Chapter VIII: Part 8

“The most ancient tradition among all nations, is exactly agreeable to
the relation of _Moses_. For his description of the original of the
world is almost the very same as in the ancient _Phœnician_ histories,
which are translated by _Philo Biblius_ from _Sanchoniathon’s_
Collection; and a good part of it is to be found among the _Indians_
and _Egyptians_; whence it is that in _Linus_, _Hesiod_, and many
other _Greek_ writers, mention is made of a _Chaos_, (signified by
some under the name of an Egg) and of the framing of animals, and also
of man’s formation after the divine image, and the dominion given him
over all living creatures; which are to be seen in many writers,
particularly in _Ovid_, who transcribed them from the _Greek_. That
all things were made by the Word of God, is asserted by _Epicharmus_,
and the _Platonists_; and before them, by the most ancient writer (I
do not mean of those Hymns which go under his name, but) of those
Verses which were of old called _Orpheus’s_; not because _Orpheus_
composed them, but because they contained his doctrines. And
_Empedocles_ acknowledged, that the sun was not the original light,
but the receptacle of light, (the storehouse and vehicle of fire, as
the ancient Christians express it.) _Aratus_, and _Catullus_, thought
the divine residence was above the starry orb; in which _Homer_ says,
there is a continual light. _Thales_ taught from the ancient schools,
that God was the oldest of beings, because not begotten; that the
world was most beautiful, because the workmanship of God; that
darkness was before light, which latter we find in _Orpheus’s_ Verses,
and _Hesiod_, whence it was, that the nations, who were most tenacious
of ancient customs, reckoned the time by nights. _Anaxagoras_
affirmed, that all things were regulated by the supreme mind:
_Aratus_, that the stars were made by God; _Virgil_, from the
_Greeks_, that Life was infused into things by the Spirit of God;
_Hesiod_, _Homer_, and _Callimachus_, that man was formed of clay;
lastly, _Maximus Tyrius_ asserts, that it was a constant tradition
received by all nations, that there was one supreme God, the cause of
all things. And we learn from _Josephus_, _Philo_, _Tibullus_,
_Clemens Alexandrinus_, and _Lucian_, (for I need not mention the
_Hebrews_) that the memory of the seven days’ work was preserved, not
only among the _Greeks_ and _Italians_, by honouring the seventh day;
but also amongst the _Celtæ_ and _Indians_, who all measured the time
by weeks; as we learn from _Philostratus_, _Dion Cassius_, and _Justin
Martyr_, and also the most ancient names of the day. The _Egyptians_
tell us, that at first men led their lives in great simplicity, their
bodies being naked, whence arose the poet’s fiction of the Golden Age,
famous among the _Indians_, as _Strabo_ remarks, _Maimonides_ takes
notice, that the history of _Adam_, of _Eve_, of the tree, and of the
serpent, was extant among the idolatrous _Indians_ in his time: and
there are many witnesses in our age, who testify that the same is
still to be found amongst the _heathen_ dwelling in _Peru_, and the
_Philippine_ islands, people belonging to the same _India_; the name
of _Adam_ amongst the _Brachmans_; and that it was reckoned six
thousand years since the creation of the world, by those of _Siam_.
_Berosus_ in his history of _Chaldea_, _Manethos_ in his of _Egypt_,
_Hierom_ in his of _Phœnicia_, _Histæus_, _Hecatæus_, _Hillanicus_ in
theirs of _Greece_, and _Hesiod_ among the Poets; all assert that the
lives of those who descended from the first men, were almost a
thousand years in length; which is the less incredible, because the
historians of many nations (particularly _Pausanias_ and
_Philostratus_ amongst the _Greeks_, and _Pliny_ amongst the _Romans_)
relate, that men’s bodies, upon opening their sepulchres, were found
to be much larger in old time. And _Catullus_, after many of the
_Greeks_, relates, that divine visions were made to men before their
great and manifold crimes did, as it were, hinder God, and those
Spirits that attend him, from holding any correspondence with men. We
almost every where, in the _Greek_ and _Latin_ historians, meet with
the savage life of the Giants, mentioned by _Moses_. And it is very
remarkable concerning the deluge, that the memory of almost all
nations ends in the history of it, even those nations which were
unknown till our forefathers discovered them: so that _Varro_ calls
all _that_ the unknown time. And all those things which we read in the
poets, wrapped up in fables (a Liberty they allow themselves) are
delivered by the ancient writers according to truth and reality; that
is, agreeable to _Moses_; as you may see in _Berosus’s_ History of
_Chaldea_, _Abydenus’s_ of _Assyria_, who mentions the dove that was
sent out of the ark; and in _Plutarch_ from the _Greeks_; and in
_Lucian_, who says, that in _Hierapolis_ of _Syria_, there was
remaining a most ancient history of the ark, and of the preserving a
few not only of mankind, but also of other living creatures. The same
history was extant also in _Molo_ and in _Nicolaus Damascenus_; which
