to promote the happiness of his creatures, demonstrate his goodness.

With these deductions of an enlightened philosophy, agree the repeated declarations, and indeed, the uniform tenour of the Scriptures; which, in all their laws, and in the terms of mercy they propound, exhibit God as the righteous legislator and judge of the world. This character of his is often inculcated in forms of expression derived, not from the immutable nature of the moral dispositions themselves, but from those particular modifications of them, which appear in imperfect creatures. Thus he is declared to be grieved, to repent, to be angry, to be jealous, to revenge, and be ferocious; because his procedure, in particular instances, is in the manner intimated, and because, in men, the exercise of virtuous or vicious dispositions, is connected with the manifestation of the emotions and passions, indicated by such phraseology. An attempt to vindicate the use of these terms, found as they are in God's inspired volume, would betray arrogance and folly. They are doubtless selected for the purpose of exhibiting in a popular and impressive manner, God's regard to righteousness, his disapprobation of wickedness, his earnestness in his commands, and his inflexible determination to manifest the feelings of his heart, in conferring rewards and punishments on his creatures, according to their character. They answer the end, for which they are employed; and in a multitude of instances, do awaken attention, solicitude, compunction, fear and hope, in the bosom of sinners. They are better adapted to the nature of the human mind, its tendency to inertness, the dullness of its perceptions in its uncultivated state, its fondness for appeals to the imaginative faculty, its relation to sensible objects, and its affections as modified by its present state of being, than any abstract propositions, however clear and definite, which come not in the warm colouring of figures and excited emotion. For the same reason, the attributing of corporeal organs and senses to God, though entirely metaphorical or analogical, is more impressive than the naked statement of the truths thus represented would be :-to say, "he spake, and it was done," is more striking than to say, he created the world by an act of his power to affirm, that "the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good," touches every heart with a stronger sentiment of awe, than the more

philosophical affirmation, that omniscience is a perfection of the divine Being: and to allege, that "he opens his hand, and satisfies the desire of every living thing," is more beautiful and affecting, than simply to declare, that he is the sustainer and benefactor of his creatures.

Erroneous inferences may, it is true, be deduced by weak minds, from the scriptural use of such language. The fault, however, is in those, who thus misinterpret the word of God. The Anthropomorphites have absurdly inferred from such passages as I have alluded to, that God is material, or has a body; but "they," says Calvin, "are easily refuted. For who, even of the meanest capacity, understands not that God lisps, as it were, with us, just as nurses are accustomed to speak to infants? Wherefore, such forms of expression do not clearly explain the nature of God; but accommodate the knowledge of him to our narrow capacity?"*

These remarks of Calvin are not inapplicable to the class of texts, which seem to ascribe to the Most High the fitful passions of men. Passages of this description are designed to give us some practical and influential views of what is infinite, by allusions to what is finite; to teach us to adore and fear those attributes of our Creator which, in the abstract, are indescribable, by a comparison of their ef fects, with those of certain mental operations, of which we are conscious in ourselves. Some, however, have maintained, that the language employed in these instances, ought to be taken according to its literal import; and that the divine mind is as truly liable to the agitations of passion, as are the minds of men. It has been strenuously affirmed, even in the sober language of argument, that God strictly repents, and is made sorry, in view of the evils which exist under his government. Sinners have been told, that God does all he can to convert them; and that his heart will be pained, when he shall find himself necessitated to infix his bolts in their souls. All this has been said, not only without any qualification, but without the allowance of any, even in thought; since the system which embraces this scheme of exposition, denies any distinction between God's absolute and his comparative choice of the holiness and happiness of mankind. To maintain this strange dogma concerning the Almighty Creator, the literal interpretation is triumphantly urged, without any respect to the connexion in which the * Inst. Lib. i. Cap. 13.

misapplied texts occur, or to the current language of the Scriptures.*

men.

