Shin, jjjfjl a God or Gods, according to some, and a Spirit, 
 Spirits, or Genii according to others, was warmly advocated by differ- 
 ent parties. Clement XI., in 1715, decreed that the phrase T x itn 
 Chit, K± “ Celestial Lord,” or “ Lord of Heaven,” should be 
 used, in futuie, as the term for God ; and this phrase has been used ever 
 since by the Romish missionaries. “ Lord of Heaven” cannot be 
 applied to false gods, or used as the generic term for God ; the Ro- 
 manists have therefore, rendered the Fiiwt Commandment as follows : 
 kin sung yi/t T c ien Chu icon wuh chi sluing, 
 
 mzE “ Reverently worship or honor one Heavenly Lord 
 above all things.” Here it is plain that the design of this Com- 
 mandment, to forbid the offer of religious worship to any other be- 
 ing than Jehovah, is neither expressed nor implied. According to 
 this rendering of it, any number of saints and angels may be wor- 
 shiped, provided Jehovah is placed above them and worshiped with 
 more reverence. 
 
 Protestants, believing that the true God, Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost — is the only proper object of religious worship, can never con- 
 sent to such a rendering of this Commandment. 
 
 The Jesuits employed T'itn Heaven, and Shang Ti , 
 the Supreme Ruler, to render God, and thereby, no doubt, very 
 much weakened their testimony against polytheism. To my mind, 
 the reason which Kdnghi assigned for refusing baptism is worthy of 
 very serious consideration in connection with the question, whether 
 we should use the name of the chief God of a ploytheistic nation, or the 
 generic name for God in their language. We are told by John Bel* 
 of Antermony, that when the missionaries besought him to become a 
 Christian and be baptized, “ he always excused himself by saying 
 he worshiped the same God with the Christians.” What answer 
 could they give ? They used the name of his chief God, as the 
 
6 
 
 term by which to render Eluhim ; and what conclusion could be 
 more natural than the one he had drawn? 
 
 Laccantius cautions against the use of the name of the chief God 
 of a polytheistic system for the very reason just assigned. It would 
 seem the same use was made of it, as an excuse, in his day, that was 
 made by the emperor Kang Id. 
 
 ‘•It is a vain persuasion of those who would give the name of Jupiter to 
 the Supreme God. For some are wont thus to excuse their errors, when 
 they have been convinced of one God, so as that they could not contradict 
 it, by saying that themselves worshiped him, he being called by them Jupi- 
 ter : than which, what can be more absurd ? Since Jupiter is not worshiped 
 without the partnership of his wife and daughter. From whence it plainly 
 appears what this Jupiter is, and that the name ought not to be transferred 
 thither where there is neither any Minerva nor Juno.” Ladantius Firmianvs: 
 quoted in Ciul worth's Intdleduul System. Edit. Harrison. Vol. 2. p. 149. 
 
 4. The use of the name of any heathen Deity would be deroga- 
 tory to the glory and honor of Jehovah. 
 
 There being in truth but one God, the existence of a generic 
 term for God isowing entirely to polytheism. If none other than 
 the true religion had ever prevailed, there could have been no sucli 
 genus as this conceived of. The Gods of a polytheistic people are 
 merely imaginary Beings, who have no real existence. The true 
 God claims the right to displace the whole class; and this is the rea- 
 son that, in translating the Scriptures into the language of such a 
 people, the generic term for God must be used. Jehovah claims 
 the right — not, to be recognized in t he place of the chief God of 
 such a system, but — to take the place of the whole class of gods, 
 lie will not consent to propose himself to polytheists as their Jupiter 
 or Neptune, their T'icn or their Fuh jijjj Budha.* He claims 
 
 * Origpn thus warmly expresses himself on this subject: “ Celsus thinks 
 it to be a matter of no moment whether we call the highest and supreme 
 God, Adonai and Sahaolh , as the Jews do ; or Dia and Zena, as the Greeks ; or 
 as the Egpvtians, Ammon; or as the Scythians Pappceus ; but we will rather 
 endure any torment, ” says Origen, “than confess Zeus (or Jupiter) to be 
 God ; being well assured that the Greeks often really worship, under lhat 
 name, an evil demon, who is an enemy both to God and man. And we will 
 rather suffer death than call the supreme God Ammon, whom the Egyptian 
 enchanters thus invoke: and though the Scythians call the supreme God 
 Pappanis, yet we, acknowledging a supreme God, will never be persuaded to 
 call him by that name, which it pleased that demon (who ruled once the Scy. 
 thian desert, people and language,) to impose. Nevertheless, he lhat shall 
 use the appellative name for God, either in the Scythian, Egyptian, or any 
 other language, which he hath been brought up ip will not offend." Origen 
 contra Ceisum .- quoted in Cud worth's Intellectual System. Vol. 1. 422. 
 
to be “ the all and in all.” He says, I am the God of heaven and 
 the God of the earth ; the God of the hills and tlve God of the valleys ; 
 the God of tire and the God of wealth ; yea, of whatsoever place or 
 thing, in the most unbounded license of your imagination, you have 
 conceived a God to exist, I am the God thereof: “ I am God and 
 there is none else; there is no God beside me.” We must, tliere- 
 fore, take for Jehovah the name of the whole class and affirm that it 
 properly belongs to Him alone; that there is no other Being in the 
 universe entitled to this name; that those whom the heathen have, in 
 the days of their polytheistic ignorance, called gods, are mere ima- 
 ginary Beings, who have no existence except in the minds of their 
 hi i nded votaries. 
 
 The generic name for God, when thus claimed for Jehovah, un- 
 dergoes a change by Christian usage : according to this usage it is 
 employed in a proper sense, to designate Jehovah alone; and, but 
 f>r the fact that it must still be used to combat polytheism, its gen- 
 eric character would wholly cease. But, as polytheism gave rise to 
 so improper a genus, so the necessity there exists of forbidding men 
 to have a plurality of Gods, causes the word to retain so much of its 
 generic character as to make it available to prohibit sternly the re- 
 cognition and worship of all the imaginary Beings who are by poly- 
 theists strictly and properly included in its meaning. 
 
 We might illustrate this point much more copiously, and enforce 
 the use of the generic term by many other considerations; but know- 
 ing that “ brevity is the soul of wit,” we shall endeavor to be as 
 brief, in the discussion of every point made, as we can, having due. 
 regard to a fair presentation of our subject. We shall pursue this 
 course, not merely from a conviction of the truth of the above dic- 
 tum, but also from the consideration that those for whom we write 
 in England and America, and upon whom a most solemn responsi- 
 bility devolves in connection with this question, have many impor- 
 tant calls upon their time, which will make them desirous to have 
 this matter submitted to them in the shortest compass in which it 
 can he made intelligible. 
 
 The point above discussed, we regard as of the utmost importance, 
 and the reason we do not pursue the subject is that we are persuad- 
 ed our readers will agree with us in the conclusion to which we 
 have come, that the generic term must be used. And here I would 
 heg my missionary Brethren, in China, to pause ; and laying aside 
 all the partiality to any particular term that may have been contract- 
 ed by previous use, to settle definitely in their minds l his previous 
 
8 
 
 general question, before tbev proceed with us to the examination of 
 the particular question — What Chinese word shall be used to ren- 
 der dsog 1 
 
 If we have succeeded thus far in carrying along with us the convic- 
 tions of our readers, then the point remaining for our consideration 
 is narrowed down to the single question, What is the generic name 
 for God in the Chinese language ? 
 
 To this question we answer, with Morrison and Milne and Marsh- 
 man, in the Chinese language, Shin jjjfjj is the generic name for God. 
 
 To this question a different answer has, however, been given. 
 Within the last few months another term, w-hich, so far as we have 
 been able to ascertain, was never previously regarded in this light 
 by any foreigner, Romanist or Protestant, has been proposed as the 
 generic name for God. This term is Tt ^ 
 
 The point to be decided then is, Which of these two terms is the 
 generic name of God in the Chinese language. 
 
 W r e shall first endeavor to prove that Shin is the generic term 
 sought, and then state the reasons that forbid us to regard Ti as the 
 name of any class of Beings either human or divine. 
 
 To give prominence to the point upon which we rely, as sustain- 
 ing our view of Shin jjjijl, and to enable the reader, at a glance, to 
 comprehend the bearing of the evidence adduced, for his conviction, 
 we present a brief Synopsis of our argument. 
 
 We beg that the important point, already proved, may be kept in 
 mind when reading this Synopsis, viz. that the generic name for God 
 must be used to render Elohim and &so$. 
 
 To prevent all misunderstanding, that might arise from a vague 
 use of terms, we shall preface this Synopsis with a definition of the 
 phrase, “generic name for God,” which occurs so frequently in this 
 discussion. 
 
 By the generic name for God, in Chinese, we understand the name 
 of the highest genus or class of Beings to whom the Chinese offer 
 religious worship. On this definition we shall offer no remark, except 
 that it is the plainest and simplest we can frame, and that we presume 
 it will be assented to immediately by every one upon reading it. 
 
 Synopsis. 
 
 1. Shin is the name of a class of invisible Beings to whom the 
 Chinese, from the highest antiquity to the present time, have always 
 offered religious worship. 
 
2. The class of Beings called Shin is the highest class worshiped 
 by the Chinese. 
 
 Proofs. 1st. The Shin are directly affirmed to be the most 
 honorable Beings in the universe. 
 
 2d. The chief God, the Being worshiped in the highest sacrifice, 
 offered in the state religion, is a Shin, 
 
 3d. It is maintained that, being the highest class of Beings wor- 
 shiped by the Chinese, as above stated, this class must be regarded as 
 the Gods of China, and Shin as the generic name for God. 
 
 We shall consider these points in the order in which they are 
 presented above, and then state and answer the chief objections that 
 have been made to the use of Shin. 
 
 The first point. Shin is the. name of a class of invisible Beings to 
 whom the Chinese, from the highest antiquity to the present time, have 
 always offered religious worship. 
 
 The two facts above stated, viz. that Shin is the name of a class 
 of Beings, and that to these Beings the Chinese have always offered 
 religious worship, are freely admitted by those who oppose the use 
 of this word to render &eog into Chinese. We might content our- 
 selves with this admission and pass on to our second head, but that 
 this is the most convenient place to make the Reader acquainted 
 with many facts, in connection with our subject, important to a 
 correct decision of the point at issue. 
 
 It is perhaps well known to the learned in Europe and America 
 that the words of the Chinese lancruage undergo no inflection, either 
 of declension or conjugation, and that the same word may, in dif- 
 ferent contexts, be a noun, adjective, verb or adverb. To mark these 
 different uses, of the same uninflected word, they rely entirely upon 
 the position the word occupies in the sentence and the subject treat- 
 ed of in the context ; leaving the reader to infer, from these, what part 
 of speech it may be and which of its several meanings it may have 
 in any given sentence. 
 
 The word Shin is used as a noun, adjective and verb. It occurs 
 much the most frequently as a noun ; as an adjective it is also frequ- 
 ently used ; but it is rarely used as a verb. As a noun it may be 
 either concrete or abstract ; but it is concrete in a very large majori- 
 ty of instances. When used in a concrete sense, it is the name of 
 a class of invisible Beings, worshiped by the Chinese, as we have 
 said above. In this case we contend that it is to be translated a god 
 or gods, as it may be singular or plural in any given instance; When 
 used in an abstract sense, to express a quality belonging to any Being, 
 
10 
 
 it means Divinity, or divine energy. It is also used in this sense 
 by the Chinese Pantheists, as the name of that which pervades 
 their 7o rrav. When used as an adjective, its meaning is derived 
 directly from its abstract sense, divinity ; it means divine. As a verb, 
 it very rarely occurs. It means to regard and treat as a God, &,c. 
 
 It will be found, when we come to treat of the objections urged 
 against this word, that t hey are almost all drawn from its uses in the 
 abstract sense. This is a difficulty which arises from the pecu'iarity 
 of the Chinese language; it meets us not only as an objection to the 
 use of Shin but almost every other word we shall use in translating 
 the Scriptures will be found encumbered with the same difficulty, 
 viz; that it occurs sometimes with meanings very different from the 
 one we design to convey. In writing in such a language as the Chinese 
 it is enough for our purpose if the word has clearly, by the well known 
 usage of good Chinese writers, the meaning we design to convey, 
 and we so use it that the context shall make it plain that this the 
 sense in which it is used. The inherent difficulties in the way of a 
 decision of this question, to which wm referred in a previous part of 
 this paper, we suppose to arise chiefly from this source. But this 
 difficulty should not appal us. If Shin in the concrete sense means 
 a god or gods, and we can in every case when using it for the true 
 or a false god, make it plain to the Reader that it is in the concrete 
 sense that we are using the word, then all difficulties arising from this 
 source are removed. That this can be done w'e entertain not the 
 slightest doubt. 
 
 If what we have said above is correct, then it follows, that an 
 objection to the use of Shin, to be a valid one, must be drawn from 
 the meaning it has when used as a concrete noun : it must go to 
 prove that the class of Beings called Shin are not to be regarded as 
 gods in the sense of heathen nations: and therefore that it is not the 
 generic name for God in Chinese. 
 
 The present opposers of the use of Skin, it is understood, whilst 
 they freely admit that Shin is the name of a class of Beings whom 
 the Chinese have always worshiped, deny that they are the highest 
 class worshiped; and affirm that there is a class of Beings called Tt, 
 higher than the class called Shin, who are to be regarded as the 
 gods of the Chinese; while the Shin, being only a secondary class, 
 are (to borrow 7 an illustration from Greek mythology) to be regarded 
 as Aaijicvsg. 
 
 This is the true issue upon which this case should be tried. Upon 
 this issue we beg. the reader to fix his eye, and to weigh all tire 
 
II 
 
 evidence submitted to him by its bearing upon this point. All else 
 is beside the mark, if we are determined to use the generic name 
 for God, which the Chinese language affords us, to render Ehhim 
 
 and 6s»s. 
 
 We shall now briefly cite authorities to show that the Shin were 
 revered and worshiped by the sages and ancient worthies of China, 
 reserving the question, whether they are to be regarded as gods, to 
 our second and third divisions. 
 
 We have so good a summary of the views entertained of the Shin, 
 during the first three dynasties, from the pen of P. Amiot in M. De 
 Guignes’ translation of the S/u'i King, that I shall not trouble the 
 Reader with much additional evidence on this point. M. De Guignes 
 thus states the circumstances that caused P. Amiot to prepare the 
 paper cited below. 
 
 “ Dans le dessein de connoitre plus particulierment la Religion des Cliin- 
 ois, non celle des Philosophes, mais celle du people, 'j’avois demande au P. 
 Amiot, missionaire a Pe King, si ces Peuplesavoientdes DiviniUs nationaks 
 auxquelles ils addres'sassent des prieres. J’euteus par Divinites nationales 
 celle qui sont propres a. la nation, et qui n’ont pas £te introduces a la chine 
 par les Bonzes de Lao-tse, ni par ceux de Fo. J’en avais meme demandi 
 les representations, il m’a repondu sur ce sujet; je crois qu’ on ne sera pas 
 fache de trouver ici cette reponse, concernant des Esprits dont nous n’avons 
 aucune connoissance dans les memoires qu’ on a publie sur la chine. Le 
 Pere Amiot a tire ce qu’ il dit d’un ouvrage intituld Chin-y-tien, qui est une 
 collection en plus de cent volumes, dans lesquels sont renfermds les plus 
 anciens monumens : les dix premiers contienment les Esprits.” 
 
 We commence our extracts from this answer with the times of the Shu 
 King, the oldest we think sustained by authentic evidence. 
 
 P. Amiot writes, “ Yao ordonna a. Chun de sacrifier au Chang-ti ( Shang-ti ) 
 et a tons les Esprits {Shin |jjl|j);ce qui est confirm^ par le chapitre Chun- 
 tien du Chou King. On voit encore dans le Chou King que Chun ordonna 
 a Pe-y de determiner des rits particuliers pour honorer les Esprits du Ciel, 
 ceux de la Terre et les Manes des hommes, et a Tchong-li de presider aux 
 affaires qui avoient rapport aux sacrifices qu’ on offroit au ciel, a la Terre, 
 et aux Esprits de tons les ordres. Yu, Fondateur de la Dynastie de Hia, 
 eloit plein de respect pour les Kouei (manes of ancestors) et pour les chin 
 (Shin) suivant le temoignage de tous les Historians. Ses successseurs imi- 
 terent son exemple pour ce qui regarrle en particulier le culte des Esprits. 
 
 “Tching-tang, suivant le Chou-King, etoit p'lein de veneration pour les 
 Esprits superieurs et infdrieurs. Vou-ye, un de ses successeurs, filfaire 
 avecdu hois une statue de figure humaine, a laquelle il donna le nom d' Esprit. 
 Ce Prince impie et cruel prenoil plaisir a faire jpuer avec ce pretendu Esprit 
 ceux qui avoient pu If. malheur d’encourir sa disgrace, el les faisoit w.etlre a 
 
12 
 
 mart hnpiloyabhiii nt s'ils vcnoient a perdue la partie, ce qui arrivait presque 
 toujours. La statue, (lit le cnmmentaire, representait un Esprit du ciel ; le jeu 
 atiquel on la faisoit. jousr dtait une espece de jeu de dames ; apparemment 
 que quelque ministre des barbares voloutds de ce Prince jouait au nom du 
 prdtendu esprit. Q,uoi qu’il en soit voila le premier exemple qu’on trouve 
 dans 1’ Histoire Chinoise d’une representation d’Esprit: car le Chin-ting - ou 
 le Trdpried, a ce que je crois, etois plutot un symbole qu’une representation. 
 
 “Clieon, le dernier de la Dynastie de Chang, est appelld impie, parce qu’ 
 il n’avoit pas pour le ciel ni pour le Esprits ce respect ni cette veneration 
 dont les anciens Empereurs 1 ni avoient laissd l’exemple. Et c'est en particu- 
 lar pour le punir de son impieti ajoutent les Historiens que le del ota V Empire 
 d sa race pour le donner a la famille du Prince Ven Vann;. 
 
 “Sous les Tcheou, ou sous la troisieme Dynastie, le ceremonial chinois 
 prit une forme nouvelle par les additions considerables qu’on y tit. II n’ya 
 qu’a lire la quatrieme Partie du Chou-king, le Chi king et le Tcheou-li, pour 
 se couraincre que le culte des Esprits etoitun des articles les plus essentials 
 sous cette dynestie. II est dit dans le Tcheou-le (Ritual of the Chow 
 Dynasty) que /’ officier qui presidoit aux affaires de la terra employit le Ley. 
 Kou ( Loui\Kou ) duns les sacrifices qu ’ onoffroit aux esprits, ( the god of heaven) 
 le Ling-kou dans les sacrifices qu' on offroit aux Che {gods of the earth) et le 
 Lou-kou dans les sacrifices qu’ on offroit aux Kouei (the manes of men.) 
 
 “Le Commentoire dit que le Loui Kou etoit un tambour a huit faces, les 
 Esprits dans les sacrifices desquels on l’employoit dtaient ceux du ciel. Le 
 Ling- Kou avoit six faces. Les Che sont en gdnerel les Esprits de la Terre; 
 on les prend quelquefois pour les Esprits particuliers qui president aux ge- 
 nerations. Les Kouei dtoient les manes des hommes, et on se servoit, 
 dans les saccrifices qu’ on leur faisoit, du tambour appelld Lou Kou, qui avoit 
 quatre faces : ce tambour etoit employd pour les anedtres en particulier. 
 
 “ Outre les sacrifices qu’ on offroit a certains Esprits en particulier, il y 
 en avoit d’autres qu’ on offroit a tous les Esprits en gdndral ; et dans ces 
 sortes de sacrifices on adinettoit les deux dauses Ping-Vou et Hou-vou, 
 e’est-a-dite, la Dause guerririre et la Pause du Drapeau. 
 
