Commentaries, Commentary on Judges · Chapter 6 · Excursus 1
¶Of Viſions, or in what ſorte and how muche God may be knowen of men.
NOw the matter geueth vsus occaſion, ſomwhat to ſpeake of viſions of things deuine, and in what ſorte and how much God may be ſene of men. But leaſt our diſputacion ſhould want either methode or els an order, I will firſt ſet forth certaine diſtinctions whiche I perceaue are nedefull.
Firſt, the knowledge of God is ſuppoſed to be offred vntounto the ſēces,Diſtinctions which ſerue to the queſtiō put forth. or vnderſtanding. Or els we thinke that it commeth of nature, either els by a prerogatiue, and reuelacion which paſſeth nature. Father the knowledge of the ſubſtaunce, nature, and (as if I ſhould ſay) of the very eſſēce, is ſeparated from that knowledge whiche conſiſteth of tokens, teſtimonies, argumentes and ſignes of the diuine preſence. Laſtly we muſt ſpeake, either of that knowledge, whiche agreeth with this our life, or of that onelyonly which is looked for after this world.The nature of GOD is not knowen by our ſences. I will begyn therfore at the ſences: and of the knowledge of them this I ſuppoſe, that the nature, ſubſtaunce, and eſſence of God can not be comprehended by the ſences. For thoſe thinges hauehave no affinity with God whiche are vnderſtand by ſences, but are from him moſt farre diſtant. And to ſay the truth the qualities, which long to any certayne generall worde, and are reckened for accidences, do ſtirre vp the knowledge of the ſences. And for as much as God, whiche is moſt ſimple, is not ſubiect to thoſe, he can not therfore be knowen by the ſences. And this to be true is by certaine experience perceaued whiche eueryevery man taketh of his owne iudgement. For it is moſt certain, that no man hath by his ſences perceaued hym.The error of Anthropomorphites. Howbeit the Anthropomorphites perſuaded themſelues that God might be knowen by the ſences, as men which did attribute vntounto god a humane body: but their opinion is vtterly reiected. For the holy ſcripture teſtifieth that God is a ſpirite, and it alſo putteth a manifeſt difference betwene a ſpirite and a body, when our ſauiour ſayth: Fele and ſee, bycauſe a ſpirite hath neither fleſhe nor bones. And there is none which vnderſtandeth not, that a humane body and his members, can not conſiſte without fleſhe & bones. Farther their fooliſhneſſe hereby appeareth, bycauſe there is not a body founde, whiche is eueryevery way pure and ſimple: for let it be as equall as thou wilt, at ye leſt way it hath partes, wherof it is compoſed. And that all compoſition is agaynſt the nature of God, euen the Ethnike Philoſophers perceaued.
But leauing the Anthropomorphites, we muſt ſpeake of certayne other, whō Auguſtine in his Epiſtle ad Paulinam, de videndo Deo, maketh mēcion of.Auguſtine. They as the Scriptures teſtifie and the right faith confeſſe, do beleue that God is altogether moſt ſimple, and that he wanteth a body. But they deny that he can not be ſene with the eyes of the bleſſed, in that bleſſedneſſe whiche we wayt for. And therfore they ſay we are deceaued, bycauſe we meaſure the ſtate of the lyfe to come by thoſe thinges, whiche we ſee here to be done and to happen. Wherfore ſay they, although the dull eyes of our body are not able here to ſee God, the aungels or ſpirites, yet when they are confirmed in felicity, they ſhall ſee them, but not in dede by their owne nature & power, and the ſharpeneſſe of their ſight ſhalbe ſo illuſtrated,Our bodely eyes do not beholde the eſſēce of God neither here, neither in ye lyfe to come. that they ſhall ſee euen the very eſſence of God. Theſe men peraduenture erre leſſe than the Anthropomorphites: but yet they erre. For how ſoeuer our eyes ſhalbe confirmed whē we ſhalbe in the bleſſed ſtate, they ſhall for all that remayne eyes, and ſhalbe bodily eyes: wherfore they ſhall not excede the nature and latitude of their obiectes. In dede they ſhall then eaſely abide a vehementer and larger light, than now they can in ſeing ſuffer, neither ſhall they be hurte by thoſe colours wherwith they are now offended, but yet they ſhall not attayne vntounto the eſſence of god. For there are no bodies whiche in the bleſſed reſurrection ſhalbe ſo nobled, that they ſhall either be made ſpirites, or els ceaſſe to be bodyes. Wherfore neither to the body of Chriſt is this geuen, that after his reſurrection it was turned into a ſpirite. For this were not to hauehave the body riſe agayne, but to be aboliſhed. Wherfore they, whiche thinke that our eyes ſhalbe made ſo perfect, that they ſhall beholde the ſubſtaunce of God, do not beawtifye them, but in very dede deſtroy them. The Anthropomorphites do ſinne agaynſt the nature of God, in that they cloth it with a body: but theſe men do iniury vntounto the nature of man, which perſuade themſelues that it ſhall not abide in the bleſſed reſurrection. Our ſentence therfore abideth and is true, as well of this lyfe wherin we preſently lyue, as of the life which we wayte for to come.
