2. To loose the girdle and give it to another was, among the orientals, a token of great confidence and affection. Thus, to ratify the covenant which Jonathan made with David, and to express his cordial regard for his friend, among other things, he gave him his girdle. A girdle curiously and richly wrought was among the ancient Hebrews a mark of honour, and sometimes bestowed as a reward of merit; for this was the recompense which Joab declared he meant to bestow on the man who put Absalom to death: “Why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and I would have given thee ten shekels of silver, and a girdle,” 2 Samuel xviii, 11. The reward was certainly meant to correspond with the importance of the service which he expected him to perform, and the dignity of his own station as commander in chief: we may, therefore, suppose that the girdle promised was not a common one of leather, or plain worsted, but of costly materials and richly adorned; for people of rank and fashion in the east wear very broad girdles, all of silk, and superblyornamented with gold and silver, and precious stones, of which they are extremely proud, regarding them as the tokens of their superior station and the proof of their riches. “To gird up the loins” is to bring the flowing robe within the girdle, and so to prepare for a journey, or for some vigorous exercise.
GLASS, ὕαλος. This word occurs Rev. xxi, 18, 21; and the adjective ὑάλινος, Rev. iv, 6; xv, 2. Parkhurst says that in the later Greek writers, and in the New Testament, ὕαλος denotes the artificial substance,glass; and that we may either with Mintert derive it from ἕλη,splendour, or immediately from the Hebrewהל,to shine. There seems to be no reference to glass in the Old Testament. The art of making it was not known. Our translators have rendered the Hebrew wordמראת, in Exodus xxxviii, 8, and Job xxxvii, 18, “looking-glass.” But the making mirrors of glass coated with quicksilver, is an invention quite modern. The wordlooking-glassoccurs in our version of Ecclesiasticus xii, 11, “Never trust thine enemy; for like as iron rusteth, so is his wickedness. Though he humble himself, and go crouching, yet take good heed and beware of him, and thou shalt be unto him as if thou hadst washed a looking-glass, and thou shalt know that his rust hath not been altogether wiped away.” This passage proves, by its mention of rust, that mirrors were then made of polished metal. The word ἔσοπτρον, ormirror, occurs in 1 Cor. xiii, 12, and James i, 23. Dr. Pearce thinks that in the former place it signifies any of those transparent substances which the ancients used in their windows, and through which they saw external objects obscurely. But others are of opinion that the word denotes a mirror of polished metal; as this, however, was liable to many imperfections, so that the object before it was not seen clearly or fully, the meaning of the Apostle is, that we see things as it were by images reflected from a mirror, which shows them very obscurely and indistinctly. In the latter place, a mirror undoubtedly is meant; “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway he forgetteth what manner of man he was:” but in the former, 1 Cor. xiii, 12, semi-transparent glass such as that which we see in the ancient glass vases of the Romans is obviously intended. Specimens of Roman glass may be seen in collections of antiquities, and some have been dug up at Pompeii; but in all it is cloudy and dull, and objects can only be seen through it with indistinctness. From this we may fully perceive the force of the Apostle’s words, “now we see through a glass darkly.”
GLEAN. To glean is properly to gather ears of corn, or grapes, left by the reapers, &c. The Jews were not allowed to glean their fields, but were to leave this to the poor, Lev. xix, 10; xxiii, 22; Deut. xxiv, 21; Ruth ii, 3.
GLORIFY, to make glorious or honourable, or to cause to appear so, John xii, 28; xiii, 31, 32; xv, 8; xvii, 4, 5; xxi, 19; Acts iii, 13. In this view it particularly refers to the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension to the right hand of God, John vii, 39; xii, 16. It also expresses that change which shall pass upon believers at the general resurrection, and their admission into heaven.
