GNAT

κώνωψ, Matt. xxiii, 24, a small-winged insect, comprehending a genus of the order of diptera . In those hot countries, as Servius remarks, speaking of the east, gnats and flies are very apt to fall into wine, if it be not carefully covered; and pa ing the liquor through a strainer, that no gnat or part of one might remain, became a proverb for exactne about little matters. This may help us to understand that pa age, Matt. xxiii, 24, where the proverbial expre ion of carefully straining out a little fly from the liquor to be drunk, and yet swallowing a camel, intimates, that the scribes and Pharisees affected to scruple little things, and yet disregarded those of the greatest moment. GNOSTICS, from γνώσις, “knowledge,” men of science and wisdom, illuminati ; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of Greece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in the Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so properly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who, forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be “wise above what is written,” to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the philosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which never were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is called, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were, however, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to in the apostolic epistles are doubtle of a character very similar to some branches of the Gnostic system. (See Cabbala .) Cerinthus, against whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicol a i tans, mentioned in the Revelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all early Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as afterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the Gnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I must begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace the causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and distinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system. Thus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that every thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial archetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion of the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two independent coëternal principles, the one the author of good, the other of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms which must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some form or other, of æon , emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that knowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was mystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the corruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being, suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge. 2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they held matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the Author of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of them to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him was Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in most systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some, again, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all were agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it was eternal, and remained inactive, till A Biblical and Theological Dictionary, by Richard Watson Dis posit am, quisquis fuit ille Deorum, Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit. Ovid. [Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the ma , and reduced it, when separated, into elements.] The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a pleroma of inacce ible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable nature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes, from whom, by a series of descents, more or le numerous according to different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called æons , from the periods of their existence before time was, or emanations , from the mode of their production. These succe ive æons or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might account for the creation of the world without making God the author of evil. These æons lived through countle ages with their first father; but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric circles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and nearer to the extremity of the pleroma . Beyond this pleroma was matter, inert and powerle , though coëternal with the supreme God, and like him without beginning. At length, one of the æons pa ed the limits of the pleroma , and, meeting with matter, created the world, after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the pleroma or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the intermediate æons be as many as the wildest imagination could devise, still God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added to which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without the knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against him. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine of two principles, good and evil, or light and darkne . The two principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been conceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to reduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always endeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of their æons were evidently taken from terms which they found in the Gospel. Thus we meet with Logos , Mono genes , Zoe , Ecclesia , all of them succe ive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in the pleroma . At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two of the last æons which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world to remedy the evil which the creative æon or Demiurgus had caused. He was to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil principle; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto unknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to enter the divine pleroma . To give this knowledge, was the end and object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and believers of the doctrine a umed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real connection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to be the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was notorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the difficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a real body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or, granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents, they believed that one of the æons , called Christ, quitted the pleroma , and descended upon Jesus at his baptism. 