The progressive revelation of God to man, as found in the Holy Scriptures, has its origin and development in the use of the Divine Names, through which God has communicated in varying degrees, something of the unsearchable mystery which surrounds His being. Two of these names, Elohim and Jehovah or Jahweh [Yahweh], when taken in their Old Testament unity, declare the being of God as absolute and necessary. There are many other names applied to Deity, but these two are supreme and run throughout the entire older period of revelation. Another name, El Shaddai, a combination of El and Shaddai; and Adonai, especially when used in the plural with Elohim and Jehovah, are of sufficient importance to demand special attention. All of these names are continued in the New Testament, and find their culmination in the revelation of God in Him, whose name is above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come (Eph. 1:21).

It is a significant fact, that while theology has not given to the Divine Names the important place they deserve in the historical unfolding of the idea of God, rationalistic thought has built upon them the "documentary hypothesis," which has occupied so prominent a place in the so-called "Higher Criticism." The beginnings of the rationalistic movement are to be found in Eichorn (1781-1854) and his study of the "fragments of Reimarus." He attempted to apply the principles of the so-called historical school to ecclesiastical law, and in the preface to his Introduction to the Old Testament uses the term "Higher Criticism" to distinguish his position from that of the older theology. In the formulation

In the development of the Higher Criticism, both Eichorn and DeWette accepted the theory of Astruc. DeWette (1780-1849) developed the theory further by asserting that the Book of Deuteronomy was not written by the author of the first four books of the Pentateuch; and his Introduction to the Old Testament published in 1806 marks one of the epochs in the development of rationalistic criticism. Strauss (1806-1874), Bauer (1792-1860) and the Tübingen School directed their attacks against the New Testament. Vatke published a book in 1836, in which he applied the principles of Hegelian philosophy to the Scriptures. Graf in 1866, advanced the theory that the body of laws found in the middle books of the Pentateuch was a late production, manufactured and placed in its present position after the Babylonian exile. This is commonly known as "the Graffian [Graf-Wellhausen or Documentary] Hypothesis," and was accepted by Kuenen who published The Religion of Israel in 1869-1870, a further step in destructive criticism. It remained, however, for

Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), by his popular gifts and intellectual acuteness, to secure for this position its wide acceptance in modern theological thought. We have given this brief account of the Higher Criticism, which in its radical and destructive form has so blighted the faith of the Church, in order to show more clearly the distinction between the development of rationalism in its concept of God and His Word, and God's own revelation of Himself through the Divine Names. When it is recalled that the historical perspective underlies the modern critical developments, new significance must be attached to God's appointed means for revealing Himself to His creatures.

Elohim. The first name of God given to us in the Scriptures, and one which pervades all the earlier writings is that of Elohim. The derivation of the Word is uncertain, but it may be traced to the simple root word meaning power, or to the singular form which signifies the effect of power. In Genesis 31:29 Laban says, It is in the power [El] of my hand to do you hurt. Moses in predicting the judgments which should come upon Israel if they disobeyed God said, Thy sons and daughters shall be given to another people . . . . and there shall be no might [El] in thy hand (Deut. 28:32). The word El is translated "God" in about two hundred-twenty-five places in the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, and in every case assumes the power of God used in behalf of His people. It signifies, therefore, that God is the possessor of every form of power. The word is generally used in the plural form in order to express the fullness and glory of the divine powers, and the majesty of Him in whom these powers inhere; but since the name is used with a singular verb, it maintains the monotheistic position without interpreting this in such a rigid manner as to preclude the later Trinitarian conception

of God. The name Elohim indicates the primary revelation of God as power, through the forces of nature and the constitution of man. As such it is a generic term, which may be and is applied in the Scriptures to the gods of paganism. There is in it also, the basis of the trinal energy as further developed in the revelation of His activity. In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.... and the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters. And Elohim said, Let there be light. Here there are three distinct movements predicated of God, Elohim, the Spirit of

Elohim; and the Word which appears in the formula, Elohim said. All are alike active in creation, and mark with some degree of distinctness the beginnings of that which is to become the triune conception of the Godhead, as revealed through Christ. The distinctions have not come into clear view, but the faint streaks of the dawn are discernible, and later unfoldings of the divine revelation make it possible to read into these terms the fullness of the Godhead.

