428
Defense of an Essay, &c.
AUG.
Bloomfield says,
"the glorifying of God as God must consist in the thorough recognition of all his glorious attributes—his eternity, power, wisdom, &c., &c. Tholuck says, "To glorify God as God is to acknowledge him in the integrity of the divine attributes, and then, for the sake of these, to love, invoke, and fear him."
Hodge, “The apostle says, When they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful. These two expressions include every act of worship. The former refers to the recognition of the divine perfections, the latter to the acknowledgement of God as the source of all good. To regard God as possessed of all excellence and as the giver of all good, is true piety."
With one more question we must close our examination of this passage. Did their folly, in making an image of the incorruptible God, arise from a mistake with regard to the relationship indicated by the word God, or a mistake with regard to the Divine nature, which is expressed by this word? That it is the last, all the commentators are agreed, and the nature of the case puts it beyond all question. Bloomfield, "They dishonored the glorious nature of the incorrupti- ble God, by representing him under the likeness of corruptible man, and birds, &c." Tholuck, "False conceptions of God gave rise to false representations of him." Hodge,
Hodge, "Their soul lost all right apprehensions of the divine character and perfections, and they were hence able to worship as gods, birds, beasts, and creeping things." Stuart, "They foolishly and inconsiderately indulged evil imagina- tions, i. c. base and degrading views respecting the nature and attributes of God, and the honor due to him."
I can not think that Dr. Legge's "view of the term God....meets and explains all the facts of the case.”
The second consideration, by which Dr. L. endeavors to fortify his view of the word God as a relative term, is, that "the manner in which the name God is vindicated to Jehovah in the Old Testament is inexplicable excepting on this view." I wish Dr. L. had mentioned the difficulties which he saw in the way of vindicating the name God
to Jehovah on the supposition that it is an absolute term, i. e. a word indicating the essence, the being of Jehovah” (to use his own words),
蒙着
for my mind can not conceive any.
We have seen above, that Dr. L. admits "that appellatives include all nouns that are not proper;" whether, therefore, this word is absolute or relative, it is a name that is confessedly common to many individ- nals, which is vindicated as properly belonging only to one. But what is there, in the meaning of this word, if it be supposed an absolute