3. We have seen that the God who was the father or progenitor of Christ, was not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the God of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion was supported by the same argument which infidels have often urged, that the God of the Jews is represented as a God of vengeance and of cruelty; but it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle, that the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In accordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in rejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or, at least, in treating them with contempt. Since they held that the supreme God was revealed for the first time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who inspired the prophets; and yet, with that strange inconsistency which we have already observed in them, they appealed to these very Scriptures in support of their own doctrines. They believed the prophets to have been inspired by the same creative æon , or the same principle of evil, which acted originally upon matter; and if their writings had come down to us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that, though the prophets were not inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving utterance to truth. 4. Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning that purity of knowledge which Christ came upon earth to impart, led them to reject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a general judgment. They seem to have understood the Apostles as preaching literally a resurrection of the body; and it is certain that the fathers insisted upon this very strongly as an article of belief. But to imagine that the body, a ma of created and corruptible matter, could ever enter into heaven, into that pleroma which was the dwelling of the supreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of the Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was nece ary, much le a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the gro ne of matter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic could comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divine pleroma . If we would know the effect which the doctrines of the Gnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same principle led to two very opposite results. Though the fathers may have exaggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems undeniable, that many Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that such conduct was not unlawful. Others, again, are represented as practising great austerities, and endeavouring, by every means, to mortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated by the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one thought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept in subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice of moral virtue: while others, who had persuaded themselves that knowledge was every thing, despised the distinctions of the moral law, which was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an inferior æon , or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with matter. 5. With respect to the origin of this system the same author observes: There is no system of philosophy which has been traced to a greater number of sources than that which we are now discu ing; and the variety of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the very different aspects which Gnosticism a umed, or from wishing to derive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus, some have deduced it from the eastern notion of a good and evil principle, some from the Jewish Cabbala, and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of these systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong resemblances; and those persons have taken the most natural and probably the truest course, who have concluded that all these opinions contributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the name of Gnosticism. GOAT, עו . There are other names or appellations given to the goat, as, 1. השופ , 1 Kings xx, 27, which means the ram-goat , or leader of the flock. 2. עתודים , a word which never occurs but in the plural, and means, the best prepared , or choicest of the flock; and metaphorically princes , as, Zech. x, 3, “I will visit the goats, saith the Lord,” that is, I will begin my vengeance with the princes of the people. “Hell from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the great goats of the earth,” Isaiah xiv, 9; all the kings, all the great men. And Jeremiah, speaking of the princes of the Jews, says, “Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and be as the he-goats before the flocks,” Jer. 1, 8. 3. צפיר , a name for the goat, of Chaldee origin, and found only in Ezra vi, 17; viii, 35; Daniel viii, 5, 21. 4. עואול , from עו , a goat , and אול , to wander about , Levitic us xvi, 8, “the scape-goat.” 5. שער , hairy , or shaggy , whence שעירים , “ the shaggy ones .” In Lev. xvii, 7, it is said, “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils,” ( seirim , “hairy ones,”) “after whom they have gone a whoring.” The word here means idolatrous images of goats, worshipped by the Egyptians. It is the same word that is translated satyrs , in Isaiah xiii, 21; where the LXX render it δαιμόνια, demons . But here they have ματαιοίς, to vain things or idols , which comes to the same sense. What gives light to so obscure a pa age is what we read in Maim on ides, that the Zabian idolaters worshipped demons under the figure of goats, imagining them to appear in that form, whence they called them by the names of seirim ; and that this custom, being spread among other nations, gave occasion to this precept. In like manner we learn from Hero dot us, that the Egyptians of Mendes held goats to be sacred animals, and represented the god Pan with the legs and head of that animal. From those ancient idolaters the same notion seems to have been derived by the Greeks and Romans, who represented their Pan, their fauns, satyrs, and other idols, in the form of goats: from all which it is highly probable, that the Israeli tes had learned in Egypt to worship certain demons, or sylvan deities, under the symbolical figure of goats. Though the phrase, “after whom they have gone a whoring,” is equivalent in Scripture to that of committing idolatry, yet we are not to suppose that it is not to be taken in a literal sense in many places, even where it is used in connection with idolatrous acts of worship. It is well known that Baal-peor and Ashtaroth were worshipped with unclean rites, and that public prostitution formed a grand part of the worship of many deities among the Egyptians, Moabites, Can a a nites, . The goat was one of the clean beasts which the Israeli tes might both eat and offer in sacrifice. The kid, גרי is often mentioned as a food, in a way that implies that it was considered as a delicacy. The אקו , or wild goat , mentioned Deut. xiv, 5, and no where else in the Hebrew Bible, is supposed to be the tragelaph us , or “goat-deer.” Schultens conjectures that this animal might have its name, ob fugacitatem , from its shyne , or running away. The word יעל , occurs 1 Sam. xxiv, 3; Job xxxix, 1; Psalm civ, 18; Prov. v, 19: and various have been the sentiments of interpreters on the animal intended by it. Bochart insists that it is the ibex , or “rock-goat.” The root whence the name is derived, signifies to ascend , to mount ; and the ibex is famous for clambering, climbing, and leaping, on the most craggy precipices. The Arab writers attribute to the jaal very long horns, bending backward; consequently it cannot be the chamois. The horns of the jaal are reckoned among the valuable articles of traffic, Ezek. xxvii, 15. The ibex is finely shaped, graceful in its motions, and gentle in its manners. The female is particularly celebrated by natural historians for tender affection to her young, and the ince ant vigilance with which she watches over their safety; and also for ardent attachment and fidelity to her mate. GOD, an immaterial, intelligent, and free Being; of perfect goodne , wisdom, and power; who made the universe, and continues to support it, as well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Philologists have hitherto considered the word God as being of the same signification with good; and this is not denied by M. Hallenberg. But he thinks that both words originally denoted unity ; and that the root is אתד , unus ; whence the Syriac Chad and Gada ; the Arabic Ahd and Gahd ; the Persic Choda and Chuda ; the Greek ἀγαθὸς and γάθος; the Teutonic Gud ; the German Gott ; and our Saxon God . The other names of God, this author thinks, are referable to a similar origin. 