Jehovah or Yahweh. The second name in the unfolding revelation of God is Jehovah or Yahweh, and lifts the concept of God from the mere plane of power to that of personal relationships. Elohim is a generic term; Jehovah is a proper noun-name. It was interpreted by God himself to His servant Moses as I AM, or I AM THAT I AM, expressions which may be equally well rendered as HE WHO IS, or HE WHO IS WHAT HE IS. The name unites in a single concept, what to man is the past, present and future, and as such denotes Absolute Being conjoined with the process of continual becoming, through the historical revelation of Himself to His people. The name may be further interpreted as He shall cause to be, and signifies the personal faithfulness of Jehovah to His people. It thus reveals the spirituality of God's purpose for men, and the increased importance which attaches to individual and personal relationships. It brings into clearer light the transcendence of God, and lifts Him above the forces of nature out of which the ethnic religions develop. It brings God to

the plane of spiritual relationships, made known only through supernatural revelation.

The emphasis upon the historical process of revelation, as found in the name of Jehovah, finds its warrant in both the Scriptures and the history of the human race especially in its relation to the Messianic promise. There can be no true conception of the relation of the Old Testament to the New, of the mission of Moses and of Christ, or of the relation between the written Word and the Personal Word, without a recognition of the divine method of a progressive revelation unfolding in the processes of history. Only from the genetic viewpoint will the revelation of God given at sundry times and in divers manners be found to form parts of a well-articulated whole. There is a false position oftentimes assumed, in regard to the relation existing between the Scriptures as the Word of God, and Christ as the Personal Word. The written Word is given a false autonomy by a failure to view it as a spiritual utterance. It thus becomes the letter which kills, rather than the spirit which gives life. This is the source of much which is little short of Bible worship, as over against the spiritual knowledge of Christ. The Bible is thus made the end instead of the means, the object of reverence in itself instead of the reverence which grows out of its use as a means of revealing the Personal Word. So also, this method of interpretation fails to discern the generic difference between Moses and Christ, and therefore to recognize the difference between the preliminary and the final revelation. Assuming that the Old and New Testaments move on the same plane of revelation, theologians have been tempted to set the one over against the other. When Christ said, the law saith, but I say unto you, He was not disparaging, much less contradicting the truths of the Old Testament, but He did admit that they contained but the lower stages of the divine revelation, and that they were to be carried to their perfection through a fuller and more perfect revelation. To fail to recognize the genetic processes of history, is to fail to see the Old and New Testaments in their relation to each other, or

to understand the relation existing between the written and the Personal Word.

The Abrahamic Covenant introduced a new idea in the historical process of revelation, a truer and more satisfying fellowship between God and man, because effected by supernatural spiritual forces. Its inception is found in the protevangelium, spoken by God to man at the gates of Paradise, the initial promise of personal redemption. The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. This could come into the clearer light of the Abrahamic Covenant only through the name of Jehovah. Elohim signified the intuitive revelation of God through the forces of nature and the constitution of man, and reaches its height in what may be termed a knowledge about God. It is something short of personal fellowship. It signifies the immanence of God out of which pantheism grows, and which gives rise to the ethnic religions. But it is only through Jehovah or the revelation of God as a Person, that knowledge can deepen into fellowship and ethical relationships be established. This higher knowledge and fellowship initiated by the Abrahamic Covenant, takes the form of a promise in which Jehovah becomes the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and their seed after them from generation to generation. This covenant, however, is something more than a mere compact between two parties on the basis of certain stipulated agreements; it is rather of the nature of an institution, and Abraham with his posterity become mutually members. It differs from natural intuition in that it is a supernatural revelation, as the etymology of the word covenant would seem to indicate, con, with, and venire, to come, a divine advent, a special coming of Jehovah to His people. It differs also from the more external teaching about God, in that it is a spiritual bestowment, a personal fellowship which necessitates the knowledge of God in individual experience. It emphasizes further the transcendence of God and man, and insofar constitutes the covenant an ethical and spiritual institution, a household of faith.

