The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 3
CAP. III.
Of the Shape, and Bodily visible-figure of God.
M. Biddles Question.
IS God in the Scripture said to have any§. 1.
Likenesse,
Similitude,
Person,
Shape.
The Proposition which he would have to be the Conclusion of §. 2.the Answers to these Questions, is this, That according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, God is a person shaped: like a man. A conclusion so grossely absurd, that it is refused as ridiculous, by Tully an Heathen, in the person of Cotta (de Na… Deorum) against Velleius the Epicurean; the Epicureans only amongst the Philosophers, being so soctish, as to admit that conceipt. And M. B. charging that upon the Scripture, which hath been renounced by all the aSine Corpore ullo Deum esse vult, ut Graeci dicunt foreign. Tull. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1. de Platone. mens soluta & libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali. id.Heathens, who set themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and by a strict Inquiry to search out the Nature and Attributes of God, principally attending that safe Rule of ascribing nothing to him, that eminently included imperfection, hath manifested his pretext of meere Christianity, to be little better then a cover for downe right Atheisme, or at best, of most vile, and unworthy thoughts of the divine Being. And here also doth M. B. forsake his bEx his autem intelligitur, membra humani Corporis, quae Deo in sactis literis ascribuntur, uti & partes quaedam aliarum unithantium, quales sunt alae, non nisi improprie Deo tribui. Siquidem a spiritus natura protsus abhorrent, Tribuuntur autem Deo per metaphoram cum metonymia conjunctam. Nempe quia facultates vel actiones Deo conveniunt, illarum similes, quae membris illis, aut insunt, aut per ea exercentur: Crellius Deo sive … vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 15. pag. 107.Masters. Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity, and expresse themselves accordingly, in expresse opposition to this grosse figmena.
According to the Method I proceeded in, in consideration of the §. 3.precedent Questions, shall I deale with this; and first, consider briefely the Scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid Assertion. The places urged & insisted on of old, by the cEpiphan. Tom. 1. lib. 3. Heres. 70. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 10.Anthropomorphites, were such as partly ascribed a shape in generall to God; partly such as mention the parts and Members of God, in that shape: His Eyes, his Armes, his Hands &c. from all which they looked on him, as an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne. A conception that M. B. is no stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by M. B. and the attribution of a Likenes, Image, Similitude, Person, & Sh…pe unto God, is his warrant to conclude that he hath a Visible, Corpore all Image, & Shope, like that of a man, which is the plaine intendment of his Question, Now if the Image, Likenesse, or Similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the summe of the words themselves, nor by the intendment of the Places, where they are used, in the least ascribe, or intimate, That there is any such Corporeall, visible Shape in God, as he would Insinuate, but are properly expressive of some other thing, that properly belong to him, I suppose it will not be questioned, but that a little matter will prevaile with a person, desiring to emerge in the world by noveliyes, and on that account casting off that Reverence of God, which the first and most Common nations of mankind would instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture, for his own ends & purposes.
I say then first in generall, if the Scripture may be allowed §. 4.to expound it selfe, it gives us a faire and cleare account of its own intendment, in mentioning the Image and Shape of God, which man was created in; and ownes it to be his Righteousnesse and Holinesse, in a state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man being created, is said to be created in the Image, & Likenes of God; in a kind of resemblance unto that Holines & Righteousnes which is in him Eph. 4. 23, 24, &c. what can hence be concluded, for a Corporall Image, or Shape, to be ascribed unto God, is too easily discernable: From a likenes in some vertue on Property, to conclude to a Likenes in a bodily shape, may well befit a man, that cares not what he saies, so He may speak to the derogation of the Glory of God.