 “ Ven-vang et Vou-vang faisoient consister daus le culte qu’ils rendoient 
 aux Esprits un des points les plus essentiels de leur Religion. Le ciel, les 
 anedtres et les Esprits, voila les trois objects de leur veneration.” 
 
 It will not escape the attention of the Reader that this good Fa- 
 ther makes no mention of any class of Beings called Ti, who 
 
 were regarded as “ les Divinites nationales des Chinois.” He sure- 
 ly could have had no idea that Ti was the generic term for God in 
 Chinese. 
 
 We shall next quote a few passages from the Shu King. The 
 passages cited below are all from Dr Medhurst’s translation of the Shu 
 King. We take the translation from this work for the purpose of 
 showing to what class of Beings Dr. Medhurst regarded the Shin as 
 
13 
 
 belonging when he published his translation, which was A D 1846. 
 
 “The Emperor (Shun) said, Oh, you (President of the four) 
 mountains, is there any one who can regulate for me the true cere- 
 monies.” 
 
 These ceremonies are thus explained in a note translated from 
 the commentary. “ The three ceremonies are the ceremonies used 
 in sacrificing to the celestial gods (Shin), feasting the Spirits of 
 enm, and offering to the terrestrial deities ( K f i). Medhurst Shti 
 King, p. 33. 
 
 The critical commentary tells us that “ the object of these rites 
 was to serve the gods (Shin) as Lords, li i sz’ Shin wei Chu,” 
 
 H H -3f # & K 
 
 “ Make use of the panpipe to regulate the voice, and eight kinds 
 of instruments, when you can harmonize the whole, but do not in- 
 terfere with the due order. Then both gods (Shin) and men will 
 approve. ” Med : Shit King p. 35. 
 
 “ E-yun (who lived during the Shang dynastv (B. C. 1710) then 
 composed a written declaration saying, The former King (T’hang) 
 attentively regarded Heaven’s bright decree in order to obtain the 
 favor of the upper and nether powers, the celestial and terrestrial 
 gods (Shin jpt^l, and K'i /fjj^), the deities who preside over the land 
 and grain, with the spirits of the ancestorial temple; in all this he 
 was invariably respectful ; Heaven noticed his virtues and made use 
 of him to sustain the great decree, and soothe and tranquilize the 
 myriad states.” Medhurst’ s Shu King. p. 145. 
 
 The King Citing wfingofthe Chau dynasty (B. C. 1004) thus ad- 
 dresses the eldest son of the King of Yin : “ You have trod in and 
 followed his (T’hang’s) footsteps and long possesed a good reputation, 
 being respectful, cautious, and filial, as well as reverential and res- 
 pectful to both gods (Shin f|fjl) and men. I admire your virtue and 
 say that it is abundant, whilst you are not unmindful of your prede- 
 cessor. (Shang Ti t flr ) the supreme Ruler has frequent- 
 ly enjoyed (your sacrifices) while the lower people (have thereby be- 
 come) reverential and harmonious. I therefore appointed you to be 
 an arch-Duke to rule over this eastern territory of Hea. Medhurst 
 Shu king, p. 223. 
 
 The Reader will observe that the gods (Shin) are contrasted above 
 with men and the word Shin is evidently used as a general name for 
 all the Beings worshiped by the Chinese af that time. His attention 
 is also called to the fact that Shang Ti, (he supreme Ruler, (the 
 
14 
 
 title by which the chief god of the classics is designated) having en- 
 joyed his sacrifices is cited as an instance of his respect to the gods 
 (Shin) mentioned in the preceding sentence. 
 
 To avoid tediousness we shall cite only one more passage from this 
 work. In the 5th Book, section first, the officers of the Chau dynasty 
 are enumerated and their duties described. Those of the Tsung 
 Peh ry- are thus mentioned. 
 
 “ The chief Baron (tsung peh superintends the public 
 
 ceremonies, regulates (the respect to be paid to both gods (Shin 
 jjjij ’ ) and men, and arranges (the ranks of superiors and inferiors.” 
 Medhurst ; Shu King , p. 239. 
 
 We now pass on to the consideration of our second point, viz; 
 The class of beings called Skin is the highest class worshiped by the 
 Chinese. 
 
 Of this point we promised two kinds of proof First, the direct 
 affirmations of Chinese writers to this effect ; and secondly, to show 
 that the chief God, the Being worshiped in the highest sacrifice offer- 
 ed in the state religion, is a Shin If this last point is clearly made 
 out, the proposition must be considered as proved beyond all ques- 
 tion : The Chinese can have no higher Being than their chief God. 
 
 The first witness we shall produce is the Chau Li ]jj;| jjfj the 
 Ritual of the Chau dynasty. This is the work of Chau hung, the 
 son of Wan wdng the founder of the Chau dynasty. Chau hung 
 flourished B. C. 1190. and ranks next to Confucius, in the estima- 
 tion of the Chinese. This work, it is believed, is the oldest Ritual 
 extant in the language. 
 
 It is from such a book, if any where, that we may expect to learn 
 who were the objects to whom the Chinese addressed their religious 
 worship. To this work, for these reasons, we earnestly desire to 
 direct the attention of our Missionary Brethren, in China, who may 
 be investigating this subject. 
 
 We learn from the Chau Li that there was an officer called tsung 
 pc h yfo /|pj, whose duties are thus described. The office of the 
 great tsung peh was to establish and regulate the ceremonies (used 
 in worshiping) the national gods, celestial and terrestrial ( Shin 
 and K ( i jp^) and the human manes, in order to aid the king to builp 
 up and protect his country.” See Chau Li Sect. 18. p. 1. 
 
 Throughout this work we find, as P. Amiot has told us above, the 
 objects of religious worship in the notional rites enumerated under 
 these three names viz ; Shin celestial gods, Id terrestrial gods, and 
 Kwei human manes. 
 
We have no mention made of any officer appointed to superintend 
 national rites offered to any class of Beings called ti nor is 
 
 there any mention of any such class among the classes of Beings to 
 whom the rites regulated by the tsung peh were offered. Shangti, 
 the Ruler on high, is mentioned ; but he comes in under the enum- 
 eration above mentioned, and as a tien Shin ^ jjjiji, God of Heaven. 
 
 At Sect. 18. p. 2. We read i kih li sz pang hook kwei Shin K' ? , 
 H cf jjj!g? J* j'|$ S % ffjl 7| > H e (the tsung pch) made use of 
 the felicitous rites to serve the Kwei, Shin, K'i i. e. the manes and 
 the celestial and terrestrial gods ofthe country.” The human manes 
 being in this sentence placed first, causes the commentator to notice 
 and explain the reason of three different orders in which the words, 
 Shin, K'i, Kwei are written. First, when written Shin, Kwei, K'i, 
 celestial gods, human manes, and terrestrial gods, this is to mark the 
 distinction of above (celestial) and below (terrestrial). Second, 
 when written Kwei, Shin, K'i, this is to mark nearness of relation- 
 ship, and the manes of ancestors are placed first. Third, when writ- 
 ten, Shin, K'i , Kwei, this is to mark the degrees of honour in which 
 they are respectively held ; the Shin, being most honorable, are 
 named first, the K'i next, and the Kwei last as the least honorable. 
 
 Thus we see that there are only three classes of Beings mention- 
 ed as the objects of national worship in this Ritual, and that the Shin 
 are the most honorable of these three. 
 
 Sect. 17. p L. Text. “ The Emperor appointed an officer of the 
 spring, called tsung peh, to command those under him and to super- 
 intend the national ceremonies in order to aid the King to harmonize 
 the stale. 
 
 In the commentary called Citing i jp the purpose for which 
 the national rites were instituted is stated, as follows. “ The Emper- 
 or appointed the tsung peh to superintend the national rites; these 
 rites were to serve the ( Shin ) gods as the highest (li i sz’ shin ruci 
 shdn g,) jjH fit## h t ); they were also the means where- 
 by they caused the people of the empire to recompense their root and 
 to revert to their origin.” 
 
 t i_. 
 
 In the commentary marked Ngdn, we read, ‘‘Shun (B. C. 
 
 2169) ordered Peh-i to superintend the three ceremonies : his title 
 was called C 'lull tsung. The men of the Chau dynasty because of 
 this, established the officer ofthe Spring called tsung peh; for celes- 
 tial gods, terrestrial gods and human manes are the most honorable 
 (Beings) in the universe.” 
 
16 
 
 Here is the direct testimony we promised. We h;tve. seen that 
 of the three classes of Beings, worshiped in the national rites, the 
 Shin are the most honorable; and now we are directly told that these 
 classes are the most honorable in the universe. 
 
 VVe shall next cite a passage from the Li-lci, another Ritual, pre- 
 pared by the scholars of the Han dynasty, which is also in high esti- 
 mation among the Chinese : 
 
 Li hi, ti chit Ed. Sect. 5. p. 23. In commenting on the 
 
 phrase of the text, tsi ti full yung ye rfjj *|fj, “In 
 
 sacrificing to the Ruler they did not use pregnant animals," the cri- 
 tical commentator says, “ In sacrificing to the Ruler pregnant ani- 
 mals were not used. The reason that, in the border sacrifice, they 
 used the three year old bullock was in order to give importance to 
 the idea of sincerity, and by tbe sincerity of the victim manifest the 
 sincerity of their hearts. Tnis is the gist of the idea. The celes- 
 tial god, (t*ien shin) pjj is most honorable with whom nothing can 
 be compared; therefore, they used the three year old bullock.” 
 
 We have translated the phrase, turn shin % # of the commen- 
 tator celestial god, in the singular, as there can be little doubt the 
 reference is to the ti, ruler, of the text, a title by which the chief 
 god of the Chinese is frequently designated. 
 
 The Reader may recollect that, when the tsung peh was mention- 
 ed in the quotation from the Shu King, at page 30, we were told 
 his office was “to superintend the public ceremonies and to regu- 
 late the respect to be paid to both gods (Shin) and men.” 
 
 Here it will be observed, the word Shin is used alone instead of 
 the three words, Shin, K ( i, Kwei, which we met with in the Chau Li, 
 when his office was described. When remarking on another ques- 
 tion from the Sh i King, we said that the word Shin in the phrase, 
 “ gods and men,” was evidently used to include all theobjects of their 
 national worship. The accounts, given above, of the tsung pch’s 
 office, from the Chau Li, fully sustain our remark. We however 
 deem this of so much importance that we shall quote Chinese au- 
 thority, directly to the point, to sustain this usus loquendi of the 
 word Shin. 
 
 Chau Li, Sect. 19. p. 1. Text. “The office of the Lesser tsung 
 peh was to superintend and set up the shrines of the national gods.” 
 The word Shin alone being here mentioned in the text, as in the case 
 of the quotations from the Shu king, and the objects of worship in 
 the national rites being generally elsewhere in the Chau Li mentioned 
 
! 7 
 
 under the three names of Shin, K'i, Kivei, gives occasion to the com- 
 mentator to make the following remark : “ If we speak of them ( i, 
 
 e. the objects worshiped in the national rites) separately, the t'ien 
 Shin, celestial gods, are alone called Shin ; but if we speak of them 
 collectively, then the Kioei, human manes and K'i, terrestrial gods, 
 are both called Shin.'’ 
 
 Thus we see that Shin, while it specially designates the highest 
 class of Beings worshiped in the national rites of the Chau dynasty, 
 is also used as a general term, including all the objects worshiped 
 by that dynasty. 
 
 What more comprehensive term could we desire to use, in waging 
 our warfare against polytheism? How admirably does this word 
 answer all our wants in translating the First Commandment! What 
 higher evidence, than that given above, can be demanded to prove 
 that Shin is the generic name for God in Chinese ? 
 
 Can it be affirmed that any other word, in the language, thus 
 includes all the objects worshiped in the national rites of the Chinese t 
 
 The next point to be proved is, that, the chief god of the Chinese, 
 the Being worshiped in the highest sacrifice offered in the state reli- 
 gion, is a Shin. 
 
 The proof of this point is very important to sustain our position, 
 that Shin is the generic name for God in Chinese, and that this word 
 should be used to render Elohim and deog. We have seen that the 
 Shin are the highest class of Beings worshiped in the national rites 
 of the Chinese ; but if it could be proved that the Chinese themselves 
 had conceived of a Being higher than any ofthis class, a Being whom 
 they never included in the same genus with the other objects worshiped, 
 this would prove the existence of a kind of Monotheistic feature in 
 their system : and this fact would be a strong argument against the 
 use of the generic name, Skin, to designate Jehovah. If however, 
 we clearly prove that the chief god worshiped by the Chinese is dis- 
 tinctly numbered among this class of Beings, then we conceive the 
 highest proof of our position, which can be demanded, will have 
 been furnished 
 
 We have shown above that the Shin are said to be “the most ho- 
 norable Beings in the universe,” and that the “ celestial Shin is most 
 honorable, with whom nothing can be compared and might from 
 this infer, without danger of mistake, that the highest Being known 
 to the Chinese would be included among the class of Beings called 
 Shin. To this inference no objection could be offered ; but we are 
 not left to mere inference: l lie classical books furnish us with clear 
 
18 
 
 and direct testimony on this point, and that in more abundance than 
 we can venture to tax the Reader’s patience with. 
 
 Before however proceeding to cite this testimony, we must make 
 the reader acquainted with the names of the highest objects worship- 
 ed in the national rites of the Chinese ; and call his attention to a 
 great diversity of opinion which exists among the Chinese of the 
 present day, with respect to what is designated by these names ; a 
 diversity of opinion to which much of the difficulty with which this 
 subject is invested is no doubt to be ascribed. 
 
 From the earliest antiquity to the present times, the two highest 
 objects of veneration, in the national rites of China, have been called 
 t’ien heaven and ti jjfj, earth; and to the worship of these two 
 objects, a sacrifice called kiiiu, offered at the winter and summer 
 solstices, has, from time immemorial, been appropriated. 
 
 The question that occurs to every one, upon learning this fact, 
 is, Do the Chinese understand, by these words, the visible Heavens 
 and Earth upon which they tread, or are the words used by rnetono- 
 my for the invisible Beings, who preside over Heaven and Earth 
 respectively? To this we answer; It is conceded on all hands, we 
 believe, that the material objects are not the objects of worship; and 
 that the words, when used as the names of objects of worship, are 
 employed metaphorically. What then is the object definitely desig 
 nated by the word t’ien heaven, the highest of the objects worship, 
 ed in the national rites? 
 
 To this question two different answers may be given, according 
 as regard is had to one or the other of two opinions held, by Chinese 
 of different sects, on this point. During the Sung dynasty, (about 
 A. D. 1100,) there sprung up a sect of Philosophers to whom the 
 Romanish Missionaries have given the name of Atheo-politique, and 
 to whose views great prominence has been given in all the editions of 
 the classical works published during the present dynasty. This sect 
 would answer the question, what is meant by t'ien as follows: 
 t’ien ^ is Sluing ti Jl , the Ruler on high ; and Sluing ti is 
 /?, Tfj 1 the rule of order, destiny, fate. 
 
 There is another class, however, who we conceive represent the 
 polytheists of China, and the old view's of the state religion, as 
 presented in the Chau Iu (Ritual of the Chau dynasty : B. C. 1 100,) 
 who answer as follows: The t’ien, worshiped at the winter 
 
 solstice is, t’ien chi shin , fjljl the god of Heaven, and this 
 
 t’ien chi Shin, jjjlj} god of Heaven, is Shang ti, ± the 
 
 Ruler on high. 
 
10 
 
 It will be observed that, according to both of the opinions, above 
 expressed, the word heaven is used metaphorically, and that to t ( ien 
 yfy the title of Slicing ti ± 'i h the Ruler on high is given by both 
 parties ; but the one party so explain their views as to lead to a mere 
 lifeless principle If, which they say, “neither wills nor wishes, 
 acts nor does while the other party lead us to polytheism, and 
 to regard the t'ien chi shin jj^ 5 the Shin of heaven, and 
 
 the tichf K*i ^ the K'l (or Shin, as he is also called,) of 
 earth, as the two greatest gods in their pantheon. 
 
 We shall piesent a few quotations, from the works of several of 
 the most distinguished Foreigners who have written on the Chinese 
 religion, that the Reader may have a clearer view of what has been 
 summarily stated above. 
 
 “The chiefobject of their worship is the Supreme Being, Lord and 
 chief Sovereign of all things, which they worshiped under the names 
 of Chang Ti ( Slicing ti ), that is Supreme Emperor, or Tien (or t'ien 
 ), which, according to the Chinese, signifies the same thing ; 
 Tien, say the Interpreters, is the Spirit ( Skint ) that presides in hea- 
 ven, because Heaven is the, most excellent work produced bp the first 
 cause; it is taken also for the materia! Heavens, but this depends 
 upon the subject to which it is applied.” Du Halde’s History of 
 C lino. Vot. B. p. 16. 
 
 This is the view Du Haide gives of the second class we have spoken 
 of above : of the sect of the Learned he writes as follows. 
 
 “ About the year 1070 was the time when these interpreters (the 
 modern Doctors) appeared, who gained a great reputation ; the most 
 famous was Tchu tse ( Clio fsz’ -jp ) and Telling tse ( Ching tsz> 
 jjcqp* ) who published their works under the reign of the sixth 
 prince of the family of Sung. Tchu tse distinguished himself so 
 greatly, by his capacity, that they revered him as the prince of 
 Learning. Though these authors have been had in esteem for these 
 five or six hundred years past, yet they are still looked upon as 
 modern authors, especially when compared with the ancient interpre- 
 ters, who lived fifteen ages before them. These new Doctors pre- 
 tended that their doctrine was founded on the most ancient of the 
 Chinese books, but their explanations were very obscure and full 
 of equivocal expressions that made it seem as though they were afraid 
 of rejecting the old doctrine, and yet in reality what they advanced 
 was entirely new.” 
 
 “They give the first principle of all things the name of Tdi kill 
 ft) " ;l,ich they say is impossible to be explained, being sepa- 
 
l uted from imperfections of matter, and therefore can hare no appel- 
 lation agreeable to its nature: however, they compare it to the ridge 
 of a house which serves to unite the roof; to the root of a tree ; to the 
 axletree of a chariot ; to a hinge, on which all things turn ; and they 
 affirm it to be the basis and pillar and the foundation of all things. 
 
 It is not, say they, a chimerical Being, like to the vacuum of the 
 Bonzes; but it is a real Being, which had existence before all things, 
 and yet is not. distinguished from them, being the same thing with 
 the perfect and the imperfect, the Heaven, the Earth, and the five 
 elements, insomuch that every thing may, in a sense, be called Tai 
 Klh. ” 
 
 “ To this same being, which they called Tai kih, they likewise give 
 the name of j-j* IA ; and this, they say farther, joined to matter, is 
 the composition of all natural bodies and specificates and distinguishes 
 one thing from another. Their reasonings, in points of morality, 
 are the same : they call IA that which establishes the reciprocal duty 
 between the Prince and the subject, the father and the son, t he hus- 
 band and the wife; they likewise give the name of Li to the soul, be- 
 cause it informs the body, and when it ceases to inform it, the Li. is 
 said to be destroyed ; in short, when they have disputed in this unin- 
 telligible maner concerning the nature of Tai kih and Li, they neces- 
 sarily fall into atheism, because they exclude every efficient super- 
 natural cause, and admit no other principle than an inanimate virtue 
 or energy united to the matter, to which they give the name Li or 
 Tui-kih. 
 
 “ But they find themselves much embarrassed when they would 
 fain elude the great number of plain texts, in the ancient books, 
 which speak of Spirits (Shin), of justice, of Providence, of a Su- 
 preme Being, and the knowledge which he has of the secrets of mens’ 
 hearts, &c. ; for when they endeavour to explain them, in their own 
 gross manner, they are certain to fall into fresh contradiction, de- 
 stroying in one place what they establish in another. 
 
 “ However, if we may credit the testimony of a great number of 
 Missionaries, who have spent the chief part of their lives in the Empire, 
 and who have gained an exact knowledge of the Chinese affairs by 
 means of studying their books, and conversing with men ofthe greates 1 
 repute for knowledge among them, the truly learned have not given 
 way to these mad notions, but have adhered strictly to the texts of 
 the ancient Books, without regarding the extravagant notions of these 
 modern commentators. 
 