latter names the ark, which we also find in the history of _Deucalion_
in _Apollodorus_; and many _Spaniards_ affirm, that in several parts
of _America_, as _Cuba_, _Mechoacana_, _Nicaraga_, is preserved the
memory of the deluge, the saving alive of animals, especially the
raven and dove; and the deluge itself in that part called _Golden
Castile_. That remark of _Pliny’s_, that _Joppa_ was built before the
Flood, discovers what part of the earth men inhabited before the
Flood. The place where the ark rested after the deluge on the
_Gordyæan_ mountains, is evident from the constant tradition of the
_Armenians_ from all past ages, down to this very day. _Japhet_, the
father of the _Europeans_, and from him _Jon_, or, as they formerly
pronounced it, _Javon_ of the _Greeks_, and _Hammon_ of the
_Africans_, are names to be seen in _Moses_, and _Josephus_ and others
observe the like footsteps in the names of other places and nations.
And which of the poets is it, in which we do not find mention made of
the attempt to climb the heavens? _Diodoris Siculus_, _Strabo_,
_Tacitus_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, speak of the burning of _Sodom_.
_Herodotus_, _Diodorus_, _Strabo_, _Philo Biblius_, testify the
ancient custom of Circumcision, which is confirmed by those nations
descended from _Abraham_, not only _Hebrews_, but also _Idumæans_,
_Ismaelites_, and others. The history of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _Jacob_,
and _Joseph_, agreeable with _Moses_, was extant of old in _Philo
Biblius_ out of _Sanchoniathon_, in _Berosus_, _Hecatæus_,
_Damascenus_, _Artapanus_, _Eupolemus_, _Demetrius_, and partly in the
ancient writers of the Orphic Verses; and something of it is still
extant in _Justin_, out of _Trogus Pompeius_. By almost all which, is
related also the history of _Moses_, and his principal acts. The
Orphic Verses expressly mention his being taken out of the water, and
the two tables that were given him by God. To these we may add
_Polemon_; and several things about his coming out of _Egypt_, from
the _Egyptian_ writers, _Menetho_, _Lysimachus_, _Chæremon_. Neither
can any prudent man think it at all credible, that _Moses_, who had so
many enemies, not only of the _Egyptians_, but also of many other
nations, as the _Idumæans_, _Arabians_, and _Phœnicians_, would
venture to relate any thing concerning the creation of the world, or
the original of things, which could be confuted by more ancient
writings, or was contradictory to the ancient and received opinions:
or that he would relate any thing of matters in his own time, that
could be confuted by the testimony of many persons then alive,
_Diodorus Siculus_, _Strabo_, and _Pliny_, _Tacitus_, and after them
_Dionysius Longinus_ (concerning loftiness of Speech) make mention of
_Moses_. Besides the _Talmudists_, _Pliny_ and _Apuleius_, speak of
_Jamnes_ and _Mambres_, who resisted _Moses_ in _Egypt_. Some things
there are in other writings, and many things amongst the
_Pythagoreans_, about the Law and Rites given by _Moses_, _Strabo_ and
_Justin_, out of _Trogus_, remarkably testify concerning the religion
and righteousness of the ancient _Jews_; so that there seems to be no
need of mentioning what is found, or has formerly been found of
_Joshua_ and others, agreeable to the _Hebrew_ books; seeing, that
whoever gives credit to _Moses_ (which it is a shame for any one to
refuse) cannot but believe those famous miracles done by the hand of
God; which is the principal thing here aimed at. Now that the miracles
of late date, such as those of _Elija_, _Elisha_, and others, should
not be counterfeit, there is this further argument; that in those
times _Judæa_ was become more known, and because of the difference of
religion was hated by the neighbours, who could very easily confute
the first rise of a lie. The history of _Jonah’s_ being three days in
the whale’s belly is in _Lycophron_ and _Æneus Gazeus_, only under the
name of _Herculus_; to advance whose fame, every thing that was great
and noble used to be related of him, as _Tacitus_ observes. Certainly
nothing but the manifest evidence of the history could compel _Julian_
(who was as great an enemy to the _Jews_ as to the Christians) to
confess that there were some men inspired by the divine Spirit amongst
the _Jews_, and that fire descended from heaven, and consumed the
sacrifices of _Moses_ and _Elias_. And here it is worthy of
observation, that there was not only very severe punishments
threatened amongst the _Hebrews_, to any who should falsely assume the
gift of prophecy, but very many kings, who by that means might have
procured great authority to themselves, and many learned men, such as
_Esdras_ and others, dared not to assume this honour to themselves;
nay, some ages before Christ’s time, nobody dared to do it. Much less
could so many thousand people be imposed upon, in avouching a constant
and public miracle, I mean that of the oracle, which shined on the
High Priest’s breast, which is so firmly believed by all the _Jews_,
to have remained till the destruction of the first temple, that their
ancestors must of necessity be well assured of the truth of it.”