2. For the particular places by M. B. insisted on, and the §. 5.words used in them, which he layes the stresse of this proposition upon: The two first words, are foreign and foreign both of which are used in the 1. Gen. the word foreign is used Gen. 5. 1. and foreign Gen. 9. 7. but whither of these words do in their genuine signification, imply any Corporerty or Figure, The most learned of all the Rabbins, and most critically skilfull in their Language, hath observed and proved, that the proper hebrew word, for that kind of outward forme or similitude, is foreign: and if these be ever so used, it is in a metaphoricall and borrowed sence, or at least, there is an Amphiboly in the words; the Scripture sometimes using them in such subjects, where this grosse Corporeall sence cannot possibly be admitted foreign like the Serpent Psal. 58. 4. here is indeed some Imaginable, or rather rationall resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but noe corporeall similitude. vide …ze. 1. 28. and 23. 15. To which may be added many more places, where if foreign shall be interpreted of a bodily similitude, it will afford no tollerable sence. The same likewise may be said of foreign: It is used in the Hebrew for the essentiall forme, rather then the figure or shape: & being spoken of men, signifies rather their soules, then body; so it is used Psal. 73. 20. which is better translated, thou shalt despise their soule, then their Image: so where it is said Psal. 39. 6. every man walketh in a vaine shew; (the same word againe) however it ought so to be interpreted, it cannot be understood of a corporeall similitude; so that these testimonys are not at all to his purpose. What indeed is the Image of God, or that likenesse to him, wherein man was made, I have partly mentioned already, and shall farther manifest (chap. 2.) and if this be not a bodily shape, it will be confessed, that nothing can here be concluded for the attribution of a shape to God; And hereof an account will be given in its proper place.
The summe of M. B's reasoning from these places is, God in the creation of the lower world, and the inhabitancy thereof, §. 6.making man, enduing him with a mind and soule, capable of knowing him, serving him, yeilding him voluntary and rationall Obedience, creating him in a condition of Holinesse and Righteousnesse, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in himselfe, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue & abide in that likenes of his, giving him in that estate, Dominion over the rest of his workes here below, is said to create him in his own Image, and Likenesse, He being the Soveraigne Lord over all his Creatures, Infinitely wise, knowing, Just, and Holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and Image, and is therein like unto a man, quod erat demonstrandum.
The next quotation is, from Numb. 12. 7, 8. where it is said of §. 8.Moses, that he shall behold the Similitude of the Lord, the word is Themunah which as it is sometime taken for a Corporeall Similitude, so it is at other times for that Idea, whereby things are Intellectually represented; in the former sence is it frequently denyed of God, as Deut. 4. 16. you saw no simillitude, &c. But it is frequently taken in the other sence, for that Object, or rather impression, whereby our intellectuall apprehension is made: as in Job 4. 16. an Image was before mine, eyes viz in his dreame: which is not any Carpereall shape, but that Idea, or objective representation, whereby the mind of man understands its object: that which is in the Schooles commonly called Phantasme, or else an intellectuall species, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is manifest, that in the place here alleadged, it is put to signify the cleare manifestation of Gods Presence to Moses, with some such glorious Appearance thereof, as he was pleased to represent unto him, Therefore doubtlesse God hath a bodily shape.
His next quotation is taken from Ja. 3. 9. made after the Similitude §. 8.of God. foreign: Certainely M. B. cannot be so ignorant, as to think the word foreign, to include in its signification a Corporeall similitude; the word is of as large an extent as Similitude in Latin: and takes in as well those abstracted Analogies, which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing severall objects together, as those other outward conformities of figure and shape, which are the the objects of our carnall eyes. It is the word by which the Septuagint use to render the word foreign, of which we have soken before. And the examples are inuumerable in the Septuagints Translation, & in Authours of all sorts, written in the Greeke Language, where that word is taken at large, & cannot signify a Corporeall Similitude, so as it is in vaine to insist upon particulars; and this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, viz. what likenesse of God it was, that man was created in, whether of Eyes, Eares, Nose, &c. or of Holinesse, &c.