The common sense of the great body of Christians, indeed, accords with the statement, that God is infinitely superiour to all the harrassing and disquieting passions of While idolaters have attributed violent emotions, as well as physical weakness and moral imperfection, to their deities; believers in the Bible have represented it as teaching other and far more exalted views of Him, whose empire is wide as the universe, and lasting as eternity. They have exulted in the descriptions given in the Scriptures, of his unrivalled majesty, dominion, and felicity, and have called upon the world to contemplate and admire the difference between the object of their worship, and the vanities of the heathen. The very definition of the divine Being, contained in the Articles of the English Church, and the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and this country, includes, in agreement with the general creed of Christendom, the idea for which I contend. The language of each of these confessions on this subject, is the same. "There is but one living and true God,-without

It may possibly be supposed, that the system above referred to on this subject, agrees with the theory of Dr. Emmons, in his sermon, entitled "Affections essential to the moral perfection of the Deity:" but however the two schemes may resemble each other in words, they are wholly unlike in their most material characteristics. In that sermon, Dr. Emmons says, (Works, vol. i. p. 111.) "It must, however; be observed, that God is a Spirit, who has no affections which resemble those bodily instincts and passions, which are to be found in the present state of human nature. The best of men here on earth, carry about with them some remains of selfishness, pride, envy, and other sinful passions. But God is perfect love, and all his affections are pure and clear as the crystal stream. There is a foundation for fear, and faith, and hope, and confidence, in the very nature of finite, dependent beings; but there is no foundation for these affections in the Supreme Being, whose power and knowledge are independent and unlimited. God is infinitely above all instincts, passions, or affections, which proceed from either natural or moral imperfection." Again, p. 121. "It appears from what has been said, that God is pleased with the existence of every thing which takes place in the universe. If all things do not take place just as the Deity desired and intended, his infinitely strong desires and affections are deeply wounded. But it is the universal voice of Scripture, as well as the dictate of reason, that God is infinitely above the reach of pain, and enjoys the most perfect and permanent felicity. Though, therefore, there are ten thousand things constantly taking place in the world, which are, in their own nature, disagreeable to the Deity; yet there never did, and never will one single event exist, which, all things considered, he did not choose and intend should actually exist." The affections, then, ascribed by Dr. Emmons to the Most High, are fixed states, or permanent exercises of the divine mind, varying of course, from the very immutability of their nature, their expressions towards individuals, according to the changes which take place in their characIn the most important respect, therefore, his theory is the very opposite to that, with which it is affirmed to be identical.' 6

ter.

VOL. I.

body, parts, or passions."* Whence arose this general agreement among Christians? And is it to be believed, that they have laboured under a mistake here; and that the devotees of gods, changeful and capricious, have formed in this respect a juster conception of the divine nature, than the disciples of Christ have generally entertained? Must we go to the mythology of Homer, to learn the mode of God's moral operations, rather than to the volumes of Augustine, of the reformers, and of the puritan fathers, whose intelligence and holiness have shed a pure and mild radiance over more than half the globe? We will not, indeed, trust to human authority. But it must first be proved to us, that the mind which drew the plan of the heavens and the earth, is a bundle of contradictory feelings, or rather a chain of emotions, before we can abandon the fathers of the