2. By his immateriality, intelligence, and freedom, God is distinguished from Fate, Nature, Destiny, Nece ity, Chance, Anima Mundi , and from all the other fictitious beings acknowledged by the Stoics, Pantheists, Spinosists, and other sorts of Atheists. The knowledge of God, his nature, attributes, word, and works, with the relations between him and his creatures, makes the subject of the extensive science called theology. In Scripture God is defined by, “I am that I am; Alpha and Omega; the Beginning and End of all things.” Among philosophers, he is defined a Being of infinite perfection; or in whom there is no defect of any thing which we conceive may raise, improve, or exalt his nature. He is the First Cause, the First Being, who has existed from the beginning, has created the world, or who subsists nece arily, or of himself. 3. The plain argument, says Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir I. Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries,” for the existence of the Deity, obvious to all, and carrying irresistible conviction with it, is from the evident contrivance and fitne of things for one another, which we meet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice or subtle reasonings in this matter; a manifest contrivance immediately suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our belief. No person, for example, that knows the principles of optics, and the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill in that science; or that the ear was formed without the knowledge of sounds; or that the male and female in animals were not formed for each other, and for continuing the species. All our accounts of nature are full of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful structure of things for final causes, exalts our idea of the Contriver; the unity of design shows him to be one. The great motions in the system performed with the same facility as the least, suggest his almighty power, which gave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies with equal ease as to the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the internal parts of bodies, shows that his influence penetrates the inmost rece es of things, and that he is equally active and present every where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and the beauty which adorns the works of nature, far superior to any thing in art, suggest his consummate wisdom. The usefulne of the whole scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with the internal disposition and moral structure of these beings themselves, shows his unbounded goodne . These are arguments which are sufficiently open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same time they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the learned. The Deity’s acting and interposing in the universe, show that he governs as well as formed it; and the depth of his counsels, even in conducting the material universe, of which a great part surpa es our knowledge, keeps up an inward veneration and awe of this great Being, and disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us concerning him. It has been justly observed, that some of the laws of nature now known to us must have escaped us if we had wanted the sense of seeing. It may be in his power to bestow upon us other senses, of which we have at present no idea; without which it may be impo ible for us to know all his works, or to have more adequate ideas of himself. In our present state, we know enough to be satisfied of our dependency upon him, and of the duty we owe to him, the Lord and Disposer of all things. He is not the object of sense; his e ence, and, indeed, that of all other substances, are beyond the reach of all our discoveries; but his attributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We know that the highest conceptions we are able to form of them, are still beneath his real perfections; but his power and dominion over us, and our duty toward him, are manifest. 4. Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself, says Mr. Locke, yet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he hath not left himself without a witne ; since we have sense, perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as we carry ourselves about us. To show, therefore, that we are capable of knowing, that is, of being certain that there is a God, and how we may come by this certainty, I think we need go no farther than ourselves, and that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence. I think it is beyond question, that man has a clear perception of his own being; he knows certainly that he exists, and that he is something. In the next place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If, therefore, we know there is some real Being, it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must evident, that what has its being from another must also have all that which is in, and belongs to, its being from another too; all the powers it has must be owing to, and derived from, the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being must be also the source and original of all power; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful. Again: man finds in himself perception and knowledge: we are certain, then, that there is not only some Being, but some knowing, intelligent Being, in the world. There was a time, then, when there was no knowing Being, or else there has been a knowing Being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when that eternal Being had no knowledge, I reply, that then it is impo ible there should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impo ible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impo ible that a triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and knowing Being, which, whether any one will call God, it matters not. The thing is evident; and from this idea, duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. From what has been said, it is plain to me, that we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say that we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is any thing else without us. When I say we know , I