His next Allegation is from Job. 13. 7, 8. will yee accept his Person, foreign. An allegation so frivolous, that to stand to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an Interrogation, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against is foreign, which hath in it no regard to shape or Corporeall Personality, but to the partiality, which is used in preferring one before another in Justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivative, is used in as great, or greater, variety of metaphoricall Translations, then any other Hebrew word; and is by no meanes determined to be a signification of that bulbey substance, which with the soule concurres to make up the person of man. It is so used Gen. 33. 18. foreign Jacob pitched his Tent before (or in the face of) the City. It is confessed, that it is very frequently translated foreign by the Seventy; as it, is very variously Translated by them sometimes foreign, see Jer, 38 26. Neh. 2. 13. Joh. 16. 16. Deut. 2. 36. Prov. 27. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for foreign: and in many moresences; so that to draw an Argument concerning the nature of God, from a Word so amphibologicall, or of such frequent Translation in metaphoricall speech, is very unreasonable.
Of what may be hence deduced this is the summe, in every §. 9.plea or contest about the wayes, dispensations, and judgements of God, that which is right, exact, and according tot he thing it selfe, is to be spoken, His Glory not standing in the least need of our flattery or lying; therefore God is such a person, as hath a bodily shape and similitude, for there is no other person, but what hath so.
His last Argument is from Joh. 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape, foreign. But it argues a very great ignorance in all Philosophicall, and accurate writings, to appropriate foreign to a Corporeall shape, it being very seldome used, either in Scripture, or else where, in that notion. The Scripture having used it, when that sence cannot be fastened on it, as in the 1 Th. 5. 22. foreign; which may be rendered; Abstaine from every kind, or every appearance, but not from every shape of evill: and all other Greeke Authors, who have spoken accurately, and not figuratively of things, use it perpetually almost in one of those two sences, & very seldome, if at all, in the other.
How improperly, & with what little Reason, these places are Interpreted of a corporeall similitude, or shape, hath been shewed: §. 10.wherein the Image of God consists, the aPlato said the same thing expresly, apud Stobaeum, Eclogae Ethicae l. 2. c. 3. p. 163.Apostle shewes, as was declared, determining it to be in the Intellectuall part, not in the Bodily Col. 3. 10. foreign. The word here used foreign, is of a grosser signification then foreign, which hath its originall from the Intellectuall operation of the mind yet this the Apostle determines to relate to the mind, and Spirituall excellencies, so that it cannot from the places he hath mentioned, with the least Colour of Reason be Concluded, that God hath a Corporeall aforeign. Posidonius apud Stobaeum. Eclogae Physicae. lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. I confesse Epicurus said, foreign. Stobae us ibidem. cap. 3. pag. 5. And possibly M. B. might borrow his mishapen Divinity from him, and the Anthropomorphites: and then we have the pedegree of his wild positions. But the more sober Philosophers (as Stohaeus there tells us) held otherwise. foreign &c. which Guil. Canterus renders thus, Quod nec tangi, nec cerni potest Deus, ne{que} sub mensurans, vel terminum cadit aut Alicui est Corpori simile.Similitude, Likenesse, Person, or Shape.
What hath already been delivered concerning the Nature of God, and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit, that much be peculiarly spoken to this head, for the removall of those Imperfections from him, which necessarily attend that Assignation of a bodily Shape to him, which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of dayes, is not really, one in the shape of an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne, Glistering with a Corporeall Glory, his haire being white, and his Raiment beautifull, is Sufficiently evinced, from every property, and perfection, which in the Scripture is assigned to him.
The holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture concerning God, doth not without Indignation suppose any thing to be Likened or compared to him, Maimonides hath observed, that these words Aph Ira, &c. are never attributed to God, but in the case of Idola…y; that never any bVidesis Rab. M. Maimonid: de Idolat. 8. 2, 3, &c. & Notas Dionysii Vossii ibidem.Idolater was so silly, as to think that an Idoll of wood, stone, or mettall, was a God that made the Heavens & Earth, but that through thē, all Idolaters intend to worship God. Now to fancy a Corporeity in God, or that he is like a Creature, is greater, and more irrationall dishonour to him, then Idolatry. To whom will yee liken God, or what likenesse will yee compare to Him? Isa. 40. 18. Have yee not known, have ye not heard, hath it not beene told you from the beginning, have yee not understood from the foundation of the Earth? v. 22. it is He that sitteth &c. to whō then will ye liken me, or shall I be equall saith the holy one? Because the Scripture speakes of the Eyes, and Eares, Nostrells, and Armes of the Lord, and of mans being made after his likeness, if any one shall cQuae de Deo dicuntur in sacrp codice foreign, interpretanda sunt foreign.conclude, that he sees, heares, smells, and hath the shape of a man, He must upon the same reason conclude, that He hath the shape of a Lion, of an Eagle, and is like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is compared to them, & so of necessity make a monster of Him, and worship a Chimera.