GROTIUS.

Footnote 42:

Vid. Joseph Antiq.

Footnote 43:

Reason will affirm that every effect speaks a cause; then we ask how
it should happen that a dozen illiterate fishermen and mechanicks of
Galilee, after the wisdom of the philosophers had left the world in
darkness, should have introduced so much light of knowledge, that our
children and servants are wiser than the ancient philosophers? Let no
one say, that they only began, what the wisdom of after ages have
carried on towards perfection. The writings of the apostles are the
same to this day; as is proved by the earliest versions, quotations,
and manuscripts. So perfect was the system of morals they left, that
no error has been detected in it, and all attempts to build upon or
add to it, have only exposed the ignorance of the individuals who have
essayed to do so.

How has it happened that whilst learned men have ever been at discord
about the nature, and true foundation of the obligation of virtue,
these despised fishermen, have shown the true foundation and nature of
duty, and have erred in no particular? Is it not strange that whilst
the wisdom of the philosophers made their purest virtue but a more
refined pride, these poor men laid the ax to the root of that pride,
and taught the world that even their virtues brought them under
additional obligations to Divine grace? Is it not remarkable that the
system taught by these unlearned men should so perfectly coincide with
what is discovered in the works of God, that whilst it aims to
eradicate sin, it represents it as in every instance eventually
productive of the glory of that God, who brings good out of the evil,
and light out of the darkness?

How is it to be accounted for, that when the most learned rabbies
perverted the law, and knew not its meaning, that a few crude and
uninstructed fishermen should remove their false constructions of that
law, explain the types, shadows, promises and prophecies, show how the
truth and justice of God might be clear in the pardon of sin, and set
the labouring conscience at rest? How came the fishermen of Galilee to
discover to the wise and learned what they had never conjectured, and
truths, which only attentive minds at the present time can acquiesce
in, that all things are certain, because foreknown, and foreknown
because Divine knowledge must be infinite and eternal, and yet that
rational creatures may be capable of choosing and refusing, though
they must be wholly dependent? Is it not passing strange that the
wisdom of Philosophers, the learning of Rabbies, the power of Kings
and Emperors, the influence of thousands of priests, the prejudices of
the world, and the malice of the wicked should be overcome by twelve
poor fishermen? How is it to be accounted for that these twelve poor
illiterate men should have effected such surprising changes, that
modern infidels are ashamed of the evidence of their ancient
predecessors, and are obliged to borrow from the fishermen of Galilee
a portion of the knowledge they have introduced, without which the
opposers of the Gospel must fall into contempt? Is any man so
credulous as to imagine men of no better education and opportunities,
possessed of themselves all this knowledge? when or where has the
natural world produced such a phænomenon? they declared that it was
not of themselves, but, that such feeble instruments were chosen, that
the power might appear to be what it really was, from God. This
testimony they confirmed by miracles, and sealed with their blood.

Footnote 44:

Vide Dodd. Expos. 3 vol. app.—Dick on Insp.—Parry’s Enq.—Hawker, &c.

Footnote 45:

This description of the Spirit’s witness resembles sensible assurance;
that there may be such an immediate suggestion, or impression is
possible; but the Spirit’s witness is the image of God, and is of
adoption.—Vide Edwards’s works, vol. 4. p. 161.

Quest. V.

QUEST. V. _What do the scriptures principally teach?_

ANSW. The scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe
concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[46]

Having, in the foregoing answer, proved the scriptures to be the word of God, there is in this a general account of the contents thereof; there are many great doctrines contained therein, all which may be reduced to two heads, to wit, what we are to believe, and what we are to do. All religion is contained in these two things, and so we may apply the words of the apostle to this case, _Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum_, Heb. viii. 1. and accordingly, as this Catechism is deduced from scripture, it contains two parts, _viz._ what we are to believe, and in what instances we are to yield obedience to the law of God. And that the scriptures principally teach these two things, appears from the apostle’s advice to Timothy, _Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith and love_, 2 Tim. i. 13.

From the scriptures’ principally teaching us matters of faith and practice, we infer, that _faith without works is dead_; or that he is not a true Christian who yields an assent to divine revelation, without a practical subjection to God, in all ways of holy obedience, as the apostle observes, and gives a challenge, to this effect, to those who separate faith from works; _Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works_, James ii. 17, 18. and, on the other hand, works without faith are unacceptable. A blind obedience, or ignorant performance of some of the external parts of religion, without the knowledge of divine truth, is no better than what the apostle calls _bodily exercise which profiteth little_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. therefore we ought to examine ourselves, whether our faith be founded on, or truly deduced from scripture? and whether it be a practical faith, or, as the apostle says, such as _worketh by love_? Gal. v. 6. whether we grow in knowledge, as well as in zeal and diligence, in performing many duties of religion, if we would approve ourselves sincere Christians?

Footnote 46:

What we are to believe reaches to Qu. 91. the rest is of practice.

Quest. VI.

QUEST. VI. _What do the scriptures make known of God?_

ANSW. The scriptures make known what God is, the persons in the
Godhead, the decrees, and the execution of his decrees.