GLORY, splendour, magnificence. The glory of God in the writings of Moses, denotes, generally, the divine presence; as when he appeared on Mount Sinai; or, the bright cloud which declared his presence, and descended on the tabernacle of the congregation, Exod. xxiv, 9, 10, 16, 17. Moses, with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, went up to Mount Sinai, and “saw the glory of the Lord.” Now “the glory of the Lord was, as it were, a burning fire on the mountain; and under his feet was, as it were, the brightness of the sapphire stone, resembling heaven itself in clearness.” The glory of the Lord appeared to Israel in the cloud also, when he gave them manna and quails, Exod. xvi, 7, 10. Moses having earnestly begged of God to show his glory to him, God said, “Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. And the Lord said, There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in the cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts:” (the train, the fainter rays of the glory:) “but my face shall not be seen,” Exod. xxxiii, 18. The ark of God is called the glory of Israel; and the glory of God, 1 Samuel iv, 21, 22; Psalm xxvi, 8. The priestly ornaments are called “garments of glory,” Exod. xxviii, 2, 40; and the sacred vessels, “vessels of glory,” 1 Macc. ii, 9, 12. Solomon “in all his glory,” in all his lustre, in his richest ornaments, was not so beautifully arrayed as a lily, Matt. vi, 29; Luke xii, 27. When the prophets describe the conversion of the Gentiles, they speak of the “glory of the Lord” as filling the earth; that is, his knowledge shall universally prevail, and he shall be every where worshipped and glorified. The term “glory” is used also of the Gospel dispensation by St. Paul; and to express the future felicity of the saints in heaven. When the Hebrews required an oath of any man, they said, “Give glory to God:” confess the truth, give him glory, confess that God knows the most secret thoughts, the very bottom of your hearts, Joshua vii, 19; John ix, 24.
GNAT, κώνωψ, Matt. xxiii, 24, a small-winged insect, comprehending a genus of the order ofdiptera. 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 passing the liquor through a strainer, that no gnat or part of one might remain, became a proverb for exactness about little matters. This may help us to understand that passage, Matt. xxiii, 24, where the proverbial expression 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 doubtless of a character very similar to some branches of the Gnostic system. (SeeCabbala.) Cerinthus, against whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, 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, ofæon, 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
Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit.Ovid.
Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit.Ovid.
Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit.Ovid.
Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit.
Ovid.
[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced it, when separated, into elements.]
The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in apleromaof inaccessible 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 less numerous according to different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were calledæons, from the periods of their existence before time was, oremanations, from the mode of their production. These successiveæonsor 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. Theseæonslived through countless 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 thepleroma. Beyond thispleromawas matter, inert and powerless, though coëternal with the supreme God, and like him without beginning. At length, one of theæonspassed the limits of thepleroma, and, meeting with matter, created the world, after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in thepleromaor in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the intermediateæonsbe 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 darkness. 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 hereit is that the Gnostics borrowed so largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of theiræonswere evidently taken from terms which they found in the Gospel. Thus we meet withLogos,Monogenes,Zoe,Ecclesia, all of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in thepleroma. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two of the lastæonswhich were put forth. Christ was sent into the world to remedy the evil which the creativeæonor 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 divinepleroma. To give this knowledge, was the end and object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and believers of the doctrine assumed 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 theæons, called Christ, quitted thepleroma, 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 creativeæon, 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 mass of created and corruptible matter, could ever enter into heaven, into thatpleromawhich 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 necessary, much less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of matter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic could comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divinepleroma. 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 inferioræon, 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 discussing; and the variety of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the very different aspects which Gnosticism assumed, 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 theram-goat, or leader of the flock. 2.עתודים, a word whichnever occurs but in the plural, and means,the best prepared, or choicest of the flock; and metaphoricallyprinces, 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, fromעו,a goat, andאול,to wander about, Leviticus xvi, 8, “the scape-goat.” 5.שער,hairy, orshaggy, whenceשעירים, “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 translatedsatyrs, in Isaiah xiii, 21; where the LXX render it δαιμόνια,demons. But here they have ματαιοίς,to vain thingsoridols, which comes to the same sense. What gives light to so obscure a passage is what we read in Maimonides, 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 ofseirim; and that this custom, being spread among other nations, gave occasion to this precept. In like manner we learn from Herodotus, 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 Israelites 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, Canaanites, &c.