“ Bat, that I may act the part of a faithful historian, I cannot deny 
 that some of the Missionaries have been persuaded that all the learn- 
 ed in the Empire are no better than so many atheists, and that 
 whatever declarations the Emperor Can g hi ( Kang hi) and others 
 have made to the contrary, have been the effect of mere compliance 
 or downright dissimulation ; for though the above mentioned prince 
 averred that, it was not to the visible or material heavens that he off- 
 ered sacrifice, but to the Lord and Creator of Heaven and Earth and 
 all things, he might mean the root and origin of all things, which is 
 nothing else but the Li, or celestial virtue, inherent in matter, which 
 is, according to the Chinese atheists, the principle of all things.” 
 
 “ Besides, when we read in their hooks and bear the Chinese 
 affirm that Life and Death, Poverty and Riches, and all events in 
 general depend on ticn or Heaven; that nothing is done but 
 
 by his order, that he rewards the Good and punishes the Wicked, that 
 he cannot be deceived, that he sees all things, hears all things, and 
 knows all things, that he penetrates the secret recesses of the heart, 
 that he hears the complaints of the good and virtuous, and grants 
 their petitions, &,c. ; all these expressions, according to them ought 
 to be looked upon as metaphorical, by which they would have the 
 people understand that all things happen as if in reality Heaven was 
 an intelligent Being. 
 
 P. Premare, in De Guines’ Siu King, p. 49. thus expresses his 
 views of the senses in which ticn is understood, 
 
 “ 11 y a done un ciel qui a fait, et un ciel qui a 6t6 fait; et puisque le 
 Grand homrae a fait le ciel et toutes choses, il faut quele Grand homme soit 
 le ciel qui n’a point etc fait, mais qui est la source et la cause de tons les etres : 
 comme dit le Li Ki, le ciel corporel et visible est le symbole du ciel invisi- 
 ble, comme le Tai-Ki materiel est une image grossiere du Tai-Ki spirituel, 
 qui est la meme chose que Tai-y ou 1’unitd 
 
 “Hiu Chin, expliquant le caractere yih — . dit ces paroles: Au premier com- 
 mencement la raison subsistait dans l' unit 6 ; e'est elle qui Jit et divisa le ciel et 
 la Terre, convertit et perfectionna toutes choses. Cela est clair et formel ; et 
 puisque e’est la, raison qui a fait le ciel et la terre, et qu'il est cependant vrai 
 que le ciel a fait toutes choses il faut necessairement conclure que le carac- 
 tere Tien a deux sens, et qu’il denote quelquefois l’ouvrage et le plus 
 souvent l’ouvrien ; e’est la grande unitd que le Choue-ven (Shw6 wan) appelle 
 Tao ; e’est a cet Esprit (Shin 7) auquel les anciens Empereurs offroient des 
 sacrifices, qui n’etoient dus qu’ an Dieu Souerain.” 
 
 M. Visdelou, in his letter to the cardinals of the Propaganda, 
 gives the following account of the views of the Chinese in respect to 
 the first principle. 
 
“ Quant a ce qui regarde le premier principe, voici ce qui dit ce livre 
 (Yih King), Tai Ki a engendre deux effigies; ces deux effigies out engendre 
 quatres images, ces quatres images out engendrd les huit trigrammes de 
 Fo-ki. ” “ II fuut ici observer soigneusement qu’ il dit engendrer, et non 
 faire.” 
 
 “ Ses cliinois interpretent alldgoriquement les deux effigies Fong et Yu 
 par les deux matieres, ou la matiere universelle divisde en deux; mais dans 
 le sens propre, elles signifient le ciel et la Terre.” 
 
 “Mais les philosophes exposent plus clairement cet axiome ; car voici ce 
 qu’ ils disefit sans aucune alldgorie. Le grand comble, Tai Ki, a engendrd 
 le ciel et la Terre; le ciel et la Terre out engendrd les cinq dldmens ; les 
 cinq Kidmens out engendrd toutes choses. Ce meme axiome est l’ablme 
 danslequel se sont prdeipitds les philosophes quel’ou appelle ath6o-poliliques, 
 car ils pretendent que ce grand comble est la raison primitive, qui, quoique 
 sans entendement, ni volutd, est absolument le premier principe de toutes 
 choses. Ils veulent que quoique cette raison soit privde d’entendement et de vol- 
 ute elle gouverne pourtant toutes choses, et cela d’autant plus infailliblement 
 qu - ' elle agit necessairement. Ils pretendent enfin, que tout dmane d’elle, ce 
 
 que ce tnot engendrer semble indiquer. Aussi ces Philosophes n’hesitent 
 
 ils pas de donner a cette raison le titre de dame gouvernaute ; et, cornme 
 Confucius dans le livre canonique des changemens (Yih King) a fait plus 
 d’une fois mention du Changti ( Slicing Ti) e’est-a-dire du Supreme Empcreur- 
 et du Ti ( Ti), e’est-a dire de VEmpereur, et que cependant on ne volt 
 nulle part dans ce livre, ni dans les autres, que le Chang ti ait engendrt la 
 matiere, e'est-d-dire, le ciel et la Terre ; les Philosophes conclurent deld que le 
 titre de Chang ti ne pent convenir a la raison primitive, que quand il s'agit stule- 
 ment du gouvernernent de Punivers. Dela vient que plusieurs d’entreux 
 admettens, outre la raison primitive, un genie (Shin ?) celeste approprid au 
 ciel &c. &c.” 
 
 A<rain : “ ne ^ ais P as omettre 1C > T ,e I e tenue de ciel s’entend 
 
 de trois facons ; il signifie le grande comble, quelquefois aussi le 
 ciel materiel ; souvent, parmi ceux qui adinettent des Genies (Shin) 
 dans tons les grands corps du monde, il est employe pour designer 
 ce genie; ou plutot selon 1’ habile Interprete qui a fait la concordance 
 des quatres livres classiques, le ciel est pris tantot pour la raison pri- 
 mitive, tantdt pour la matiere seule, et tantdt pour la raison primitive 
 et la matiere ensemble. 
 
 In the above quotation the Reader has a pretty full expos6 of the 
 various views held on this subject by the sects of the Confucian 
 School in China. Of the views of the class called athto-politique, 
 M. Visdelou thus farther writes: 
 
 “Les philosophes chinois parlent de reverer le ciel ; mais ils entendent 
 par le ciel ; la Raison, non pas celle qui fait I'homme et qui n'est point Pejet 
 
de cellc Id mais la Raison primitive, qui est. la premier principe et la cause 
 necessaire de toutes choses. Respecter cette Raison, c’est la suivre ; de 
 m me que l’on respecte le Destin non par les prieres et le honneurs mais en 
 se soumettant a ses loix. Les destinies, disent ils, sont marquees par le 
 ciel, c’est- ,-dire, par la Raison primitive, qui est le premier principe de tons 
 les etres, a la verite elle agit a l’aveug'le, mais, la m£me necessii6 qui la rend 
 aveugle la rend aussi infadlible. C’est elle qui est le Destin en tant qu’ elle 
 agit necessairernent, cette doctrine est celle que les missionaries appellent 
 atheo-politique 
 
 Again: “Les athees rigides se raillent communement de tout le gendre 
 des Dieux. Comme ils croient. que tout est rdgle par le destin, ils ne laissent 
 aucun lieu aux prieres et aux voeux et ne parlent qu’ avec mepris de relig- 
 ions ou l’on sacrifice.” 
 
 Dr. Medhurst, in his work entitled “China ; its state and Propects”, 
 thus expresses his views of the Confucian system : 
 
 “ It is strange, however, that while Confucius recommends such 
 an excessive veneration for parents, he should have overlooked the 
 reverence due to the Father of our Spirits: and while he traced up 
 the series, from parents to ancestors, requiring the highest degree of 
 honor to be paid to our first progenitors, that he should not have con- 
 sidered Him from whom all Beings spring, and who is entitled to our 
 first and chief regard. But it is a lamentable proof of the depravity 
 of the human heart, that so acute, intelligent, vigorous and inde- 
 pendent a mind should not have traced the generations of men up to 
 the great Former of all, and left his followers in the dark as to the 
 being, attributes, and perfections of the one living and true God.” 
 
 “ There are, in the works of the Philosopher, some allusions to 
 Heaven as the presiding power of nature, and to fate as the deter- 
 miner of all things, but he does not appear to attribute originality to 
 the one, or rationality to the other ; and thus his system remains des- 
 titute of the main truth which lies at the basis of all truth, viz : the 
 being of a self-existent, eternal, all-wise God ” 
 
 Again : “ From these expressions, about “ Heaven,” the “ Supre- 
 me Ruler,” and the “ principle of order ”, we might infer that the Chi- 
 nese had some knowledge of the Ruler of the universe, and honored 
 him as such, were we not baffled by the very incoherent manner in 
 which they express themselves, and shocked at the propensity to 
 materialism which they constantly exhibit.” 
 
 Of Confucius, Dr. Medhurst thus writes. “ This expression,” 
 
 ‘ equal to heaven,’ is often repeated by the Chinese, with reference 
 to Confucius; and there can be no doubt that they mean, thereby, to 
 place their favorite sage on a level with the powers of nature, and 
 
2 I 
 
 in fuel to deify him. Thus, have these atheistical people deified t lie 
 man, that taught them that matter was eternal and that all existences 
 originated in a mere principle.” 
 
 “ In drawing up the foregoing view of Confucius and his system, 
 although he does not say so, we presume that Dr. Medhurst followed 
 the views of those whom Du Halde calls the modern doctors, and M. 
 Visdelou the sect of the Atheo-politique. In his chapter on the 
 religions of China, in his work above quoted, Dr. Medhurst makes 
 no mention of any other class, among the learned, than atheists, and 
 thus sums up the faith of the Confucianists, Tauists, and Budhists. 
 “No first cause characterises all the sects, and the supreme, self- 
 existent God is scarcely traceable through the entire range of their 
 metaphysics; and yet the Chinese manage to combine the apparently 
 irreconcilable principles of atheism and polytheism.” Gods many and 
 lords many,” are adopted by every sect, and it is more easy to find 
 a god than a man in China. Though they account no divinity to be 
 eternal , yet they discover a god in every thing.” 
 
 All, who have ever been in China, will confirm the above testi- 
 mony, as to the multiplicity of the gods worshiped by the Chinese 
 people; and they will, we presume, all agree with us as to the fact, 
 that these gods are by the people themselves called Shin; so that, 
 whatever the atheists may say, we may, from the mass of the people, 
 obtain the testimony of the polytheists, as to what is the generic 
 name for god in their language. 
 
 To prove that the views of the modern doctors are such as they 
 are represented by Du II aide and M. Visdelou above, we shall give 
 one or two extracts from the works of Chu tsz, the individual men- 
 tioned by Du Halde, as the prince of learning, and who has been well 
 styled “ the Standard of orthodoxy,” with this sect of the learned. 
 
 Chti tsz's entire works, Sec. 49. p. 4. “ If it be inquired, what 
 
 is meant, when we read in the Shu King, (such sentences as the 
 following, viz.) that “ Shang ti confers the due medium (virtuous 
 nature) on the people,” that “ heaven is about to impose great duties 
 on man ;” that “ heaven, to protect the people, makes for them 
 princes;” that “ heaven, having produced things, treats them accord- 
 ing to their capacity; and upon those who do good, it sends down a 
 hundred felicities ; and upon those who do ill, it sends down a hundred 
 calamities;” that “ when heaven is about to send down some uncom- 
 mon calamity, it first produces an uncommon man to determine 
 it;” in expressions of this kind, is it meant that above the azure 
 heavens there really is a ruler who acts thus ; or is it that heaven 
 
lias no mind; or is it merely, if we seek the origin (or cause), that 
 the Li ^LjJ, order is thus (or according to the eternal fitness of 
 things is it thus)? I (Chu tsz’) answer: these three paints have but 
 one meaning, viz. according to (Li) order, or the eternal fitness of 
 things it is thus. In the revolutions of the primordial substance 
 hitherto, fullness has always been succeeded by decline, and after a 
 period of decline there has been one of fullness, just as if things were 
 caused to go round in a circle. There never has been a period of 
 decline that was not followed by one of fullness.” 
 
 This language is so clear that there is no mistaking the writer. 
 
 At the 25th page of the same section, we have these words : Ti ski 
 
 li wei chu , jjr J]|j "r|r, “ Ruler means that (h) order or 
 destiny is master.” 
 
 Sentiments, that appear to differ very materially from those pre- 
 sented in the above extracts, are found in the works of this writer ; 
 but we think those above quoted are his real sentiments : he here 
 speaks out; and his expressions that look another way are to be ex- 
 plained by these. Where Chu tsz’ speaks of Shdng ti as a sovereign 
 lord, &c., &.C., he is expressing himself, we think, according to the 
 prevailing sentiments of the polytheists ofhisday, but his own mean- 
 ing was Li, destiny. 
 
 We have detained the Reader, from our proofs, a long time bv 
 these quotations, but we trust he will regard them as well worth a 
 careful perusal. We are sure he will find the facts, therein stated, 
 of great importance, in forming an opinion on the question submitted 
 to him. 
 
 Two important facts clearly appear: viz. that there are, in China, 
 atheists and polytheists; and from Dr. Medhurst we learn that the 
 mass of the people belong to the latter class : for we can scarcely re- 
 gard a man as being at the same time an atheist and a polytheist. 
 
 This being the state of things, we cannot hesitate a moment as fir 
 which of these two classes we shall consult, when inquiring what 
 is the generic name for God ; for all men will answer with one voice, 
 the theists, not the atheists. 
 
 We shall proceed, then, having informed the reader of this diver- 
 sity of opinion to prove that the t'ien worshiped at the winter 
 
 solstice, is not the visible heavens, but is the T ( icn chi Shin , LZ, 
 god or gods of heaven, and that this T'icn c/d Shm 
 is called Shdng ti, the Ruler on high. 
 
 We said above that the most solemn sacrifice, offered in the na- 
 
26 
 
 tional riles, is called kidu and that this is offered to 7* ten 
 heaven, and to Ti Earth. 
 
 In Kdnghi’s Dictionary we have the following definition of the 
 word kid u. “ The name of a sacrifice. At the winter solstice, heaven 
 is sacrificed to at the Southern Icidu or border; and at the summer 
 solstice, earth is sacrificed to at the northern kidu or border; there- 
 fore the sacrifice to heaven and Earth is callen kidu. 
 
 In the Pei Wan Yun-fu, the great Thesaurus prepared by the 
 same scholars that made the Imperial Dictionary, in the reign of 
 Kanghi, we are told who the objects of worship are when T’icn 
 and Ti jlj^ are thus sacrificed to in the kid.u. , They quote the 
 Ritual of the Tsin dynasty, about A. D. 3o0, in explanation of 
 ph i as e t’icn kidu the kidu sacrifice to heaven. The words 
 
 are as follows : t’icn kidu su tsr, ynch htoang t’icn chi shin ; ti kidu so 
 tsr, yueh hwdng ti chi k'l ; flff [£f 7c ^ |l^ j.j|l 
 
 0 0T ^ 0, $ iib £ jjllt 5 “ That which is sacrificed to in the 
 t’/cn kidu (sacrifice to heaven) is called the god (shin) of Imperial 
 Heaven ; that which is sacrificed to in the ti kidu (sacrifice to Earth) 
 is called the god (k’i) of Imperial Earth.” 
 
 We have translated /twang t’icn chi shin, jjjlp in the 
 
 singular “ god of Imperial Heaven,” though there is nothing in the 
 sentence itself to decide whether the word Shin is singular or plural ; 
 the reason that wrn here regard it as singular is that this Shin of 
 heaven is called Shdng ti, and there can be but little doubt, we sup- 
 pose, that the title Shdng ti, “ ruler on high,” is generally applied to a 
 single Being : though we have the authority of C/iu tsz’ for saying that 
 all the Shin of heaven are collectively called Shdng ti, the ruler or 
 rulers on high. He makes this remark when commenting on the 
 kidu ti:h sang section of the l, l Ki : his object is to explain why 
 ffau-tsih, the ancestor of the Chau, dynasty, was paired with heaven, 
 in the kidu. sacrifice. The reason assigned is, that as heaven is the 
 root of all things, so an ancestor is the root of his posterity. For 
 this reason, Hnutsih was paired with heaven in the sacrifice at the 
 winter solstice, and Wan w'ing (the first monarch of the Chau dy- 
 nasty) was paired with Shdngti at the sacrifice in the ancestral tem- 
 ple called Ming-tang ; after having stated these matters, he says, 
 Shdng ti, tsiii t’icn ye. ; fsii t’icn chi shin rh yen chi, tseh toci 
 
 cin sM„g ti J* $ , ip K tk ; SS K Z # 1 1 Z- 
 
 fhj pH 7 t & * 6 the same as heaven : if we ceHec 1 
 
the gods of heaven and name them, then we call them Skiing ti, ruler 
 on high,” i e. “if we speak of the gods of heaven collectively, we 
 call them Slicing ti in other words, the title Skiing ti is sometimes 
 given to all the gods of heaven collectively, as well as to the chief god. 
 
 The Chinese student will find many instances where t'icn, heaven 
 is used in the same way, for all the celestial Shin. 
 
 . . — r— I 
 
 The point, we are now discussing, viz : that the den shin , jjjlji, 
 
 god or gods of heaven, and not the material Heavens, was the object 
 to whom the kiau sacrifice was offered, is so important that we shall 
 trouble the reader with additional proofs: 
 
 Li ki, Imperial Edition, sect. 36 p 1. In the text we read : “ In 
 
 the kiau (the sacrifice to heaven) the three year old bullock was 
 used, in the shie and tsih (the sacrifice to the gods of the land and 
 grain) a full grown ox was used.” 
 
 The reason of this distinction in the victims, was to honour heav- 
 en more than the gods of the land and grain, for, says the commenta- 
 tor, “ when the essence of a thing is brought forward, the smaller it 
 is the better. 
 
 Commenting on the text above cited, Kung S'd Yungtah TL El 
 0-i says “ The god of Heaven (t*ien Shin iji’jf ) is most ho- 
 norable and (a Being) with whom nothing can be compared; there- 
 fore (in the kiau, sacrifice) they used the three year old bullock; 
 the meritorious services of the gods of the land and grain extend to 
 men, and men rely upon these meritorious services, therefore they 
 sacrifice the full grown ox to them by way of recompense.” 
 
 Here we have direct testimony to the fact, that, the god (Shin) 
 of heaven, who is beyond comparison the most honorable of al| 
 Beings, is the object worshiped in the kiau sacrifice. 
 
 Commenting on the same passage Chaushi S'd, jjtjj a 
 
 scholar of the Sung dynasty, who wrote before the time of Chu tsz’ 
 says, “ When we speak of the Kiau sacrifice, the Shin, god or gods 
 of Heaven (t'icn shin, jp|j}), and the Ki, god or gods of Earth” 
 (are meant). In the preface of the Book of Odes, Hau T'icn 
 Yu elding tiling -=p| /yj np, section, it is said, in the 
 
 Kiau they sacrifice to Heaven and Earth. In the Shu King it is 
 said, “the victims used at the Kiau sacrifice were two bullocks; for 
 one was used at the southern Kiau or border, to sacrifice to the 
 Shin, god or gods of Heaven (t'icn shin, % i|i$) ; and one was 
 used at the Northern Kiau or border, to sacrifice to the Ki, god or 
 gods of Earth ; thus for both the god (Shin) of Heaven and the god 
 ( Ki) of earth they used the three year old bullock.” 
 