What the Patriarches and Prophets ſaw.But thou wilt aſke, what then ſawe the Patriarches and Prophetes, to whō we read in the holy Scriptures that God many tymes appeared? I aunſwere, that as touching the outward ſenſes, they ſaw onelyonly certaine images, ſimilitudes and formes, whiche were offred ſometymes vntounto them by god and by hys aungels, whereby it was ſhewed both that he was preſent with thoſe fathers, & alſo ſpake vntounto them, heard them and admoniſhed them of thinges healthfull. But theſe things, namely the preſence of god or of the aungels, alſo the wordes and ſignifications, the ſenſe it ſelfe vnderſtand not, but by reaſon, and in minde they were gathered by thoſe thinges, whiche the iudgement of the ſenſes receaued. Wherfore the Chaldey Paraphraſt, when in Exodus it is writtē, that god came to mount Syna, affirmeth, that god himſelfe came not ſimply, but tranſlateth it, that the glory of god came: as thoughe he ſhould hauehave ſayd, certaine noble and wonderfull ſignes were there ſene, by whiche god teſtified that he hymſelfe was there preſent: whiche ſelfſame thing he doth in Eſay the 6. chap: where he writeth.In what thīgs God ſhew him ſelf to be preſēt I ſaw the Lord ſitting vponupon his throne which was highe and lifted vp. But what manner of ſimilitudes and images they were, which offred them ſelues as tokens of the preſence either of an aungell or of god, it is eaſy to be gathered out of the holy Scriptures. The burnyng buſhe appeared vntounto Moſes, the cloud, the piller of fire, the ſmokes, voices, thundringes lampes, lightnings, the propiciatory, the arke of the couenaunt, Vrim and Themim, and ſondry formes euen of men, whiche either did, or ſpake, or in ſome maner of ſorte ſhewed themſelues either to Prophetes or to other men. All theſe thynges I ſaye, were ſignes and tokens of the preſence both of God and of the aungels. And the ſame things were ſene of the fathers, either when they were ſlepyng or els whē they were waking: & ſometymes by the ſpirit of god or induſtry of the angels at the cōmaundement of god,Prophets ſomtimes ſe things printed in imagination and ſomtimes outwardly. ye phantaſy or imagination of mē receaued forme by ſuch ſimilitudes and figures. Wherby thoſe thinges whiche god would ſhewe, were no leſſe expreſſed in the myndes of the vnderſtanders, than if they had ben perceaued by the outward ſenſes.
Wherfore in expounding the Prophetes it is true, that very oftentymes we ſtād in great doubt, whether ye thing were ſo done outwardly, or rather ſo appeared to ye Prophet to be done in mind. And in certain of thē by reaſon of the circū ſtances of the matter, we are compelled to graunt that it was onelyonly a viſion, as Ierome teſtifieth of the breeches or hoſen of Ieremy, Ierome.whiche at the commaundement of the Lord he put in a rocke by the riuer Euphrates: and he ſuffred them to remayne there ſo long, till they were rotten: and then he was commaunded to take them, and to put them on agayne. And this viſion happened whileſt the city of Ieruſalem was grieuouſly beſieged by the Chaldeyans, whē the Prophet could not go and come to the riuer Euphrates. For at the ſame tyme, when he would once hauehave gone to Anathoth, where he was borne, he was taken euē as he was going out of the gates, and accuſed of treaſon. In like manner the ſame Ierome affirmeth, that that was onelyonly done by a viſion, whiche is written in Ezechiell, of the bread baked in the doung of an oxe, and how it lay many dayes vponupon one and the ſelfe ſame ſide. To theſe may be added the eatyng of the booke, and ſuch like, whiche either humane nature, or circumſtances of the matters and tymes, ſuffred not ſo to be done, as it is writtē. And as touching the preaching & expreſſing vntounto the people, that things which ye Prophetes had in their myndes, a thing ſene by phantaſy or imagination, was all one, and had as much efficacy, as if it had outwardly bene ſene. But yet they fled not vntounto the viſions of the mynde, when the thing it ſelfe might outwardly be done. For ſeyng God can vſe both wayes, he hath ſometymes taken this way, and other ſometymes that way, as it hath pleaſed him, and as he hath iudged mete and profitable for vsus. But in all theſe things, me thinketh the ſentence of Ambroſe is to be holden,Ambroſe. The viſions of Prophets wer not naturall. which intreating of theſe images, ſayeth: That they were ſuch as will did choſe, and not ſuch as nature hath formed: whiche vndoubtedly maketh agaynſt thoſe, whiche will hauehave propheſieng to be naturall, as though by the power of the heauens, or ſome certain inſtinct of nature, or temperature of humors ſuch images & ſights offred themſelues to be ſene, of the outward ſenſes of the Prophetes, or to be knowen inwardly by imagination & phantaſy. The will (ſayth Ambroſe) namely of god or of an aungell, would thoſe thinges, and aboue other thinges choſe them, and not the power of nature formed them.