The goat was one of the clean beasts which the Israelites might both eat and offer in sacrifice. The kid,גריis often mentioned as a food, in a way that implies that it was considered as a delicacy. Theאקו, orwild goat, mentioned Deut. xiv, 5, and no where else in the Hebrew Bible, is supposed to be thetragelaphus, or “goat-deer.” Schultens conjectures that this animal might have its name,ob fugacitatem, from its shyness, or running away. The wordיעל, 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 theibex, or “rock-goat.” The root whence the name is derived, signifiesto ascend,to mount; and the ibex is famous for clambering, climbing, and leaping, on the most craggy precipices. The Arab writers attribute to thejaalvery long horns, bending backward; consequently it cannot be the chamois. The horns of thejaalare 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 incessant 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 goodness, 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 denotedunity; and that the root isאתד,unus; whence the SyriacChadandGada; the ArabicAhdandGahd; the PersicChodaandChuda; the Greek ἀγαθὸς and γάθος; the TeutonicGud; the GermanGott; and our SaxonGod. 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, Necessity, 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 necessarily, 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 fitness 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 recesses 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 usefulness 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 goodness. 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 surpasses 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 impossible 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 essence, 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 witness; 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 be produced by something else. Next it is 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 impossible there should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impossible 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 weknow, I mean, there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, 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 cogitativeand 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 impossible 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 possible 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 impossible 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 necessarily be cogitative; and whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it, and actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after exist, it necessarily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be matter. If, therefore, it be evident that something must necessarily exist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must necessarily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impossible 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 necessary 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 less excellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence all his other attributes necessarily follow.
5. In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God; such an attempt would have been entirely useless, 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 unsuccessful 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 expressions 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 commission, 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 essential subject, the existence and the character of God; from thenamesby which he is designated; from theactionsascribed to him; and from theattributeswith 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 impression of the general view of the divine character, as thus revealed, is too important to be omitted.
7. Thenamesof God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals, the divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. ThoughOnehe isאלהים,Elohim,Gods,persons adorable. He isיהוה,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 hisname, 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 passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, 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 onlyJehovah,self-existent, andEl,the strong or mighty God; but he is, says Dr. A. Clarke, “רחום,Rochum,the merciful Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion;חנון,Chanun,the gracious One, he whose nature is goodness itself, the loving God.ארך פים,Erec Apayim,long-suffering, the Being who, because of his tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind;דבRab,the great or mighty One:חסד,Chesed,the bountiful Being, he who is exuberant in his beneficence;אפת,Emeth,the Truth, orTrue One, he alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived;נצר חסד,Notser Chesed,the Preserver of bountifulness, he whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for thousands of generations, showing compassion and mercy while the world endures;נשא עון ופשע וחטאה,Nose avon vapesha vechataah,he who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin; properly theRedeemer, thePardoner, theForgiver, 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; andפקד עין,Paked avon, &c,he who visits iniquity, he who punishes transgressors, 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 theactionswhich 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--hiseternity 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:--hisalmighty power, shown both in the act of creation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced:--hiswisdom, in their arrangement, and in their fitness to their respective ends:--and hisgoodness, as the whole tended to the happiness ofsentientbeings. 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 ofLordorGovernoris established, and on the other our duty of lowlyhomageand absoluteobedience.
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; transgression, with death. The event called forth new manifestations of the character of God. His tendermercy, in the compassion showed to the fallen pair; hisjustice, 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; hisloveto that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the fulness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and hisholiness, in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the means of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divinemercyare 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 hiscondescension, 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 strictlyrighteous 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 showthat “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 transgressions:--of hislong-suffering, in frequent warnings, delays, and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before sentence of utter excision and destruction:--offaithfulnessandtruth, in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession 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 hisimmutability, 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 hisprescienceof future events, manifested by the predictions of Scripture:--and of the depth and stability of hiscounsel, 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 impressive 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 hissubstance, that “God is a Spirit.” As to hisduration, 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 isunchangeable: “The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variableness, 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 isomnipresent: “Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence, saith the Lord?” That he isomniscient: “All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” That he is the absolute Lord andOwnerof all things: “The heavens, even the heaven of heavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:” “The earth is thine, and the fulness 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 hisprovidenceextends 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 unspottedpurityand perfectrectitude: “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 isjustin the administration of his government: “Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?” “Clouds and darkness are round about him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.” That hiswisdomis 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 isgoodandmerciful: “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 trespasses 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 essentially erroneous or grovelling conception. “By the Word of God,”says Dr. Barrow, “we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things, to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience and immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of dominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound submission and obedience are due.” “Our notion of Deity,” says Bishop Pearson, “doth expressly 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 essentially necessary; 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, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, 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 passage from Sir Isaac Newton: “The wordGodfrequently signifiesLord; 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 passion; he suffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any resistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed, that God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity 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 less 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, eitherà priori, from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and most satisfactory mode,à posteriori, from the effect to the cause. The irresistible argument from the marks ofdesignwith 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.”