The render will observe that in this last quotation, the words 
 Shin and K'i are translated as either singular or plural ; in the ori- 
 ginal there is nothing to mark the number. For our purpose, it is 
 not a matter of the slightest Importance, whether the word Shin, in 
 passages similar to the one above quoted, is considered as in the 
 singular or plural: let it be either, and these quotations furnish 
 clear and positive testimony to the fact, that, the object or objects 
 worshiped at the winter solstice, the most solemn and highest sacri- 
 fice ever offered in China, is a Being or Beings called Shin. 
 
 We have seen above that by Heaven, and Shang ti, the 
 
 Ruler on high, all parties agree that the same thing or Being is 
 referred to. 
 
 Another method, therefore, of proving that the object worshiped 
 in the Kidu sacrifice, is not the material Heavens, but an invisible 
 Being — a Shin , — is to shew that this sacrifice is offered to Shang tl 
 and that Shang ti is a title given to the chief Shin or god. 
 
 In the Chung Yung jj|*, the second of the “ Four Books,” 
 we read; “The rites of the Kidu and Shie are the means whereby 
 we serve Slicing ti, the Ruler on high, and (as the Commentator 
 adds) the sovereign of Earth.” 
 
 On this passage, the Commentator says, “ In the Kiau they sacri- 
 fice to Heaven and in the Shie they sacrifice to Earth; that the 
 sovereign of Earth is not mentioned is owing to brevity of style.” 
 
 We see here the Commentator regards Shang ti as the same as 
 T'ien, Heaven. 
 
 Another Commentator gives us the following explanation of the 
 sacrifices Kidu and Si id, Yen kidu tseh tung t'ien shin, yen skid tseh 
 
 tung ti k'i ■= f(tj ^ ffjr ■=" ft ill) $c jffi' “ lf 
 
 we speak of the Kidu then (all) the celestial gods ( Shin) are includ- 
 ed, and when we speak of the Shit, then all the terrestrial gods 
 (K'i) are included.” 
 
 Here we see again that the objects worshiped in the Kidu are 
 the T'ien Shin, gods of Heaven. This commentator either regards 
 Shang ti as a title given to all the T'ien Shin, or regards the indivi- 
 dual Being to whom this title is given as included in their number. 
 
 As the fact is so well known that the Kidu sacrifice is offerred to 
 Shang ti, having cited one proof of this fact, we will not occupy 
 more time upon it, but proceed to prove that Shang ti is called a 
 Shin, and is included among the class of Beings worshiped under 
 that name. 
 
29 
 
 In the Wu King Tung 1 jFj ^ ||| -jig, quoted in the Yuen 
 Kien Lui Han , j|j^ ^ j^T( we read 7*?Yn SAi« c/if <d che, yuch 
 hau t'ien Shang ti ; yih yueh t' ien /twang ta ti ; yih yuch tdi yih : 
 
 % # Z X * 0HX ± & # * ti >i)' 
 
 Q — • “The greatest of t lie celestial gods (T'ien Shin) is 
 
 called Expansive Heaven, the Ruler on high. * lie is also called 
 the celestial, august, great Ruler ; also the Great one.” 
 
 In the Pai Pien jwjl jjfpq quoted in the work above mentioned we 
 meet with the following : Hau Han Ilidu wan ti, i t'ien hwang td ti, 
 w li ti, wei luh t sung ; yu i wei tang, ho did? Chan Li i yen sz’ hau 
 t'ien Shang ti, tseh yen sz’ tscii sz’ t' ien, ptih shuh pieh shin ; yii sz’ fuh 
 sz’ hau t’ ien Shang ti, td Tin ’rh mien, sz’ w it ti yih ju chi; hau 
 t'ien Shang ti nai peh shin chi tsun ; tsung chi i ye. ^ 
 
 'll pM X 3?. X ''l)’- hi 'iii‘ Pi >■> /j . ■ j -X -f) ai’ 
 
 m m n m «l ^ x t mi’i n m ie * xt is 
 
 m ifrX 0] BR ft XX 1 1%,-k M 1 % IJE K ft 
 jin Z-fl X ± if Ti H M 2 $ ^ 2 « & 
 
 * We translate Adu t’ien sluing ti, “ Expansive Hea- 
 
 ven, the Ruler on high,” and not “ The Supreme Ruler of the Expansive 
 Heavens,” as the phrase is usually translated. The reason is, that Then and 
 Shang ti being only, the first the name, and the second the title given to the 
 same Power, 'T’ien and Shang ti must be construed in apposition, as we can- 
 not regard a Power as the Ruler of itself. Commenting on the text, i yen sz' 
 
 sz' hau ticn shang ti, J/l ’g j]£ jjjg |j % ofChau lA sec 18 > 
 
 page 2, Citing tsz’ says, tien yil li yih ye, lien yen ki ti, ti yen hi chu, 
 
 til vfi — ife K r! ft : fit f $r If ft iPj Tien < Heaven) and 
 
 Ti (the Ruler) are the same. (The name) Heaven refers to its (the Ruling 
 Power's) substance, and (the title) ti the Ruler refers to its ruling.” 
 
 This explanation takes no notice of the qualifying words “ Hau " “ Expan- 
 sive,” and ,l Shang ” “ on high,” and simply tells us that T'ien and Ti, in the 
 phrase quoted above from the Chau Li, are the same, from which we must 
 infer that they are in apposition. 
 
 The meaning of these words “ Hau," and “Shang," are thus 
 
 explained by Chingshi Ngoh, j^* jpjj, when commenting on the same 
 passage of the Chau Li. He says, { hi k'i chi loin hau, ku yueh hau t'ien ; i 
 hi chi i wei hu skiing, hu yueh shang H, Hi ft 1 Z s- -in & B 
 
 X X- )iX ft ± fti ¥ .b Ml b. t 'li?’ u ^ ecause °f ' m ' 
 
 mensity of its substance, we call it (the ruling Power) Expansive Heaven ; 
 because its ruling seat is on high, we call it (the Power above called Expan- 
 sive Heaven) Shang ti, i. e. the Ruler on high.” 
 
The Emperor II iu Wan of the after Han dynasty supposed that the 
 celestial, august, great Ruler and the live Rulers were the six 
 venerated objects (to whom Shun sacrificed): his idea was correct. 
 Why so? In the Chau Li we read, that they used the pure offering 
 to sacrifice to Expansive Heaven, the Ruler on high, thus in the pure 
 offering they offered a sacrifice to heaven (alone), it did not belong 
 to any otlr.r god (Shin); and (we read) also that the officer when 
 sacrificing to Bright Heaven, the Ruler on high, wore the great fur 
 robe and imperial cap, and that in sacrificing to the five Rulers he 
 wore the same dress: Expansive Heaven, the Ruler on high, is the 
 most Honorable of all the gods (literally hundred Shin); this is the 
 meaning of the venerated objects.” 
 
 In the Shi King, Si an Yd, Ching Yueh, JJ- jEj section, p. 21, 
 we are expressly told that, “ Shang tf is the god of Heaven,” Shdiig 
 
 ti t f icii chi shin ye, ijjljl 
 
 Li Ki, Imperial Edition, section, 8 p. 15., We read T'icn shin 
 yu luh ; tsi chi yih sui yii kin; hiiu t'icn slicing ti, tung chi tsi chi, 
 
 3» 4 * f < 1i i^r* fj Z, — M ti j L’H X -i: iff. 
 
 & & £ - fli- ‘‘The celestial gods (Shin) are six, they 
 
 are sacrificed to nine times in a year : Expansive Heaven, the 
 Ruler on high, who is sacrificed to at the Winter solstice, is the first 
 and then follow the, wu ti Five Rulers. We have the same 
 
 statement repeated in the commentary on the Chau Li section 22nd 
 p. 30. Nothing can be more distinct and formal than these state- 
 
 ments. 
 
 5. In Mencius, Edition called Sz’ Shu l 3 u elm pi chi, jjQ T& 
 
 ||j|j jEj 1 , Vol. 6. p. 29. we read, ‘‘If the ugliest person were 
 to practise fasting and bathing, he could then sacrifice to Sluing ti.” 
 The critical note says. “ Shang ti is the most honorable of all the 
 gods (Shin),” Sluing ti chi tsun chi shin. J* 
 
 This says, as plainly as language can, that, Shang ti is the most 
 honorable one of the class of Beings called Shin. 
 
 Tai Ye 1 
 
 We have not ceased to offer sacrifices, from the kidu sacrifice (to 
 Heaven and Earth) to that presented in the ancestral temple. To 
 the gods above (celestial), to the gods below (terrestrial), we have 
 made offerings and interred their victims. There is not a god (Shin) 
 we have not honored : Hautsih (our ancestor) is not able and Shang 
 ti does not come down to our relief.” 
 
 un Han, yjjj. Ode p. 12. Text, Inin ki ta shin &c., 
 &c. “ The drought is great and the heat intense. 
 
A critical note says, “ Shin in the phrase, s there is not a god 
 (Shin) we have not honored,' only refers to those worshiped in the 
 kiau and in the ancestral temple, for the sacrifices constantly offered 
 were onlv those at the kiau border of the country, and in the ances- 
 tral temple.” We have seen, in a previous part of this paper, that 
 Heaven, or Shang ti and Earth, were worshiped in the kiau. The 
 worship of these is here included in the single word Shin and as the 
 author of the critical note plainly implies all the Beings constantly 
 sacrificed to. 
 
 The Commentator says; “In the kiau they sacrifice to the celes- 
 tial and terrestrial gods; and then gives us this explanation of the 
 whole:” The Poet means that Hautsih (his ancestor) wished to 
 rescue them from the calamities of the drought, but was not able. 
 He mentions Hautsih because of his nearness of kin, and the Ruler, 
 because he was the most honorable (Shin addressed). 
 
 The Commentator here, evidently, intends to account for the fact 
 that, although all the gods of Heaven and Earth are sacrificed to, 
 vet the poet only notices the failure of Shang ti and Hautsih to 
 answer their prayers ; the reason is, he, says, that one is the relation 
 of the parties praying, and the other, the most honorable of the class 
 of Beings addressed. 
 
 The paraphrase is very full and makes it unmistakeably plain, that 
 the Shin, (which occurs in the phrase, ‘there is not a god we have 
 not honored/) is used, as the general name of all the Beings worship- 
 ed on the occasion of this great public calamity. It is as follows : 
 “ The drought is very great, and the heat most intense and burns to 
 such a degree as to cause sickness among the people. I, because 
 of the people’s distress, seek assistance from ( Shin) the gads. To 
 every one that can he sacrificed to, I have not ceased to mke offer- 
 ings, from the kiau in which I sacrificed to the gods of Heaven and 
 Earth, to the ancestral temple where I sacrificed to my ancestors ; 
 whether looking to those above I sacrificed to the celestial (gods), or 
 looking to those below I sacrificed to the terrestrial (gods) ; whether 
 at the commencement of the sacrifice 1 offered up the ceremonies 
 due to them, or the sacrifice ended, I interred their victims ; — for 
 there is not a god (Shin) to whom I have not exhausteil the way of 
 honoring and reverencing him. Now of the gods (Shin), of the anees- 
 tral temple, t here is none more to be honored than Hautsih : although 
 lie has never failed to enjoy my offerings', stiff his strength is not suffi- 
 cient to overcome the calamity; of the gods (Shin) sacrificed to in 
 the kiau sacrifice there is none more to be honored than Shang It, Ins 
 
strength sufficient to overcome the calamity, luit lie still does not 
 enjoy (or favorably receive) mv offerings.” 
 
 We desire to call the Reader’s attention particularly to this quota- 
 tion from the Book of Odes; for we think it would of itself, if we had 
 no other evidence, fully sustain our position, that Shin is the generic 
 name for God in Chinese. We have here an occasion of deep dis- 
 tress, a great public calamity; man is made to feel his weakness; 
 he calls on his gods for aid. Surely this is the occasion on which to 
 learn the name given to the whole class of Beings worshiped, if the 
 Chinese have such a word. We find, in this ode, the plainest evidence 
 that they have the generic name we seek for, and that this name is 
 Shin ; and the Poet himself and all his Commentators, not only use 
 Shin as the general name of all the Beings worshiped, but also 
 expressly tell us that Shnng ti the chief god is one of this class. 
 
 We have more than a hundred references to passages, in the clas- 
 sical books, now before us, in which Shdng fi is either directly called 
 a Shin or indirectly referred to as a Shin. We shall not, however, 
 cite them for fear of wearying the Reader’s attention; more evidence, 
 on this point, could not increase his conviction that Sluing ti is a 
 Shin. The quotations, given above, state this so directly and clearly, 
 that he must either conclude the writers I have quoted, know no- 
 thing of the matter, or that the fact is ns 1 have stated it, viz. th.it 
 the chief god of the Chinese is by them included among the class of 
 Beings called Shin. 
 
 We shall, therefore, give only one more quotation to prove this 
 point. Yen tsz’ thus addresses Duke II wan : if the chaplain were to 
 speak the truth, he would blame your highness severely ; but should 
 he screen and hide your faults, he would be attempting to deceive the 
 Ruler on high. If the Ruler on high be a god (Shin) then he can- 
 not be deceived, but if he be not (Shin) a god it would be of no use to 
 pray to him.” 
 
 Here we arc not only told that Sluing ti is a Shin, but what is 
 still more to our purpose, viz : that it is of no use to pray to any Be- 
 ino- who is not a Shin. 
 
 We cannot conclude this second division of our subject without 
 referring once more to the ritual of the Chau dynasty : for we rely 
 much upon the evidence this work affords us, that all the Beings 
 worshiped in the national rites were included in one of the three 
 classes called Shin, K'i, and Kwei. 
 
 The evidence cited above was derived from a consideration of the 
 duties of the Tsung peh , the chief Baron, who superintended the ua- 
 
t ion a I sacrifices. We shall now, by a reference to the office of the 
 td <-huh Great Chaplain, shew that the prayers used in the 
 national worship, were all addressed to the Skin, K'i, Kwei, and prove 
 from the Commentators, that the chief god of the Chinese is includ- 
 ed among the Beings contained in this enumeration. 
 
 o o 
 
 The duties of this office are thus described in the 25th section of 
 the Chau Li : The Great Chaplain superintends (the offering up of) 
 the six forms of prayer to serve the Kwei, Skin, K'i, to pray for 
 happiness, and to entreat constant purity. The first prayer is called the 
 Shun chnh ; 2d The Nien rhuh ; 3d Keih chuh ; 4th The Hwa 
 chuh ; ;5th The Lui chuh; 6th The Kick chuh. 
 
 The first question to be here asked is, to whom are these prayers 
 addressed ! The second is, what are the blessings, to obtain which, 
 these prayers were offered ? 
 
 To the first question we answer, these prayers, we find from the 
 text are addressed to the three classes of Beings called severally Kwei, 
 Shin and K'i. Who are included in these general names? The 
 Commentators tell us 1st. in general terms; that," the six forms of 
 prayer were used at the kiau, when they sacrificed to Heaven, and 
 Earth, and to the gods of the laud and grain : and at the sacrifices 
 offered in the ancestral temple. 1 ’ Thus we see all the objects, us- 
 ually worshiped by the Chinese in their national rites, are included ; 
 for, as the Commentator on the book of odes has told us above, “the 
 Sacrifices constantly offered, were only those of the kiau and of the 
 ancestral temple.” Secondly, we are told particularly, that the nien 
 chuh, the annual prayer, the second form mentioned above, was used 
 “ to pray to Shangti and the gods of the land and grain for the be- 
 stowal of grain.” 
 
 Secondly. What are the blessings for which these prayers were 
 offered ? The Commentators answer : The first prayer was for a 
 prosperous, plentiful year; 2d, was to pray for constant purity; 3d, 
 was for happiness and felicitous omens; 4th, was to escape calami- 
 ties and war; 5th, was for favorable winds and seasonable rain; 
 6th was a prayer to remove far from them their sins and sicknesses. 
 
 Another Commentator, explaining the fifth prayer, makes the fol- 
 lowing observation : “ The men of the olden time, if they obtained 
 blessings, were sure to ascribe the merit to (Shin) the gods.” 
 
 The duties of the Great Chaplain are thus further described, in 
 the next sentence of the text. 
 
 “ He superintends the offering up of the, luh hi, six 
 
 supplications to harmonize the Kwei, Shin, K'i. The 1st was call- 
 
34 
 
 ed Lui; 2d Tsdti ; 3d Kwci\ 4th Ying] 5th Clung ; ;uid the 6th 
 was called Shwuh. 
 
 The Commentator explaining the word Id, jjjfr, says, it is the 
 same as a M uni, to cry out. “It means,” he says, “that because 
 they had calamities they cried out and informed the gods (Shin) to 
 beg for happiness.” 
 
 These services are thus explained by the Commentators. The 
 first, Lui , is said to be a sacrifice to Sluing ti ; The 2d, Tsdu, is a sacri- 
 fice to ancestors; the 4th, Ying, is thus explained ; “ with respect 
 to the gods (Shin) of the sun, moon and stars, should there be un- 
 timely snow, thunder, wind and rain, this sacrifice, called Ying, was 
 offered to them ; and with respect to the gods (S/tin) of the lulls and 
 marshes, when there was calamity from floods or drought, plague, 
 or pestilence, then the sacrifice called Ying was offered to them.” 
 
 Here again we see that Sluing ti, the chief god, is specially men- 
 tioned as one of the Shin to whom these services were offered. It 
 js also plain, from the above extracts, that the (Shin) gods were in- 
 voked in all times of calamity and that from them all kinds of bless- 
 ings were sought by prayer. Among the calamities, from which de- 
 liverance was prayed for, the Reader’s attention is called to the fact, 
 that, sins and sicknesses are specially mentioned. 
 
 3. The conclusion we draw, from the facts proved above is: that 
 the class of Brings called Shin being the highest class worshiped by 
 the Chinese, must be regarded as the gods of China, and Shin as the 
 generic name for God in the Chinese language. 
 
 Every thing here depends upon the sense in which the word God 
 is used. If the word God is understood to mean, a self-existent, 
 eternal, almighty Being, the Creator of heaven and earth, &c.., as 
 this word is usually defined by Christians, we are quite aware that 
 our premises do not warrant the conclusion we have drawn from 
 them, viz : that Shin means God. But we are not contending that 
 Shin means the true God, or was ever used by the Chinese to de- 
 signate such a Being as the one described above On the contrary, 
 we are full pursuaded they have no knowledge of a self-existent, 
 eternal, almighty Being, who created heaven and earth ; and we un- 
 derstand this point to be distinctly admitted by those who oppose 
 the use of Shin to render teog into Chinese. We only maintain that 
 Shin is the generic or apellative name of God in Chinese, that it 
 means god “ in the sense of heathen nations,” that it answers to 6eo S 
 ami Deus as those words werfe used by Greek and Roman ploytheists 
 
Although we admit that the word Shin is never used by the Chi- 
 nese to designate t lie sell-existent almighty Being who made heaven 
 and earth, still we contend that the highest Beings they have 'ever 
 conceived of, is included in the class called Shin. 
 
 As so much depends here upon the meaning attached to the word 
 God, we shall sustain the propriety of the sense, in which we use 
 the phrase, “ generic name for God,” by the citation of a few of the 
 highest authorities on this subject. 
 
 Cudworth thus defines the pagan notion of the word God. He says: 
 
 “ This is that, which seems to be essentially included in the 
 pagan notion of the word god or gods, when taken in general (i. e. 
 generically), namely a respect to religious icorship. Wherefore a 
 god, in general, according to the sense of pagan theists, may 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.” Cudworth' $ Intel. System Vol. 1. p. 373. 
 
 Mosheim thus expressed his views, of what constitutes polytheism 
 and the meaning of the word god, in the sense of polytheists. 
 
 “ In order to arrive at a clear view of the matter, it ought to be 
 determined in the first instance, what is meant by “ believing in the 
 existence of many gods.” In my opinion, he alone believes in a 
 plurality of gods, who not only admits the existence of many Beings 
 more powerful, more noble, and more excellent than mankind, but 
 inculcates that men ought to pay a certain homage and offer sacri- 
 fice to these Beings. For we are not to rank any one among the 
 worshipers of many gods who simply supposes many Beings to exist 
 far superior to men in power, strength, wisdom and other attributes. 
 For in that case all Christians, who, agreeably to sacred writ, be- 
 lieve in the existence of God’s messengers or angels would have to 
 be included in this class. There must be superadded an opinion, 
 that it is the duty of all men to propitiate these natures with divine 
 worship and ceremonies.” Dr. J. L. Mosheim. Notes on Cudworth, 
 vol. 2. p. 80. 
 
