|
CSEC ON-LINE REFERENCE LIBRARY |
|
JUDGE SEPTIMUS J. HANNA, CSD
"GOD. The great I Am; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; Substance; Intelligence." And again on page 449, He is further defined as "Supreme Incorporeal Being." It is again sometimes objected that these definitions imply an impersonal God, and we are charged with denying God's personality. This depends altogether upon what is meant by personality. If a personality of flesh, blood and bones, is understood to constitute personality, we should have to plead guilty to the charge of not believing in a personal God. We distinguish between personality and corporeality. According to our conception corporeality implies fleshly embodiment, but personality does not so imply. In the true, full sense of personality, we are the most uncompromising believers in a personal God. Let us briefly analyze the definition given in our textbook and see if from it we are not warranted in claiming to be such believers: — 1st. Great I am: What greater I am can there be than the "great I AM?" This implies the greatest I AM, the highest possible personality, — in the sense that I constitutes personality. 2d. All-knowing: Can we conceive of a greater personality than one who possesses all knowledge, who knows everything which can be or should be known? Can the finite mind conceive of a grander, better or more satisfactory person than one who embraces Omniscience, — nay, who is Omniscience? 3d. All-seeing: Can we conceive of a better definition of a person, than one who can see all things, everything, — from the infinitesimal to the Infinite? All-seeing implies, as well, all-knowing, all-understanding. 4th. All-acting: Think of the mighty depth of meaning implied in that term. What so grand, so powerful, so comprehensive and absolute, as that which is all-acting! Where shall we find a greater person than He who does all things, performs all acts. 5th. All-loving: Again think, so far as we can think, of the overwhelming import of this term. Mr. Drummond in his analysis of Love, which he entitles "The Greatest Thing in the World," gives this the chief and highest place. He estimates it above all other things; gives it more power, more activity, more wisdom and more grandeur than anything or all things else. So does Paul: "Faith, hope, love; these three; but the greatest of these is love." Tell us of a greater, better person than He who is all-loving. 6th. All-wise: There is, and can be, no greater wisdom than that which is all wisdom. Can there then be a greater person than He who possesses all wisdom? 7th. Eternal: How shall we conceive of a greater or more glorious person than He who is Eternal, without beginning and without ending; one perfect, complete, everlasting entity? He who is eternal can be nothing less than perfect; and He who is perfect, can be nothing less than harmonious and glorious. 8th. (a) "Supreme, Incorporeal Being:" Can there be a grander, nobler idea of personality than this language conveys? What an infinity of personality is here implied! That which is supreme, is higher and better than all else. No human form of expression can lift our thoughts above that which is supreme. The Dictionary thus defines it: "Highest in authority; holding the highest place; highest, greatest, or most excellent, as supreme love, supreme glory, supreme degree." (b) Incorporeal: What does this word mean? Hear the lexicographer: Not corporeal; not having a material body or form; not consisting of matter; immaterial; spiritual. Compare the common definition of the word person with this definition of the word incorporeal, and see which suffers by the comparison. Person: From the Latin prefix per (through) and sonare (sound). Hence to sound through; a mask; the outward appearance, expression, etc.; especially a living human being; an individual of the human race, etc. Which is the clearer or more satisfactory verbal declaration of the idea of God? God is distinctly and infinitely incorporeal; hence, in that sense, He is distinctly and infinitely personal. (c) Being: What does this word imply? It comprehends all of personality that is susceptible of comprehension. Again, hear Webster. (We are now endeavoring to probe this question of personality to at least a sensible and rationalistic basis, and hence call the lexicographer to our aid at every turn.) Being: "Existing in a certain state; existence; a particular state or condition; existence as opposed to non-existence; state or sphere of existence; living existence as distinguished from a thing without life; spiritual being, etc. "Being" comprehends Life, Intelligence, Mind, Power, — in fact all the terms which go to make up the descriptive and definitional sum of Deity. Is it not a most expressive term to apply to true personality? Take, then, the united signification of the three words, "Supreme, Incorporeal Being (Science and Health), and where shall we find a more complete, powerful or profound definition of God as personality? In this sense, Christian Science has no quarrel to make with believers in a personal God; and if the latter will but stop to consider what personality in its best and real sense means, and is, they will have no quarrel to make with the Christian Science concept of God. In an article entitled "Conceptions of a future life" by the venerable Archdeacon Farrar, published in the March number of the North American Review, is the following in relation to God's personality: — "Since the days of Tertullian, or, at any rate, since those ignorant hermits of Thebaid, who thought that God had 'a body, heats and passions,' no one has believed in a corporeal Deity. Even Voltaire held, as did Locke, that the existence of God is demonstrable by the cosmological and teleological arguments, and yet that God is a circle whose circumference is everywhere, its centre nowhere." This declaration of the impersonality of