GODS, in the plural, is used of the false deities of the Heathens, many of which were only creatures to whom divine honours and worship were superstitiously paid. The Greeks and Latins, it is observable, did not mean, by the nameGod, an all-perfect being, whereof eternity, infinity, omnipresence, &c, were essential attributes: with them the word only implied an excellent and superior nature; and, accordingly, they give the appellationgodsto all beings of a rank or class, higher or more perfect than that of men, and especially to those who were inferior agents in the divine administration, all subject to the one Supreme. Thus men themselves, according to their system, might become gods after death, inasmuch as their souls might attain to a degree of excellence superior to what they were capable of in life. The first idols, or false gods, that are said to have been adored were the stars, sun, moon, &c, on account of the light, heat, and other benefits which we derive from them. (SeeIdolatry.) Afterward the earth came to be deified, for furnishing fruits necessary for the subsistence of men and animals: then fire and water became objects of divine worship, for their usefulness to human life. In process of time, and by degrees, gods became multiplied to infinity; and there was scarce any thing but the weakness or caprice of some devotee or other, elevated into the rank of deity: things useless or even destructive not excepted. The principal of the ancient gods,whom the Romans calleddii majorum gentium, and Cicero celestial gods, Varro select gods, Ovidnobiles deos, othersconsentes deos, were Jupiter, Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Vulcan, and Apollo. Jupiter is considered as the god of heaven; Neptune, as god of the sea; Mars, as the god of war; Apollo, of eloquence, poetry, and physic; Mercury, of thieves; Bacchus, of wine; Cupid, of love, &c. A second sort of gods, called demi-gods,semi-dii,dii minorum gentium,indigetes, or gods adopted, were men canonized and deified. As the greater gods had possession of heaven by their own right, these secondary deities had it by merit and donation, being translated into heaven because they had lived as gods upon earth.
2. The Heathen gods may be all reduced to the following classes: (1.) Created spirits, angels, or demons, whence good and evil gods; Genii, Lares, Lemures, Typhones, guardian gods, infernal gods, &c. (2.) Heavenly bodies; as, the sun, moon, and other planets; also, the fixed stars, constellations, &c. (3.) Elements; as air, earth, ocean, Ops, Vesta; the rivers, fountains, &c. (4.) Meteors. Thus the Persians adored the wind: thunder and lightning were honoured under the name of Geryon; and several nations of India and America have made themselves gods of the same. Castor, Pollux, Helena, and Iris, have also been preferred from meteors to be gods; and the like has been practised in regard to comets: witness that which appeared at the murder of Cæsar. (5.) They erected minerals or fossils into deities. Such was the Bætylus. The Finlanders adored stones; the Scythians, iron; and many nations, silver and gold. (6.) Plants have been made gods. Thus leeks and onions were deities in Egypt; the Sclavi, Lithuanians, Celtæ, Vandals, and Peruvians, adored trees and forests; the ancient Gauls, Britons, and Druids, paid a particular devotion to the oak; and it was no other than wheat, corn, seed, &c, that the ancients adored under the names of Ceres and Proserpina. (7.) They took themselves gods from among the waters. The Syrians and Egyptians adored fishes; and what were the Tritons, the Nereids, Syrens, &c, but fishes? Several nations have adored serpents; particularly the Egyptians, Prussians,LithuaniansLithuanians, Samogitians, &c. (8.) Insects, as flies and ants, had their priests and votaries. (9.) Among birds, the stork, raven, sparrowhawk, ibis, eagle, grisson, and lapwing have had divine honours; the last in Mexico, the rest in Egypt and at Thebes. (10.) Four-footed beasts have had their altars; as the bull, dog, cat, wolf, baboon, lion, and crocodile, in Egypt and elsewhere; the hog in the island of Crete; rats and mice in the Troas, and at Tenedos; weasels at Thebes; and the porcupine throughout all Zoroaster’s school. (11.) Nothing was more common than to place men among the number of deities; and from Belus or Baal, to the Roman emperors before Constantine, the instances of this kind are innumerable: frequently they did not wait so long as their deaths for the apotheosis. Nebuchadnezzar procured his statue to be worshipped while living; and Virgil shows that Augustus had altars and sacrifices offered to him; as we learn from other hands that he had priests calledAugustales, and temples at Lyons, Narbona, and several other places, and he must be allowed the first of the Romans in whose behalf idolatry was carried to such a pitch. The Ethiopians deemed all their kings gods: the Velleda of the Germans, the Janus of the Hungarians, and the Thaut, Woden, and Assa of the northern nations, were indisputably men. (12.) Not men only, but every thing that relates to man, has also been deified; as labour, rest, sleep, youth, age, death, virtues, vices, occasion, time, place, numbers, among the Pythagoreans; the generative power, under the name of Priapus. Infancy alone had a cloud of deities; as, Vagetanus, Levana, Rumina, Edufa, Potina, Cuba, Cumina, Carna, Ossilago, Statulinus, Fabulinus, &c. They also adored the gods Health, Fever, Fear, Love, Pain, Indignation, Shame, Impudence, Opinion, Renown, Prudence, Science, Art, Fidelity, Felicity, Calumny, Liberty, Money, War, Peace, Victory, Triumph, &c. Lastly, Nature, the universe, or τὸ ϖὰν, was reputed a great god.