mean, there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot mi , if we will but apply our minds to that as we do to several other inquiries. It being then unavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude that something has existed from eternity, let us next see what kind of thing that must be. There are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or conceives; such as are purely material without sense or perception, and sensible, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. These two sorts we shall call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our present purpose are better than material and immaterial. If, then, there must be something eternal, it is very obvious to reason that it must be a cogitative being; because it is as impo ible to conceive that bare incogitative matter should ever produce a thinking, intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any parcel of matter eternal, we shall find it in itself unable to produce any thing. Let us suppose its parts firmly at rest together, if there were no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a dead inactive lump? Is it po ible to conceive that it can add motion to itself, or produce any thing? Matter, then, by its own strength cannot produce in itself so much as motion. The motion it has must also be from eternity, or else added to matter by some other being, more powerful than matter. But let us suppose motion eternal too, yet matter, incogitative matter, and motion could never produce thought: knowledge will still be as far beyond the power of nothing to produce. Divide matter into as minute parts as you will, vary its figure and motion as much as you please, it will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of proportionable bulk, than it did before this division. The minutest particles of matter knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the greater do; so that if we suppose nothing eternal, matter can never begin to be; if we suppose bare matter without motion eternal, motion can never begin to be; if we suppose only matter and motion to be eternal, thought can never begin to be; for it is impo ible to conceive that matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and from itself, sense, perception, and knowledge, as is evident from hence, that then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally inseparable from matter, and every particle of it. Since, therefore, whatsoever is the first eternal Being must nece arily be cogitative; and whatsoever is first of all things must nece arily contain in it, and actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after exist, it nece arily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be matter. If, therefore, it be evident that something must nece arily exist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must nece arily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impo ible that incogitative matter should produce a cogitative Being, as that nothing, or the negation of all being, should produce a positive Being or matter. This discovery of the nece ary existence of an eternal mind sufficiently leads us to the knowledge of God. For it will hence follow, that all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend upon him, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he gives them; and therefore if he made those, he made also the le excellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence all his other attributes nece arily follow. 5. In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God; such an attempt would have been entirely usele , because the fact was universally admitted. The error of men consisted, not in denying a God, but in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to demonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however, are employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded in the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always victorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and true God, Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to them, and uniformly unsucce ful when they revolted from him to serve other gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and of empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their power, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God ruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the attributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning; they are simply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular deduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles, we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional expre ions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God. These circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures, considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers, generally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commi ion, and armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions. 6. In three distinct ways do the sacred writers furnish us with information on this great and e ential subject, the existence and the character of God; from the names by which he is designated; from the actions ascribed to him; and from the attributes with which he is invested in their invocations and praises; and in those lofty descriptions of his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have recorded for the instruction of the world. These attributes will be considered under their respective heads; but the impre ion of the general view of the divine character, as thus revealed, is too important to be omitted. 7. The names of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatne and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousne with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals, the divine e ence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though One he is אלהים , Elohim , Gods , persons adorable . He is יהוה , Jehovah , self- existing ; אל , El , strong , powerful ; אהיה , Ehieh , I am , I will be , self-existence , independency , all-sufficiency , immutability , eternity ; שדי , Shaddai , almighty , all-sufficient ; אדן , Adon , Supporter , Lord , Judge . These are among the adorable appellatives of God which are scattered throughout the revelation that he has been pleased to make of himself: but on one occasion he was pleased more particularly to declare his name , that is, such of the qualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most interested in knowing; and to unfold, not only his natural, but also those of his moral attributes by which his conduct toward his creatures is regulated. “And the Lord pa ed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodne and truth, keeping mercy for you sands, forgiving iniquity, transgre ion, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation,” Exodus xxxiv. This is the most ample and particular description of the character of God, as given by himself in the sacred records; and the import of the several titles by which he has thus in his infinite condescension manifested himself, has been thus exhibited. He is not only Jehovah , self-existent , and El , the strong or mighty God ; but he is, says