 We shall only add to the above the opinion of Waterland : 
 
 The pagans, though they professed generally (as is well known 
 to the learned) one only supreme God, looking upon all the rest as 
 subordinate ministers of the one supreme, yet stand charged with 
 polytheism by the Jews, by the ancient Christians, and by the com- 
 mon consent of mankind. Thus Jupiter and Mercury (though one 
 was supposed a subordinate minister of the other) were, by the I.y- 
 caonians, spoken of iij the plural number as gods; that is, two gods. 
 
Arts 14 : 11,12 Ami this Ins been the common way of speaking, 
 in all the writers 1 have met with, sacred or profane, ancient or 
 modern. But what if the customary usage of language had been 
 otherwise : does this writer imagine the dispute is oidy about a name'? 
 To extricate this matter, polytheism may be considered either in a 
 stricter or larger sense: it may either signify the belief of more gods 
 than one, in the proper sense of necessarily existing, supreme, &c., 
 (in which sense, there have been few, very few polytheists: the 
 pagans themselves, generally, were not polytheists in this sense; or 
 it may signify the receiving of more gods than one, in respect of 
 religious worship, whatever opinion of these gods they tnay other- 
 wise have. It is this kind of polytheism which the. first Command- 
 ment has chiefly respect to, and it is the same that Pagans, Arians, 
 and Socininns stand justly charged with. Should any man alter the 
 name, the thing would be the same, still.” Water land’ s Works, vol. 
 2. p. 19,20. 
 
 We see then, according to these writers, that an intelligent Being 
 superior to man, who is made an object of religious worship, must 
 be regarded as a god, in the sense in which this word is understood 
 by pagans. We suppose it will not be denied that this is the sense 
 in which the word Elohim is to be understood in the second clause 
 of the First Commandment. 
 
 We shall now recapitulate some of the chief points proved, in the 
 preceding part of this F.ssay, that the Reader may see how fully the 
 Shin answer all the requirements of these definitions. 
 
 We have seen that in the time erf Shun B. C. 21(59, there was an 
 officer appointed to attend to the three ceremonies, used in the na- 
 tional worship, and that the three classes of Beings worshiped, in 
 these national rites, were called respectively Shin, Kwei, and K'i. 
 That under the Shting dynasty, B. C. 1710, according to the speech 
 of E-yun, these same three classes of Beings were worshiped ; that 
 according to the Ritual of the Chau dynasty, the objects then (P>. C. 
 
 1 100) worshiped were designated by the same names, viz: Shin, K'i, 
 and Kwei. We learned further, from this Ritual, that the Beings 
 belonging to these three classes are “ the most honorable in the uni- 
 verse,” and that of these three classes, to all of whom religious wor- 
 ship teas offered , the class called Shin is the most honorable ; that the 
 single word S'lin i9 used alone, as appears from the phrase “ gods and 
 men,” from the Qde quoted, and from the express declaration of the 
 Commentator, to include all the members of the three classes and in- 
 deed every object of religious worship. We have seen that the object 
 
worshiped in the ktdu Sacrifice, at the winter solstice, the most 
 solemn and highest sacrifice ever offered in China, is “the Skin 
 (God) of imperial heaven;” and that the chief god of the Chinese, 
 whether designated by his name T*ien, “ Heaven,” or by his titie 
 Shang ti, “ Ruler on high,” is expressly included among the class of 
 Beings called Shin, 
 
 These facts, it appears to us, fully warrant the conclusion we 
 have drawn from them, viz : “ that the class of Beings called Skin, 
 being the highest class worshiped by the Chinese, must be re- 
 garded as the gods of China, and Shin as the generic name for God 
 in the Chinese language.” 
 
 In the foregoing part of this Essay, we have endeavored, by an 
 appeal to the usus loquendi of the word Shin in the classical works 
 of the Chinese, to ascertain its meaning when used as a concrete 
 noun ; and we think have shown it is used, by these writers, as the 
 appellative name of God. 
 
 Ernesti, after having told us that the «strs loquendi may be known 
 by testimony direct or indirect, gives the following rule for obtaining 
 direct testimony. “ Direct testimony may be obtained,” he says, 
 “first, from the writers to whom the language is vernacular; next, 
 from those who, though foreigners, have learned the language in 
 question ; and third, from Dictionaries, &,c.,tnade by those acquaint- 
 ed with the language.” 
 
 We have already pursued the first means, recommended above, to 
 as great length as we suppose it could answer any good purpose to 
 go; and shall now, inverting the order recommended by Ernests, 
 produce evidence from the Dictionaries prepared by foreigners and 
 from the writings of missionaries, to sustain the meaning we have 
 assigned to the word Shin. 
 
 The testimony thug elicited, notwithstanding some diversity of 
 phraseology on the part of the Romish missionaries, agrees so en- 
 tirely in regarding Shin, in one of the senses in which it is used, as 
 the name of a class of Beings (to which class we have proved the 
 Chinese offer religious worship) that we think it entitled to great 
 weight from its uniformity. 
 
 O 
 
38 
 
 The Reader is requested to hear in mind Shat we are not contend- 
 ing that the word Shin means God in the proper sense of necessari- 
 ly existing, supreme, &.C.; but that it is the appellative or generic 
 name of God: in the language of Cudworth, that it is the tiame of 
 a class of “ understanding Beings, superior to men, and looked upon 
 as objects of men’s religious worship," and not only so, but that they 
 are the highest class of Beings that are so regarded by the Chinese. 
 
 We turn first to the Dictionary of Dr. Morrison, published in 1819. 
 This word is th is defined in his Chinese and English Dictionary : 
 “ Every evanescent, invisible, inscrutable, spiritual, operating power 
 or cause is called Shin. A Spirit ; the human Spirit. Divinity. 
 God, in the sense of heathen nations. Divine; Spiritual; the animal 
 spirits." 
 
 We have here, among the meanings given, the exact one for which 
 we contend, “ God in the sense of heathen nations." 
 
 In the English and Chinese part of his Dictionary, the Doctor thus 
 renders the word G >d : “ God or the (b us of the Chinese, was original- 
 ly, and is still most generally Shin jjjljp : in the plural Dii, Shin kwei 
 Vlli a,, d Shin Ice jjjj^ A sort of Supreme God is, in the 
 ancient books, expressed by Shang te. Genii of particular places are 
 also expressed by Shin, as ho shin, jjj&» god of the river; shan 
 Shin, [j.J ijjijl god of the hill, & c ,- all these gods are, in Chinese 
 notions, inferior to t'ien, yr. Heaven," &,c. 
 
 These inferior deities, though at first by the Doctor called genii, 
 are afterwards by him correctly rendered gods, as they are all objects 
 of religious worship. 
 
 We next cite the works of Dr Medhurst, by whose diligence we 
 have been furmshe 1 with three dictionaries. 
 
 The first, the Hok-keen, was published in 1832. In it, the charac- 
 ter sin, (mandann Shin,) is thus explained : 
 
 'r I — _ L t \—. 
 
 “ A god, a spirit. Shin tti trig, IhqJ ;/{ . the gods; chin shin, tfT 
 the true God ; Shin hwan. jjjyj r.%{ the human Spirit and soul.” 
 
 [n the second, his Chinese and English Dictionary, published in 
 
 1842, file word Shin is thus explained : 
 
 *' The celestial gods, who draw forth or develop a!! things.” “ Shin 
 ming jjjjjj jjJFj, superior beings, the immortal gods. Kwei shin, 
 
gods and demons.” “ S~e skin, ijjj. u> serve the g>nis. 
 'fe shin, XyS. |{jl to sacrifice to ihe gods. ’ ” ’I keen shut jin knn, 
 ^ T ‘l|l J\ -'U’ ‘^ e gnds of heaven and the spirits of men.’ “ Peh 
 
 shin, Tf jyirji, the hundred gods, 1 ' <5Ec., &.c ., 
 
 The word Sliin has other meanings given in this Dictionary, but 
 as we are only illustrating its meaning when used as a concrete noon 
 we do not quote them, as these meanings do not at all aflect the 
 question we are now discussing. 
 
 We next quote Dr. Medhurst’s English and Chinese Dictionary, 
 which was published in 1*47. As this is the last production of Dr. 
 Medhurst, compiled by him after thirty years study of the language, 
 and with the benefit derived from the labor of all preceding Euro- 
 pean scholars, we shall extract every thing that he has written under 
 the word “God,” and beg to call the Reader’s particular attention 
 to the testimony which Dr. Medhurst gives as to the words which 
 "the Chinese, themselves" use for “gods in general.” ^ 
 
 God, the Supreme Being, t Shhng le, t'heenU-, 
 
 the most high God, |=i || jt 'jf/ hw&ng hw&ng Shang te \ ac- 
 cording to the Romanists, V t'her.n chob ; according to the 
 
 Mohammedans, ^ c ' ob, chinchod; some Protestant wri- 
 
 ters have used, |iii Shin, : |;!|! % Shin Skeen, ^ Shin cho\ 
 lU- fB jf$ chin liwo shin ; tiif. Chinese THEMSEi.ves/or gods, or 
 Invisible beings in general, use ij$ Shin, jjj{£ Shin kb, |l{3 
 kivei shin, ipljl 3$ Shin mtng, jjjtjl jjl) Shin sebn ; the gods of the 
 hills, llj san shin; the gods of the rivers, |4l h6 shin; 
 the crods of the land and grain, flfc shay tseih; the gods of the 
 
 »<«**.■ 
 
 heavens, ^ .!;i£ , t'hce.n shin ; the gods of the earth, j-jil 
 the god of learning, # § kwei sin?: the god of the winds, ~f' / V 
 sink pac; the gml of' water, p] ^ han; the god of rain, 
 ’f* ping 6 ; the eyes of the gods are like lightning, g # j] 
 Shin muhj»6 tein ; to swear before the gods, fj|J Aj, Shin 
 tsehifa sM ; the mercy of the gods. ^ ^ Shin chi tsze pei : 
 
 the protection of the gods, 
 
 nsiTi 
 
 fi/? iji'/p kwei shin chc tso6 y(ie; 
 
 may the gods protect you, i[ji£ ||| let S/lin ,J ' n & ^ res P ec ‘ 
 the gods, hut keep them at a distance, fjjr ^ ;JjaJ ^ king 
 
 kueel - rA )’ U ^ H c!} * •' a *' € ‘'^ e m " n ’ m & a m sm - 
 
40 
 
 yuJ in ' to regulate the gods and men- jp$J| chi shirt jin ; 
 a god, m the language of the Buddhists, r(j& poo sd; the god 
 Buddha, jl’jljS fok ; the god of the furnace, |af ijjly itsaSu 
 
 shin; local gods, + jfjl pfi t'hoo C i shin; sacrifice to the gods, as 
 though present, ^ jj$js f '5] tse shin jot tsui ; names of gods, 
 ftflj ^ kext tin ; 'pt 2£- koto mang, g|| koto King, iff Ca<f« 
 ynou, Wj Cheert yi 1 “ 
 
 In connection with this extract from Dr. Medhurst’s last Dictiona- 
 ry, two points, which are of the utmost importance in our present 
 inquiry, claim attention. The first is, that Dr. Med hurst, after hav- 
 ing told us what words the various foreigners who have written in 
 Chinese used for God, tells us, in express terms, that the Chinese 
 themselves, for gods, and invisible beings in general, use “ Shin 
 ’ in other words, that native writers use Shin as t he appellative 
 name of God. The second is, that Dr Medhtirst, in all this long 
 article, says not one word of the Chinese using Ti , as the ge- 
 
 neral name of gods, or of any class of invisible beings. This last 
 mentioned fact we think one of great importance; for if Ti be so 
 clearly the appellative name of God, in Chinese, that we should be 
 authorized to use it in our translation to render &eo;, how can the 
 fact be accounted for that two such scholars as Dr Morrison, (for he 
 too, under the word "God” makes no mention of Ti as the appella- 
 tive name of God,) and Dr Medhurst, should have known nothing of 
 it after so long and diligent a study of the language? 
 
 On the supposition that Ti not Shin (as we understand is now 
 maintained by the opponents of Shin,) is the appellative name of God 
 in Chinese, how can we account for the fact that they both give Shin 
 as this appellative and not Ti ? Though it rnay be admitted that this 
 fact is not conclusive evidence that Ti is not the appellative name of 
 God so Chinese, yet surely it is the strongest prim & facie evidence 
 against Ti and entitles U3 to call for very clear and unequivocal tes- 
 timony to rebut it. To rebut the very strong presumption against Ti, 
 that arises from this fact, those who now contend that Ti is the gen- 
 eric term for God in Chinese, should point out clearly how’ it was 
 that Drs Morrison and Medhurst in common with all other European 
 students of the Chinese language, have been for so long time under 
 a delusion with respect to the meaning of a word so constantly met 
 with as the character Ti ; for as we shall see, in the sequel, all 
 fcaye agreed in rendering Tt Emperor, Ruler, and no one, previous 
 
41 
 
 to the last four or five, months, ever thought of giving it as the appel- 
 lative name of God ! 
 
 Of the Dictionaries prepared by missionaries of the Romish church, 
 we have only one, that of M, J. M. Gallery He therein defines th© 
 word Skin, Esprit, Genie, Idoie, Mystere. 
 
 M De Guignec, we understand, also renders it Esprit, Geui6, 6lc , 
 &c. 
 
 These works have been prepared since the decision of the Roman 
 See, that “ T'zen Choo" shall be used for God 
 
 These two last mentioned lexicographers agree with us as to the 
 fact that Shin is the name oi a class of invisible beings ; they say 
 nothing with respect to their being or not being objects of religious 
 worship; but this fact we hive abundantly proved, and it is denied 
 by no one. Whether they would have regarded the Shin as gods, 
 tn the sense in which Cud worth and Mosheim and Wateriand define 
 the word “ God, ” as used by polytheists, we have no means of 
 deciding; but presume they would, as they knew the Shin were ob- 
 jects of religious worship. The contrary should not he inferred from 
 their using the words Esprit and Genie, as we have shown above 
 that although P. Amiot — in answer to M. De Guignes’ question, 
 " What are the national divinities of the Chinese ? ” — answers Shirt, 
 yet translates the words throughout his paper Esprit. 
 
 M. Visdelou gives us his views on this subject at some length, 
 which may be in accordance with that of the other members of this 
 Church He says: 
 
 “A i’^gard du terme Chin (S’nn) soit qu’i! sojt seu!, on ainss 
 reuni It Kweichin; aucun de nos terrries ne peut !e rendre parfaite- 
 ment, si on ie traduit par Espnts, ce n’esl pas assez, si on le traduit 
 par !e mot de Dieux, c’est trop.” “ Les Chinois ont plusieurs id£es 
 ou notions de Chin (Shin). 1, Qatand c’est en general qu’on en 
 parle, V une est general, et alors elle signifie tine certaine vertu 
 divine, excellente et incomprehensible, et l’on honore de ce titre les 
 hommes extraordinaires dont la saint et6 surpasse la condition hu- 
 maine : C autre est particuliere, et cette appellation convient alors 
 auz Etres seuls qui sunt r£ver£s par des sacrifices, tels que sont les 
 Genies celestes les Esprits terrestres, et ies manes des morts : auquel 
 cas, pour eviter toute Equivoque on les nomrnes Kwei-chin (KweU 
 shin). Or cette nation des Kwei-chin en iant qu'elle regarde les 
 Dieux seuls est morale et populaire ; et cenx qui I’admettent attri- 
 buent des intelligences a tons les corps de I’univers et aux manes 
 dee morts sans se mettre ea peine si ces formes sont veritablemem 
 
42 
 
 informante9, ou purement assistantes.” He then mentions a physi- 
 cal and philosophical sense in which the words Kwei-shin are to be 
 sometimes understood and adds: “ quand j’ai parte d’une notion des 
 Dieux morale et populaire, il ne faut pas peuser qn’elle appartienne 
 sentement au peuple,et nullernent au.x philosophes,” &.c. 2. Quand 
 
 c’est par opposition que Ton parle des Chin (Shin) on etablit alors 
 tres ordres de Dieux, d >nt les celestes sont nomm6s Chin, les ter- 
 restres Ki, et les manes de morts Kwei. En 6gnrd a cette distinc- 
 tion, on peut traduire Chin par Genies; Ki par Esprits; et Kwei, 
 par manes des morts; quoique dans le fond, nos termes ne quadrent 
 pas parfaitement aux terms Chinois.” 
 
 From the second class of meanings of Shin, given by M Visdelou 
 above, it will be perceived that the difference between him and our- 
 selves '19 more in phraseology than any thing else. Though he does 
 not scruple to call the Shin Dieux, he prefers Genie. The same 
 rnay be said of P. Amiot ; and we presume M, Gallery and M. De 
 Guignes used the word Genie in the same sense. As we have said 
 above, we do not contend that Shin means God in the proper sense 
 of necessarily existing, supreme, &c., but have expressed our opi- 
 nion that the Chinese have never conceived of such a Being,* and 
 have, therefore, no name for Him, and have strengthened this opi- 
 nion by a quotation from Dr. Medhurst’s “ China, its State and Pros- 
 pects,” in which he asserts, without any qualification, that the Chi- 
 nese “account no divinity to be eternal.” 
 
 This being the case, as it is admitted on all hands that the Shin 
 are the objects of religious worship, and as we have clearly shown 
 that they are the highest of the three classes into which the Chinese 
 divide the invisible beings, who are the objects of this worship, it 
 would be a mere quarrel about words to contend whetner we shall 
 call them Genii, Spirits or Gods; for we agree wholly with Mos- 
 heim that a spirit, who is the object of religious worship, must be 
 accounted a god in the pagan sense of the word, and we may add, in 
 the sense of the first commandment also. 
 
 As we have clearly shown that the chief object, to whom the Chi- 
 nese offer religious worship, is a Shin, to translate Shin, Genii, and 
 maintain that it never means a god or gods, by the plainest conse- 
 quence denies that the Chinese have any gods at all : for if the high- 
 
 * The Chinese have not anywhere, in the classical Books, that we are 
 aware of, given any account of the origin of the Skin or of Shnng t{ ; and, on 
 the contrary, there are no passages which affirm the self-existence or eternity 
 Qf either Shang tt, or any other of the Beings, who are included in the claaa 
 called Skin 
 
43 
 
 est object of their religious worship is to be reckoned only as one of 
 the class called Genii, the inferior objects cannot be any thing more. 
 We have shown that Shang ti is the most honorable of the Skin, 
 and if Shin is here translated either Genii or Gods, it is the same to 
 us : in either case, Shin is the name of the highest class of Beings 
 to whom the Chinese offer religious worship, and therefore the best 
 term the language affords us by which to render Elokirn and 6(og. 
 But if Cud worth and Mosheim and Waterland are correct, Shin 
 must be rendered a god or gods. 
 
 To the question, “ What is the generic name for God in the Chi- 
 nese language ?” put in a previous part of this paper, we replied, 
 “We answer with Morrison and Milne and Marshman, Skin:” and 
 we might have added, according to the Chinese works of Dr. Med* 
 hurst and Mr. Gutzlaff, and the testimony of all Protestant missio- 
 naries who have composed works in this language, the appellative 
 name of God in Chinese is Shin. 
 
 The proof of this point, by an appeal to the Chinese writings of 
 the missionaries will furnish us with Ernesti’s third direct testimony 
 to the usus luquendi of Skin. 
 
 That Drs. Morrison, Milne, and Marshman used Shir,, as the ge- 
 neric or appellative name of God in Chinese, we shall make no quo* 
 tations from their writings to prove, as the fact is well known that 
 they used Shin in their translations to render Elohim and @soc: in all 
 cases, whether the true god or a false god was referred to by these 
 words. 
 
