« PreviousContinue »
is exhibited not as he really is, but in such a manner as may be within the scope of our comprehensions, yet we ought to entertain such a conception of him, as he, in condescending to accommodate himself to our capacities, has shewn that he desires we should conceive. For it is on this very account that he has lowered himself to our level, lest in our flights above the reach of human understanding, and beyond the written word of Scripture, we should be tempted to indulge in vague cogitations and subtleties.4
There is no need then that theologians should have recourse here to what they call anthropopathy:-a figure invented by the grammarians to excuse the absurdities of the poets on the subject of the heathien divinities. We
sure that sufficient care has been taken that the Holy Scriptures should contain nothing unsuitable to the character or dignity of God, and that God should say nothing of himself which could derogate from his own majesty. It is better therefore to contemplate the Deity, and to conceive of him, not with reference to human passions, that is, after the manner of men, who are never weary of forming subtle imaginations respecting him, but after the manner of Scripture, that is, in the way
wherein God has offered himself to our contemplation ; nor should we think that he would say or direct anything to be written of himself, which is inconsistent with the opinion he wishes us to entertain of his character. Let us require no better authority than God himself for determining what is worthy or unworthy of him. If “it repented Jehovah that he had made man," Gen. vi. 6. and “because of their groanings, Judges ii. 18, let us believe that it did repent him, only taking care to remember that what is called repentance when applied
Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid:
Paradise Lost, VIII. 166.
Live, in what state, condition, or degree- Ibid, 172. 5 Two ways then may the Spirit of God be said to be grieved, in Himself, in his Saints ; in Himself, by an anthropopathie, as we call it ; in his Saints, by a sympathie; the former is hy way of allusion to human passion and carriage. Bp. Hall's Rem. p. 106. See also Beveridge, speaking of the anthropomorphites, Works, ix. 29.
to God, does not arise from inadvertency, as in men; for so he has himself cautioned us, Num. xxiii. 19. “God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent." See also 1 Sam. xv. 29. Again, if “it grieved the Lord at his heart," Gen. vi. 6. and if “his soul were grieved for the misery of Israel,” Judges x. 16, let us believe that it did grieve him. For the affections which in a good man are good, and rank with virtues, in God are holy. If after the work of six days it be said of God that “he rested and was refreshed," Exod. xxxi. 17. if it be said that “he feared the wrath of the enemy,” Deut. xxxii. 27, let us believe that it is not beneath the dignity of God to grieve in that for which he is grieved, or to be refreshed in that which refresheth him, or to fear in that he feareth. For however we may attempt to soften down such expressions by a latitude of interpretation, when applied to the Deity, it comes in the end to precisely the same.
If God be said “to have made man in his own image, after lıis likeness,” Gen. i. 26. and that too not only as to his soul, but also as to his outward form (unless the same
6 The Humanitarians held that God was to be understood as having really a human form. See Clarke's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 26. fol. edit. The drift of Milton's argument leads him to employ language which would appear at first sight to verge upon their doctrine, but it will be seen immediately that he guards himself against the charge of having adopted one of the most ignorant errors of the dark ages of the Church. It is in opposition to this opinion that, in our own articles, God is declared to be incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis, without body, parts, or passions. Art. 1. The reasoning of Milton on this subject throws great light on a passage in Paradise Lost, put into the mouth of Raphael :
What surmounts the reach
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought ? Here Newton observes the artful suggestion that there may be a greater similitude and resemblance between things in Heaven and things in Earth than is generally imagined, and supposes it may have been intended as an apology for the bold figures which the Poet has employed. We now see that his deliberate opinion seems to have leaned to the belief that the fabric of the invisible world was the pattern of the visible. Mede introduces a hint of a similar kind in his tenth discourse, as Newton remarks.
words have different significations here and in chap. v. 3. “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image”) and if God habitually assign to himself the members and form of man, why should we be afraid of attributing to him what he attributes to himself, so long as what is imperfection and weakness when viewed in reference to ourselves be considered as most complete and excellent when imputed to God ? Questionless the glory and majesty of the Deity must have been so dear to him, that he would never say anything of himself which could be humiliating or degrading, and would ascribe to himself no personal attribute which he would not willingly have ascribed to him by his creatures. Let us be convinced that those have acquired the truest apprehension of the nature of God who submit their understandings to his word; considering that he has accommodated his word to their understandings, and has shewn what he wishes their notion of the Deity should be.
In a word, God either is, or is not, such as he represents himself to be. If he be really such, why should we think otherwise of him? If he be not such, on what authority do we say what God has not said ? If it be his will that we should thus think of him, why does our imagination wander into some other conception? Why should we hesitate to conceive of God according to what he has not hesitated to declare explicitly respecting himself ? For such knowledge of the Deity as was necessary for the salvation of man, he has himself of his goodness been pleased to reveal abundantly. Deut. xxix. 29. “the secret things belong unto Jehovah, but those things which are revealed belong unto us ..... that we may do them.”