God as coming from so eminent an Ecclesiastic as Archdeacon Farrar, must be somewhat startling to those who still conceive of God as a corporeal personality. It is evident that Mr. Farrar makes a distinction between personality and corporeality. Herein he differs from many persons who conceive of God from the personal standpoint. When you speak to them of a personal God, you convey to their minds the conception of a corporeal being, or a being having an embodiment. Nay more! we should not go far amiss if we asserted that they have an indefinite sense of a God having an embodiment of flesh, blood and bones. We have never heard the distinction which Mr. Farrar here makes announced from any orthodox pulpit from which it has been our privilege to hear the Gospel preached. If the conception of those professors of theology to whom we have listened was in accord with that of Mr. Farrar, they failed to make themselves so understood. We think it a fair inference that there is no such distinction in the mind of the average layman who believes in God as a person, however it may be with the theologians. It may be that some theologians have such a distinction in mind, and this may account for a remark once made to the writer by one of his clerical friends: that "theology had a conception of God's personality which it was not deemed wise to give out from the pulpit as the people were not ready for it." It is nevertheless true that the majority of orthodox clergymen are preaching of God from the standpoint of personality in the sense of corporeality, and that too in the face of creedal definitions distinctly defining Him as incorporeality. The Articles of Faith of the M. E. Church thus define Him: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts of infinite goodness, the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible." The Westminster Confession of Faith thus defines Him: — "There is but one living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute," etc. We shall not stop to analyze this language in detail, but a glance at it will show any intelligent, impartial observer, that it describes and defines an incorporeal God as fully as does the Christian Science definition. It warrants precisely the distinction which Mr. Farrar makes, and is in full accord with all who believe in God as an incorporeal person. We are at a loss then, to see why Christian Scientists should be charged with being a Godless people. They are not, except by persons who utterly misapprehend Christian Science teaching, or who are so blinded by prejudice that they do not wish to fairly consider its claims. The use of the word Principle as applied to Deity is also objected to by some persons. If the ground above taken is at all tenable, this also is a most apt and comprehensive term by which to convey a true conception of God. If the favorite name of the Master, — Father, — is understood to mean Divine Principle, instead of the limited personality of human conception, it will clear up the relations existing between Jesus and the "Father" as well as those existing between all of the children of that Father, as no possible interpretation of God as ordinary personality can do. Again let us turn to Webster for a definition of the word Principle: — "Beginning; commencement; source or origin; that from which anything proceeds; fundamental substance or energy; priomordial substance or indecomposable element." Surely so far as there is a beginning, God is beginning. Being the First Cause, or the creator, He is the source of all, and is therefore Fundamental Substance or Energy. A very casual glance at the definitions of God as set forth in the Articles of Faith of the Orthodox churches referred to, will show that God is most clearly defined therein as Divine Principle. To object to the use of the most comprehensive terms known to language in attempts to convey to the human mind a true understanding of God, is irrational, and partakes of that spirit of the middle-ages which would fence Deity within the walls of a particular church, or compass Infinity about with denominational predilection. The more we can conceive of God as universal Principle rather than as circumscribed personality, the more we shall be able to adore and understand Him. It is easier to understand Principle than it is to understand human personality. What is there about mere personality that we should love it with all our heart, and with all our mind, and with all our strength? How can we thus love personality? If we could, what would it be but idolatry? All through the Scriptures we are warned against idolatry. Yet personal worship is of the very essence of idolatry. John tells us that God is Love, and that no man hath seen Him at any time. Why not? Because He is Love, and Love being Divine Principle, it is impossible for mortal man, or the man of the flesh to see Him. It is elsewhere said that no man can see Him and live, — that is, live in the flesh or the material senses. If God is a person, as men are persons, why should man not see Him in the flesh? If He is such a person and as such is our creator, we are each one of us but the decaying, temporal personality of the flesh instead of the immortality of the spiritual. If God and ourselves are personal in this sense, we shall never see Him, and are to be forever debarred His presence. That conception of God as personality which would limit Him to a fixed habitation or place, would therefore defeat the longing hope and desire of every earnest Christian to see and know Him. It would annul the Scriptures, for the whole burden of their teaching is a knowledge of God. Jesus' whole earthly mission was to bring a knowledge of the "Father" down to human understanding. We should then, conceive of God as the all-pervading power and presence of infinite Love and Supreme Wisdom.
The Christian Science Journal, July, 1893 |
Copyright
© 1996-2007 CSEC