El Shaddai. While the two supreme names applied to God in the Old Testament are Elohim and Jehovah, there are many variations and combinations of these, one of the more important being El Shaddai or God Almighty. Other names similar to this are the Living God (Job 5:17) the Most High (Gen. 14:18), the Lord, or the Lord God of Hosts (Jer. 5:14). The literal meaning of the word Shaddai is "breasted" from the Hebrew noun Shad or "breast." It is so translated in the following Scriptures (Job 3:12, Psalm 22:9, Cant. 1:18, 4:5, 7:3, 7, 8, Isaiah 28:9). The word Shaddai is generally derived from terms meaning "powerful," or "mighty." El Shaddai is frequently found as a name for God in the patriarchal accounts and in Job. The passages in which it occurs are seen specially to reveal God as the Bountiful Giver. Parkhurst in his Lexicon defines the name Shaddai as "one of the divine titles, meaning the power or Shedder-forth, that is of blessings temporal and spiritual." It is also defined as "Nourisher" or "Strength-giver," or in a secondary sense, the Satisfier who pours Himself into believing lives. God therefore becomes the spiritual Nourisher or Satisfier of His people. It was first spoken to Abraham (Gen. 17:1), and is the figure which God has chosen to express the nature of His Almightiness-not of force or power, but that of never-failing love which freely gives itself for those whom He has redeemed. In the process of revelation, this aspect of God comes to its final expression in the Spirit of love-the Comforter, who is the promise of the Father and the gift of the risen and exalted Christ.

Adonai. The name Adonai is in the plural form and when applied to God is used as a pluralis excellentiae to express possession and sovereign dominion. It means

Lord or Master and is translated in the Greek KurioV, a term very frequently applied to Christ. The word Adonai is frequently conjoined with the two original names Elohim and Jehovah, since it denotes His dominion and lordship in a way which the word Jehovah does not. The word Jehovah is from the Hebrew word to be, and denotes self-existence and unchangeableness. Since it was regarded as the incommunicable name of God, the Jews held it in such superstitious reverence that they refused to pronounce it, always substituting in their reading the word Adonai or Lord. Adonai is used with Elohim in the Psalms and is found in such expressions as "my God and my Lord" (Psalm 35:23) and "O Lord my God" (Psalm 38:15). The testimony of Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) represents the combined use of the terms in the New Testament.

Elohim-Jehovah. The words Elohim and Jehovah are frequently united in the Scriptures, and when so used express both the generic idea and the personal nature of God. As united, these names are a protest against Polytheism on the one hand, and Pantheism on the other. Each denotes the soleness, the necessity and the infinity of the Divine Being, and each is connected with man and the creature in a manner which demands the most definite personality. Furthermore, there is contained in the divine names a revelation of the God of

creation, and a revelation of the God of redemption; and when the name El Shaddai is used, there is given also the nature of the relation of God to His redeemed people. In these names, therefore, is veiled the fuller revelation of the Triune name, which found expression in God as the Father, Jesus Christ the Son as the incarnate Word, and the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete or Comforter. It is significant that all the Greek representatives of the four Hebrew names, Elohim, Jehovah, Shaddai and Adonai are grouped together in our Lord's introduction of Himself to the churches in His risen and exalted state. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (Rev. 1:8).

In addition to the names of God which express His essence or essential nature, such as those above mentioned, there are also names which are used in an attributive and relative sense. Attributive names are those which express some attribute of God, such as the "Omnipotent," or the "Eternal." Relative terms are drawn from the relations which God bears to men, such as the "Kings of kings" or "Lord of lords." Our Lord in the prayer which He taught His disciples uses the term "Name" in a comprehensive sense to express all that God is to men-the prayer Hallowed be thy name meaning the hallowing or making holy of all that belongs to God in His relations with men. St. John especially, uses attributive names such as God is light and God is love (I John 1:5; 4:16), which combine the nature of God with His attributes, and form a natural transition to our study of the Divine Essence and Perfections.