It is an amazing instance of condescension, and an inexpressible favour which God bestows on man, that he should manifest himself to him, and that not only in such a way as he does to all mankind, by the light of nature, which discovers that he is; but that he should, in so glorious a way, declare what he is, as he does in his word: this is a distinguishing privilege, as the Psalmist observes, when speaking of God’s _shewing his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel_, Psal. cxlvii. he mentions it, as an instance of discriminating grace, in that he _has not dealt so with any other nation_. This raised the admiration of one of Christ’s disciples, when he said, _Lord how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world_! John xiv. 22. And it is still more wonderful, that he should discover to man what he does, or rather what he has decreed or purposed to do, and so should impart his secrets to him; how familiarly does God herein deal with man! Thus he says concerning the holy patriarch of old, _Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?_ Gen. xvi. 17. However, it is one thing to know the secret purposes of God, and another thing to know the various properties thereof; the former of these, however known of old, by extraordinary intimation, are now known to us only by the execution of them; the latter is what we may attain to the knowledge of, by studying the scriptures.

Now as the scriptures make known, _First_, What God is; _Secondly_, The persons in the Godhead; _Thirdly_, His decrees; And _Fourthly_, The execution thereof; so we are directed hereby in the method to be observed in treating of the great doctrines of our religion; and accordingly the first part of this Catechism,[47] which treats of doctrinal subjects, contains an enlargement on these four general heads; the first whereof we proceed to consider.

Footnote 47:

That is unto the 91st Quest.

Quest. VII.

QUEST. VII. _What is God?_

ANSW. God is a Spirit, in and of himself, infinite in being, glory,
blessedness, and perfection, all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable,
incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things,
most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful, and gracious,
long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

Before we proceed to consider the divine perfections, as contained in this answer, let it be premised,

1. That it is impossible for any one to give a perfect description of God, since he is incomprehensible, therefore no words can fully express, or set forth, his perfections; when the wisest men on earth speak of him, they soon betray their own weakness, or discover, as Elihu says, that they _cannot order their speech by reason of darkness_, Job xxxviii. 19. or, _that they are but of yesterday, and know_, comparatively, _nothing_, chap. viii. 9. We are but like children, talking of matters above them, which their tender age can take in but little of, when we speak of the infinite perfections of the divine nature; _This knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain to it_, Psal. cxxxix. 6. _How little a portion is heard of him?_ Job. xxvi. 14.

2. Though God cannot be perfectly described; yet there is something of him that we may know, and ought to make the matter of our study and diligent enquiries. When his glory is set forth in scripture, we are not to look upon the expressions there made use of, as words without any manner of ideas affixed to them; for it is one thing to have adequate ideas of an infinitely perfect being, and another thing to have no ideas at all of him; neither are our ideas of God to be reckoned, for this reason, altogether false, though they are imperfect; for it is one thing to think of him in an unbecoming way, not agreeable to his perfections, or to attribute the weakness and imperfection to him which do not belong to his nature, and another thing to think of him, with the highest and best conceptions we are able to entertain of his infinite perfections, while, at the same time, we have a due sense of our own weakness, and the shallowness of our capacities. When we thus order our thoughts concerning the great God, though we are far from comprehending his infinite perfections, yet our conceptions are not to be concluded erroneous, when directed by his word; which leads us to consider how we may conceive aright of the divine perfections, that we may not think or speak of God, that which is not right, though at best we know but little of his glory; and in order thereunto,

(1.) We must first take an estimate of finite perfections, which we have some ideas of, though not perfect ones in all respects; such as power, wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, &c.

(2.) Then we must conceive that these are eminently, though not formally in God; that is, there is no perfection in the creature, but we must ascribe the same to God, though not in the same way; or thus, whatever perfection is in the creature, the same is in God, and infinitely more; or it is in God, but not in such a finite, limited, or imperfect way, as it is in the creature; _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall not he see? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?_ Psal. xciv. 9, 10. Therefore,

(3.) When the same words are used that import a perfection in God, and in the creature, _viz._ wisdom, power, &c. we must not suppose that these words import the same thing in their different application; for when they are applied to the creature, though we call them perfections, yet they are, at best, but finite, and have many imperfections attending them, all which we must separate or abstract in our thoughts, when the same words are used to set forth any divine perfection: thus knowledge is a perfection of the human nature, and the same word is used to denote a divine perfection; yet we must consider, at the same time, that _the Lord seeth not as man seeth_, 1 Sam. xvi. 7. The same may be said of all his other perfections; he worketh not as man worketh; whatever perfections are ascribed to the creature, they are to be considered as agreeable to the subject in which they are; so when the same words are used to set forth any of the divine perfections, they are to be understood in a way becoming a God of infinite perfection.

This has given occasion to divines to distinguish the perfections of God, into those that are communicable, and incommunicable.

1. The communicable perfections of God are such, whereof we find some faint resemblance in intelligent creatures, though, at the same time, there is an infinite disproportion; as when we speak of God as holy, wise, just, powerful, or faithful, we find something like these perfections in the creature, though we are not to suppose them, in all respects, the same as they are in God; they are in him, in his own, that is, an infinite way; they are in us, in our own, that is, a finite and limited way.

2. The incommunicable perfections of God are such, of which there is not the least shadow, or similitude in creatures, but they rather represent him as opposed to them. Thus when we speak of him as infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable, without beginning, independent, &c. these perfections contain in them an account of the vast distance that there is between God and the creature, or how infinitely he exceeds all other beings, and is opposed to every thing that argues imperfection in them.