But there is an other doubt which in dede is not to be left vnſpoken of,Whether God at any tyme ſhewed himſelf or whether they were alwayes angels that appeared. namely whether god himſelfe at any tyme ſhewed himſelfe vnderunder theſe images or formes: Or whether onelyonly aungels alwayes appeared, which wrought & ſpake with ye Prophets, ſometimes in theyr own name, & other ſometyme in the name of god? Ther hauehave ben ſome which ſaid ye god himſelf neuer appeared, but by angels in ye name of god all thoſe things were accōpliſhed which are written to be either ſpoken or done in thoſe viſions. And they contend that they hauehave certayne teſtimonies in the Scriptures which make with thē: among which one is found in the Actes of the Apoſtles, where Stephen expreſſedly calleth him an aungell, whiche called to Moſes out of the buſhe, when as for all that he is in Exodus named God. Farther Paul to the Galathians teſtifieth that the lawe was geuen in the hande of a Mediator, be the diſpoſition of Aungels. And no man doubteth, but that in Exodus it is written, that the law was geuen by god. Wherfore they conclude that we muſt vnderſtand that God appeared not by himſelfe, but by Aungels. Howbeit foraſmuch as the eſſence or diuine nature, can not be taken away either from the holy ghoſt,The holy ghoſt ſhewed himſelf in a Doue. or from the ſonne (for either of them by nature is God) how will they defend their opinion, when as it is expreſſedly written in the goſpell, that the holy ghoſt deſcended vponupon Chriſt in the forme of a Doue? If they ſay that an aungell came and not the holy ghoſt, they accuſe the Scripture as a lyer: but if they cōfeſſe, that together with that Doue the holy ghoſt appeared, what ſhall let but that god himſelfe alſo appeared vntounto the fathers vnderunder other figures and images? They cā from this by no meanes eſcape, except (which I thinke they wil not do: otherwiſe they ſhould bring in a manifeſt hereſy) they will deny the holy ghoſt to be God. And that which I hauehave aunſwered of the holy ghoſt, we may obiect the like of ye ſonne, out of the wordes of Paul to Timothe the 3.The ſonne of God appeared in humane fleſh chap, where he writeth: Without controuerſy it is a great miſtery, god is made manifeſt in the fleſh, iuſtified in the ſpirite, &c. For the whole Churche and right faith confeſſeth that the word was the true god whiche appeared vnderunder the fleſhe of man. Whiche if he did, as vndoubtedly without conterfayting he did, why may he not be ſaid to hauehave done the ſame in the old Teſtament vnderunder ſōdry formes and manifolde figures? Without doubt that was much greater whiche he gaue vntounto vsus in the latter tyme. But he whiche hath geuen the greater thing we doubt not but that he alſo can geue that whiche is leſſe.
Peraduenture they will ſay, that that whiche was geuen in the latter tyme, the holy Scriptures do ſet forth to the end we ſhould beleue it: but that whiche ye require to hauehave ben done in the old time is no where read.It is the word or ſonne of god by whom God ſpake vntounto the fathers & Prophetes. Yea but if we diligently marke, the Scriptures teach, that alſo. For the ſonne of god is named by the Euangeliſt the worde or foreign, whiche we muſt beleue was not by him done raſhly, but bycauſe it might be vnderſtand that by him god ſpake, when the ſcriptures teſtifie that he ſpake. Wherfore as often as we read, yt the word of ye Lord came vntounto this mā or to that man, I iudge that the ſame is ſo often to be attributed vntounto the ſonne of god Chriſt our Lord, namely that god by him ſpake vntounto the fathers and Prophetes. Which leaſt I ſhould ſeme to ſpeake in vayne, I wil for this ſentence bring forth two teſtimonies.Iohn. 1. The firſt is read in the firſt chap: of Iohn: No man hath ſene god at any tyme, & ſtraight way by ye figure Occupatio is added. The ſonne which is in ye boſome of ye father he hath reueled hym. For a man might aſke, If no man hauehave ſene god at any tyme, who appeared then to the fathers when things deuine wer ſhewed vntounto them? who talked with them, when ſondry formes and images appeared vntounto them in the name of god,Iohn. 12. and wrought with them? Straight way it is aunſwered: The ſonne which is in the boſome of the father he hath reueled him: he was to man, the moſt true interpretor of the father. An other place, is in the goſpell the 12. chap: where it is thus word for word writtē. Therfore they could not beleue, bycauſe agayn ſayd Eſay: He hath blinded their eyes, & hardened their hart, that they ſhould not ſee with their eyes, nor vnderſtād with their hart, and ſhould be conuerted, and I ſhould heale them. Theſe thinges ſayd Eſay, when he ſaw his glory, and ſpake of hym. Vndoubtedly theſe two pronounes His, and of Him, do without cōtrouerſy ſignify Chriſt, for a litle before the Euāgeliſt had ſayd, Though he, namely Chriſt, had done ſo many ſignes before thē, yet beleued they not in hym, that the ſaying of Eſay ye Prophet might be fulfilled yt he ſayd, &c. And to this ſentence, which in very dede is natural, do agree Chriſoſtome, Ierome, Cirillus, & Auguſtine. Farthermore the wordes of Hoſea the Prophet which he hath in the 12.Hoſe. 12 chap: are diligently to be weighed, And thus ſpeaketh the Lord there: I hauehave ſpoken vntounto the Prophetes, and I hauehave multiplied viſions, and vſed ſimilitudes by the hand of the Prophetes, &c. Hereby we vnderſtand, that ſimilitudes were not geuen vntounto the Prophetes from the beginning, but god himſelfe ſpake vntounto them.