 After the publication of these Versions, a dissatisfaction with the 
 use of Skin as the rendering offlsoj, when this word referred to the true 
 God was felt; and in the translation of the New Testament prepared 
 by Dr. M edhurst, &£->;, when referring to the true God, was rendered 
 by the phrase Shan* t’, which phrase the Doctor has always trans- 
 lated “ Supreme Ruler.’’ In this rendering he was followed by 
 Mr. Gutzlatf in his translation. Thus, the name (or as vve contend, 
 the title) of the chief God of the Chinese was used for the true God, 
 and another word was used to render when the reference was to 
 a false god or gods. If what vve have advanced in the first part of 
 this Essay on the necessity for using the appellative name of God to 
 render aso; in all cases, be correct., then a very great mistake was 
 made in using S ting 1 1 , and in rendering 9so' in different contexts 
 by different Chinese words. But this way of rendering was con- 
 curred in by nearly all the Missionaries, by the writer of this Essay 
 among the number, and there was no opposition made-' to the use of 
 
44 
 
 Sh^ng ti, until a revision of existing translations was called for. 
 This call caused all questions connected with the differences which 
 existed between the Versions of Drs. Morrison and Medhurst to un» 
 dergo a careful examination, and the position was maintained that the 
 generic or appellative name of God should be used to render deog in 
 all cases. 
 
 As soon as the attention of the Missionaries was called to this 
 point, the truth of this proposition was, we believe, generally ad- 
 mitted, and it was as generally acknowledged that the compound 
 phrase “ Sh&iig ti,” "Supreme Ruler,” or "Ruler on High,” could 
 not be the appellative name of God in Chinese, and accordingly the 
 use of Shting tt has ceased to be advocated 6y all, with whose opi- 
 nion we are acquainted. 
 
 The phrase, which the great majority of the missionaries had pre- 
 viously used for the true God, being thus abandoned, and the ques- 
 tion with respect to the rendering of &sag narrowed down to the 
 single inquiry, What is the appellative name of God in Chinese, 
 many, who had formerly agreed on this subject in all respects, found 
 themselves now divided on this new issue. Some of those, who had 
 previously used “ Skiing tt,” maintained in accordance (as we shall 
 show) with the previous usage of all t he missionaries, that Shin was 
 the appellative sought for; while others brought forward a perfectly 
 new term, which neither they themselves nor any others, so far as 
 we have been able to learn, had ever regarded, before this exigency, 
 as the appellative name of God in Chinese. 
 
 To prove that Shin was used by all the missionaries as the appel- 
 lative name of God, it is necessary for us to quote (as we have done 
 above in the case of Dr. Medhurst’s Dictionaries) the works of the 
 living against the position they now maintain. We therefore think 
 it right to state distinctly, that we do not make these quotations to 
 reproach our Missionary Brethren, who advocate the use of T>, with 
 any inconsistency in this matter ; for we ourselves, in common with 
 most of those who advocate the use of Shin to render £eog in all 
 cases, have changed our opinion as to Shang ti as we have said 
 above The sincere Christian regard and respect we entertain for 
 these Brethren and the entire confidence we have that they, in com- 
 mon with all the Missionaries, have but one desire, which is to set 
 forth the Gospel of Christ, forbid us to be influenced by any such 
 motive. And moreover we are fully persuaded, that, for such falli- 
 ble mortals as we all are, the only true course of consistency is to 
 abandon error as soon as it is perceived and to adhere to what we at 
 
46 
 
 present believe to be truth, until we see reason to doubt of its truth- 
 fulness. 
 
 In this appba! to the Dictionaries and writings of the Missionaries 
 we hate three objects. JFirst to show, that, the ablest Protestant 
 Missionaries, both dead and living, have regarded and used Shin as 
 • the appellative name of God, in order that, what we regard as the 
 truth in the premises, may derive from thence the strong corrobora- 
 tion afforded by the entire uniformity of opinion which existed pre- 
 vious to this late division, as to what was the appellative name of God 
 in Chinese ; and especially to shew, that those who have uniformly 
 opposed the use of Shin for the tree God, still regarded and used 
 Shin as the appellative name of God in Chinese Our second object, 
 in making this appeal, is, in respect to the living, to prevent their 
 great experience and knowledge of the language being quoted as 
 authority against us, by shewing they have constantly testified that 
 Shin was the appellative name of God in Chinese, until within the 
 last few months. Our third object is, by shewing the facts we have 
 above stated, to throw upon the advocates ofTi the whole onus pro- 
 bandi, inasmuch as they bring forward a perfect novelty — one to 
 which they were themselves strangers in the early part of 1847, and 
 one against which they have so recently borne the strongest nega- 
 tive testimony. 
 
 If, notwithstanding the disadvantages of the position, the advo- 
 cates of Ti succeed in convincing the Directors of the Bible societies 
 of Great Britain and America, and their Missionary Brethren in 
 China, who now differ with them, that Ti is in truth the appellative 
 name of God in Chinese, we shall all he under great obligations to 
 them for causing the truth to triumph in spite of the great disadvan- 
 tages in which it has thus been placed by the mistakes of all foreign 
 students of the language. Iu the mean time, however, until they shew 
 the truth of that for which they contend, they must not complain, as 
 they themselves have mainly contributed to put matters in this posi- 
 tion, if the difficulties of their undertaking are clearly pointed out, 
 both to themselves and others. 
 
 We wish the reader to understand that the testimony we are now 
 to produce in favor of Shin, as the appellative name of God in Chi- 
 nese, is furnished by those who have always earnestly opposed the use 
 of Shin to render 6sos when it refers to the true God. This fact ac- 
 cording to a well established principle of evidence, entitles this testi- 
 mony, given under these circumstances, in favor of Shin to great 
 weight. 
 
4G 
 
 The evidence of those who, as Dr. Morrison, advocated the use of 
 Shin to render hog, in all cases, might be received with caution, as 
 that of a warm friend, who might be under prejudice in its favor; 
 but when the evidence of those who have always opposed the use of 
 Shift , for the true God, is produced in favor of its being the appella- 
 tive name of God in Chinese, the fact of their opposition to such a 
 use is our warrant to receive their testimony without hesitation. 
 From the well known laws of our nature we feel assured that instead 
 of this testimony being exaggerated, the almost certainty is that it has 
 been reduced to the least possible strength consistent with the honest 
 expression of what the parties believed to be truth. 
 
 We shall now by the way in which the word hog has been render- 
 ed in the translations of Dr. Medhurst and Mr. Gutzlaff and in the 
 revised copy which has been prepared at the various stations, shew 
 that ail these furnish us evidence that Shin is the appellative name 
 of God in Chinese. 
 
 hog when referring to the true God, is, as we have before said, al- 
 ways rendered by Sluing ti both by Dr. Medhurst and Mr. Gutzlaff. 
 To prove our point, we shall select a few instances in which there 
 can be no doubt that hog, in the original, is used as the generic 
 name for God or for “Gods in general,” as Dr. Medhurst expresses 
 the idea, in his English and Chinese Dictionary above quoted. 
 
 The first passage, to which we shall turn, is that quoted by Water- 
 land to illustrate the meaning of the word God, as used by polytheists, 
 viz: Acts 14; 11. “The gods are come done to us in the likeness 
 of men. ” The word “Gods” is here evidently used as the apella- 
 tive name of a whole class of Beings, and the individuals, the speak- 
 ers had more particularly in their minds, we learn from the next 
 verse, were J upiter, the supreme god of the Greeks, and Mercury, 
 his subordinate minister, as Waterland styles him. 
 
 Dr. Medhurst translates, Shin ming hie jin chi ying, jjjfjt l|jj j'j : 
 
 jj-z “The Shin ming, borrowing the likeness of men,” 
 
 &c. Mr. Gutzlaff renders also “ Shin ming.” The revised copy 
 of Acts renders “ Gods ” by Shin alone. 
 
 At Acts 17 : 18, we meet with this sentence, “ Me seemeth to be 
 a setter forth of strange Gods.” Dr. Medhurst translates, ki ndi 
 
 o (strange Shin 1 ” Mr. Gutzlaff renders “ strange Shin.” The Revis- 
 ed copy of Acts also renders “ xlrange Shin.” 
 
 Gal, 4: 8. “ llowbeil then, when ye knew not God, ye did ser- 
 
4* 
 
 vice to them which by nature are no goiis. ” This, we suppose, may 
 with propriety be addressed to every polytheist. Dr. Medhurst ren- 
 ders, jit tang sii vn shih Shang ti tsehfuh sz pu sdh, pan uni shin 
 
 « «* ik f M ^ IS t % Wi HR 9 # pi *. M 
 
 jp‘jf “ when ye formerly knew not Shdng ti, then ye served 
 
 Piisdh (the Bad hist gods), who are by pature not of the class of 
 Shin. ” 
 
 This verse furnishes a good illustration of the necessity that exists 
 for using the. appellative name of God, for the true as well as false 
 gods. According to the above rendering, a Chinese must infer that 
 Shdng ti is of the class of Shin, and that he is warned againsl the 
 service of the Pusah (Budhist gods) because they do not belong 
 to the class of the Shin. 
 
 Historically considered, this verse, as rendered above, would 
 puzzle him exceedingly. Shdng ti has been known and worshiped 
 by the Chinese court certainly since b. c. 2209, whereas the worship 
 of the Budhist gods was only introduced into China in the first 
 century of the Christain era. If we attempted a personal applica- 
 tion of this verse to any individual, he might plead that he had con- 
 stantly heard of Shdng ti from his infancy, that he was a Confucianist 
 and had never served the Pusah (Budhist gods), but confined his 
 service to the Shin worshiped by his own sect. 
 
 Mr. Gutzlaff renders, 'rh tang su tot shih Shang ti, tseh fuh sz’ 
 } >an f[ shin lui cM, H _t *j$jS Slj f)[* ijl 7|\ 
 
 Jjc jjpjj yffj “ When formerly ye knew not Shang ti, then ye 
 worshiped those who w ere by nature not of the class of Shin.” 
 
 Here the sin of the party addressed is evidently made to consist in 
 worshiping a Being, or Beings, who did not belong to the class of 
 Beings called Shin, and the inference is clear that Shang ti belongs 
 to this class. 
 
 The Revised Copy gives the same rendering as Mr. Gutzlaff. 
 This difficulty is entirely avoided, and can only be avoided, by usino- 
 the appellative name of God in both instances, e. g. “ When ye 
 knew not Shin, then ye worshiped those who are, by nature, not 
 Shin,” i e. who falsely lay claim to what they are not. 
 
 I. Cor. 8:5,6. “ For though there be that are called gods, whe- 
 
 ther in heaven or iri earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 
 hut to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all thino-s ” 
 &c. /in i t'icn ti mi, sui tju to :i6 sin ming, yih i jin hun yv to 
 shin to chit, (an yd so sang, ink yih T'ien Fu Slicing ti tsdu wan 
 
4^ 
 
 wuh cU > ~W- Jy ife py ® Ai % ! <j{] # S >if \k A, SI 
 
 *«- fS 
 
 ,\a 
 
 ^ f w # ± n a iTt % n - * sc j 
 
 jjfa Sf ’ '* ^‘ or '" heaven and earth, although there are the names 
 ot many corrupt or false gods (Shin), and according to men’s views 
 there are many gods (Shin) and many lords, still he whom we wor- 
 ship is only one Heavenly Father, Sluing ti, who made all things,” 
 &.c. Mr. Gtitzlaff’s translation is the same. In the Revised copy, 
 “ many gods” is rendered many Shin. 
 
 There is not a single instance, that we are aware of, in either of 
 these versions, or in the Revised version recently made at the sever- 
 al stations, where Ti, , is used as the appellative name of God, 
 and we believe that in every instance where does not refer to 
 the true God, it is rendered by Shin alone, or Shin tiling. More 
 than tliis, we have never seen a Tract, Catechism, or any other work, 
 from the pen of any Missionary whether Protestant, or member of the 
 Church of Rome, in which Ti w.ts used as the appellative name of 
 God; whilst from nil these sources we can furnish abundant evidence 
 of such a use of Shin. 
 
 Thus we see that perfect unanimity prevailed among all Protestant 
 M issionaries in the use of Shin, as the appellative name of God in 
 Chinese, until very recently, and that no one previous to the year 
 1847 ever thought of using Ti in this sense. In view of these facts, 
 with every kind feeling towards the advocates of Ti, we ask them 
 to tell us how it was that they, in common with all others, fell into 
 this error of regarding Skin as the appellative name of God in Chi- 
 nese; and we call upon them to justify us when we demand the very 
 clearest proof that Ti is the appellative name we seek ; for really we 
 cannot do less, having a proper respect to what they themselves, in 
 Translations, Dictionaries, and Versions of the Sacred Scriptures, 
 have so recently taught us. 
 
 We shall now, as we promised, endeavor to answer the chief ob- 
 jections, to the use of Skin to render into Chinese. The follow- 
 ing are the principal that we have heard urged against this word. 
 
 1. The acts and attributes of the chief God are never predicated 
 
 of Skin. Skin is never called the Lord and Governor of the world, 
 &c. It is neyer used for God w.V as &sog was by the Greeks. 
 
 2. The class of Beings called Skin are inferior to the class call- 
 ed Ti. 
 
 3. The Shin of Shcing Ti is spoken of: frotn which it is inferred 
 that Shin is a mere adjunct of the Ruler. 
 
f(> 
 
 4 Shin is used for the human Spirit. 
 
 5. It is urged that if Shin be used for God, there is great danger 
 of being misunderstood when the God of a deceased person, or the 
 God of any one, is spoken of. 
 
 1. The first of these objections is the one, we think, which 
 weighs most with those who, although they have always used Skin 
 as the appellative name of God in Chinese, yet still cannot reconcile 
 their minds to the use of this word for the true God : on this account 
 it claims our chief attention. This objection may be considered un- 
 der two points of view : 
 
 1st, as an argument against Shin as the generic name of God in 
 Chinese. 
 
 2dly, admitting that it is the generic name of God, the fact, that 
 Shin has never been used by the Chinese for God xa.7’ iigo^r/v, may be 
 urged as an argument against our use of this word for the true God. 
 We shall consider it under both these points of view 7 . 
 
 This objection, viewed as an argument against Shin as the gene- 
 ric name of God, may be thus stated. There are many things pre- 
 dicated of the chief god of the Chinese, which are never predicated of 
 Shin, therefore Skin cannot be the generic name of God in Chinese. 
 This arrangement is entirely based on the following incorrect pro- 
 position : “ Whatsoever may be predicated of any individual of a 
 genus, may be predicated of the whole class.” But who will main- 
 tain that, because a Lion belongs to the class of quadrupeds, there- 
 fore whatever may be predicated of a Lion, may he predicated of the 
 whole class; and so of the genus homo ; that whatever may be pre- 
 dicated of a Newton, a Napoleon, or a Howard may be predicated 
 of the genus homo- Or, to reverse the argument, who would maintain 
 that because there are tinny things said of Lions that are never 
 predicated of the genus quadruped, therefore the Lion does not be- 
 long to this genus? We have proved, by the direct and positive 
 testimony of Chinese writers, that the chief god of the Chinese is a 
 Shin, that he is regarded as the most honorable individual of this 
 class of Beings; and it is surely in vain, in the absence of all direct 
 counter testimony, to endeavor to set aside this positive testimony 
 by such an influence as the one above stated. 
 
 This objection, considered in the second point of view' stated above, 
 may be thus expressed. ‘‘It is true the great mass of the Greeks 
 were polytheists, and deog was used by them as the generic name of 
 God ; but besides this qse of $soc for a god, any god, there were a few 
 philosophers and some poets, who used this word to designate a 
 
oft 
 
 single Being, whom they regarded as the Framer and Governor of 
 the world. Shin, however, is never used for God xaT £|oy>)v ; there- 
 fore we must not use it in this way, w'e must not employ it to desig- 
 nate the true God. 
 
 fcog and Skin are used to designate the highest class of Beings 
 worshiped by the Greeks and Chinese respectively. In this the two 
 words are precisely alike. The difference between them arises from 
 this, that some of the Greek philosophers, seeing the folly of the old 
 Thpogonie.s and of the popular polytheism, used the generic name 
 given by their countrymen to the highest class of Beings they wor- 
 shiped to designate a single Being, who was by them styled 6eog, 
 xaT This wasastep taken in the right direction ; an advance 
 
 towards the monotheism taught in the Sacred Scriptures : no such 
 step has been taken in China; the generic name given to the high- 
 est class of Beings, worshiped there, is not, by Chinese writers, used 
 for God xul’ sjjo^v, and therefore it is concluded that Shin should not 
 he so used by us. To this conclusion we demur, and contend, on 
 the contrary, that we must do for the Chinese word Shin what the 
 Greek philosophers commenced to do for and what the apostles 
 completed, viz; make it, by our usage, designate, not any one of a 
 class to be determined by the context, but the God xaT sfoyrjv. We 
 contend that we must teach the Chinese to use the generic name of 
 God which their language furnishes, in this manner, as soon as 
 possible, and by all means available, as the only method of teaching 
 them monotheism and leading them off from the worship of many 
 Gods. 
 
 The facts, stated above, show that w r e meet Shin just where the 
 Greek philosophers found (hoc;; designating any one of a class of 
 Beings who are all regarded as proper objects of worship. The 
 fact that the Greek philosophers used the appellative name of God 
 which their language furnished them to designate a Supreme Being, 
 xaT sgoytjv, so far from being an argument against a similar use of 
 Shin, the appellative name of God in Chinese, is a direct argument 
 in favor of such use. 
 
 It appears, however, to he a favorite argument, with those who op- 
 pose the use of Shin, to maintain, that, because the Chinese them- 
 selves have not predicated of Shin (the name of the highest class of 
 Beings to whom they offer religious worship) the creation, preservation 
 and government of the world, therefore we must not predicate these 
 things of Shin. They have gone so far as to say, that it would be 
 against “the idiom of the Chinese language,” to predicate the go- 
 
venunent of the world of Skin. We cannot see bow “‘ the idiom of a 
 language” can interfere with our predicating any thing that agrees 
 with truth and right reason of any subject; and if the position is 
 maintained that it is improper and contrary to the “ idiom of the Chi- 
 nese language,” to predicate any thing of a subject , which the Chi- 
 nese themselves have never predicated of it, the attempt to make 
 them acquainted with the character and attributes of the true God is 
 hopeless; indeed, we cannot enlarge their knowledge of any subject. 
 But surely no people can possess a language having so peculiar “ an 
 idiom ;” we therefore need not dwell any longer on this objection. 
 
 2. The second objection is that the class of Beings called Shin are 
 inferior, to the class called Ti. 
 
 In the previous part of this paper we have shown that Shin is the 
 name given to the highest of the three classes, into which the Chi- 
 nese divide the invisible Beings, who are the objects of their worship. 
 In the sequel we shall show that Tt is not the name of any class of 
 Beings, but is a Title by which either Shin or men may be dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 3. The third objection is that the phrases Ti chi Shin, 
 
 jjjljj, and Ti Shin, ‘‘The Shin of Ti,” are occasionally 
 
 met with ; *and an inference is drawn from this fact, that Shin is no- 
 thing more than an adjunct of Ti, the Ruler. It is admitted by all that 
 the word Shin is used, in this instance, in an abstract sense, though 
 there is diversity of opinion as to the exact idea conveyed by the 
 term in the phrases above quoted. These phrases occur in describ- 
 ing the way in which Heaven, Shang Ti or any other Being wor- 
 shiped, approaches and enjoys the sacrifices made to them- This 
 presence is not supposed to be corporeal or essential ; they therefore 
 do not say that the Being himself is present, but that his Shin is pres- 
 ent. To express their belief in this presence, they profess to escort 
 the Shin of the Being worshiped to the shrine at the commencement 
 of the sacrifice, and to attend it on its exit, the sacrifice being end- 
 ed. They suppose that sincerity on the part of the worshiper is ne- 
 cessary to secure this presence, and maintain that when this sincerity 
 is wanting, there is nothing present at the time of sacrifice. We 
 suppose tiie Chinese mean by the. use of the word Shin in these cases, 
 to express the idea that the Being worshiped is present by a divine 
 energy or influence. The advocates of Ti maintain that Shin, in 
 (fiese cases, means spiritual energy.” The ideas do not differ much ; 
 and whichever of these opinions be correct, such a use of Shin, is 
 
K* 
 
 1.9/4 
 
 the abstract sense, is no argument against our use of the term in lire 
 concrete sense, as the appellative name of God ; as this is the sense 
 in which the word occurs much the most frequently in Chinese writ- 
 ers. We have an instance of a word being applied to this double use 
 viz : to express a quality and a Being also, in the word “ Divinity.” 
 We speak of Christ’s Divinity. We say that, although personally 
 present in heaven, he is by Iris Divinity (divine influence or energy?) 
 present everywhere : and yet we speak of God as “ the Divinity.” 
 