Dr. A. Clarke, “ רחום , Rochum , the merciful Being , who is full of tenderne and compa ion; חנון , Chanun , the gracious One , he whose nature is goodne itself, the loving God. ארך פים , Erec Apayim , long-suffering , the Being who, because of his tenderne , is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind; דב Rab , the great or mighty One : חסד , Chesed , the bountiful Being , he who is exuberant in his beneficence; אפת , Emeth , the Truth , or True One , he alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived; נצר חסד , Notser Chesed , the Preserver of bountifulne , he whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for you sands of generations, showing compa ion and mercy while the world endures; נשא עון ופשע וחטאה , Nose avon vapesha vechataah , he who bears away iniquity, transgre ion, and sin ; properly the Redeemer , the Pardoner , the Forgiver , the Being whose prerogative it is to forgive sin, and save the soul; נקה לא ינקה , Nakeh lo yinnakeh , the righteous Judge , who distributes justice with an impartial hand; and פקד עין , Paked avon , , he who visits iniquity , he who punishes transgre ors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape; the God of retributive and vindictive justice.” 8. The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge of God, is by the actions which they ascribe to him. They contain, indeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which is comprehended within the limit of the sacred history; and, by prophetic declaration, they also exhibit the principles on which he will govern the world to the end of time: so that the whole course of the divine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly illustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their abstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have been just quoted. The first act ascribed to God is that of creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing; and by his fiat alone arranging their parts, and peopling them with living creatures. By this were manifested--his eternity and self-existence , as he who creates must be before all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself derive it from none:--his almighty power , shown both in the act of creation and in the number and vastne of the objects so produced:--his wisdom , in their arrangement, and in their fitne to their respective ends:--and his goodne , as the whole tended to the happine of sentient beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government are also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of nothing he had an absolute right and prerogative: it awaited his ordering, and was completely at his disposal; so that to alter or destroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent and rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which none can question. Thus on the one hand his character of Lord or Governor is established, and on the other our duty of lowly homage and absolute obedience . 9. Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, he was placed under a rule of conduct. Obedience was to be followed with the continuance of the divine favour; transgre ion, with death. The event called forth new manifestations of the character of God. His tender mercy , in the compa ion showed to the fallen pair; his justice , in forgiving them only in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his justice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his love to that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the fulne of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his holine , in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the means of restoring him to a sinle state, and to the obliterated image of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine mercy are traced from age to age, in his establishing his own worship among men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national offences in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in dependence upon the typified or actually offered universal sacrifice:--of his condescension , in stooping to the cases of individuals; in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by showing respect to the poor and humble; and, principally, by the incarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting men into familiar and friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to be their patron and advocate, until they should be received unto the same glory, “and so be for ever with the Lord:”--of his strictly righteous government , in the destruction of the old world, the cities of the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their “filling up the measure of their iniquities;” and, to show that “he will by no means clear the guilty;” in the numerous and severe punishments inflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham, because of their transgre ions:--of his long-suffering , in frequent warnings, delays, and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before sentence of utter excision and destruction:--of faithfulne and truth , in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the po e ion of the land of Canaan by his seed, and in all the “promises made to the fathers” respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices of the “Christ,” the Saviour of the world:--of his immutability , in the constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which remain to this day precisely the same, in every thing universal, as when first promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places as well as through all time:--of his prescience of future events, manifested by the predictions of Scripture:--and of the depth and stability of his counsel , as illustrated in that plan and purpose of bringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, which we find steadily kept in view in the Scriptural history of the acts of God in former ages; which is still the end toward which all his dispensations bend, however wide and mysterious their sweep; and which they will finally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the future, contained in the Old and New Testaments. Thus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age been a manifestation of the divine character, continually receiving new and stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian revelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and still placing itself in brighter light and more impre ive aspects as the scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the acts of God as recorded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he alone is God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things; that his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power irresistible; that he is holy, just, and good; the Lord and the Judge, but the Father and the Friend, of man. 10. More at large do we learn what God is, from the declarations of the inspired writings. As to his substance , that “God is a Spirit.” As to his duration , that “from everlasting to everlasting he is God;” “the King, eternal, immortal, invisible.” That, after all the manifestations he has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of his