By examples it is declared both that God himſelfe, & alſo that āgels ſomtymes apperedBut now muſt we by examples and ſuch as are moſt euident, confirme, that the appearynges of god are vtterly diſtinct from the viſions of aungels. Firſt it is declared vntounto vsus in the boke of Geneſis, that Iacob ſaw a ladder which reached from earth euen to heauen, and by it the aungels both aſcended and diſcended. And at the top of the ladder, namely in heauen, ſtode the Lord from whom Iacob heard noble and large promiſes. Hereby is gathered, vnleſſe we wil ſtil be blind, that aungels ſhewed themſelues in one kind of images and god himſelf appeared in an other forme. This ſelfe ſame thing may we ſee in Eſay, when he ſawe the Lord ſitting in his throne, and with him two Seraphins, whiche cried mutually the one to the other, Holy, holy, holy. And with ſo great reuerence they worſhipped God which was in the middeſt, that with their two vpper winges, they couered their face, and with the two neither wings their feete. Who ſeeth, not here a great difference betwene god and the aungels which appeared? I will not ſpeake of Ezechiell, which ſaw aungels in the formes of creatures, namely of an Oxe, an Egle, and a Lion, by whom wheles were turned, but God himſelfe ſat in the hygheſt parte in the forme of the ſonne of man. Of Daniell alſo was ſene the auncient of dayes, vntounto whom came the ſonne of man. And he addeth that thrones were there put, bookes opened, and a certain forme of a iudgement appoynted: then he maketh mencion of aungels, of which he ſayth were preſent ten thouſand and ten hundreth thouſand, whiche miniſtred vntounto hym.
And here we heare, what great difference there is betwene God and the angels which miniſtred. Farther there is a place moſt manifeſt in Exodus, when God, beyng angry with the people, denied that he would go any farther with them thorough the deſert, leaſt being prouoked with theyr ſinnes, he ſhuld at once vtterly deſtroy them. But he promiſed to ſend his aungell, with which promiſe Moſes was not content, and ſayd that he would by no meanes go with the people, except god himſelf would go together with thē. And vndoubtedly by prayer and conſtantly abiding in his ſentence, at the length he ouercame, and (as he deſired) had god for ye guide of their iorney. How can theſe men therfore ſay, yt god himſelfe was not preſent vnderunder thoſe formes, but only angels were ſene in ſuch images? Moreouer let vsus remember, that Moſes (as it is writtē in the ſame boke of Exodus) deſired of God to ſee his face: which his requeſt god (for that he loued him excedingly,) would not vtterly deny, but yet he would not graunt him all that he required. Wherfore he aunſwered: My face thou ſhalt by no meanes ſee, bycauſe man ſhall not ſee me & lyue, but thou ſhalt looke vponupon my hinder parts, namely my backe. What is more manifeſt than this teſtimony? Surely god by certayne wordes here promiſeth, to appeare vntounto Moſes in the ſhape of a man, of whoſe forme or image Moſes ſhould ſee not the face but the backe. And the ſame he faythfully performed vntounto Moſes: for as god paſſed by, Moſes ſawe the backe of his image by the rocke, and heard the wonderfull and noble names of god rehearſed with a moſt loude voyce. Which when he ſaw, he fell proſtrate to the earth and worſhipped: and it is not to be doubted, but that he gaue vntounto hym that adoration, which is onelyonly due vntounto the onelyonly god. For foraſmuch as he beleued that he was there preſent according vntounto his promiſe it is not to be had in controuerſy, but that he worſhipped him as being preſent in very dede. And vndoubtedly god, except he had ſhewed himſelfe preſent in very dede at the arke & mercy ſeat, ſhould hauehave throwen the Iſraelites hedlōg into idolatry, if he would hauehave had onelyonly aungels to aunſwere ſuch as came to aſke counſell, for that he commaunded them to cal vponupon him and to worſhip him there. To theſe may be added that hiſtory whiche is written in the booke of kinges of Micheas the Prophet, whiche prophecied before Achab king of Iſraell and ſayd, that he ſawe god, with whō was preſent an hoſt of aungels, & he heard him aſke, who