in God, they are his nature and essence; and so neither distinguished from one another, nor from him in whom they are said to be. Distinguished from his essence they cannot be, for then he would be of himself imperfect, there being some property or perfection which in his own nature he is not. Again, if the properties of God should be really distinguished from himself, in themselves they would be either finite or infinite: finite they could not all be; for infinitude is one of his properties, yea, and in our conception a property of all his other properties; so that his wisdom, power, justice, are all infinite, otherwise they would be imperfect and, therefore it is impossible all his properties should be finite, it being a contradiction to say infinitude, or what is infinite is finite : infinite, if distinguished from his essence, they cannot be; for then there would be something really distinguished from God, infinite as well as God; and so, either God must not be infinite, and so not God, or else there must be two, yea, many infinites, which is as great an absurdity as the former. Distinguished from one another they cannot be; for then some of them must be distinguished from the essence of God, it being impossible they should be really and essentially distinct from one another; and yet all be but the self-same essence. Again, if they should be really distinguished from one another, God would be compounded, or made up of several distinct properties, and so not a simple, nor therefore a perfect God.

But by the properties, therefore, that are in God, we are to understand the several apprehensions that we have of God, according to the several manifestations that he makes of himself to us. Which variety of discoveries of himself he makes to us according to the variety of the objects we apprehend him to act upon, and the variety of the circumstances that these objects may lie under. God in himself is a most simple and pure act, and, therefore, as I have shown, cannot have any thing in himself but himself, but what is that simple and pure act itself. Which, seeing it brings upon every creature what it deserves, giving vice its due punishments, and virtue its rewards, we apprehend it an act of justice, and therefore call God a just God; seeing it sometimes does not give sin its punishments so soon

as we conceive it might, we apprehend it an act of patience, and call God a patient God: seeing it one time or other punishes every offence, yet, upon some other account, doth often pardon the offender, we apprehend it an act of mercy, and call God a merciful God: seeing, when it puts forth itself upon doing any thing, it produces whatsoever is feasible or possible to be done, we apprehend it an act of power, and call God an almighty God: seeing it acting upon objects as they are cognoscible or possible to be known, it is acquainted with all things that ever were, are, shall be, or can be, we apprehend it an act of knowledge, and call God an all-knowing God: seeing it brings upon all creatures many such, as we think, good things, we apprehend it an act of goodness, and call God a good God: seeing there are no bounds or limits of his essence, wisdom, power, goodness, and the like, we apprehend it an act of infinitude, and call God an infinite God: seeing this act ever was, is, and will be the same unchangeable, pure, and simple act, we apprehend it an act of eternity, and call God an eternal God. And thus are all the properties that we attribute to God, but the several apprehensions that we have in ourselves of him, according to the several discoveries he maketh of himself to us. And therefore though, as apprehended by us, they are many, yet, as they are in him, they are all but one, and the same simple and pure essence. And hence it is, that though one property cannot be properly predicated of another, so as to say his justice is his mercy, his wisdom is his power, his eternity is his love; yet they may all be predicated of God, so as to say God is justice, God is mercy, God is wisdom, power, eternity, love, and all. And truly to say, God's wisdom is his power, his justice is his mercy, is not to predicate one property in God on the other, but one apprehension that we have of the same divine essence upon another for as they are in God, they are not really distinct from one another, and, therefore, cannot possibly be subjects or predicates to one another, and the several denominations of love, goodness, power, wisdom, &c. are grounded merely upon our several apprehensions of the same thing: which several apprehensions of God proceed from the finiteness of our understandings, who are not able to conceive of infinitude as it is in itself,

but only by piecemeal, as it manifesteth itself to us. And therefore God, whose understanding is infinite, suitable to his nature, doth not apprehend himself under the distinct notions of good, just, powerful, wise, &c. but only as God; though he doth understand how we give such denominations to him, according to the several apprehensions that we have of him. Thus carrying the right notion of the properties of God along with us, let us consider these properties which in this article are attributed to him; and the first is eternity'. He is an everlasting God: which is a property whereby we apprehend God as one who was before, and will be after, always without, and above time; in whom there is no such thing as first and last, as past and to come. And, therefore, though I cannot apprehend his mercy to Abel, and his mercy to me, but as two distinct expressions of his mercy, yet they are all but the same mercy as in God, who is not measured by time, as our apprehensions of him are, but is himself eternity: a centre without circumference, eternity without time. Indeed, time in this respect is but as a parenthesis clasped in on both sides with this eternity: neither is the eternity before time, before that eternity that is after time; for there is but eternity: and these words before and after, past and future, are solecisms in eternity,

Nec quid sit æternitas, nisi intelligendo conspicio. Mentis quippe adspectu omnem mutabilitatem ab æternitate sejungo, et in ipsa æternitate nulla spatia temporis cerno; quia spatia temporis præteritis et futuris rerum motibus constant. Nihil autem præterit in æterno, et nihil futurum est: quia et quod præterit, esse desinit, et quod futurum est, nondum esse cœpit æternitas autem tantummodo est, nec fuit quasi jam non sit, nec erit quasi adhuc non sit. Quare sola ipsa verissimè dicere potuit humanæ menti, Ego sum qui sum ;' et de illa verissimè dici poterat,' Misit me qui est.'-Aug. de Vera Rel. edit. Benedict. Par. 1689. cap. 49. sec. 97. Hoc verè habendum est æternum, quod nullo tempore variatur, sicut in principio erat verbum.—Ibid. in Ps. 71. p. 747. C. Atque in æternitate nec præteritum quidquam est, quasi esse desierit; nec futurum, quasi nondum sit; sed præsens tantùm quia quicquid æternum est, semper est.-Ibid. in Ps. 2. p. 5. D. And again, Eternitas ipsa Dei substantia est, quæ nihil habet mutabile; ibi nihil est præteritum, quasi jam non sit; nihil est futurum, quasi nondum sit. Non est ibi, nisi est; non est ibi, fuit et erit; quia et quod fuit, jam non est; et quod erit, nondum est: sed quidquid ibi est, nonnisi est.—Ibid. in Ps. 101. Serm. II. p. 1107. B. Plutarch himself had this notion of eternity, saying, Εἷς ἂν ἐνὶ τῷ νῦν τὸ αἰὶ πεπλήρωκε, Plut. in lib. περὶ τοῦ Εἰ τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς, Par. 1624. p. 393. Β.