3. Hesiod has a poem under the title of Θεογονία, that is, “The Generation of the Gods,” in which he explains their genealogy and descent, sets forth who was the first and principal, who next descended from him, and what issue each had: the whole making a sort of system of Heathen theology. Beside this popular theology, each philosopher had his system, as may be seen from the “Timæus” of Plato, and Cicero “De Natura Deorum.” Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix, Lactantius, Eusebius, St. Augustine, and Theodoret, show the vanity of the Heathen gods. It is very difficult to discover the real sentiments of the Heathens with respect to their gods: they are exceedingly intricate and confused, and even frequently contradictory. They admitted so many superior and inferior gods, who shared the empire, that every place was full of gods. Varro reckons up no less than thirty thousand adored within a small extent of ground, and yet their number was every day increasing. In modern oriental Paganism they amount to many millions, and are, in fact, innumerable.
4. The name of God, in Hebrew,Elohim, is very ambiguous in Scripture. The true God is often called so, as are sometimes angels, judges, and princes, and sometimes idols and false gods; for example: “God created the heaven and the earth,” Gen. i, 1. The HebrewElohimdenotes, in this place, the true God. “He who sacrificeth unto any god, (Elohim,) shall be put to death,” Exodus xxii, 20. And again: “Among the gods there is none like unto thee,” Psalm lxxxvi, 8. Princes, magistrates, and great men are called gods in the following passages: “If a slave is desirous to continue with his master, he shall be brought to the judges,” Exod. xxi, 6, in the original, to thegods. Again: “If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto thejudges,” Exod. xxii, 8, in the original, to the gods; and in the twenty-eighth verse of the same chapter, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the gods;” that is, of the judges or great men. The Psalmist says that the Lord “judgeth among the gods,” Psalm lxxxii, 1. And again, God says to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,” Exod. vii, 1. The pious Israelites had so great an aversion and such an extreme contempt for strange gods, that they scorned even to mention them; they disguised and disfigured their names by substituting in the room of them some term of contempt; for example, instead ofElohim, they called themElilim, “nothings, gods of no value;” instead ofMephibaal,Meribaal, andJerubaal, they said “Mephibosheth, Meribosheth, and Jeribosheth.”Baalsignifies master, husband; andbosheth, something to be ashamed of, something apt to put one in confusion. God forbade the Israelites to swear by strange gods, and to pronounce the names of them in their oaths, Exod. xxiii, 13.
GODLINESS, strictly taken, signifies right worship, or devotion; but, in general, it imports the whole of practical religion, 1 Tim. iv, 8; 2 Peter i, 6.
GOEL,גאל, the avenger of blood. The inhabitants of the east, it is well known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If, therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening to kill hisbrotherbrotherJacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the country, saying, “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?” Gen. xxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the murderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine; and Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would therefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the blood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of thegoelwas in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled by the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a mortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life through a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made various enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and countries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being asylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would flee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death, Exod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer was enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual might meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If thegoelovertook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to death, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour’s death undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was judicially delivered to thegoel, who might put him to death in whatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in the place of refuge until the high priest’s death, when he might return home in perfect security. If, however, thegoelfound him without the city, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of blood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation, Numbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and that Solomon, in obedience to his father’s dying entreaty, actually discharged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi, 28–34. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi, 17, 18.
