OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 105
stands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet, lest any should hastily apprehend that the essence of God were not therefore neces- sarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. cxlv. 3, that " his greatness hath no end," or is "inconceivable," which is infinite ; for seeing we can cany on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, — that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers, as they say, in infinitum, — it is evident that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or essence, which is unsearchable or inconceivable besides that which is actually infinite. Such, therefore, is the greatness of God, in the strict and literal meaning of the Scripture ; and therefore, that he should have a shape implies a contradiction. But of this so much before as I presume we may now take it for granted.
Now, this attribute of infinity doth immediately and demonstra- tively overthrow that gross conception of a human shape we are in the consideration of; and so it doth, by consequence, overthrow the conceit of any other, though a spherical shape. Again, —
Whatever is incorporeal is destitute of shape ; whatever is infinite is incorporeal : therefore, whatever is infinite is destitute of shape.
All the question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore suppose an infinite body or line, and let it be bisected ; either then, each half is equal to the whole, or less. If equal, the whole is equal to the part ; if less, then that half is limited within certain bounds, and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also : therefore, two things which are finite shall make up an infinite; which is a contradiction.
Having, therefore, proved out of Scripture that God is infinite, it follows also that he is incorporeal, and that he is without shape.
The former argument j^roved him to be without such a shape as this catechist would insinuate ; this, that he is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the immutability or impassi- bility of God's essence, which the Scripture assigns to him : Mai. iii. 6, " I am the Lord ; I change not." " The heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest : they shall be changed : but thou art the same," Ps. cii. 25, 26.
If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and consequently without shape.
The former consequence is manifest, for every body is extended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation ; where- fore, being immutable, he hath no shape.
Mr B.'s great plea for the considering of his Catechism, and insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from the success which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry truths, of which he gives an account in his book to the reader. That, among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now
106 TINDICI^ EVANGELICvE.
insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume Mr B. knoweth. For this discovery the world is beholding to one Audseus, a monk, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius, torn. i. lib. iii., Hser. 70 ; as also in Theodoret, lib. iv. Eccles. Hist., cap. x., who also gives us an account of the man and his conversation, Avith those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy predecessor of our author, De Haer. cap. 1. He that thinks it worth while to know that we are not beholding to Mr B., but to this Audseus, for all the arguments, whether taken from the creation of man in the image of God or the attribution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible shape, may at his leisure consult the authors above mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to Mr B.'s ingenious inquiries. How the same figment was also entertained by a com^ pany of stupid monks in Egypt, who, in pursuit of their opinion, came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the bishop on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty companion deluded them with an ambiguity of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap. vii.^
As this madness of brain-sick men was always rejected by all per- sons of sobriety professing the religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of heathens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God which remain in the hearts of men.^ The Jews to this day do solemnly confess, in their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no cor- poreal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old: Ovn yap ai/dpu'7r6/jt,op(pog 6 Qshg, ours 'dioiidss avSpuvtvov euij^a, Phil, de Opificio Mundi ; — "Neither hath God a human form, nor does a human body resemble him." And in Sacrifi. Abel. : Ohbs ra oca a^dpu'roig, 5T/ Qsqu xvpioXoyurai, xard^priffig ds ovo/LaTCuv effr} <!rap7]yopovaa r^v rifLzripav aeSsveiav' — " Neither are those things which are in us spoken properly of God, but there is an abuse of names therein, relieving our weakness."