ſhal deceaue Achab, and that one offred himſelf to be a lying ſpirite in the mouth of the Prophetes of the king Achab. By this viſion alſo we vnderſtand, that there was an aſſured and notable difference, betwene god and the aungels, whiche appeared all together vntounto the Prophet. Wherfore the gift of god which he gaue vntounto the fathers, is not to be diminiſhed or to be extenuated: & we muſt cōfeſſe, yt he was in very dede preſēt, whē he appeared, foraſmuch as we reade yt it was ſo done, and there is nothing that letteth, as farre as can be gathered out of ye holy ſcriptures, neither is the very nature of god any thing againſt, it that it could not be done. It were not ſound to attribute vntounto aungels all thoſe things which in the ſcripture are read of ſuch viſiōs. For ſo might we eaſely ſlip ſo farre, yt at the laſt we ſhould beleue yt the word was not immediatly created by god, but by angels at his commaundement. Wherfore let vsus confeſſe that god was preſent in very dede,God was preſent in verye dede, whē it is ſayd that he appeared vnderunder diuers formes. & ſhewed himſelfe vnderunder diuers formes, as often as we heare that the ſcripture teſtifieth or ſpeaketh the ſame.
Now reſteth to aunſwere vntounto the places before brought. As touchyng the Epiſtle to the Galathians, I graunt that the diſpoſition of the aungels was in the geuing of the law: for they ſtood by God when he ſpake, they made redy the miſt,Aungels miniſtred vntounto god when he gaue the law. thundringes, lightnings, & lāpes, they prepared the tables of ſtone, & many wayes miniſtred vntounto God being preſent & ſpeakyng. Neither do the wordes of the Apoſtle deny, but that God himſelfe ſpake, & gaue the law, as the ſcriptures teſtifie. Yea & there hauehave ben ſome, which by the hand of a Mediator, do not expound it to be Moſes, The aungell which ſpake vntounto Moſes in the buſhe, was ye ſonne of Godbut ye ſonne of god: but whether they do it rightly or wrōgfully, I hauehave no leaſure at thys preſent to diſcuſſe. But we nede not in many wordes to aunſwere vntounto ye which bleſſed Stephen ſayth (as it is written in the Actes of the Apoſtles) namely that an angel appeared vntounto Moſes in the buſhe, & talked with him. For if by the angell we vnderſtand the ſonne of God (as I hauehave often admoniſhed) there will then remayne no doubt.
But that the things which I hauehave now alledged, as touching this matter, may the plainlyer & more certeinly be vnderſtand, I thinke it good to confirme them by ſome teſtimonies of the fathers.Chriſoſtome. Chriſoſtome in his 14. Homely vponupon Iohn ſaith. The things which ye fathers ſaw, were al of thē by permiſſion, but yet they ſaw not ye pure & ſimple ſubſtaūce of god. And he addeth: If they had ſene it, then ſhould they not hauehave ſene it in any part differing, for yt it is pure, ſimple, & cā not be deſcribed: Wherfore it ſtandeth not, it lieth not, neither ſitteth, as ſometime it was to thoſe Prophetes ſhewed. He ſaith moreouer: God, before the ſonne came into fleſh, exerciſed ye father with thoſe viſiōs & images. He there alſo writeth ye, which a litle before we alledged, namely ye with bodyly eyes we cā not ſee created ſpirites, as are our ſoules & angels. Wherfore much leſſe muſt we beleue, yt we can ſee god with the ſenſes. And leaſt a man thinke, yt it onelyonly agreeth with god ye father to be inuiſible, & not with ye ſonne, he bringeth thys ſentēce of Paul, that he is the image of ye inuiſible God. And without doubt he could not be hys image,Auguſtine. if he were not inuiſible, as he is whoſe image he repreſenteth. Auguſtine alſo in his 3. treatiſe vponupon Iohn, ſaith of Moſes: Althoughe it be ſayd that he talked with god face to face, yet when he deſired to ſee ye face of god, that is his very ſubſtaunce, he could not obteyne it. And in the ſame place he addeth: He ſaw the cloude, & the fire, which were figures. And within a litle after: If they ſay that the ſonne was viſible before he was incarnate, they dote. Auguſtine beſides theſe hath in his Epiſtle to Fortunatianus, gathered many more things to this purpoſe out of Nazianzenus, Ierome, & other fathers, which wer to long here to rehearſe.