 4. The fourth objection to the use of Shin is that the human 
 spirit is sometimes designated by this term. That such a use of 
 Shin is met with, especially in medical books, cannot be denied. 
 It is however not in common use among the people. It has grown out 
 of the pantheism of one class of the Chinese philosophers, and we 
 suppose has been taken from them by the medical writers. It 
 amounts, we think, to nothing more than the phrase “the divinity 
 that stirs within us,” sometimes used by western writers for the soul. 
 Our u~e of Shin to render dsos, whether referring to the true, or a 
 false God, can never, in any instance, be misunderstood from the 
 existence of this limited use of the word Shin to designate the hu- 
 man soul, by the writers we have mentioned above. 
 
 5. The fifth objection is that if, Shin is used for G^d, there is 
 great danger of being misunderstood when the God of a deceased 
 parent, or the God of any one, is spoken of. 
 
 As there can be no doubt that Shin is often used for the manes of 
 the dead, who are regarded by the Chinese as proper objects of re- 
 ligious worship, this objection has much weight, if we translate 
 literally “The Shin of,” e, g. “Abraham.” In such a case, if we 
 translated “the Shin of Abraham” we admit there would be much 
 danger, until the Christian usage of the word shall have taught them 
 better, that the Chinese would understand by this phrase, the manes 
 of Abraham. But we are by no means tied down to the use of the 
 genitive in such cases, if its use endangers so serious a misunder- 
 standing. All danger of mistake may be removed by translating 
 “ the Shin who protected Abraham, Isaac, &c.” “ The God of our 
 
 Fathers,” may be rendered either “the Shin who protected our Fa- 
 thers,” or “ the Shin whom our Fathers worshiped,” as either of these 
 ideas may be considered most prominently presented by the context. 
 This course has been adopted by those who used Shdng ti for God. 
 Acts 5 : 30. “The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus,” is thus 
 rendered by Dr. Medhurst: uni tsu sofung chi Skiing ti, i sit Ye sv, 
 
M jjli 8 t # Z _h 'fir c £1; ® 'S’ “ The SA ' 37 ^ whom 
 our Fathers worshiped has raised up Jesus.” Such a rendering, in 
 case Shin were used, would remove all danger of misunderstanding 
 W ith this brief consideration of the objections that are urged 
 against the use of Skin, we conclude the part of our Essay which 
 relates to this word. 
 
 We shall now state the reasons that forbid us to employ Ti, r^* 
 to render Elohim and dsog. 
 
 The chief reason is that Ti is not the appellative name of God 
 in Chinese : it is not the name of anv class ot Beings, human or 
 divine, but is a title which has been given by the Chinese, from the 
 highest antiquity to the present tune, to individuals of the human 
 species as well as to invisible beings, the objects of religious wor- 
 ship. 
 
 The negative evidence against Ti being the appellative name of 
 God, produced when we were considering Skin, was so strong and 
 conclusive that the Reader will not be detained long with the dis- 
 cussion of this term. 
 
 In the explanation of its meaning, native dictionaries and those 
 prepared by foreigners agree so entirely that we shall not find it 
 necessary to appeal to Chinese writers to ascertain its usus loquendi. 
 
 I The first work we shall quote is the Dictionary called S/iwoh 
 Won, prepared by Hix Skin a scholar of the Han 
 
 dynasty; a work of much authority. The word Ti is defined as 
 follows. 
 
 1st. Ti, ti yb Yff? 5 “Ti means a Judge.” 2d. Wang 
 
 t’len hid chi hau, ^ “ The style or title of him 
 
 who rules over the empire.” 
 
 The Reader is requested to observe that Ti is not here defined as 
 a posthumous title, but as a title given to him who rules ■_ the 
 Empire. The word “Judge,” in the first definition, we suppose is 
 used in the sense of the final arbiter of all causes, in which sense it 
 is synonymous with King, Emperor, or Ruler, according to the phrase 
 which may be used in any commonwealth to designate the highest 
 power. These are all the definitions given by this Dictionary, and 
 there are no passages, cited to illustrate its use. It is therefore most 
 certain that the author of this work could not have had any idea that 
 Ti was the common appellative name of God in Chinese. 
 
 2, We quote next the Dictionary called Luh Shu Kti, ^ 
 
jj/ , m ule by Tin 'luting, jjj|j jjpj asclmlai of the Sung dynasty, 
 which gives : 
 
 Ti, chit- tsiii chi tsan citing, feu Tien yitch Slicing ti ; wii IT 1 i/uth 
 
 wu ti; T ictt tsz’, yuch ti, j - % Z f fw iit X 13 
 _t It tit tl Tl ‘(jf X : f H rjf- T ‘ isthe 
 
 able designation of a sovereign Ruhr , therejore, Heaven is called 
 Sluing Ti (the Ruler on high ;) (the Shin who preside over) the five 
 elements are called Wu Ti (the live Rulers), and the sou of Heaven 
 is called Ti, Ruler or Emperor. ” 
 
 Here it is quite plain that the author of this Dictionary regarded 
 Ti as a title, and not as the appellative name of a class of Beings. It 
 designates, according to him, a sovereign Ruler; whether that Ruhr 
 he a man governing his fellow men, a ■Shin presiding over one of the 
 five elements, or Heaven presiding over all things. We have translat- 
 ed all the meanings given by tins Dictionary. There are no passages 
 cited to illustrate its use. 
 
 3. We cite next the great Imperial Dictionary prepared by order 
 of the emperor KdnglTi. 
 
 In this work we have three meanings given : 1st. Ti, t> yc, *££*■ 
 pl^ ill’ n,e!llis a judge; 1 ' 2d. Wang Tien hid r/u/idu, 
 
 ^ ^ “The style or title ofTim who rules over the Em- 
 
 pire.” These two meanings are the same as those given in the 
 Shwoh Wan , the first Dictionary cited ; and they are mentioned as 
 quoted from that work. 3d. Sinn, T , “ A prince.” 
 
 Then follow a number of quotations, from' 1 various classical works, 
 to illustrate these meanings. In these extracts we have, at a single 
 view, all the facts upon which the advocates of Ti rest their argu- 
 ment in favor of Ti, as the appellative name of GYd ; we shall, there- 
 fore, cite all the passages they regard as important, and give a 
 translation, calling the Reader’s attention to the points where our 
 Irunsl itiou differs from theirs. 
 
 The first quotation is front a work dulled Teh-hu Tung, f- 
 
 JU 
 
 m 
 
 ao follows : 
 
 Teh h oh Tien die dung ti, iff 
 
 # 7 c M $/’ “ lfe whose 
 
 (teh* ) power corresponds to that oTlLeavew is designated a h, Ru- 
 
 # We have translated the word teh, “power,” and not ‘-virtue” 
 
 a -, this latter word, - being generally uiSe'd ' for a mbral ' quality, would 
 mislead the English reader. Teh means “power,” influence, &.e., whether 
 well or ill directed. Dr. Morri.-on defines it 1 Virtue, _ (virtue) commonly in 
 a' good souse . power, force, abundance. ” Iff, Medliu&fdefiues it, * V ltfue, 
 
let nr Emperor, 1 i, e Hp who rules over the whole empire, which is 
 styled !>y Chinese magniloquence t’irn hit) “all under the 
 
 Heavens,” as Heaven rules over all things that are under it, is styled 
 Ti, Rulpr or Emperor. 
 
 The next quotation is from the Shu King, and is as follows: 
 
 Sih tsdi ti Ydu, t sung tiling wan sz’ laming tseh t'ie.n hid ^ /£}_ 
 
 * p m m t s ± t* % T’ “ Formerly the Em- 
 peror Yau (Ti Y-'U,) was intelligent, accomplished, and 
 
 thoughtful, and his glory pervaded all under Heaven, or the Empire. 
 
 On the title Ti (Emperor) given to Yau we have the following 
 observations quoted from a commentator: 
 
 Ti chi. t'ien chi yih tiling: so i ming ti, ti chi, ti ye., ign t'icn 
 tang jen wit sin , wnng yii mull wo, lung ping tiling 1 / urn kii sz’ shin 
 ti ; lit wri. i hi ti ye. \Yu ti tan /’ on g yii sz’ yih timig shin ti, lai 
 
 p/r n ?> % is a 
 milt KW/B M & S ft #) $ & Y it 
 ii fyt tb rif pit; dr Z tji* til ti vii f**J ifc 
 
 l||^ ^ JpC it “Ti is one of the titles 
 
 (ming ^ ) of Heaven; the reason that it (Heaven) has this title 
 (ming) is that Ti means a Judge. The meaning is that Heaven ex- 
 tensively, without mental effort, equitably and thoroughly examines 
 and judges all affairs ; time fore it ( Heaven) is called Ti, a judge. The 
 principles of the Wii Ti (live ancient Emperors) being the same with 
 those above mentioned, they were also able to examine and judge; 
 therefore they took this title (wing) i. e. Ti, Judge, or Emperor.” j 
 Whether the word ming, in this and several subsequent quo- 
 tations should be translated, “ title, ” or “ name, ” is disputed, and is 
 a matter of much importance; but we reserve the discussion of this 
 point until all the cases in which the word “ming" occurs are be- 
 fore us. 
 
 We have next, in Kiinghi’s Dictionary a quotation from a wri- 
 ter in the Ch’ un 'IV in, ^ in which the titles Ti, q'jy Emperor 
 and i Yang , “a king,” are distinguished ns follows. 
 
 “ A Ti, Emperor, is one with whom t'ien hid, ~ pC , ~a 1 1 under 
 
 goodness, excellence, influence, vigor, energy &c., &c., and quotes, as an 
 instance of the use of the word, ngoh fell, Kil jife, “had qualities;” from 
 
 which it is plain, as we have siid above, that the meaning is mure general 
 than tit it of our Eqghsji W.orrj 1 virttie.” 
 
56 
 
 the Heavens (i. e. the whole Empire) accords. A Wang, King, is 
 one to whom the whole Empire goes (for redress). ’ 
 
 These two titles are thus distinguished by another writer: “ He 
 who examines into principles is styled 7't, Emperor ; and he who 
 thoroughly investigates (teh ^) the powers or capacities of things, is 
 called Wang, a king.” 
 
 These are probably fanciful distinctions which have no existence 
 except in the minds of the writers ; but these sentences serve to shew 
 that Ti, like Wang, “ King,” is a title and not the appellative name 
 of a class of Beings. 
 
 We have next a quotation from a historical work containing the 
 records of the reign of Kdu Ti , ^ saying that he ascended 
 
 the throne of the Hwang Ti, ^ “ August Ruler,” or Emperor, 
 
 on the south of the river Sze.” Upon this title, Hwang Ti, a writer, 
 Tsai Yang, remarks, “that in the highest antiquity the son of 
 Heaven (i. e. the Emperor) was styled Hwang, “Augustus,” but 
 afterwards he was styled, Ti, “ Ruler or Emperor.” 
 
 Here we perceive Ti, as well as Hwang, was a title given to the 
 son of Heaven without reference to any thing but his station. We 
 shall see afterwards that the title Ti is considered inferior to Hwang * 
 
 Next we are told that Ti is used as a posthumous title, and the 
 meaning when so used is explained as follows. 
 
 * Much obscurity rests upon the earliest period of Chinese history which 
 19 allotted by their historians to the three Hwang, — * and the five 
 
 Ti, jx % : Under the first period, Dr. Morrison, in his “View of China 
 tor Philological < purposes,” gives the names of the following individuals as 
 having reigned. 1. Fuh-i i jv j|| ; 2. Shin nung, |[j|}l j|| ; 3 - Tilin 
 
 huui, % 4. Ticking; 5. Ti Ming 8$ i 6. Ti 
 
 i ; ; 7. Ti lai ^ ; 8. Ti Li, ^ ^ 9- Ti yii wdng, 
 
 'fj? ^ fi!!r| > 10, ti, i^-. He then gives the names of the 
 
 Five Emperors fVii Ti, as follows: “ Shaou haou, Chuen Kuh, 
 
 Te Kwuh, Te Yaou, and Te Shun.” Shun’s reign closed B. C. 2169. Under 
 date- of B.’ C. 2330, the Dr. says, “ A prince is here placed by some, who waa 
 
 called Ti che, and of whom it is said that he proceeded to unlimit- 
 
 ed dissipation." This seems quite inconsistent with the idea that Ti, in the 
 olden time, was hot a mere title conferred on any one who might sit on the 
 Imperial throne, but a word implying moral qualities of the highest order, 
 a nd hence conferred as an epithet of distinction, on five Emperors because 
 of their preeminent virtue. During the Hia, Shang and Chau dynasties, the 
 
t> / 
 
 “ He whose (teh) power or influence is like that of Heaven and 
 earth is called Ti . ' 
 
 We have next the phrase Shang 1 i -h if. explained as fol- 
 lows: “Slicing Ti (the Ruler on High) is Heaven.” 
 
 Then are quoted two sentences from the classics to illustrate the 
 use of Shang Ti, as a title given to the chief object of worship. 
 
 Next we have the phrase, T Vu ti, “five Rul ers,” explain- 
 
 ed as follows: Wu ti Skin ming If? ‘pjj - jjjtjj ^ , “ Five Rulers is 
 the title ( ming ) of gods (Shin).” 
 
 A sentence is then quoted from the Chav Li, “ Ritual of the Chau 
 dynasty,” in which this phrase “ Five Rulers,” occurs; it is as fol- 
 lows : “ They sacrificed to the Wu ti,” Five Rulers, “ at the borders 
 of the country.” The names of these ‘‘Five Rulers,” are then 
 given from a Commentator as follows : “ He who is styled Tsdng Ti, 
 ^ the “azure Ruler” is named Ling wei gang-, the Chik 
 Ti, “Vermilion Ruler,” is named Ceih peau nu, the 
 
 Hwang Ti §3 “ Yellow Ruler,” is named, Shie kiu niu; the 
 
 Teh Ti ^ “White Ruler.” Pih Chau Kiu, the Ileh Ti, 
 “ Black Ruler,” is named Hie Kwang hi. 
 
 We are next informed by a quotation from a work styled ‘‘The 
 family sayings of Confucius,” which of the numerous Shin in the 
 Chinese Pantheon are distinguished collectively by the title of “ Five 
 Rulers,” and individually by the titles “azure Ruler,” “ Vermilion 
 Ruler,” &,c., &c. “ The disciple Hi Kang tsz’ asked an explanation 
 of the titl e (ming '/^) H'm Ti, “ Five Rulers Confucius repli- 
 ed, heaven has five elements, viz : metal, wood, water fire, and 
 earth, which divide the seasons (i. e. each rule a part of the year), 
 and which transform things and nourish them, in order to complete 
 
 titles Hwang , and Ti both fell into disuse. After a time of 
 
 .oreat anarchy, the country having been divided into seven petty states, the 
 prince of the Tsin country prevailed over the other six states, and made 
 himself monarch of China. He combined the two ancient titles Hwang 
 “ Augustus and Ti “Ruler,” making the title Hwang Ti, “August Ru- 
 ler,” or Emperor, which has been used as the common title of the Emperois 
 of China from his time, B. C. 204, to the present. This being the state of 
 the case, should we adopt the word Ti, as that by which to render dsog in 
 the Scriptures, and use this word for God in all our preaching, we must either 
 declare war against the Emperor’s title which has two thousand years pre- 
 scription in its favor, and forbid all Christiaps to call him by this title, or 
 we must call a man “ August God,” than which, it would be better for us to 
 cut out our tongues, 
 
58 
 
 nil things ; the gods ( Shin) of these elements (i. e. t lie gods who pre- 
 snip ovpr thpsp elements) nrp styled Wit Ti “ TIip Five Rulers.” 
 
 This completes nil the quotations in Rangin’ s Dictionary that are 
 of any interest in our present inquiry. 
 
 In the facts above presented, the advocates of 7'i think there is 
 proof that Ti is the appellative name of God in Chinese. TV, say 
 they, is one of the names (ming) ofT'ien, “ tlie Divinity;” it is also 
 the name (ming ) of the five Shin, who preside over the five ele- 
 ments, who are unquestionably regarded as Gods by the Chinese 
 This .is the ipaiu argument adduced by the advocates of Ti to prove 
 that it, ip .the appellative name ofGod in Chinese; and they lay much 
 stress upon the fact that it is the Imperial Dictionary that sustains 
 ,their v,i,ews. 
 
 Let us thep carefully examine the facts presented above. It is ad- 
 mitted that we have presented to us in the above extracts, all the in- 
 visible Beings who were by the ancient Chinese called Ti. These 
 Beings are sijc in number. I. 'Pirn, Heaven, which is styled Ti or 
 Sluing Ti. 2. The five Shin, wdto preside over the five elements, 
 collectively are called Wu Ti, and individually “azure Ti” vermil- 
 ion Ti, &c. To these must be added five men, who, in high antiquity, 
 ruled over the Chinese nation. The question on which we are at 
 issue is, whether the word Ti, when applied to these eleven indivi- 
 duals, — six of them Shin, and five mortal men, is used as an appel- 
 lative name, designating a distinct genus, who are to be regarded as 
 (Tods, or is a title by which individuals belonging to different genera 
 are distinguished. We maintain the latter opinion; the advocates of 
 Ti the former, and insist on the fact that Ti is said to he the “Ming” 
 of these eleven individuals as proof of their position, maintaining 
 that this word, “ wing,” must be translated name. That the word 
 ming is used for either a name or a title is known to every one ac- 
 quainted with the Chinese language, the only question is, in which of 
 these senses it is used in this case; which of the meanings does the 
 context call for ? 
 
 Dr. Morrison defines ming “a name, a title,” &c. Dr. Med hurst 
 “ a name, a title, a designation,” 4 iC - 
 
 That the word ming is q$ed for a title appears clearly from the 
 follow ing quotation Hwang Yu 'rh nitn Sun Sfiih yen, T'ien wei 
 yik shin , i hi chi tsun, kit yu In ming , >l>h yu jin Iciwi, citing toting 
 hieing, hau /Silt kirn ming, t'ien tszj liming ti, ^ jr|i 
 
 & n X tl - if n IK £ ■■■! tk ft # £ jfr 
 
39 
 
 S 3 3-1 M h'< ft K i K T Ik % '”<» 
 
 -,R- |j||, quoted in t he Fwrii /uoi L/o //"«, yjJjJ ^jg j Yj j'l ' | ) * 11 
 
 the second year of the Emperor Hwang-Yu, Sun Sliilt said, Heaven 
 only is one God, (— — • jjjfp yih shin,) but because lie is most honora- 
 ble, vve give him many “ tiling ” titles; as in the case of a human 
 Prince, we call him Wang, King; Hwang; Augustus Him King 
 l M ih , His Majesty; T’icn Wang, celestial King, Him is z' the Son of 
 Heaven, and Hwang Ti the august Ruler, or Emperor. 
 