The following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people adhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and friends:--“Among the Circassians,” says Pallas, “all the relatives of the murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to revenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to the family of the deceased, this tribute is calledthlil-uasa, or, ‘the price of blood;’ but neither princes nor usdens accept such compensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for blood.” “The Nubians,” observes Light, “possess few traces among them of government, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the cashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress of injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood, extends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood. On this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and in this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys are armed.” “If one Nubian,” remarks Burckhardt, “happen to kill another, he is obligedto pay the debt of blood to the family of the deceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven sheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has its stated fine, consisting of sheep anddhourra, but varying in quantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.” “When a man or woman is murdered,” says Malcolm, “the moment the person by whom the act was perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands vengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be established, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as he chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of money as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few years ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons delivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had murdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they put them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the most importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab the murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of those who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that could hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan. When they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the murderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told, were delighted to become his executioners.”
GOG AND MAGOG. Moses speaks of Magog, son of Japheth, but says nothing of Gog, Gen. x, 2. According to Ezekiel, Gog was prince of Magog, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 3, &c; xxxix, 1, 2, &c. Magog signifies the country or people, and Gog the king of that country; the general name of the northern nations of Europe and Asia, or the districts north of the Caucasus, or Mount Taurus. The prophecy of Ezekiel, xxxix, 1–22, seems to be revived in the Apocalypse, where the hosts of Gog and Magog are represented as coming to invade “the beloved city,” and perishing with immense slaughter likewise in Armageddon, “the mount of Mageddo,” or Megiddo, Rev. xvi, 14–16; xx, 7–10.
GOLD,זהב, Gen. xxiv, 22, and very frequently in all other parts of the Old Testament; χρυσος, Matt. xxiii, 16, 17, &c; the most perfect and valuable of the metals. In Job xxviii, 15–18, 19, gold is mentioned five times, and four of the words are different in the original: 1.סגור, which may mean “gold in the mine,” or “shut up,” as the root signifies, “in the ore.” 2.כתם,kethem, fromכתם,catham, “to sign,” “seal,” or “stamp;” gold made current by being coined; standard gold, exhibiting the stamp expressive of its value. 3.זהב, wrought gold, pure, highly polished gold. 4.פז, denoting solidity, compactness, and strength; probably gold formed into different kinds of plate, or vessels. Jerom, in his comment on Jer. x, 9, writes “Septem dominibus apud Hebræos appellatur aurum.” The seven names, which he does not mention, are as follows, and thus distinguished by the Hebrews: 1.Zahab, gold in general. 2.Zahab tob, good gold, of a more valuable kind, Gen. ii, 12. 3.Zahab Ophir, gold of Ophir, 1 Kings ix, 28, such as was brought by the navy of Solomon. 4.Zahab muphaz, solid gold, pure, wrought gold, translated, 1 Kings x, 18, “the best gold.” 5.Zahab shachut, beaten gold, 2 Chron. ix, 15. 6.Zahab segor, shut up gold; either as mentioned above, gold in the ore, or as the rabbins explain it, “gold shut up in the treasuries,” gold in bullion. 7.Zahab parvaim, 2 Chron. iii, 6. To these Buxtorf adds three others: 1.כתם, pure gold of the circulating medium. 2.לצר, gold in the treasury. 3.חרצז, choice, fine gold. Arabia had formerly its golden mines. “The gold of Sheba,” Psalm lxxii, 15, is, in the Septuagint and Arabic versions, “the gold of Arabia.” Sheba was the ancient name of Arabia Felix. Mr. Bruce, however, places it in Africa, at Azab. The gold of Ophir, so often mentioned, must be that which was procured in Arabia, on the coast of the Red Sea. We are assured by Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Eusebius, and by Herodotus, that the Phenicians carried on a considerable traffic with this gold even before the days of Job, who speaks of it, xxii, 24.
GOLIATH, a famous giant of the city of Gath, who was slain by David, 1 Sam. xvii, 4, 5, &c. SeeGiants.
GOMER, the eldest son of Japheth, by whom a great part of Asia Minor was first peopled, and particularly that extensive tract which was called Phrygia, including the sub-divisions of Mysia, Galatia, Bithynia, Lycaonia, &c. The colonies of Gomer extended into Germany, Gaul, (in both of which traces of the name are preserved,) and Britain, which was undoubtedly peopled from Gaul. Among the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of this island, namely, the Welsh, the wordsKumeroandKumeraeg, the names of the people and the language, sufficiently point out their origin. In fact, under the names of Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymrig, Cumbri, Umbri, and Cambri, the tribes of Gomerians extended themselves from the Euxine to the Atlantic, and from Italy to the Baltic; having added to their original names those of Celts, Gauls, Galatæ, and Gaels, superadded.