Howbeit I will bring two argumentes, which are wont to be obiected againſt this ſentence. In the beginning we ſayd that the nature of God can not therfore be comprehended with the ſenſes, bycauſe his nature is not bodily. But all the old fathers ſeme not to hauehave beleued ſo.Tertullian. For Tertullian agaynſt Praxea writeth that God is a bodye, and in other places hee oftentimes teſtifieth the ſame. Yea in his litle booke de Anima he teacheth that our ſoules are bodyes. And whiche ſemeth more ſtraunge, hee laboureth by manye reaſons to confirme it. Yea and in his booke de Dogmat. Eccleſ. the 11. chap: he writeth that all creatures are bodyes, and euen the aungels by name: bycauſe there is nothing, whiche filleth all thinges as doth God: but all thynges are limited with certayne places, as it appeareth of the ſoule,Auguſtine excuſeth Tertulian. whiche is cloſed in with the body. Auguſtine in his Epiſtle ad Quod uult deum excuſeth Tertullian in this maner, that by a body he vnderſtoode the ſubſtaunce, & that whiche is in very dede, as though he therfore wrote that god is a body, leaſt he ſhould ſeme to deny yt he is, foraſmuch as the vulgare people do thinke that yt is vtterly nothing,The nature of god is without a body. which is not a body. Howbeit ye ſame Auguſtine in his boke de Geneſi ad litterā, in this maner reproueth him, that at ſometyme being ouercome by ye truth, he ſaid, That eueryevery body is paſſible: wherfore, leaſt he ſhould make god paſſible, he ought to hauehave denied him to be a body. Neither neded he ſo to bend himſelf to ye capacity of ye cōmō people, ye therfore he ſhould pronoūce falſe things of god. For Chriſtiās are not ſo to be inſtructed, ye like rude perſons (whō Ariſtotle alſo cōfuteth) they ſhould thinke that yt is nothing, which is not a body, but rather they ought ſo to be taught, yt in thinking of god they affirme nothing wtout rules of ye holy ſcriptures. And as for ye booke de dogmate Eccleſiaſtico, we muſt attribute no more vntounto it thā is mete. For it is aſcribed vntounto Auguſtine, but the learned beleue not that it is his.
The other thing, which is ſomtimes obiected, is an argument of ye Anthropomorphites. For they cōtēd, yt for this cauſe we ought not to beleue ye god is without a body, bycauſe the Scriptures teſtifie, ye man was made to ye image of God, which could not be true, except he hauehave a body as we hauehave. For ye image ſhould want ye ſimilitude of ye wherunto it is referred. They thinke alſo ye the Scripture maketh with thē, when as it oftētimes attributeth vntounto god the mēbers of men.Ierome. But Ierome (as Auguſtine to Fortunatianus citeth him) wittely & ſharpely derideth their argumēt. If we ſhould leane vntounto this reaſon (ſaith he) we ſhall eaſely proue yt a man hath winges, bycauſe ye ſcripture ſometimes aſcribeth thē to god, to whoſe image it is manifeſt ye man was created. Theſe men ought rather diligently to hauehave weighed that the image of God, conſiſteth in holineſſe, righteouſneſſe & truth, as Paul hath taught. Whiche thyng if they had ſene, they had not only remoued a body from god, but they ſhould alſo hauehave led away their mindes from groſſer cogitations. Why do they not affirme that God is in very dede a beare, a Lion or fire, bycauſe ſo do Amos, and Moſes, and alſo the Epiſtle to the Hebrues call him? In the 95. Pſalme it is written: He that made the eye, ſhall he not ſee? he that made the eare, ſhall he not heare? Ierome ſaith that there ſhould hauehave ben ſaid: he that made the eare, hath he not an eare? & he that made the eye, hath he not an eye? But ſo it is not ſayd, leaſt in thinking of him,Why the ſcripture attributeth members vntounto God. thou ſhouldeſt be deceaued, & ſuppoſe that he hath thoſe mēbers. But the holy ſcripture, if ſome tyme it attribute members vntounto god, vndoubtedly this is the only cauſe, to helpe our infirmity, whereby althoughe we can not comprehend the eſſence of God as it is, yet in very dede it prouideth that by ſome certayne ſimboles and ſhadowes we may vnderſtande ſomewhat. Wherefore members are by a moſt profitable Metaphore attributed vntounto God, that we diligently remembryng his proprietyes, might godlyly and faythfully exerciſe our myndes.Why the Anthropomorphites are condemned. And the Anthropomorphites: if for that cauſe they had aſcribed members vntounto God, as the Scriptures ſetteth them forth, to be a helpe vntounto the weake vnderſtandyng of men: they myght be excuſed, neither ſhould they hauehave bene condemned. But they contended that the nature of God had ſo in very dede: wherefore iuſtly and worthely are they accuſed. But what ſhall we aunſwere to Paul, whiche of the ſeyng the nature of God in heauen, ſayth: We ſhall ſee him face to face, and by that meanes he ſemeth to graunt vntounto our eyes and face the beholdyng of god, and after a ſorte to aſcribe vntounto god himſelf a face?There is a face of the body and a face of the mynde. Auguſtine aunſwereth that there is a face alſo of the mynde, when as Paul ſayth, that we nowe with a face vncouered do beholde thinges deuine, and not with a vayle put betwene, as the Iewes vſed when they talked with Moſes.
