In thus manifesting his power, wisdom, holiness, and goodness, we say that God has established his "glory;" and so, also, when men acknowledge and worship these divine perfections, they "glorify" God. In this language there is nothing absurd or injurious to the divine majesty. In Scripture the object of di- vine revelation is stated sometimes to be the sanctifi- cation of man, sometimes the glory of God, as these are identical, whether considered from the divine or the human point of view. Moreover, it is an effect of the divine wisdom, holiness, and goodness, that man should find happiness in virtue, not in vice ; in sub- mission to the physical and moral laws established by God, not in violating them. And when man submits to these laws he glorifies God, since he renders hom- age to the divine perfections. Hence it cannot be wrong to say tliat the glory of God consists in the sub- mission of all creatures to his law, and that the glory of all reasonable creatures consists in absolute sul)mis- sion to God. If we arc to recognise the glory of God as one of his rights, as ono of his regal prerogatives, it
takes eo ipso the form of a duty, which becomes oblig. atory for us. The heavens declare the glory of God, but they only declare it to reasonable beings, for the glory of God is onh' realized when its revelation is understood by moral beings, willingly received by them, and independent!}' reflected. " The Lord hath made all things for himsef (Prov. xvi, 4). Not that he made "all things" for his own use, to supply his own wants, or to increase his own essential happiness, but that lie made all in accordance with the require- ments of his divine perfections, and so as better to manifest his glory. When the adversaries of Chris- tianit}' reproacli it with making God like unto man, supposing him vain, thirsting for praise and incense, the}' fall themselves into the very error which they denounce. Thej^ say: " If man seeks for glory, it is because ho needs it; because he is weak; hence, if God seeks his own glory, it is also from need and weak- ness." This is pure sophistry : man is weak and poor because finite ; God is self-sufficient because essential- ly happy and perfect ; and it is on account of this very perfection that he acts for his glory, because he could not have any higher or more worth}' aim.
" But," it is said, "to speak of ' glory' accruing from man to God is as if a nest of ants should, imagine them- selves working for the glory of some great king." This comparison is absurd. God did not need to create man, to give him laws, to promise him rewards and punishments, yet he has done so. No king could do this towards insects. It was not unworthy of God to create reasonable beings, neither is it any less worthy of him to take care of his creatures, to take an interest in their actions ; the one is no more difficult for him than the other; it is all done by a simple act of his will. Philosophers may do their utmost to degrade man under pretence of rendering him independent, but there is implanted in man a feeling stronger than all their sophisms which assures him that he is the child of God, and that the grandeur of the supreme Being does not consist in a sort of philosophical pride and ab- solute indifference, but in the power and will to do good to all his creatures. It is one of God's great gifts to man that the creature finds his highest happi- ness, both for this world and the next, in working for the "glory" of his Maker. St. Paul says, 1 Cor. x, 31, "Whetlier, therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatso- ever yc do, do all for the glory of God." In this pas- sage (compared with 1 Pet. iv, 11) we find the broad ethical law laid down, viz. all our actions should tend to the greater glory of God, which is done when every action does not merely conform to his commandment, but is really inspired by God the Holy Ghost. Chry- sostom, in his New- Year sermon at Antioch (A.D. 387, on 1 Cor. X, 31), by a scries of isolated examples, shows that the most insignificant things can be made to glo- rify God. This ethical doctrine has been distorted by the Roman Catholic Church, which substantially puts the glory of the Church in place of the glory of God. — President Edwards, Works (N. Y. 4 vols.), ii, 204 sq. ; Furindon, Sermons, ii, 502 ; Bcveridge, ]Vo7-ks, v, 349 ; Tillotson, Sermons, xi, 29; Sharp (Abp.), Works, in,. 211; Dwight, Theology, i, 393; Bergier, Bictionnaire de Theologic, iii, 138 ; Herzog, Rcal-Encyll. iii, 707 sq.
Glory, Aureole, or Nimbus, are names ajiplied to rays, circles, or bodies of light placed around the heads (or the entire bodies) of Christ, angels, and saints in Christian art. The glory was first used in Egyp- tian art. From this it passed to the Grecian, and es- pecially to the Roman. In both of these branches of classic'art, it was used in both sculpture and painting to adorn the heads of deities, kings, and apotheosized emperors. In classic art tlie glory Avas mostly com- posed of gilded rays. (The disc used to protect the iieads of statues from rain has been improperly consid- ered by some to be the original, from which the glory of Christian art was copied.) In Christian art the glo- ry was first used, as far as we know, in the glasses or