1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
645
'star of your God Remphan' (Acts vii, 43.) is a proper expression: but in the metaphysical way, it can not be said, the luminous substance of your God Remphan.' So again, water is a relative word; for it is proper to say, the wa- ter of Israel: but, in the metaphysical way, it can not be said, the fluid substance of Israel; the expression is improper." By parity of reason, we may make rela- tive words almost as many as we please. But to proceed: I maintain that dominion is not the full import of the word God in Scripture; that it is but a part of the idea, and a small part too; and that if any person be called God, merely on account of dominion, he is called so by way of figure and resemblance only; and is not properly God, according to the Scripture notion of it. We may call any one a king, who lives free and independent, subject to no man's will. He is a king so far, or in some respects: though in many other respects nothing like one; and therefore not properly a king. If by the same figure of speech, by way of allusion or resemblance, anything be called God, because re- sembling God in one or more particulars, we are not to conclude that it is properly and truly God.
"To enlarge somewhat further upon this head, and to illustrate the case by a few instances. Part of the idea that goes along with the word God is, that his habitation is sublime, and 'his dwelling not with flesh.' Dan. ii. 11. This part of the idea is applicable to angels or to saints, and therefore they may thus far be reputed God: and are sometimes so styled in Scripture, or ecclesiastical writings. Another part of the complete idea of God is giving orders from above, and publishing commands from Heaven. This was in some sense applicable to Moses; who is therefore called ‘a God unto Pharaoh:' not as being properly God, but instead of God in that instance, or that resembling circumstance. In the same respect, every prophet or apostle, or even minister of a parish, might be figuratively called God. Dominion goes along with the idea of God, or is part of it; and therefore kings, princes and magistrates, resembling God in that respect, may, by a like figure of speech, be styled Gods: not properly; for then we might as properly say, God David, God Solomon, or God Jeroboam, as King David, &c.; but by way of allusion, and in regard to some imperfect re- semblance which they bear to God in some particular respects; and that is all. It belongs to God to receive worship, and sacrifice, and homage. Now, be- cause the heathen idols so far resembled God, as to be made objects of worship, &c., therefore they also, by the same figure of speech, are by the Scripture de- nominated Gods, though at the same time they are declared, in a proper sense, to be no Gods. The belly is called the God of the luxurious (Phil. iii. 19.), because some are as much devoted to the service of their bellies, as others are to the service of God; and because their lusts have got the dominion over them. This way of speaking is in like manner grounded on some imperfect resem- blance, and is easily understood. The prince of the devils is supposed, by most interpreters, to be called the God of this world,' 2 Cor. iv. 4. If so, the rea- son may be, either because the men of this world are entirely devoted to his service, or that he has got power and dominion over them.
Thus we see how the word God, according to the popular way of speaking, has been applied to angels, or to men, or to things inanimate and insensible; because some part of the idea belonging to God has been conceived to belong to them also. To argue from hence that any of them is properly God, is mak- ing the whole of a part; reasoning fallaciously, a dicto secundum quid, as the schools speak, ad dictum simpliciter. If we inqure carefully into the Scripture notion of the word, we shall find, that neither dominion singly, nor all the other instances of resemblance, make up the idea, or are sufficient to denominate any- thing properly God. When the prince of Tyre pretended to be God (Ezek. xxviii. 2), he thought of something more than mere dominion to make him
It is very obvious to perceive where the impropriety of such expressions lies. The word substance, according to the common use of language, when used in the singular number, is supposed to be intrinsic to the thing spoken of, whose substance it is; and indeed to be the thing itself. My substance is myself: and the substance of Israel is Ísrael. And hence it comes to be improper to join substance with the relative terms, understand- ing of it something extrinsic.