semblance, not only in the passage now cited, but also in another place, by stating the subject to have been, not the form, but "in the form of God" (Phil. ii. 6); as man was originally created (Gen. i. 27); which passages being compared would afford a very strong presumption in favour of the essential likeness. But what may have been considered as likeness or resemblance in this respect is rather unity or participation: and the case may be easily reconciled by understanding the subject, in the form of God, to be what he was to those who saw him,-not what he was to God before an eye had been formed for the purpose; being to them the image of an image which was the Image of God; as writing may be the image of a character, which shall be, without one vital property, the image of a saint. For, as St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that they are his epistle written in his heart, &c. (Cor. II. iii. 2), so it may be said of the Incarnate Word, that he was God's epistle to mankind,—a message of God to them, "written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (Ib. 3). He is a Visible Image of the Invisible God-in character, an image drawn in human essentials and divine characteristics; having succeeded or replaced the glory in the temple, or the cloud covering the throne. He is our Shechinah; the seat of the divine Presence upon earth first, and now in Heaven at the right hand of the Father; the immediate object of all the worship that is offered from this sublunary state ultimately to God Most High.

It may be seen, therefore, how this Image comes to be a Mediator between God and man, which is in the way of apprehension; the said Image being, as a character to one and a notion to the other, identified with both. And so our notion will, if correct, be to this divine Image or Character, and through that to the Great Original, in the same relation as the law to the gospel; "having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the

things" (Heb. x. 1.). For it has been already observed * in the course of this discussion, (may it have the effect of bringing words a little nearer to notions, and notions to things, than usual in some respects!) that our notion of a subject is one thing, and its natural character, image, or presence, another: and so we find in this case with respect to the natural Image of God. Christ is this Image, obvious at all times and to all persons by the medium or communion of the Holy Ghost: but still Christ, the Image of God, will be one thing, our notion of God by Christ another; being a rare deity for some, and not overlike for any, though the truest that its subjects have been, or may be, able perhaps to conceive of God. And so far the Father may be seen mediately, though "no man hath seen God immediately at any time" (John i. 18); and “he who hath seen the Son hath seen the Father" (Ib. xiv. 9): that is, not directly in Himself, but mediately by his Son, and in the manner aforesaid. And this is the same as may be said of his glorious creature, the sun, on the occasion of a man standing with his back to the same (as many have turned their back unto God and not their face, Jer. ii. 27) and viewing its image or reflexion in the silvery lake. For here a man is said to view the sun, when he only views its image and with the same propriety of speech a man may be said to see the Father, when he sees his Image as Philip saw Him. But what Philip drew from this sight was only a notion, Philip's notion; and not the Father's image. So no object can have more than one image for all, though reflected a thousand times and in a thousand different lights: and though all men should have different notions of it, yet the Image of God will be but one to all, like the sun; and he must be one to all who are subjects of the Holy Ghost.

Hence, too, any efficacy that we may attribute to the notion of God, or a sense of religion, is attributable in like

*Vol. I., p. 183.

manner, and rather more directly to this Image, or to our notion of the same. As for other images, the prophet may very well ask concerning them, "What profiteth the graven image?" (Hab. ii. 18) which is a teacher of lies. But this is an Image that can profit, being a teacher of truth. The influence of an image or personal conception, on our behaviour may be very great, and very perceptible by chance, if its manner be not. We know, that the presence of a worthy man, or only of his image or likeness, or, what is more, only the thought or recollection of his presence when absent, and on his way perhaps to a better place, may be at once both for a check to bad habits and an incentive to good; witness the effect of such presences, images, and recollections in the old Roman republic; which presences and the like, however, had all of them some alloy of human frailty or evil custom. But if the image of a faulty original could produce such an effect, how much more that Medium of wisdom and virtue, that Image of God himself, as faultless as omnipotent, which we adore in Jesus Christ! "whom not having seen we love!" (Pet. I. i. 8.) For it acts like lightning; "piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow" (Heb. iv. 12): not injuring its favoured objects however; but converting them and bringing them to God instantaneously from any distance, and forming our habit by the Spirit which it begets or infuses: while another image or likeness shall creep into our affections perhaps on sight only, and perhaps by degrees, operating chiefly through the effect of habit. Such being therefore the efficacy of this genuine Image of God upon earth, is it much to attribute to his prospective wisdom the purpose of keeping a way clear for its reception by his Word from Mount Sinai, prohibiting the use of graven images for ever? (Exod. xx. 4.) Ever blessed be the same for keeping such vanities out of our way, and favouring us with an Image of his own production to worship!

-9, Another epithet parallel with the last mentioned,

but more expressive of its object, is found therefore in the Word these two expressions, namely Word and Image, being so far synonymous as they equally relate to one Object: yet there is some difference between them; the new term denoting more and also a more intimate resemblance of the Subject to his Father or Archetype than Image, the last mentioned; especially in the original tongue, as Logos. For "the Word," which stands in English for 20yos, will not literally express half its meaning; since the word of a person literally taken has only a direct allusion, as descriptive of some foreign matter; but xoyos has an inverse meaning likewise, as descriptive of the subject or speaker. And therefore, to express the twofold meaning of λoyos, we must employ two correlatives, namely Mode and Mandate; that to represent the inverse meaning, and this the direct; that the Mode or Ratio of the Deity, and this his will or conception; that his own indescribable Image, and this his image or description of other objects as well; the same being made thereby. FOR OBJECTS ARE NOT DESCRIBED TO HIS CONCEPTION, AS TO OURS; BUT BY IT.

Of these two meanings, or Types, if we may so call them, of the divine Word, namely Mode and Mandate, the former is intimated by St. John, where he says, "In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God; and the Word was God" (John i. 1); the latter by St. Peter, where he says, " By the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth," &c. (Pet. II. iii. 5); and they will stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect on the divine Word going forth any how,-that is to say, by Spirit, birth or incarnation; by assimilation, creation, or any other sort of effect or production; also by mandate, instruction, information, prohibition, or any other sort of revelation, whether by signs, or by sounds, by visions, dreams, or any other conceivable medium. And as the first of these types, here called Mode, is an object to the second, generally called Mandate, so will this likewise

become in turn an object to certain perceptions, namely, to those for which it is intended-with consequent acceptance and obedience, veneration, worship, contemplation, revision, description, and the like: to which same perceptions however, the original Word or Mode will be no accessible object; "dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto" (Tim. I. vi. 16), and being only perceptible by the medium just mentioned.

For, as the apostle writes, and as the Psalmist wrote before, speaking of the knowledge of God, "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. i. 20). "Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks: yea, unto thee do we give thanks. Thy Name also is so nigh: and That do thy wondrous works declare" (Ps. lxxv. 1, 2): meaning that the Presence of God is everywhere; being shown by its proper vestiges or effects, and particularly named thereafter.

So the Name of God itself is but another name for the Word: and the Word is the intellectual Presence of God, or God present in intellect; the manner, form, or mode of the same being regulated or governed by its object, that to which it appears; as first, God with God before all worlds, then God with angels and men, perceptible in the world as long as the world was worthy and capable of such a perception; thereafter in the world imperceptibly, except to the unfallen angels, and to restored or regenerate men; but in or with Christ always identically, first in his eternal beginning before all worlds, then in his divine person and sacred Mystery or dispensation--both growing on together, namely his person by assimilation and Mystery by diffusion, through time, and eternally after, towards perfection.

For in him, that is in Christ, we have the mind of God, who is all mind; as in his apostles "we have the mind of Christ" (Cor. I. ii. 16). "And the Father loveth the