Nay the Scripture plainly interprets it selfe, as to these Attributions unto God; his arme is not an arme of flesh, 2 Chro. 32. 8. Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth Job. 10. 4. Nay the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of understanding,) though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it Infinitely short of a likenesse, or equality with Him. And the Holy Ghost himselfe gives a plaine interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions. For whereas Luk. 11. 20. our Saviour sayes, that he with the finger of God casts out Divells, Math. 12. 28. He affirmes, that He did it by the Spirit of God, intending the same thing. It neither is, nor can righteously be required, that we should produce any place of Scripture, expressly affirming, that God hath no Shape, nor Hands, nor Eyes as we have, no more then it is, that He is no Lyon or Eagle: it is enough that there is that delivered of him abundantly, which is altogether inconsistent with any such Shape, as by M. B. is fancied: and that so eminent a difference, as that now mentioned, is put between his armes, & eyes, or ours, as manifests them to agree in some Analogy of the thing signifyed by them, and not in an Answerblenesse in the same kind; wherefore I say, that
The Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends §. 14.to the nature and capacityes of men, and speakes for the most part to the Imagination (farther then which, few among the Sonnes of men were ever able to raise their cogitations,) yet hath it clearely delivered to us such Attributes of God, as will not consist with that grosse notion which this man would put upon the Godhead. The Infinity, and Immutability of God, do manifestly overthrow the Conceipt of a Shape and forme of God. Vid. D. Bannes in 1. partem Aquinatis. Quaest. 3. Art. 1. & Scolasticos PassimWere it not a contradiction that a body should be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such an one as He imagines. The shape of any thing, is the figuration of it: the figuration is the determination of its extension towards severall parts, consisting in a determined proportion of them to each other; that determination is a bounding and limiting of them; so that if it have a shape, that will be limited, which was supposed to be Infinite; which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainely shew that God is Infinite and Immense, not in magnitude (that were a contradiction, as will appeare anone) but in Essence: speaking to our fancy, it saith, that he is higher then Heaven, deeper then Hell, Job 11. 8. that He fills Heaven and Earth, Ierem. 23. 24. That the Heaven of Heavens cannot containe God, 1 King 8 27. And hath many expressions to shaddow out the Immensity of God, as was manifest in our consideration of the last Query. But not content to have yeilded thus to our Infirmity, it delivers likewise in plaine and literall termes, the Infinitenesse of God. His understanding is infinite Ps. 147. 5. And therefore his Essence is necessarily so: this is a consequence that none can deny, who will consider it, till he understands the termes of it, as hath been declared. Yet least any should hastily apprehend, that the Essence of God were not therefore necessarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. 135. 3. That his greatnesse hath no end, or is unconceivable, which is Infinite. For seeing we can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, (that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers (as they say) in infinitum: it is evident, that there is no greatnesse, either of magnitude or Essence, which is unsearcheable or unconceivable, beside that which is actually Infinite: such therefore is the greatnesse of God, in the strict and literall meaning of the Scripture … and therefore that he should have a shape implyes a contradiction. But of this so much before, as I presume we may now take it for granted.
Now this Attribute of Infinity, doth immediately and demonstratively § 15.overthrow that grosse conception of an humane shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by consequence overthrow the conceipt of any other, through a Sphaericall shape. Againe,
Whatever is incorporeall is destitute of shape; what ever is Infinite is Incorporeall, therefore what is Infinite, is destitute of Shape.
