Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 515

1250.

Defense of an Essay, &c.

477

speak of the nature, being, and attributes of Jehovah? How are we to express the doctrine of the Trinity by the use of this word, if when we say the three Persons are one God, we mean to assert by the word God they are of one divine essence or substance? This inatter has been sufficiently discussed when we were inquiring whether god was a re- lative term or not; but I can not pass on without calling the reader's attention to one remarkable point.

The Romanists used the character wei for the Persons, and the character', substance, to express that in which the oneness of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost consisted. In this they have been fol- lowed by all the Protestants whose statements with respect to the Tri- nity I have seen. The remarkable fact in connection with this point to which I desire to call the reader's attention is this: that the Chi- nese writers themselves (without of course having any reference to this subject) explain the phrase Shángti as not referring to the t'i sub- stance, of the being so styled. Take, for instance, the explanation of the words t'ien and given by Ching-tsz' when commenting on the 18th Section of the Chan Lí: Tien yü tí yih yê; t'ien yen k'i fi, th yen kichu 天與帝一也天言其體帝言其主 t'i, ti

Tien (Heaven) and Ti (Ruler) are the same; [the name] heaven re- fers to its (the ruling power's) (t'i ) substance; tí, the Ruler, re- fers to its ruling." So also the explanation of Ching Shí-ngoh quoted Vol. XVII, p. 45 of my Essay: "Because of the immensity of its sub- stance (k'i) we call it (the ruling Power) Expansive Heaven; be- cause its ruling seat is on high, we call it (the Power above called Expansive Heaven) Shángtí, i. e. the Ruler on high.”

If we are correct in using the word t'i substance, to express that in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one; when we say

"the three Persons are one Shángti," how can the phrase Shángti, which does not refer to the substance of the being indicated, but only to his ruling, teach that the oneness of the three Persons consists in their having only one t'i substance, or their being con-substantial? Will the words “Three Persons and Supreme Ruler,” express the Athan- asian view of the Trinity?

The last objection I shall urge against the use of the phrase Shang- tí to render the words Elohim and so, is that it is a compound term, consisting of an adjective "supreme" and a noun "ruler," whereas we want a simple uncompounded word like God, Elohim, EOS.

The unsuitableness of such a compound phrase is easiest tested by showing that we can not thereby teach a strict and proper monotheism, The doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures is that there is but one God;