* Articles of Religion, Art. I. Confession of Faith, Chap. II. "They injure the Hebrews," says Macknight, "who affirm, that they thought God was moved by human passions." That most learned and judicious writer, Bishop Lowth, on Isaiah i. 24, Ah, I will be eased of mine adversaries, I will be avenged of mine enemies, says, "This is a strong instance of the metaphor called Anthropopathia; by which, throughout the Scriptures, as well the bistorical as the poetical parts, the sentiments, sensations and affections, the bodily faculties, qualities, and members of men, and even of brute animals, are attributed to God; and that with the utmost liberty and latitude of application. The foundation of this is obvious, it arises from necessity. We have no idea of the natural attributes of God, of his pure essence, of his manner of existence, of his manner of acting. When, therefore, we would treat on these subjects, we find ourselves forced to express them by sensible images. But necessity leads to beauty. This is true of metaphor in general, and in particular of this kind of metaphor, which is used with great elegance and sublimity in the sacred poetry; and, what is very remarkable, in the grossest instances of the application of it, it is generally the most striking and the most sublime. The reason seems to be this: when the images are taken from the superiour faculties of human nature, from the purer and more generous affections, and applied to God, we are apt to acquiesce in the notion; we overlook the metaphor, and take it as a proper attribute; but when the idea is gross and offensive, as in this passage of Isaiah, where the impatience of anger and the pleasure of revenge is attributed to God, we are immediately shocked at the application, the impropriety strikes us at once, and the mind, casting about for something in the divine nature analogous to the image, lays hold on some great, obscure, vague idea, which she endeavours in vain to comprehend, and is lost in immensity and astonishment." These remarks of Lowth commend themselves, I doubt not, to the experience and common sense of every intelligent and candid reader of the Scriptures. "The Holy Scriptures," says T. H. Horne (Introduction, Vol. I. p. 568.) "in condescension to our limited capacities, and to the imperfections of human creatures and of human language, represent God as having the body, the passions, and the infirinities, of a man. Thus they make mention of his eyes and ears, his hands and feet, his sleeping and waking; they ascribe to him fierce anger and jealousy, grief and repentance, joy and desire. The simple language of the Hebrews might also be another reason for its abounding with such expressions. But that no man might be so weak or so perverse, as to take those expressions according to the letter, and entertain mean and unworthy thoughts of his Maker, the same Scriptures often add to those very descriptions, something which manifestly shows us how they are to be understood." &c.

church, to adopt and defend this startling opinion. Let the question rest on its own evidence.

I. How does the doctrine that God is actuated by passions like those of creatures, agree with the view, which both reason and Scripture teach us to form, concerning his attributes? He is self-existent. By this I mean, not only that he is without beginning, but that there is no foundation of his existence out of himself. "The Father hath life in himself."* Self-existence, incomprehensible as it is, is essential to the very idea of a supreme Being; and most obviously, that which is self-existent, must be fixed in all its forms, and incapable of being modified by what is derived or casual. It cannot, therefore, be subject to the agency of passions, such as exist among finite and dependent beings. God is omnipresent, and boundless in knowledge. These attributes are inferred from the variety, admirable harmony, extent, and grandeur of his works; and they are expressly ascribed to him in the Scriptures. The operations of the passions, in the strict and proper use of the word, suppose some alteration of views, and consequently some addition to the amount of knowledge previously attained, or the escape of some facts, or their relations, from the treasury of the memory. If the perceptions and moral dispositions are absolutely uniform, as they must be, in all instances where knowledge is unlimited and perfect; then it seems almost like an identical proposition to say, that nothing can exist, in such a case, resembling disappointment, or the sudden gusts of passion, as they appear in creatures of yesterday. God is, in the most absolute sense, independent in his being, and in all his attributes. "Who

hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things." It is most plainly affirmed, that he has made all things for himself; that for his pleasure they are and were created; and that the most violent rage of his enemies cannot disturb his felicity.

The incompatibility of such language with the supposition, that God is liable, in any degree, to the agitating emotions which are found in men, must be obvious; for

* Exci (wùv ¿v tavro, John 5: 26. also Exod. 3: 14. Ps. 36: 9. 90; 2. Jer. 10: 10. Acts 17: 25. 1 Tim. 1: 17. 6: 16.

+ Jer. 23: 23, 24. Ps. 139. Heb. 4: 13. Isai. 46: 10. Acts 15: 18. et passim. Rom. 11: 34, 35, 36. Also Isai. 41: 4. Col. 1: 17. Rev. 1: 6, 8, 11. § Ps. 24.