God's revelation of Himself as declared in His Essential Names, gives us a conception of His being and nature. Some of these names refer especially to the Eternal Essence, some to the Divine Existence, and some to God as Substance clothed with attributes. But it must be remembered that there are other methods, also, by which God has presented Himself to the thought of His creatures,

and to these we must now give attention. Of God the Scriptures predicate, First, that He is Spirit (John 4:24); Second, that He iaeJaeIJohn1:5; and Third, that He is love (I John 4:8). These predicates may not be called definitions in the strict use of that term, but they are presentations of certain fundamental aspects of God.

God is Spirit (Pneuma o QeoV, not a Spirit-John 4:24) and this indicates a self-moving, efficient, animating principle. It embraces the unity and life-motion of the creative activity, and is referred to as vita absoluta, i.e., underived, eternal life (John 5:26, 11:25, I John 5:20). It includes, therefore, both the idea of substantiality and of personality.

God is Light (FwV, the self-manifesting and intuitional principle-I John 1:5). According to the Logos theory, this is the Eternal Reason, in which Spirit becomes objective to itself, and God is revealed to Himself (John 1:1, I Tim. 6:16, Heb. 1:3).

God is Love (o QeoV agaph estin, I John 4:8; o QeoV agaph estin, 4:16). This refers to the self-completing, self-sufficing and self-satisfying principle, the to teloV or Perfect One referred to in Matthew's Gospel (Matt. 5:48).

Spirit, Reason, Love are thus the simplest and most fundamental elements in the Christian conception of God. And as in the human consciousness of the indivisible Ego, is the unity and coherence of reason, feeling and power, is the exact arresting point of psychological science, beyond which it is impossible to go; so also in the Absolute Being, the identity of Reason, Power and Love is the arresting point of theological science, beyond which nothing can be known.

It is evident, therefore, that God can be known only through His self-revelation, after the same manner that man may either reveal himself or hide his inmost thoughts and feelings within himself. But he has power to reveal himself to others, and this power lies in the fact that there is a common principle of intelligence in man, a reason with both intuitive and discursive powers. But we must not stop here. This intelligent principle of reason and order in man is also in the created universe, through which man is afforded a medium of communication-

that of the bodily nexus-by which man understands and knows the world, and by means of which he understands and communicates with others. This principle must be carried into the divine nature itself, to the Eternal Logos or the Word through whom God not only created all things, but through whom also He constituted man a personal and intelligent being. It is for this reason, that John in his marvelous Prologue relates the Incarnate Christ to the Eternal Word of God. He first declares the deity of the Word in its eternal aspects-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). He then relates Christ to the Creative Word-All things were made by' him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3); and follows immediately with the statement, In him was life; and the life was the light of men (John 1:4). Here then it is evident that as the human Ego is related to both nature and man; the Divine Logos is related to both Creation and human personality. Both nature and man in some sense partake of the Logos, nature receiving its substantiality and order; man his personal consciousness. Thus there is established between man and God a means of communication as evident as that between man and man. It is evident, also, why the Apostle John felt it necessary not only to identify the Incarnate Christ with the Divine and Eternal Order, but to link Him likewise with creation as its principle of substantiality and order, and with man as his inner light and life. Christ therefore became the revealing power of God, and incarnate by the Holy Ghost in His infinite efficiency, became also the enabling power of redemption.

The doctrine of God is commonly treated under the three main divisions of Being, Attributes and Trinity. Before taking up the immediate study of this subject, however, it will be necessary to give some consideration to the technical terms which will be used in the discussion, such as Substance and Essence, Attribute and Predicate, Subsistence and Hypostasis.