From this general account we have given of the divine perfections, we may infer,

1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature; that is, there is nothing which belongs to the divine nature that can be attributed to the creature; and nothing proper to the creature is to be applied to God: yet there are some rays of the divine glory, which may be beheld as shining forth, or displayed in the creature, especially in the intelligent part of the creation, angels and men, who are, for that reason, represented as made after the divine image.

2. Let us never think or speak of the divine perfections but with the highest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or debase him in our thoughts; _Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall upon you?_ Job xiii. 11. And whenever we compare God with the creatures, _viz._ angels and men, that bear somewhat of his image, let us, at the same time, abstract in our thoughts, all their imperfections, whether natural or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that there is between him and them. We now come to consider the perfections of the divine nature, in the order in which they are laid down in this answer.

I. God is a Spirit; that is, an immaterial substance, without body or bodily parts; this he is said to be in John iv. 24. But if it be enquired what we mean by a Spirit, let it be premised, that we cannot fully understand what our own spirits, or souls are; we know less of the nature of angels, a higher kind of spirits, and least of all of the spirituality of the divine nature; however, our ideas first begin at what is finite, in considering the nature and properties of spirits; and from thence we are led to conceive of God as infinitely more perfect than any finite spirit. Here we shall consider the word spirit, as applied more especially to angels, and the souls of men; and let it be observed,

1. That a spirit is the most perfect and excellent being; the soul is more excellent than the body, or indeed than any thing that is purely material; so angels are the most perfect and glorious part of the creation, as they are spiritual beings, in some things excelling the souls of men.

2. A spirit is, in its own nature, immortal; it has nothing in its frame and constitution that tends to corruption, as there is in material things, which consist of various parts, that may be dissolved or separated, and their form altered, which is what we call corruption; but this belongs not to spirits, which are liable to no change in their nature, but by the immediate hand of God, who can, if he pleases, reduce them again to their first nothing.

3. A spirit is capable of understanding, and willing, and putting forth actions agreeable thereunto, which no other being can do: thus, though the sun is a glorious and useful being; yet, because it is material, it is not capable of thought, or any moral action, such as angels, and the souls of men, can put forth.

Now these conceptions of the nature and properties of finite spirits, lead us to conceive of God as a spirit. And,

(1.) As spirits excel all other creatures, we must conclude God to be the most excellent and perfect of all beings, and also that he is _incorruptible_, _immortal_, and _invisible_, as he is said to be in scripture, Rom. i. 23. and 1 Tim. i. 17.

Moreover, it follows from hence, that he has an understanding and will, and so we may conceive of him as the Creator and governor of all things; this he could not be, if he were not an intelligent and sovereign being, and particularly a spirit.[48]

(2.) The difference between other spiritual substances and God, is, that all their excellency is only comparative, _viz._ as they excel the best of all material beings in their nature and properties; but God, as a spirit, is infinitely more excellent, not only than all material beings, but than all created spirits. Their perfections are derived from him, and therefore he is called, _The Father of spirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and _the God of the spirits of all flesh_, Numb. xvi. 22. and his perfections are underived: other spirits are, as we have observed, in their own nature, immortal, yet God can reduce them to nothing; but God is independently immortal, and therefore it is said of him, that _he only hath immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16.

Finite spirits, indeed, have understanding and will, but these powers are contained within certain limits whereas God is an infinite spirit, and therefore it can be said of none but him, that _his understanding is infinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.

From God’s being a spirit, we may infer,

1. That he is the most suitable good to the nature of our souls, which are spirits; he can communicate himself, and apply those things to them, which tend to make them happy, as the God and Father of spirits.

2. He is to be worshipped in a spiritual manner, John iv. 24. that is, with our whole souls, and in a way becoming his spiritual nature; therefore,

3. We are to frame no similitude or resemblance of him in our thoughts, as though he were a corporeal or material being; neither are we to make any pictures of him. This God forbids Israel to do, Deut. iv. 12, 15, 16. and tells them, that they had not the least pretence for so doing, inasmuch as they _saw no similitude of him, when he spake to them in Horeb_; and to make an image of him would be to corrupt themselves.

II. God is said to be in, and of, himself, not as though he gave being to, or was the cause of himself, for that implies a contradiction; therefore divines generally say, that God is in, and of himself, not positively, but negatively, that is, his being and perfections are underived, and not communicated to him, as all finite perfections are, by him, to the creature; therefore he is self-existent, or independent, which is one of the highest glories of the divine nature, by which he is distinguished from all creatures, who live, move, and have their being in and from him.

This attribute of independency belongs to all his perfections; thus his wisdom, power, goodness, holiness, &c. are all independent. And,

1. With respect to his knowledge or wisdom, he doth not receive ideas from any object out of himself, as all intelligent creatures do, and, in that respect, are said to depend on the object; so that if there were not such objects, they could not have the knowledge or idea of them in their minds; therefore the object known must first exist, before we can apprehend what it is. But this must not be said of God’s knowledge, for that would be to suppose the things that he knows antecedent to his knowing them. The independency of his knowledge is elegantly described in scripture; _Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, has taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?_ Isa. xl. 13, 14.