But theſe thinges beyng thus finiſhed and concluded,In the eternal life the bleſſed ſhall know the eſſence of God. let vsus in few wordes ſpeake of other kyndes of the knowledge of God. In the euerlaſtyng lyfe the bleſſed ſhall knowe the eſſence of God, not in dede by the ſenſes, but by the ſoule or mynde, for as muche as Iohn ſayeth: When he appeareth, we ſhall ſee hym as he is. Paul teſtifieth the ſame, nowe we ſee hym thoroughe a glaſſe and in a ſhadowe, but than ſhall we ſee hym face to face. The ſame thyng is gathered by the wordes of Chriſt: Their aungels alway beholde the face of the father, for in an other place he hath taught, yt in the bleſſed reſurrection the iuſt ſhalbe like the angels of god. Wherof it followeth, yt we ſhal ſee god in like ſorte as the angels do: wherfore if they ſee his face, thā ſhal we alſo behold it. There is an other teſtimony alſo written by Paul to ye Corinth. Than ſhall I know, euen as I am knowē.The nature of GOD is not wholy and by all meanes cō prehended. Chriſoſtome. And ye god ſeeth vsus thoroughly & eſſencially, no mā doubteth. Howbeit let vsus not thus perſuade our ſelues, yt the bleſſed ſhall wholy & eueryevery way know ye nature & ſubſtaunce of God, but ſo much only as we ſhalbe able to receaue… for things finit cā not fully receiue yt which is infinite: nether is ye which is created, able fully & perfectly to cōprehend his creator. Wherfore Chriſoſtome in his .14. Homely vpō Iohn, Ambroſe in his firſt boke vpō Luke ye .1. chap, alſo Ierome (as Auguſtine in ye place before alledged declareth) all theſe I ſay deny yt the angels ſee god. But yt can not ſimply & abſolutly be vnderſtād, whē as otherwiſe Chriſt ſaith, yt they ſee the face of ye father which is in heauē. Wherfore it remayneth, yt the ſame is to be vnderſtād of ye whole & perfect knowledge of his nature & ſubſtance. Wherfore in Iohn ye 6. chap: it is written: No man hath ſene god, but he which is of god, he hath ſene ye father. Alſo: As ye father knoweth me, ſo know I ye father. Wherfore this is onelyonly geuen to Chriſt which is god, perfectly & fully to know ye eſſēce of god. Other alſo ſhall ſee it, but yet ſo much as their capacity cā cōprehend. If thou aſke, whether it ſhalbe equally or no? I will not aunſwere to that, at this preſent. For in an other place, we ſhall hauehave occaſion geuen vsus to ſpeake of the diuerſity or equality of rewardes in the bleſſed life.
But what ſhall we affirme of the ſtate of this life? Shall our mind whileſt we liue here in knowing of god attayne to his eſſēce?Whether in this lyfe we may in ſoule or minde knowe the eſſence of God, or no. No verely, bicauſe it is writtē: Man ſhall not ſee me & lyue. No man hath ſene God at any tyme. And Paul addeth: He can not be ſene, bycauſe he dwelleth in the light that no man can come vntounto. Howbeit theſe thinges are not to be vnderſtand as touchyng all maner of knowledge: for alſo whileſt we lyue here, it is geuē vntounto vsus after a ſort to know god. Wherfore theſe ſayings are to be vnderſtād (to ſpeake as the ſtoolemen do) of the ſubſtantiall & eſſentiall knowledge of God. Neither is this againſt it, in ye it is written that Moſes ſaw god face to face, which alſo before him Iacob ſpake, neither ye which in an other place is written of ye ſame Moſes, ye god talked with him as a frend with his frend. For theſe things are not ſpokē ſimply, but by cōpariſō with other, bycauſe thoſe excellēt mē aboue other knew thoſe things, which at yt tyme were opened vntounto mē as touching god. For vntounto thē god would after an exquiſite & vnaccuſtomed maner ſhewe himſelfe, whiche he did not to others. And this to be ye ſēſe of theſe words. Auguſtine & Chriſoſtome hereby do gather, bycauſe afterward when Moſes deſired to ſee the face of god, it was denied hym.