Substance and Essence. While the changed viewpoint of modern thought has rendered obsolete many of the positions worked out with such minuteness of detail by the schoolmen, their distinctions as to substance, essence, attribute and relation are not without value in a discussion of the essential nature of God; nor could the development of the trinitarian doctrine be understood without careful attention to such terms as person, hypostasis, property and subsistence. If for no other reason we may allow a pedagogical value to the discussion of these terms, which must be taken into account in any historical approach to these great doctrines. There is scriptural justification, also, for the application of the term substance to God, as found in the name which He applies to Himself-the I AM (Exodus 3:14), or HE WHO IS as applied to Him in the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:4). God is spoken of further as having a nature (Gal. 4:8,11 Peter 1:4), and Godhead is attributed to Him (Rom. 1:20, Col. 2:9). The Scriptures teach that God as the infinite and eternal Spirit has real and substantial existence, and is not a mere idea of the intellect. They assert that He has objective existence apart from man, and is not the result of a subjectivising tendency which would make God the creature of human experience, deny the existence of the self as an entity, and reduce theology to a mere branch of functional psychology.

The term essence is derived from esse, to be, and denotes energetic being. Substance is from substare, and signifies latent potentiality of being. The term essence when used of God denotes the sum total of His perfections; while the term substance refers to the underlying ground of His infinite activities. The first is active in form, the second passive; the one conveys the idea of spirituality, the other may be applied to material things. We do not speak of material essence but of material substance. In addition to these two terms the Latins used another, subsistence, in their discussions of the Trinity-a term which is the equivalent of hypostasis or person. This term more precisely denotes a distinction

Essence and Attribute. The relation of substance or essence to attribute, has been the ground of much discussion in both philosophy and theology. Does substance underlie attributes, or are attributes simply the unfolding of the essence-that is, are the two things different or identical? This is merely a theological statement of the philosophical problem of noumena and phenomena, appearance and reality. It is evident, therefore, that the manner in which the term attribute is defined, determines largely the manner in which it is used in its application to the doctrine of God. Dickie defines the attributes as those "qualities which belong to and constitute the Divine Essence or Nature." Cocker states that in every conception of an attribute, the Divine Essence is, in some mode or other, supposed. He therefore defines attribute as "a conception of the unconditioned Being under some relation to our consciousness." Shedd regards the attributes as "modes either of the relation, or of the operation of the Divine essence" which is entirely in harmony with his Platonic realism as unfolded in his Augustinian-Edwardean idea of God as the Absolute Being. At the other extreme is the definition of H. B. Smith who holds that an attribute is "any conception which is necessary to the explicit idea of God, any distinctive conception which cannot be resolved into any other." This definition is accepted by both William Adams Brown, and Albert C. Knudson. Similar to this is the position of Olin A. Curtis whose definition of an attribute is "any characteristic which we must ascribe to God to express what He really is."

Attribute and Predicate. It is necessary that a careful distinction be made between attributes and predicates.

In the application of philosophical terms to the idea of God, it is evident that He must be thought of by us as under the categories of Being, Attribute and Relation. Without these fundamental categories we cannot think at all. Dr. Cocker has pointed out, we think very truly, that we cannot think of God as the unconditioned Being, conditioning Himself, without conceiving of Him as Reality, Efficiency and Personality. These constitute the conception of the Divine Essence whereby it is what it is.

When we think of the attributes of such a Being, we must think of them as Absolute, Infinite and Perfect. And when we think of the relations of God to finite existence and finite consciousness, we regard Him as Ground, Cause and Reason of all dependent being. He combines these into one categorical scheme of thought and gives us this outline.

Thus in Absolute Reality we have the ultimate Ground; in the Infinite Efficiency we have the adequate cause; and in the Perfect Personality we have the sufficient reason or final cause of all existence (COCKER, Theistic Conception of the World, pp. 41ff.) In our discussion of God we shall then, consider Him in His threefold relation to the created universe as its Ground, its Cause and its End. This gives us a logical classification for our material and we shall, therefore, treat the subject under discussion as Absolute Reality, Infinite Efficiency and Perfect Personality.