2. He is independent in power, therefore as he receives strength from no one, so he doth not act dependently on the will of the creature; _Who hath enjoined him his way_; Job xxxvi. 23. and accordingly, as he received the power of acting from no one, so none can hinder, turn aside, or controul his power, or put a stop to his methods of acting.

3. He is independent as to his holiness, hating sin necessarily, and not barely depending on some reasons out of himself, which induce him thereunto; for it is essential to the divine nature to be infinitely opposite to all sin, and therefore to be independently holy.

4. He is independent as to his bounty and goodness, and so he communicates blessings not by constraint, but according to his sovereign will. Thus he gave being to the world, and all things therein, which was the first instance of bounty and goodness, and a very great one it was, not by constraint, but by his free will, _for his pleasure they are and were created_. In like manner, whatever instances of mercy he extends to miserable creatures, he still acts independently, in the display thereof; nothing out of himself moves or lays a constraint upon him, but he shews mercy because it is his pleasure so to do.

But, to evince the truth of this doctrine, that God is independent as to his being, and all his perfections, let it be farther considered,

(1.) That all things depend on his power, which brought them into, and preserves them in being; therefore they exist by his will, as their creator and preserver, and consequently are not necessary, but dependent beings. If therefore all things depend on God, it is the greatest absurdity to say that God depends on any thing, for this would be to suppose the cause and the effect to be mutually dependent on, and derived from each other, which infers a contradiction.

(2.) If God be infinitely above the highest creatures, he cannot depend on any of them; for dependence argues inferiority. Now that God is above all things is certain: this is represented in a very beautiful manner by the prophet, when he says, Isa. xl. 15, 17. _Behold the nations are as the drop of the bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; all nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him less than nothing and vanity_; therefore he cannot be said to be inferior to them, and, by consequence, to depend on them.

(3.) If God depends on any creature, he does not exist necessarily: and if so, then he might not have been; for the same will, by which he is supposed to exist, might have determined that he should not have existed. If therefore God be not independent, he might not have been, and, according to the same method of reasoning, he might cease to be; for the same will, that gave being to him, might take it away at pleasure, which is altogether inconsistent with the idea of a God.

From God’s being independent, or in and of himself, we infer,

1. That we ought to conclude that the creature cannot lay any obligation on him, or do any thing that may tend to make him more happy than he is in himself; the apostle gives a challenge to this effect, _Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again_, Rom. xi. 35. and Eliphaz says to Job, Job xxii. 2, 3. _Can a man be profitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?_

2. If independency be a divine perfection, then let it not, in any instance, or by any consequence, be attributed to the creature; let us conclude, that all our springs are in him, and that all we enjoy and hope for is from him, who is the author and finisher of our faith, and the fountain of all our blessedness.

III. God is infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection. To be infinite, is to be without all bounds or limits, either actual or possible: now that God is so, is evident, from his being independent and uncreated; and because his will fixes the bounds of all the excellencies, perfections, and powers of the creature. If therefore he doth not exist by the will of another, he is infinite in being, and consequently in all perfection: thus it is said, Psal. cxlvii. 5. _his understanding is infinite_, which will farther appear, when we consider him as omniscient; his will determines what shall come to pass, with an infinite sovereignty, that cannot be controuled, or rendered ineffectual; his power is infinite, and therefore all things are equally possible, and easy to it, nor can it be resisted by any contrary force or power; and he is infinite in blessedness, as being self-sufficient, or not standing in need of any thing to make him more happy than he was in himself, from all eternity. The Psalmist is supposed by many, to speak in the person of Christ, when he says, Psal. xvi. 2. _My goodness extendeth not to thee_, q. d. “How much soever thy relative glory may be illustrated, by what I have engaged to perform in the covenant of redemption, yet this can make no addition to thine essential glory.” And if so, then certainly nothing can be done by us which may in the least contribute thereunto.

IV. God is all-sufficient, by which we understand that he hath enough in himself to satisfy the most enlarged desires of his creatures, and to make them completely blessed. As his self-sufficiency is that whereby he has enough in himself to denominate him completely blessed, as a God of infinite perfection; so his all-sufficiency is that, whereby he is able to communicate as much blessedness to his creatures, as he is pleased to make them capable of receiving; and therefore he is able not only to _supply all their wants_, _but to do exceedingly above all that they ask or think_, Phil. iv. 19. and Eph. iii. 20. This he can do, either in an immediate way; or, if he thinks fit to make use of creatures as instruments, to fulfil his pleasure, and communicate what he designs to impart to us, he is never at a loss; for as they are the work of his hands, so he has a right to use them at his will; upon which account, they are said, all of them to be his servants, Psal. cxix. 91.

This doctrine of God’s all-sufficiency should be improved by us,

1. To induce us to seek happiness in him alone: creatures are no more than the stream, but he is the fountain; we may, in a mediate way, receive some small drops from them, but he is the ocean of all blessedness.

2. Let us take heed that we do not reflect on, or in effect, deny this perfection; which we may be said to do in various instances. As,

(1.) When we are discontented with our present condition, and desire more than God has allotted for us. This seems to have been the sin of the angels, who left their first habitation through pride, seeking more than God designed they should have; and this was the sin by which our first parents fell, desiring a greater degree of knowledge than what they thought themselves possessed of: thus they fancied, that by eating the forbidden fruit, they should be _as gods, knowing good and evil_, Gen. iii. 5.