In arguing thus, we do not say that God is in fashion like unto man in all his parts and members, but that as far as we are concerned to know, he is of that form which he attributes to himself in the sacred writings. If therefore we persist in entertaining a different conception of the Deity than that which it is to be presumed he desires should be cherished, inasmuch as he has himself disclosed it to us, we frustrate the purposes of God instead of rendering him submissive obedi
As if, forsooth, we wished to show that it was not we who had thought too meanly of God, but God who had thought too meanly of us.
It is impossible to comprehend accurately under any form of definition the divine nature, for so it is called, 2 Pet. i. 4. “that ye might be partakers of the divine nature”--though nature does not here signify essence, but the divine image, as in Gal. iv. 8. “which by nature are no Gods,” and dotis Col. ii. 9. 481o7hs Rom. i. 20. TÖ Očñoy Acts xvii. 29. which words are all translated Godhead. But though the nature of God cannot be defined, since he who has no efficient cause is essentially greatest of all, Isai, xxviii. 29. some description of it at least may be collected from his names and attributes.
The NAMES and ATTRIBUTES of God®either show his nature, or his divine power and excellence There are three names which seem principally to intimate the nature of God,Jehovah—1 Jah—1797x Ehie. Even the name of Jehovah was not forbidden to be pronounced, provided it was with due
Exod. iii. 15. “ Jehovah, God of your fathers this is my name for ever, and this is
memorial.” xx. 7. “ thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain.” It seems to be introduced in the same way, 1 Kings xvii. 12. “as Jehovah thy God liveth,” and also in many other places. This name both in the New Testament and in the Greek version of the Old is always translated Kógios—THE LORD,-probably for no other reason than because the word Jehovah could not be expressed in Greek letters. Its signification is, “he who is,” or, “ which is, and which was, and which is to come,” Rev. i. 4. Jah, which is a sort of contraction of the former name, has the same signification. Exod. xvii. 16. Jah hath sworn”—and. in other places.
Exod. iii. 14. Torx Ehie, “I am that I am,' “ will be ;”7 and if the
" On the names of God, see Buxtorf, Dissertatio de Nominibus Dei. On the attributes, see Bates's Harmony of the Divine Attributes ; Ward's Essay on the Being and Attributes of God; Reding De Deo et Attributis. Episcopii, Institut. Theolog. I. IV. sect. 2.
? The original of this passage presents considerable difficulty. It is thus written in the manuscript : " Cap. ill. 14. 778 Еhie, qui sum vel ero, et persona prima in tertiam atinis verbi mutatur Jehovæ, qui est vel erit, idem quod Jehova, ut quidam putant illisque vocabulis rectius prolatum.” In the translation I have considered Ehie qui sum vel ero, as an absolute sentence; and conceiving the next clause to have been incorrectly transcribed, I have rendered it as if it had been written-et si persona prima in tertiam affinis verbi mutatur, Jave, qui est, vel erit, &c. Simon in his
first person be changed into the third of the kindred verb, Jave, who is, or will be,-meaning the same as Jehovah, as some think, and more properly expressed thus than by the other words ; but the name Jave appears to signify not only the existence of his nature, but also of his promises, or rather the completion of his promises; whence it is said, Exod. vi. 3. “ by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” And with what vowel points this name Jehovah ought to be pronounced, is shown by those proper names into the composition of which two of them enter, as Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Jehoiada, and the like. The third, or final vowel point may be supplied by analogy from the two other divine
I. The first of those attributes which show the inherent nature of God, is TRUTH. Jer. x. 10. “Jehovah is the true God.” John xvii
. 3. “ that they might know thee the only true God.” 1 Thess. i. 9. “ the living and true God.” 1 John v. 20.“ that we may know him that is true.”
II. Secondly, God considered in his most simple nature is a SPIRIT. Exod. iii. 1-1, 15. “I am that I am.” Rom. xi. 36.
of him and through him are all things.” John iv. 24. “God is a spirit.” What a spirit is, or rather what it is not, is shown, Isai. xxxi. 3. “ flesh, and not spirit.” Luke xxiv. 39. “a spirit hath not flesh and bones.” Whence it is evident that the essence of God, being in itself most simple, can admit no compound quality; so that the term hypostasis, Heb. i. 3.3 which is differently translated substance, or 21:hHebrew Lexicon has the following remark on the word 174: nomen proprium Dei, a Mose demum introductum, eum qui re præstiturus sit, quod olim promiserit, ex ipsa loci Mosaici authentica explicatione, Exod. iii. 14. significans, adeoque 771• vel 71proprie efferendum, ut ex veteribus Theodoretus et Epiphanius Jahe, h. e. Jave scripserunt. If the sense of the passage has been rightly conceived, the kindred verb will be
7 sidit, fuit vel factus est. See Simon in voce. See also Buxtorf's Lexicon ad Rad. 77 and Cappelli Vindic. Arcani Punctuationis, lib. 1. $ 20.
χαρακτήρα της υποστασεως αυτοί the express made of his person. Authorized Transl. exact image of his substance. Macknight. Concerning the word úrootAdéwç, rendered in our Bibles, person, it hath been oh. served by commentators, that it did not obtain that signification till after the Council of Sice. Our translators have rendered úróoraois, Heb. xi. 1. by the word substance.' Mackn. in loc. On the meaning of this word see p. 290, note