 It will be perceived that all the words and phrases that are cited 
 as instances of the various “ tiling," that are given' to a human 
 prince are titles, and not one can be regarded as a name, using this 
 last word in a strict sense. It is plain then that the word “ -niing" 
 may be translated either name or title, as suits best with the context 
 and subject matter before us. If it be maintained that Ti is t he 
 “ ming" name of Heaven, of t tie five Shin, and of the five men who 
 ruled over the Empire, it must be either a proper name given to 
 each, or an appellative name common to all. The, idea of its being 
 a proper name is out of the question, and is not maintained by our 
 opponents. Let us then, to avoid ambiguity, define whaP we mean 
 by an appellative name, and then inquire whether the word 77 is 
 used by the authors of Kanghi’s Dictionary- as the appellative name 
 
 of these eleven individuals, or as a title common to them all. 
 
 • < 
 
 De Sacy, in his general Grammar, defines appellative nouns as 
 follows; “ Other nouns designate beings by the idea of a nature com- 
 mon to all the individuals of a species. Such are the words, “man,” 
 “ horse,” “ cat,” &c., &c., which do not of themselves call to 
 mind the idea of any individual in particular, but are applicable to 
 all the individuals of the same species.” These nouns, ojijtlicablc to 
 all the individuals of a, species, are called appellative nouns.” 
 
 To our minds it is clear t h At the word 77 is not used in the sen- 
 tences quoted in Kang hi, as the appellative nainf of a class of Be- 
 ings, for the following reasons: i. It is defined by the Lexicogra- 
 phers themselves as a title ; i. e. Judge, Ruler, Prince. "2. Ming in 
 the last clause of the sentence quoted from t lie commentary on the 
 Shu King, “ therefore they (the five Emperors) took this ming," we 
 know from history must mean title and not name, because neither of 
 
 * This remark of Sun Skill is the nearest, approach to. monotheism we 
 have met with in any Chinese writer, attention is particularly called to the 
 
 fact that lie uses the phrase Yik Shin — - jjjjjl, “one Gud,” to express tins 
 idea 
 
60 
 
 \ 
 
 these Emperors was named I'i ; the ming m the first clause, Ti is 
 one of the ming of Heaven,'’ ami must therefore mean title also, since 
 the writer cannot have used the word ming in different senses, as 
 the reason, assigned why Heaven and the Wti Ti respectively, had 
 this ming , is the same. 3. The reason assigned why Heaven and 
 the five ancient sovereigns had this title (ming) in common, is not 
 that they belonged to the same class of Beings, but that Ti means 
 a “ Judge,” and that both Heaven and the five sovereigns were able 
 to judge just judgment. The Reader will not forget that the title 
 Ti was not given to these five sovereigns after death, when they had 
 become the objects of religious worship, but was the title by which 
 they were commonly known while living, when no one ever thought 
 of offering them religious worship, or esteemed them as belonging 
 to a different species from their fellow-men. 4. That the word Ti, 
 when applied to the five Shin, who preside over the five elements, is 
 used as a title and not as an appellative name is equally plain. We 
 have the class of Beings designated by the word Shin, we have the 
 proper name of each of these Shin given, “ Ling wei gdng,” &,c., 
 the separate title of each, e. g. “ Azure Ti, Yellow Ti, &c., and 
 lastly, the title of the five collectively, 44 T u Ti, “ Five Rulers.” 
 
 The facts presented in this Dictionary are those upon which the 
 advocates of Ti as we have said above, rest their cause; if we are 
 correct in translating the word “tiling,” title, then the very foun- 
 dation of their cause is taken away, and the whole superstructure 
 falls to the ground. They regard this Imperial Dictionary, they tell 
 us, as the best authority extant for giving the meaning of Chinese 
 words. We are perfectly willing to abide by their appeal in this 
 case, and say cheerfully, let Ti be regarded as these Lexicographers 
 have represented it. 
 
 We find in Knngki’s Dictionary nothing to countenance the idea 
 that Ti is the appellative name of God, or to sustain the opinion 
 that it is the generic name of any class of Beings: but the clearest 
 proof, on the contrary, that it is a title, conferred on either Shin 
 (gods) or men. It is precisely like our word “King,” by which 
 title we may either address the King of kings or a fellow worm of 
 the dust. 
 
 Before dismissing the Imperial Dictionary we will call the Reader’s 
 attention to one more fact. Among the uses of the word Ti, we 
 find it is used as a posthumous title. Knowing that the word Shin 
 was also used as a posthumous title, and that the Chinese attach 
 great importance to the posthumous titles that are conferred upon 
 
6 ! 
 
 then deceased great men, we were induced to turn to the Sz’ Ki, 
 dung i , llte work quoted in Kaiighf as authority on this point, to 
 see which of the two words, Shin, or 77, conveyed the highest idea 
 of that which u'<rs 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 m 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 Jp , is the second, and that 77 ranks third. This 
 furnishes us with a very strong presumption against 77 meaning 
 God kciT £%o)(Jv, as those maintain who favor its use to render dto$. 
 
 4. The encyclopedia called Pci wan Vu " f" to x hS 8iv '' 3 
 three meanings. 1st. |fj , “77, means a Judge.” 2d 
 
 E K h Z W’ “ ,l,e st > ,|e or title of him who rules over the 
 empire.” 3d. Kiun ^3", “a prince.” These meanings are the same 
 as those given in Kdnghi’s Dictionary, and the same works are 
 quoted to sustain them, viz.: the Shivoh Wan and the Urh \a. 
 
 We next turn to the Dictionaries which have been prepared by 
 foreigners. 
 
 5. Dr. Morrison defines the meaning of 77 as follows: “The ap- 
 pellation ol 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. Wu 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, according to 
 
 some, express the three degrees of sovereign rule, of which Hwang 
 is the highest, 77 the second, and Wang the lowest. Hwang Tt is a 
 common appellation of the emperor of China. Shdng 77, ^ , 
 
 the Highest Sovereign, the Supreme Ruler; Heaven, or T’ien chi 
 Shin, jjjffi, the God of heaven; or, according to others, all 
 
 the gods of heaven collectively ; Tinning, -j * , a sovereign po- 
 tentate.” These are all the meanings and illustrations given by the 
 Doctor, from which it is plain he regarded 77 as a title, and not as 
 
 an appellative name of any class of Beings. 
 
 6. Dr. Medhurst’s Hok Keen Dictionary “Tay fSp, an emperor, 
 a ruler, a sovereign. Hwang Tc , the emperor. TcweiJ^ 
 
 the emperor’s throne Sail Hwang Wuo Tc, 
 
 & Ex if/ 
 
tlie three sovereigns and five emperors, a very early period oi 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'f^j^ an 
 Emperor, a Sovereign, a Ruler, the Supreme. Hwang ti f* *3p 
 an Emperor, Shang ti the Supreme Ruler, Wa Ti fj ij'j”. 
 
 the five ancient Emperors. Ti wing iffo ^ a Sovereign Prince. 
 Pirn ti ^ the Ruler of H eaven.” 
 
 Here again we have tlie same thing stated. TI (Tc) 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 Beino-s. 
 
 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 set- 
 tled by an appeal to tlie usus luquendi 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 Chihese cosmogony. The Chi- 
 nese phrase is sang win wuh (Ufa , “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 Cos- 
 mogonists, is eternal. This sang wanwahi Aj- ^ tjf/j, “begetting of all 
 things,” is ascribed to Heaven, to Heaven and Earth, to the five elements, to 
 the i/in and yang, and occasionally to 77, or Shiivg ti. This production of all 
 things, is however only ascribed to 77 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 thet?e writers give to T'ien the 
 chief Divinity) only when it is said to act in tlie government of the world. 
 His words are, “commC Confucius dans le livre canonique des changements 
 a fait plus d’une fois mention du Chang ti, e’est-a-dire du supreme Emptrenr 
 et du Ti e’est-a-dire de 1’ emperuer, et que cependant on ne voit nulle part 
 dans ce livre, m dans les autres que le Climig ti ait eugendre la niatiere, 
 e’est-a-dire, le ciel et la le*rre ; les philosophes confluent dela que le tithe 
 pe chaw ti lie pent convemr a la raison primitive, que quand ll b’agit seule-- 
 merit du gouvemenient de Fifnivei's.” 
 
&i<v, &c , which acts are not properly predicated of a Ruler, but of 
 God ; therefore Ti must in tliese 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 ndmited by all that 
 the Being referred to is T'ier., 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 men- 
 tion some act of his without any reference to the manner in which 
 the subject of the discourse was designated. We have a familiar in- 
 stance 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 sen- 
 tences. “ 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 T'im, 
 the chief God of Chinese in the instances quoted by the advocates 
 of TV, 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 seri- 
 ous objection to this word dsog, 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 Offi- 
 ces 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 js Ruler, the Son is Ruler, and the 
 Holy Ghost is Filler, and these three Persons are one Ruler " there 
 
G4 
 
 U 
 
 would be no unity of substance, or even of nature implied by the use 
 of the word TV , 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 7V, 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 7V to 
 render 6eog. 
 
 That Ti is not the appellative name of God in Chinese, appears 
 also from the following facts. In the classical works of the Confu- 
 cianists, 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 T'ien, 
 Heaven, or the T'ien chi Shin, , ‘‘Shin (God) of II ea- 
 
 ven,” who is styled Shangti, and to Shin who preside over the five 
 elements, who are called XVii Ti. Each of these six individuals, so 
 distinguished by the title of 7V, 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 term, marking 
 relationship. Neither of these invisible Beings, distinguished by the 
 title of TV, 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, \. u. 1369, and has never since been resumed. So that the 
 title Ti is applied to only one Being who, is now an object of wor- 
 ship in the state religion, viz.: T‘ien, and this being is not worship- 
 ed by any of the people of China, but only by the emperor, the 
 honor of worshiping the Sluing ti, “Ruler on High,” being reserved 
 exclusively to the Hwang 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 
 TV as a title, and the inferences derived from this fact are so con- 
 clusive against its use, that it appears to us it would be a work of 
 supererogation to write any thing more against Ti, as the appella- 
 tive name of God in Chinese. We shall therefore content ourselves 
 with illustrating the impropriety of using this word to render Elo- 
 him ; by testing it on the first commandment, e g TV yuth, chit wo 
 
will, rh pith t:‘o i/u pirh ti yi‘, j-j ^ /[' j^| /p Pj j.j 
 
 M -iir tfc- . _ . 
 
 Before translating this, please read again the meanings of / i given 
 by the S/twoh Wan , “ The title of h i in who rules over the Empire,” 
 and that of the Luh Shu Ku. “ The honorable designation of a So- 
 vereign Ruler,” and say whether by so rendering this command- 
 ment, 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 shall 
 have no other Ruler.” What does this say but that He loho is “ the 
 Ruler," par excellence forbids 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 TV, 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 considera- 
 tion we think conclusive against the use of this word. 
 
 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 TV is no valid argument against the use of this word to ren- 
 der Elohim and 6so ?. 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 IJeng- 
 stinberg takes of this use of Elohim in the first volume of his Chris- 
 tology, when treating of the 45th .Psalm. lie contends that , no 
 Theocratic Prince or Conqueror is ever called Elohim, in the Scrip- 
 tures 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 Ti in Chinese, since Ti is used in 
 the classics as the common title of Van and Shun and of other Em- 
 perors. 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 Y<iu, Ti Slivn, 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 
 
66 
 
 and that Elohim, when used for the magistracy, is employed not 
 strictly but figuratively. We are correct in regarding the word as 
 used only figuratively in these cases, because it is comparatively so 
 used but a few times, and we are distinctly told there is but one 
 Elohim strictly speaking. 
 
 But this cannot be said of 77. It is the title by which the highest 
 officer in China has been commonly designated for hundreds of 
 years. It occurs in Chinese books, as the title of this officer, a hun- 
 dred or a thousand times, to once where it occurs as the title of any 
 invisible Being. To attempt therefore to prove, from the fact that 
 a few invisible Beings are called 77, that it means God as Elohim 
 does, is to maintain that a word is used improperly much more fre- 
 quently than properly, which upsets all our ideas of the proper 
 meaning of words. There can be no doubt that Taukwang is re- 
 garded by the Chinese to be as properly a Ti as Sluing 77 is ; 
 though they would admit that he rules in a smaller sphere. 
 
 Another objection to the use of Ti to render Elohim in the first 
 commandment is, that, this term would not exclude from religious 
 worship multitudes of Beings who now receive much the greater 
 portion of the worship offered in China. The worship of the God 
 of wealth, the God of the Kitchen, and a number of other deities, 
 who are all called Shin, but never Ti, and who receive more wor- 
 ship in one month than S/iang ti does in a generation, would not be 
 forbidden by this term. The First Commandment would if 77 be 
 used to render Elohim, spend its whole strength upon, first the law- 
 ful liege Lord and Sovereign of this people, and next upon a few of 
 the Skin, who have been entitled 77; whilst ninety-nine hundredths 
 of the false worship, practiced by the common people of the present 
 day, would not in any manner be forbidden by the use of this term. 
 
 We intended, when we commenced writing, to have devoted a 
 few paragraphs to the consideration ofthe phrases, Shang ti, ±'S- 
 and T'ien ti, ; but our Essay has already been extended to 
 
 such a length that we shall dismiss them with one remark. 
 
 If 77 be not the appellative name of God in Chinese, the addition 
 of the qualifying word, “ high,” or “celestial,” cannot make it so; 
 indeed we suppose no one would maintain that either of these phrases 
 is the appellative tjame of God in Chinese, and the use of T'ien t>, 
 % # " The celesfjal Ruler or Rulers,” could only be advocated 
 on the ground that it was a title of the chief God, which we have 
 sufficiently answered in the first part of our Essay 
 
67 
 
 With a short resume of our objections to the use of 77, to render 
 dto.c, we shall conclude our remarks on this subject. 
 
 VVe object to the use of 77: I. That it is not the appellative 
 name of God, or of any class of Beings either human or divine, but 
 is a title given alike to gods and men. 2. That all the Diction- 
 aries, both native and foreign, give Judge, or Ruler, as the meaning 
 ol 77, whilst they give no intimation of its being the appellative 
 name of God. 3. That meaning Ruler, and not God, it’ is wholly 
 unsuitable to express the doctrine of the Trinity. 4. That Ft was 
 never used even as the title of more than six Beings who w'ere wor- 
 shiped in the state religion, that neither of the Six was ever wor- 
 shiped by the people of China, and that five of these six are now wor- 
 shiped by no one. 6. That if 77 be used in the translation of the 
 First Commandment it will forbid civil government ; and 6. That it 
 will not forbid ninety-nine hundredths of the false worship now offered 
 m China. 
 
 These objections appear to us so weighty, direct add palpable, 
 that all, who regard them as sustained, by the evidence wd have ad- 
 duced, will agree with us that the use of 77, to render Elohim and 
 duo s in the translation of the Sacred Scriptures, is wholly inad- 
 missible. 
 
 We give a few additional texts of Scripture to show how subversive 
 of civil government, the use of this word to render Elohim would 
 prove. “1 am the Lord and there is none else; there is no God 
 beside me.” Is 45:5. “ Is there a Gbd beside me.' Yea, there is 
 
 no God, I know not any.” Is 44:8. 
 
 What would be thought of the English Translator who should use 
 the word King as that whereby to render Elohim, into English, in 
 the passages quoted above. And yet King is not more commonly 
 used, nor more well known as the title of the Ruler of the English 
 nation, than 77' is as the title of him who rules over the Chinese 
 people. Should we render God, in the passages above cited, by a 
 word which is constantly used to designate the individual who holds 
 his office, Fine Ktvang would -surely have just cause of complaint ; 
 and who could wonder, if under stiCh'cirbumstances, he were to for- 
 bid the distribution of our books ? Who could blame him if he did. 
 
 In conclusion, we have only to beg that the arguments, produced 
 in favor of the use ol the words Shin and 77, respectively, may be 
 carefully compared, that a right judgment may be formed which of 
 these, two words is in truth the appellative name of God m Chinese. 
 
 With respect to Shut we have seen, 1. That it is unquestionably 
 
the name of a class of Beings to whom the Chinese have always offer- 
 ed and still offer religious worship 2. That the Shin ate the highest 
 of the three classes ol invisible Beings, whom the Chinese worship 
 •i That the Being worshiped in the Kidu sacrifice (the highest 
 ever offered in China) is the 'Vitn Chi Shin % Z Sf 
 of Heaven.” 4. That this T*ien chi Shin, fi j[i^, is s >y |ed 
 Shang Ti. 5. That Shang li is called repeatedly the most honor- 
 able of the Shin. 6. That Drs. Morrison and Medhurst, in their 
 Dictionaries both give Shin as the appellative name of Cod in Cln 
 nese ; and lastly, that all the Missionaries whether Protestants or 
 Romanists, have used Shin in their writings as the appellative name 
 of Cod, whilst none of them have ever used Ti. 
 
 This is an amount ol positive testimony in favor of Shin being 
 the appellative name of Cod in Chinese, which we risk nothing in 
 saying, cannot be produced in favor of any other word in the lan- 
 guage. Whatever objections, therefore, may be urged against the 
 use ol this word, must be answered by the exigencies of the case. 
 Shin, is the only word the Chinese language affords us, that can be 
 regarded, after a careful examination of the subject, as having any 
 just claim to be considered the appellative name of God. This word 
 we must therefore use to render Elohim and 6 sog malgre all objections. 
 If we could remodel the literature of the country, we would forbid 
 the employment of Shin as the Pantheists have used it, we would 
 forbid its use for the human soul ; but we must take the Chinese lan- 
 guage as it is, and can only use the best terms it affords us, it being 
 the only medium through which we can make the Chinese people 
 acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures. That Shin is used for all 
 objects of religious worship, including the manes of the dead, makes 
 it only the more available to prohibit all false worship to which this 
 people are addicted. 
 
 If the writer may judge from his own past experience, the objec- 
 tion which has had the greatest weight with the. Missionaries, and 
 prejudiced their minds most against the use of Shin for the true 
 Cod, is the fact that it is used as the appellative name of a class in- 
 cluding so many contemptible Deities, that it seems to them almost 
 contamination to call Jehovah by a name that is common to such 
 Beings. 
 
 This feeling is most natural, and can only be overcome by re- 
 membering that we use this common name to negative the existence 
 of these contemptible and imaginary Deities. A Greek or Roman 
 
69 
 
 Christian must have had the same feeling with respect to the use of 
 (hx or Deus. There is no individual of the class called Shin, who 
 is more insignificant than Priapus, or Sterentius, or Occator ; not to 
 descend lower into the Greek and Roman Pantheon, 
 
 l’lie appellative name of God in use in each heathen nation must 
 be used. The truths taught in the Bible can alone purify the lan- 
 guage, as well as the hearts, of a heathen people. 
 
 The writer indulges a strong hope, that, as all the Missionaries 
 have hitherto agreed in using Shin, to translate Ssoc ; when heathen 
 gods were referred to, they will all ultimately be led to see the pro- 
 priety of using this same word to render Elohim and $sog in all cases. 
 The question is one of the utmost importance to the spread of the 
 Gospel in China, and claims from all those connected with the mis- 
 sionary operations here the most prayerful and careful consideration. 
 
 May God of His infinite goodness grant wisdom and grace to the 
 Directors of the Bible societies so to decide this question as shall be 
 best for the interests of the Redeemer’s cause, and for the salvation 
 of the perishing millions in China, who are expecting the word of 
 God from their hands. 
 
 Upon the Missionaries themselves however must rest the heaviest 
 responsibility in this case; theirs is the chief anxiety, the warmest 
 interest. May the gracious Saviour be present with them all, that 
 the diversity of opinion which now exists on this vital point — the 
 name by which we shall call Him for whom we claim the homage of 
 all hearts in China — may not cause any breach of the harmony 
 which has hitherto existed among the Protestant Missionaries in 
 China. 
 
 The writer’s constant prayer is that all those in China, “ who do 
 confess God’s Holy name may agree in the truth of his holy word, 
 and live in unity and godly love.” 
 
 FINIS