(2.) We practically deny the all-sufficiency of God, when we seek blessings of what kind soever they are, in an indirect way, as though God were not able to bestow them upon us in his own way, or in the use of lawful means: thus Rebecca and Jacob did, when they contrived a lie to obtain the blessing, chap. xxvii. as though there had not been an all-sufficiency in providence to bring it about, without their having recourse to those methods that were in themselves sinful.

(3.) When we use unlawful means to escape imminent dangers. Thus David did _when he feigned himself mad_, supposing, without ground, that he should have been slain by Achish, king of Gath; and that there was no other way to escape but this, 1 Sam. xxi. 13. and Abraham and Isaac, Gen. chapters xx. and xxvi. when they denied their wives, concluding this to have been an expedient to save their lives, as though God were not able to save them in a better and more honourable way.

(4.) When we distrust his providence, though we have had large experience of its appearing for us in various instances: thus David did, when he said, in his heart, _I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul_, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. and the Israelites, when they said, _Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?_ Psal. lxxviii. 19. though he had provided for them in an extraordinary way ever since they had been there: yea, Moses himself was faulty in this matter, when he said, _Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me_, Numb. xi. 13, 14. and Asa, when he tempted Benhadad to break his league with Baasha, who made war against him; as though God were not able to deliver him without this indirect practice, though he had in an eminent manner, appeared for him, in giving him a signal victory over Zerah the Ethiopian, when he came against him with an army of a million of men, 2 Chron. xvi. 3. compared with chap. xiv. 9, 13. and likewise Joshua, when Israel had suffered a small defeat, occasioned by Achan’s sin, when they fled before the men of Ai, though there were but thirty-six of them slain; yet, on that occasion, he is ready to wish that God had not brought them over Jordan, and meditates nothing but ruin and destruction from the Amorites, forgetting God’s former deliverances, and distrusting his faithfulness, and care of his people, and, as it were, calling in question his all-sufficiency, as though he were not able to accomplish the promises he had made to them, Josh. vii. 7, 8, 9.

(5.) When we doubt of the truth, or certain accomplishment of his promises, and so are ready to say, _Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Doth his truth fail for ever?_ This we are apt to do, when there are great difficulties in the way of the accomplishment thereof: thus Sarah, when it was told her that she should have a child, in her old age, laughed, through unbelief, Gen. xviii. 12. and God intimates, that this was an affront to his all-sufficiency, when he says, _Is any thing too hard for the Lord?_ ver. 14. and Gideon, though he was told that God was with him, and had an express command to go in his might, with a promise that he should deliver Israel from the Midianites, yet he says, _O Lord wherewith shall I save them? for my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house_, Judg. vi. 15. God tells him again, _I will be with thee, and smite the Midianites_, ver. 16. yet, afterwards, he desires that he would give him a sign in the wet and dry fleece. What is this but questioning his all-sufficiency?

(6.) When we decline great services, though called to them by God, under pretence of our unfitness for them: thus when the prophet Jeremiah was called to deliver the Lord’s message to the rebellious house of Israel, he desires to be excused, and says, _Behold I cannot speak, for I am a child_; whereas the main discouragement was the difficulty of the work, and the hazards he was like to run; but God encourages him to it, by putting him in mind of his all-sufficiency, when he tells him, that _he would be with him, and deliver him_, Jer. i. 6. compared with ver. 8.

This divine perfection affords matter of support and encouragement to believers, under the greatest straits and difficulties they are exposed to in this world; and we have many instances in scripture of those who have had recourse to it in the like cases. Thus, when David was in the greatest straits that ever he met with, upon the Amalekites’ spoiling of Ziklag, and carrying away the women captives, the people talked of stoning him, and all things seemed to make against him; yet it is said, that _he encouraged himself in the Lord his God_, 1 Sam. xxx. 6. so Mordecai was confident that the _enlargement and deliverance of the Jews should come some other way_, if not by Esther’s intercession for them, when she was afraid to go in to the king, Esth. iv. 14. and this confidence he could never have obtained, considering the present posture of their affairs, without a due regard to God’s all-sufficiency. Moreover, it was this divine perfection that encouraged Abraham to obey the difficult command of offering his son: as the apostle observes, he did this as knowing _that God was able to raise him from the dead_, Heb. xi. 19. and when believers are under the greatest distress, from the assaults of their spiritual enemies, they have a warrant from God, as the apostle had, to encourage themselves, that they shall come off victorious, because _his grace is sufficient for them_, 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.

V. God is eternal: this respects his duration, to wit, as he was without beginning, as well as shall be without end; or as his duration is unchangeable, or without succession, the same from everlasting to everlasting: thus the Psalmist says, _Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world; even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God_, Psal. xc. 2.

1. That God is from everlasting, appears,

(1.) From his being a necessary, self-existent being, or, as was before observed, in and of himself, therefore he must be from everlasting; for whatever is not produced is from eternity. Now that God did not derive his being from any one, is evident, because he gave being to all things, which is implied in their being creatures; therefore nothing gave being to him, and consequently he was from eternity.