The naturall knowledge as touching God, is ſlender and obſcure. Symonides.There remayneth, to intreate of the knowledge of god, which whileſt we liue here we may obtayne. Firſt the ſame is naturall, & that very ſlender & obſcure. Which thing Symonides knew right well, who (as Cicero writeth in hys booke de Natura deorum) being demaunded of Hierone a tyranne of Sicilia, what God was, he alwayes deferred to aunſwere, bycauſe ye more he thought as touching ye thing, ye more obſcure alwaies it ſemed vntounto him. Wherfore Clemēs Alexādrinus in his 5.Clemens Alexandrinus. boke of Stromata, bringing a reaſon, why ye knowledge of God is ſo hard, ſaith: It is not Genus, it is not Differēcia, it is not Accidēs, nor ye ſubiect of Accidēces, & therfore it cā not be vnderſtād of vsus, which comprehend onelyonly ſuch things in our mind & reaſō. The effectes, which ye Philoſophers vſed by their vnderſtāding to know god, are not equal wt his dignity, power, & faculties. Wherfore they declared only certain cōmō & light thīgs. But we geue vntounto him Attributa or proprieties, yt is, good, iuſt, faire, wiſe, & other ſuch like: bicauſe we hauehave no excellenter things, nor nobler names, whiche cā better be applied, or agree wt him. Neither yet are theſe things ſo in him, as we ſpeake: for, for yt he is moſt ſimple,The knowledge of God by fayth. he is farre otherwiſe good, iuſt, & wiſe, thā men either are, or are called.
But beſides this naturall knowledge of god, this knowledge alſo offreth it ſelfe vntounto vsus, which conſiſteth of faith, & is by the worde of god reueled vntounto vsus. But faith is not of vsus (as to the Epheſians it is ſayd) but it is the gifte of God: for Chriſt alſo ſaith: No man can come vntounto me except my father drawe him. Faith therfore aboundantly gathereth out of the holy ſcriptures ye knowledge of god, as much as ſufficeth to ſaluation, or as much as this our lyfe is able to receaue. Howbeit as Paul teſtifieth this knowledge alſo is imperfect. For now we know hym by a glaſſe in a ſhadow & but partly: & althoughe in this knowledge we profyte, whileſt we liue here, yet can we not atteyn to the knowledge of the eſſence of god. I know that Auguſtine thought as touching Paul & Moſes, ye ſometyme,The opinion of Auguſtine, of Paul and Moſes. in minde whileſt they were here, they ſaw the ſubſtaunce of God: but I can not eaſely agree vntounto it, foraſmuch as I iudge that thoſe places of Iohn, of the lawe, & of Paul, which I before alledged, are moſt euidēt. VntoUnto which this may alſo be added, which is written in the 6. chap. of Iohn. Not that any man hath ſene the father: he which is of god, he ſeeth the father. And this is not to be paſſed ouer, ye that which is here ſpoken of the father, is true alſo of the ſonne, as touchyng his deuine nature. Bycauſe, as I hauehave aboue declared, both out of Chriſoſtome and out of Auguſtine, the nature as wel of the Sonne, as of the Father is inuiſible. And it ſkilleth not if thou ſay, as Auguſtine ſayth, that they ſawe the nature and ſubſtaunce of God, not vſing the outwarde ſenſes but in a certayne traunſe or rauiſhing, or beyng alienated from the vſe of this lyfe. Theſe thinges are not gathered out of the Scriptures, yea contrarily we hauehave heard that Moſes was denyed the ſight of the face of God. Wherfore by the knowledge of fayth we both knowe God and his good will towarde vsus, as much as is ſufficient to our true and perfect ſaluation.
But among all thoſe thinges, wherby out of the holy ſciptures we know god,In Chriſt god is ſayd to be made viſible. there is none more excellent than Chriſt himſelfe. Wherefore Paul hath iuſtly ſayd: without controuerſye it is a great miſtery, God is made manifeſt in the fleſhe, &c. The Lord alſo ſayth: Philip, he whiche ſeeth me, ſeeth alſo the father. Paul alſo ſaid that he knew nothing els, but Ieſus Chriſt, and him crucified. And vndoubtedly in Chriſt God may be ſayd to be made viſible: bycauſe he was ioyned together with man in the ſame ſelfe perſon. Wherfore they whiche ſawe Chriſt, might ſay yt they had ſene God. And he which by faith beholdeth and acknowledgeth him, doth ſee far much more, than if he ſhould behold the burnyng buſhe of Moſes. Wherfore to the Colloſ. it is written, that in him are put all the treaſures of the wiſdome & knowledge of god. And Iohn doth healthfully admoniſhe vsus in his Epiſtle the 3. chap. as he which hath a hope to ſee God as he is, let him prepare himſelfe therunto, by purging himſelf, as he is pure & cleane. Thus much of the Queſtion, now let vsus returne vntounto the hiſtory.