All the Question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore suppose an Infinite body, or line, and let it be bisected; either then, each halfe is equall to the whole, or lesse. If equall, the whole is equall to the part; if lesse, then that halfe is limited within certaine bounds: and consequently is finite, and so is the other halfe also: Therefore two things which are finite shall make up an Infinite; which is a contradiction.
Having therefore proved out of Scripture, that God is Infinite, it followes also, that he is Incorporeall, & that he is without Shape.
The former Argument proved him to be without such a shape, as this Catechist would Insinuate: this, that he §. 16.is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the Immutability or impassibility of Gods Essence, which the Scripture assignes to him. Mal. 3. 6. I am the Lord I change not. The Heavens are the worke of thy hand, they shall perrish, but thou endurest, they shall be changed, but thou art the same Psal. 102. 26.
If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeall, and consequently without Shape.
The former consequence is manifest, for every body is extended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation; wherefore being immutable he hath no Shape.
M. Biddle's great plea for the considering his Catechisme, & insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himselfe, is from §. 17.the successe, which himselfe hath found in the discovery of sundry Truths, of which he gives an account in his booke, to the Reader. That among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume M. B. knoweth For this discovery, the world is beholding to one Audaeus a Monke, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 3. Haeres. 70. as also in Theodoret. lib. 4. Ecles. Hist. cap. 10. who also gives us an account of the man, and his conversation, with those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy Predecessor of our Author de Haeres cap. 50. He that thinks it worth while to know, that we are not beholding to M. B. but to this Audaeus for all the Arguments, whither taken from the creation of man in the Image of God, or the attibution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible Shape, may at his leasure consult the Authors above mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to M. B.'s ingenious inquiryes. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of stupid Monkes in Aegypt, who in pursuit of their opinion came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the Bishop on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty companion deluded them with an ambiguity dforeign. Zozom. Hist. Ec. l. 8. c. 11. § 18. Minut. Faelix. in Octay. Lnctan. de vera sap. Mutius pansa Pianensis de osculo ethnicae & Christianae Theol. c. 25. Origen. in Gen. Hom: 3. August: l: 83, Quaest: 22.of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 7.
As this madnesse of brainsick men, was alwayes rejected by all e Persons of sobriety, professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jewes, or the wiser sort of Heathens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God, which remaine in the hearts of men. The Jewes to this day do solemnely confesse in their publicke worship, that God is not corporeall, that he hath no corporeall propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old. foreign. Phil. de opificio mundi. Neither hath God an humane forme, nor does an humane body resemble him. And in Sacrifi. Abel. foreign & foreign, & foreign & foreign or foreign had the same apprehēsions of him: thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobaeus: serum: 78. foreign. And Calicratides apud Stob. Serm. 83. foreign.
Of the like import is that Distick of Xenophones in Clemens Alexan: Storm. 5.
foreign
foreign.
There is one Great God, among Gods and men,
who is like to mortalls neither as to body nor mind.
Whereunto answers that in Cato, Si Deus est animus nobis ut carmina dicunt. &c. And Aeschylus in the same place of Clemens Strom. 5.
foreign
foreign.
Seperate God from mortalls, and think not thy selfe of flesh, like him.
And Posidonius plainly in Stobaeus as above, foreign, God is an intelligent fiery spirit, not having any shape. And the same Apprehension is evident in that of Seneca, Quid est Deus? mens universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum, & quod non vides totum. Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, quâ nihil majus excogitari potest. Si solus est omnia, opus suū extra & intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei & nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum. Natural. Quaest. lib. 1. Praefat. It would be burdensome, if not endlesse, to insist on the Testimonyes, that to this purpose might be produced, out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Julisu Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous de Doctrina Platon. cap. 10. foreign. It is absurd to say that God is of matter and forme: for if so, he could neither be simple, nor the principall cause.
The thing is so cleare, and the contrary even by the Heathen Philosophers accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to persue §. 19.the arguments flowing from the other Attributes of God, but proceed to what followes.