nature, incomprehensible : “Lo, these are but parts of his ways, and how little a portion is heard of him!” “Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out.” That he is unchangeable : “The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variablene , neither shadow of turning.” That “he is the fountain of life,” and the only independent Being in the universe: “Who only hath immortality.” That every other being, however exalted, has its existence from him: “For by him were all things created, which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or invisible.” That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no creature being for a moment independent of his support: “By him all things consist;” “upholding all things by the word of his power.” That he is omnipresent : “Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence, saith the Lord?” That he is omniscient : “All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” That he is the absolute Lord and Owner of all things: “The heavens, even the heaven of heavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:” “The earth is thine, and the fulne thereof, the world and them that dwell therein:” “He doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” That his providence extends to the minutest objects: “The hairs of your head are all numbered:” “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” That he is a Being of unspotted purity and perfect rectitude : “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts!” “A God of truth, and in whom is no iniquity:” “Of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” That he is just in the administration of his government: “Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?” “Clouds and darkne are round about him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.” That his wisdom is unsearchable: “O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” And, finally, that he is good and merciful : “Thou art good, and thy mercy endureth for ever:” “His tender mercy is over all his works:” “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ:” “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespa es unto them:” “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” 11. Under these deeply awful but consolatory views, do the Scriptures present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they dwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and beauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration. Nor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions of the most enlightened of Pagans, without feeling how much reason we have for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation so explicit, and so comprehensive, should have been made to us on a subject which only a revelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that Christian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine, in language so clear, and with conceptions so noble; in a manner too so equable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time they approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail to mingle with it some e entially erroneous or grovelling conception. “By the Word of God,” says Dr. Barrow, “we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodne , and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things, to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience and immensity, perfect holine and purity, perfect justice and veracity, complete happine , glorious majesty, and supreme right of dominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound submi ion and obedience are due.” “Our notion of Deity,” says Bishop Pearson, “doth expre ly signify a Being or Nature of infinite perfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in this, that it be absolutely and e entially nece ary; an actual Being of itself; and potential, or causative of all beings beside itself, independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed.” “God is a Being,” says Lawson, “and not any kind of being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other beings. And not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely, fully, and every way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits, above angels, who are perfect comparatively. God’s infinite perfection includes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all dependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality, contingency, ignorance, unrighteousne , weakne , misery, and all imperfections whatever. It includes nece ity of being, independency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bli , and all these in the highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can proceed no farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can understand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason itself dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it can inform us of.” To these we may add an admirable pa age from Sir Isaac Newton: “The word God frequently signifies Lord ; but every lord is not God; it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that constitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; feigned, the false god. From such true dominion it follows, that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite; omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all things that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present; he endures always, and is present every where; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also substantially; for power without substance cannot subsist. All things are contained and move in him, but without any mutual pa ion; he suffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any resistance from his omnipresence. It is confe ed, that God exists nece arily, and by the same nece ity he exists always and every where. Hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all the power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner not at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a manner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body, and all bodily shape; and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any thing corporeal. We have ideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even any thing; we see only the figures and colours of bodies, hear only sounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odours, and taste tastes; and do not, cannot, by any sense, or reflex act, know their inward substances; and much le can we have any notion of the substance of God. We know him by his properties and attributes.” 12. Many able works in proof of the existence of God have been written, the arguments of which are too copious for us even to analyze. It must be sufficient to say that they all proceed, as it is logically termed, either à prior i , from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and most satisfactory mode, à posterior i , from the effect to the cause. The irresistible argument from the marks of design with which all nature abounds, to one great intelligent, designing Cause, is by no writers brought out in so clear and masterly a manner as by Howe, in his “Living temple,” and Paley, in his “Natural Theology.”