632
Defense of an Essay, &c.
DEC.
Appendix.
(Note A. referred to on page 573.)
SINCE the part of my Defense in which I discuss the question whether God is a relative or absolute term was sent to press, Dr. Legge has published B series of letters, in which he has written at much length on this point. I trust the reader will therefore pardon my calling his attention to this subject again in a note. I shall only comment on three points in the Doctor's letters.
1st. "Some people seem to apprehend a lurking heresy in the opinion that Elohim, with the words by which it is rendered in Greek and English, is a relative term; whereas the difficulty is to find critics and scholars of any note, who have not in substance at least maintained the same thing." And on a lower part of the same page, “I do not believe that a single writer of eminence can be brought forward to controvert my position that Elohim is a relative tern," &c.
2d. The Doctor's attempt to express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, regarding the word God all the while as a mere relative term which does not express anything about essence or nature.
3d. "The view of Elohim as a relative term exhibits the doctrine of the Trinity in its scriptural simplicity, and establishes the Divinity of Christ on its
proper evidence."
On the first of these points, we beg the reader to notice that the West- minster Divines and Melancthon (no mean names I should suppose in Dr. Legge's eyes), are so far froin regarding the word with Dr. L. as a mere relative terin that "does not indicate the essence," but expresses only the relationship that Jehovah sustains to his creatures, that neither of them take any notice. of this relationship at all in their definitions of the word (quoted at p. 415 above); but on the contrary say, “God is a Spiritual Being, or essence, possessed of various essential and eternal attributes.” Howe also, one of the most eininent of the Nonconformist divines, in his "Living Temple,” in like manner gives a definition of the word God, to preface an elaborate argument to prove the existence of the Deity, without inaking any mention of the relationships which He sustains to his creatures. His words are so much to the point that I shall give them at some length:-
"And first for the existence of God; that we may regularly and with evi- dence make it out to ourselves, that he ie, or doth ezist, ........It is requisite that we first settle a true notion of him in our minds; or be at agreement with our- selves, what it is that we mean, or would have to be signifled by the name of God, otherwise we know not what we seek, nor when we have found him. And though we must beforehand professedly avow, that we take him to be such a one as we can never comprehend in our thoughts, that this knowledge is too excellent for us, or he is more excellent than that we can perfectly know him; yet it will be sufficient to guide us in our search after his existence, if we can give such a description, or assign such certain characters of his being, as will severally or together distinguish him from all things else. For then we shall be able to call him by his own name, and say, this is God: whatever his being may contain more, or whatsoever other properties may belong to it, beyond what we can yet compass in our present thoughts of him. And such an account we shall have of what we are inquiring after, if we have the conception in our