BOOK II. ON THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. IN contemplating the attributes of Deity, we perceive a correspondence with certain properties which characterize our own mental and moral faculties, infinitely contrasting, indeed, in their degree and perfection, but sustaining a marked resemblance in their nature. This view, however, has been disputed by some. It has been maintained that the attributes of Deity are of a nature altogether different from the mental and moral faculties of the human mind; and that the analogy, if there be any, is very remote, and has in it no more of real resemblance " than the map of China has to China itself." Archbishop King remarks: "Because we do not know what His faculties are in themselves, we give them the names of those powers that we find would be necessary to us in order to produce such effects, and call them wisdom, understanding, and foreknowledge; yet at the same time we cannot but be sensible that they are of a nature altogether different from ours, and that we have no direct and proper notion or conception of them."* We demur to this representation, as being inaccurate, and calculated to obscure our conceptions of the Divine Being. We grant, indeed, that all our conceptions of the Deity are inadequate, and that human language is but an imperfect medium, * Sermon on "Divine Predestination and Foreknowledge." even when employed by inspiration itself, to represent the nature of God; but we cannot, on this account, allow that all the exhibitions of the Divine character and attributes are to be resolved into such distant analogies as exist between a map and the country depicted. We cannot admit the notion that the attributes of Deity "are of a nature altogether different from those of the human mind, and that we have no proper conception of them." Dark and enigmatical indeed must be the Scriptures, and erroneous as well as inadequate must be the views we gather from them, if such were the case. We think, that with regard to faculties and properties, there is a true and real resemblance; that, in reference to both mental and moral attributes, there is an actual representation as to their nature, however vast the disparity in measure and degree. What, in fact, is the difference in duration as it applies to God and man, but that in man it is finite, while in God it is infinite? The nature of duration in both is the same. What is the difference in knowledge or wisdom, as it applies to Deity and to man? We conceive it is the same in both as to its nature, though infinitely different as to its perfection and degree. What is volition, but the self-determining act of a free mind, whether in the creature or in the Creator? What is the difference in love, in truth, in faithfulness, in justice, in holiness, as they exist in the mind of God and in the mind of man? Is not love an affection of complacency and delight in an object? Is not truth the conformity of our perceptions to things? Is not faithfulness the conformity of our purposes, dispositions, and actions to truth? Is not justice the regulation of all our dispositions and conduct by the principles of truth and faithfulness towards others? Is not holiness freedom from and aversion to moral evil, and love to all that is good? Are not these principles essentially the same in all ages, in all minds, and in all worlds? Do they part with their essence, or become changed in their nature, by existing in minds of different order and capacity? We conceive they do not. Whether they exist in the mind of man, angel, or God, they are essentially the same in their nature. Here is the only difference: in the creature, they are limited; in the Creator they are infinite;-in man they are mixed with infirmity, and often with qualities of an opposite kind; but in Jehovah their lustre is untarnished by any alloy -they exist in absolute perfection, in unchanging harmony and beauty; they are united to a mind of infinite capacity, and unchanging rectitude. Gold is gold, whether in the rude, heterogeneous mass of native ore, or in the pure and refined ingot; whether in the diminutive quantity of a grain, or a ponderous, massive globe. So with regard to those faculties and properties of mind indicative of excellence, there is a real resemblance between the creature and the Creator. In confirmation of this view, the direct testimony of the Sacred Scriptures may be adduced, which not only represents the Deity under the designation of spirit-the same word as that applied to the human soul-but in setting forth the creation of man, expressly declares him to have been created in the image and likeness of God. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." In this repetition of the affirmation, expressed in the same terms, there is an emphasis intended, calling our attention to the meaning of the phraseology and the importance of the fact set forth. Here, then, we have a resemblance definitely affirmed, and that resemblance expressed by the terms "likeness" and "image." We know not what words could have been employed more definitely expressive of a real and proper resemblance. It will not be pretended that the resemblance applies to man's corporeal nature, for God is declared to be a Spirit, and there must be a total dissimilarity in his essence and properties and our corporeal substance. It is to the human spirit, then, and the Divine Spirit, the Creator, we are authorized to look for the resemblance intended. The soul of man, in its spiritual essence, in its natural attributes, and in its moral qualities, too, prior to its depravity by sin, and after its renovation by grace, has a real resemblance to God. Originally, it was created in his image and likeness, and when purified and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, it is said to be renewed "after the image of him who created it." On this passage, Matthew Henry observes "that the two words, image and likeness, express the same thing, and make each other the more expressive. Image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator." Then this judicious divine goes on to state the particular points of resemblance between the soul of man and God, which were-1. Its nature and constitution; 2. Its authority and dominion; 3. Its purity and rectitude. Dr. Adam Clarke also remarks on the same important passage :-"The image and likeness must necessarily be intellectual; his mind, his soul, must have been formed after the nature and perfections of God." Similar views are expressed by other eminent writers. Dr. Chalmers remarks:-"The mind of man is a creation, and therefore indicates by its characteristics the character of Him to the fiat and the forthcoming of whose will it owes its existence. R. Watson observes :-" When it is said God is a spirit, we have no reason to conclude that a distant analogy, such a one as springs out of mere relation, is intended. The nature of God and the nature of man are not the same, but they are similar, because they bear many attributes in common, though, on the part of the Divine nature, in a degree of perfection infinitely exceeding." + Howe says:- "The Godhead is of a nature nearly resembling our own souls, and the higher excellencies of the best of his creatures, although eminently containing in himself also all the real perfections, virtues, and powers of all the rest." Robert Hall remarks:-"The body has a tendency to separate us from God by the dissimilarity of its nature; the soul, on the contrary, unites us again to him, by means of those principles and faculties which, though infinitely inferior, are of a character congenial to his The body is the production of God; the soul is his own. "Natural Theology," vol. i., p. 306. Howe's "Living Temple," part ii., chap. iii. image." ." Theodorus Mopsuestius quaintly observes:-" When God created man, his last and best work, this was as if a king having built a great city, and adorned it with many and various works, after he had perfected all, should command a very great and beautiful image of himself to be set up in the midst of the city, to show who was the builder of it." † We grant there are qualities and properties in man indicative of the weakness and dependence of his nature; these cannot be ascribed to God. Again, there are some attributes in the Deity which cannot be ascribed to man. But all the mental and moral properties of a human soul, expressive of the excellence and perfection of its nature, are characteristic of similar attributes in the Deity, in whom, from the self-existence and infinitude of his nature, they reside in boundless plenitude and unchanging glory. The consideration of this important truth will aid us as we proceed further in our contemplations of the Divine character. We propose to establish the following propositions : PROPOSITION I. That the Deity is a spiritual Being. PROPOSITION II. That he is eternal in his existence, or that his being has neither beginning nor end, but is absolutely unlimited in its duration. PROPOSITION. III. That he is absolutely perfect, and therefore independent and self-sufficient. PROPOSITION IV. That, being absolutely perfect, he is immutable in his nature. PROPOSITION V. That he is omnipresent, or fills immensity with his presence. * Sermon on the "Spirituality of the Divine Nature." |