being only fitted to express the several successions of time. And thus do we believe God is eternal or everlasting, not only as angels and souls are who had a beginning, but will have no end, but as one who neither had a beginning, nor will ever have an end: but what he was before, he will be after time, the same unchangeable perfect God. Which is a truth consonant both to Scripture and reason too.

"The "Yea,

1. Confirmation from SCRIPTURE.-There being none that knows God so well as himself, there is none can tell what properties to attribute unto him better than himself; therefore must his word needs be the best description of his essence. Now there is no property that the Scriptures attribute more frequently to God than Eternity, calling him, "The eternal God," Deut. xxxiii. 27. "The King eternal," 1 Tim. i. 17. "The everlasting God," Gen. xxi. 33. Isaiah, xl. 28. "The everlasting Father," Isaiah, ix. 6. living God, and everlasting King," Jer. x. 10. from everlasting to everlasting he is God," Psalm xc. 2. Who therefore is to be "blessed from everlasting and to everlasting," Psalm xli. 13. "Who is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, which is, and which was, and which is to come," Rev. i. 4. 8. Not as if God in his own nature was and is to come, for he always is; but only in these and the like places God speaks after the manner of men, who are not able with one simple apprehension to conceive of eternity, but are still forced to carry our thoughts backwards and forwards to apprehend the things that were heretofore, and that shall be hereafter. Therefore he is here said to be he which was, viz. " without beginning," which is, viz. " without succession," which is to come, viz. " without end.” And, therefore, when Moses would have God give himself a name, he calls himself "I am "," and "I am that I am," Exod. iii. 14; viz. one

Hæc igitur multaque alia ejusmodi cum animo reputans, incidi in eos libros, quos à Mose et prophetis scriptos esse Hebræorum religio tradebat: in quibus, ipso Creatore Deo testante de se, hæc ita continebantur: Ego sum, qui sum. Et rursum. Hæc dices filiis Israel, Misit me ad vos Is qui est. Admiratus sum planè tam absolutam de Deo significationem, quæ naturæ divinæ incomprehensibilem cognitionem aptissimo ad intelligentiam humanam sermone loqueretur. Non enim aliud proprium magis Deo quam esse intelligitur, quia id ipsum quod est, neque desinentis est

who may always say, I am," who always was, always is, and always is to come; who from eternity was, who in eternity is, who to eternity is to come. Yea, who was not only from eternity, and to eternity, but is eternity itself: and so is he called, as some suppose, translating the word, Netsach, Eternity,' which we translate strength,' 1 Sam. xv. 29. So well may he be called the "Ancient of days," Dan. vii. 9; and his kingdom be termed," an everlasting kingdom," Dan. iv. 3.

2. Confirmation from REASON. And as Scripture is

aliquando, neque cœpti: sed id quod cum incorruptæ beatitudinis potestate perpetuum est, non potuit, aut poterit aliquando non esse: quia divinum omne neque abolitioni, neque exordio obnoxium est. Et cùm in nullo à se Dei desit æternitas, dignè hoc solum quod esset ad protestationem incorruptæ suæ æternitatis ostendit. Et ad hanc quidem infinitatis significationem satis fecisse sermo dicentis videbatur. Ego sum, qui sum. -Hilar. de Trinit. lib. i. p. 2. A. edit. Par. 1605. Interpreters differ much Some translate them, Sum,

אהיה אשר אהיה in translating of these words

qui sum; others, Ero, qui ero; others, Ero, qui sum; others, Sum, qui ero; and there is none of these interpretations, but without offering violence to grammar rules may be put upon them. But it being a proper name of God, implying not any one, but all of those senses, not only Sum qui sum, or Sum qui eram, but Sum qui sum, Sum qui eram, Ero qui éro, Ero qui sum, &c.; I should think it better with other expositors to retain the Hebrew words themselves, as Onkelos, * *. Syriac,

اهیم اشر

ASHER EHTE and so the Persian, Only the Arabic doth not so much translate as paraphrase upon the words, most excellently giving us the full meaning and purport of them, taking all the

Eternus الازلي الذي لا يزول,foregoing expositions in these words

sum qui non præterit. Which words show both what the words properly import, even the eternity of God; and wherein the nature of that eternity consisteth, in being always the same, without preterition or succession of one part after another. Sic et Augustinus exponit, loco jam citato.

And so I find the word my never can be well translated otherwise, unless it be Isaiah, xliii. 3, 6. Lam. iii. 18. in both which places interpreters differ in the translation of it, but always agree in other places in translating it "Eternity," as Psalm xlix. 20. Isaiah, xxxiv. 10. Job, iv. 20. &c. and so in this place, it being an epithet of God, may denote his eternity as well as his strength; yea, indeed, rather that than this, both because it is a doubt whether it ever signify strength or no, and principally because that is the most usual and common signification of it, which we are not to recede from in any place that will as well bear it as any other signification of it, as this will.