(2.) If he is an infinitely perfect being, as has been observed before, then his duration is infinitely perfect, and consequently it is boundless, that is to say, eternal: it is an imperfection, in all created beings, that they began to exist, and therefore they are said, in a comparative sense, to be but of yesterday; we must therefore, when we conceive of God, separate this imperfection from him, and so conclude that he was from all eternity.

(3.) If he created all things in the beginning, then he was before the beginning of time, that is, from eternity: thus it is said, _In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth_, Gen. i. 1. this is very evident, for time is a successive duration, taking its rise from a certain point, or moment, which we call the beginning: now that duration, which was before this, must be from eternity, unless we suppose time before time began, or, which is all one, that there was a successive duration before successive duration began, which is a contradiction. Therefore, if God fixed that beginning to all things, as their Creator, and particularly to time, which is the measure of the duration of all created beings, then it is evident that he was before time, and consequently from eternity.

(4.) This also appears from scripture; as when it is said, _The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 27. and when we read of his _eternal power and Godhead_, Rom. i. 20. and elsewhere, _Art not thou from everlasting O Lord, my God?_ Hab. i. 12. _Thy throne is established of old; thou art from everlasting_, Psal. xciii. 2. so his attributes and perfections are said to have been from everlasting, _The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting_, Psal. ciii. 17.

And this may be argued from many scripture-consequences: thus, there was an election of persons to holiness and happiness, _before the foundation of the world_, Eph. i. 4. and Christ, in particular, was fore-ordained to be our Mediator, before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. i. 20. and _set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was_, Prov. viii. 23. From hence it follows, that there was a sovereign will that fore-ordained it, and therefore God, whose decree or purpose it was, existed before the foundation of the world, that is, from everlasting.

Moreover, there were grants of grace given in Christ, or put into his hand, from all eternity: thus we read of _eternal life, which God promised before the world began_, Tit. i. 2. and of our being _saved, according to his purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began_, 2 Tim. i. 9. It hence follows, that there was an eternal giver, and consequently that God was from everlasting.

2. God shall be to everlasting; thus it is said, _The Lord shall endure forever_, Psal. ix. 7. and that he _liveth for ever and ever_, Rev. iv. 9, 10. and that his _years shall have no end_, Psal. cii. 27. and _the Lord shall reign for ever_, Psal. cxlvi. 10. therefore he must endure for ever. Again, it is said, that _the Lord keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him_, to a thousand generations, Deut. vii. 9. and _he will ever be mindful of his covenant_, Psal. cxi. 5. that is, will fulfil what he has promised therein: if his truth shall not fail for ever, then he, who will accomplish what he has spoken, must endure to everlasting.

But this may be farther evinced from the perfections of his nature.

(1.) From his necessary existence, which not only argues, as has been before observed, that he could not begin to be, but equally proves, that he cannot cease to be, or that he shall be to everlasting.

(2.) He is void of all composition, and therefore must be to everlasting; none but compounded beings, _viz._ such as have parts, are subject to dissolution, which arises from, the contrariety of these parts, and their tendency to destroy one another, which occasions the dissolution of the whole; but God having no parts, as he is the most simple uncompounded being, there can be nothing in him that tends to dissolution, therefore he can never have an end from any necessity of nature. And,

(3.) He must be to eternity, because there is no one superior to him, at whose will he exists, that can deprive him of his being and glory.

(4.) He cannot will his own destruction, or non-existence, for that is contrary to the universal nature of things; since no being can desire to be less perfect than it is, much less can any one will or desire his own annihilation; especially no one, who is possessed of blessedness, can will the loss thereof, for that is incongruous with the nature of it, as being a desirable good, therefore God cannot will the loss of his own blessedness; and since his blessedness is inseparably connected with his being, he cannot cease to be, from an act of his own will: if therefore he cannot cease to be, from any necessity of nature, or from the will of another, or from an act of his own will, he must be to eternity.

Moreover, the eternity of God may be proved from his other perfections, since one of the divine perfections infers the other. As,

1. From his immutability; he is unchangeable in his being, therefore he is so in all his perfections, and consequently must be always the same, from everlasting to everlasting, and not proceed from a state of non-existence to that of being, which he would have done, had he not been from everlasting, nor decline from a state of being to that of non-existence, which he would be supposed to do, were he not to everlasting: either of these is the greatest change that can be supposed, and therefore inconsistent with the divine immutability.

2. He is the first cause, and the ultimate end of all things, therefore he must be from eternity, and remain the fountain of all blessedness to eternity.

3. He could not be almighty, or infinite in power, if he were not eternal; for that being, which did not always exist, once could not act, to wit, when it did not exist; or he that may cease to be, may, for the same reason, be disabled from acting; both which are inconsistent with Almighty power.

4. If he were not eternal, he could not, by way of eminency be called _the living God_, as he is, Jer. x. 10. or said _to have life in himself_, John v. 26. for both these expressions imply his necessary existence, and that argues his eternity.

3. God’s eternal duration is without succession, as well as without beginning and end, that it is so, appears,