under God’s care; but he has a particular regard to his church. This
is the signet on his hand, as a bracelet upon his arm; this is his
garden which he delights to dress; if he prunes it, it is to purge
it; {a407} if he digs about his vine, and wounds the branches, it is
to make it beautiful with new clusters, and restore it to a fruitful
vigor. 2. All great deliverances are to be ascribed to God, as the
principal Author, whosoever are the instruments. The Lord doth build
up Jerusalem, he gathers together the outcasts of Israel. This great
deliverance from Babylon is not to be ascribed to Cyrus or Darius,
or the rest of our favorers; it is the Lord that doth it; we had his
promise for it, we have now his performance. Let us not ascribe that
which is the effect of his truth, only to the good will of men; it
is God’s act, not by might, nor by power, nor by weapons of war, or
strength of horses, but by the Spirit of the Lord. He sent prophets
to comfort us while we were exiles; and now he hath stretched out his
own arm to work our deliverance according to his word; blind man looks
so much upon instruments, that he hardly takes notice of God, either
in afflictions or mercies, and this is the cause that robs God of so
much prayer and praise in the world. (ver. 3.) “He heals the broken
in heart, and binds up their wounds.” He hath now restored those who
had no hope but in his word; he hath dealt with them as a tender and
skilful chirurgeon; he hath applied his curing plasters, and dropped
in his sovereign balsams; he hath now furnished our fainting hearts
with refreshing cordials, and comforted our wounds with strengthening
ligatures. How gracious is God, that restores liberty to the captives,
and righteousness to the penitent! Man’s misery is the fittest
opportunity for God to make his mercy illustrious in itself, and most
welcome to the patient. He proceeds (ver. 4), wonder not that God
calls together the outcasts, and singles them out from every corner
for a return; why can he not do this, as well as tell the number
of the stars, and call them all by their names? There are none of
his people so despicable in the eye of man, but they are known and
regarded by God; though they are clouded in the world, yet they are
the stars of the world; and shall God number the inanimate stars in
the heavens, and make no account of his living stars on the earth? No,
wherever they are dispersed, he will not forget them; however they are
afflicted, he will not despise them; the stars are so numerous, that
they are innumerable by man; some are visible and known by men; others
lie more hid and undiscovered in a confused light, as those in the
milky way; man cannot see one of them distinctly. God knows all his
people. As he can do what is above the power of man to perform, so
he understands what is above the skill of man to discover; shall man
measure God by his scantiness? Proud man must not equal himself to God,
nor cut God as short as his own line. He tells the number of the stars,
and calls them all by their names. He hath them all in his list, as
generals the names of their soldiers in their muster‑roll, for they
are his host, which he marshals in the heavens, as in Isaiah xl. 26,
where you have the like expression; he knows them more distinctly
than man can know anything, and so distinctly, as to call “them all
by their names.” He knows their names, that is, their natural offices,
influences the different degrees of heat and light, their order and
motion; and all of them, the least glimmering star, as well as the
most glaring planet: this, man cannot do; “Tell the {a408} stars
if thou be able to number them” (Gen. xv. 5), saith God to Abraham,
whom Josephus represents as a great astronomer: “Yea, they cannot be
numbered” (Jer. xxxiii. 22); and the uncertainty of the opinions of
men, evidenceth their ignorance of their number; some reckoning 1022;
others 1025; others 1098; others 7000, beside those that by reason
of their mixture of light with one another, cannot be distinctly
discerned, and others, perhaps so high, as not to be reached by the
eye of man. To impose names on things, and names according to their
natures, is both an argument of power and dominion, and of wisdom
and understanding: from the imposition of names upon the creatures by
Adam, the knowledge of Adam is generally concluded; and it was also
a fruit of that dominion God allowed him over the creatures. Now he
that numbers and names the stars that seem to lie confused among one
another, as well as those that appear to us in an unclouded night,
may well be supposed accurately to know his people, though lurking in
secret caverns, and know those that are fit to be instruments of their
deliverance; the one is as easy to him as the other; and the number of
the one as distinctly known by him as the multitude of the other. “For
great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite”
(ver. 5). He wants not knowledge to know the objects, nor power to
effect his will concerning them. Of great power, רב כוח. Much power,
plenteous in power; so the word רב, is rendered (Ps. v. 15), רב חסד,
a multitude of power, as well as a multitude of mercy; a power that
exceeds all created power and understanding. His understanding is
infinite. You may not imagine, how he can call all the stars by name,
the multitude of the visible being so great, and the multitude of the
invisible being greater; but you must know, that as God is Almighty,
so he is omniscient; and as there is no end of his power, so no
account can exactly be given of his understanding; his understanding
is infinite, אין מספר. No number or account of it; and so the same words
are rendered, “a nation strong, and without number” (Joel i. 6): no
end of his understanding: (Syriac) no measure, no bounds. His essence
is infinite, and so is his power and understanding; and so vast is
his knowledge, that we can no more comprehend it, than we can measure
spaces that are without limits, or tell the minutes or hours of
eternity. Who, then, can fathom that whereof there is no number, but
which exceeds all, so that there is no searching of it out? He knows
universals, he knows particulars: we must not take understanding here,
as noting a faculty, but the use of the understanding in the knowledge
of things, and the judgment, תבונה, in the consideration of them, and
so it is often used. In the verse there is a description of God.
1. In his essence, “great is our Lord.” 2. In his power of “great
power.” 3. In his knowledge, “his understanding is infinite:” his
understanding is his eye, and his power is his arm. Of his infinite
understanding I am to discourse.
_Doctrine._ God hath an infinite knowledge and understanding. All
knowledge. Omnipresence, which before we spake of, respects his
essence; omniscience respects his understanding, according to our
{a409} manner of conception. This is clear in Scripture; hence God
is called a God of knowledge (Sam. ii. 3), “the Lord is a God of
knowledge,” (_Heb._) knowledges, in the plural number, of all kind
of knowledge; it is spoken there to quell man’s pride in his own
reason and parts; what is the knowledge of man but a spark to the
whole element of fire, a grain of dust, and worse than nothing, in
comparison of the knowledge of God, as his essence is in comparison
of the essence of God? All kind of knowledge. He knows what angels
know, what man knows, and infinitely more; he knows himself, his own
operations, all his creatures, the notions and thoughts of them; he is
understanding above understanding, mind above mind, the mind of minds,
the light of lights; this the Greek word, Θεὸς, signifies in the
etymology of it, of Θείσθαι, to _see_, to contemplate; and δαίμων of
δαίω, _scio_. The names of God signify a nature, viewing and piercing
all things; and the attribution of our senses to God in Scripture, as
hearing and seeing, which are the senses whereby knowledge enters into
us, signifies God’s knowledge.
1. The notion of God’s knowledge of all things lies above the ruins
of nature; it was not obliterated by the fall of man. It was necessary
offending man was to know that he had a Creator whom he had injured,
that he had a Judge to try and punish him; since God thought fit to
keep up the world, it had been kept up to no purpose, had not this
notion been continued alive in the minds of men; there would not have
been any practice of his laws, no bar to the worst of crimes. If men
had thought they had to deal with an ignorant Deity, there could be no
practice of religion. Who would lift up his eyes, or spread his hands
towards heaven, if he imagined his devotion were directed to a God as
blind as the heathens imagined fortune? To what boot would it be for
them to make heaven and earth resound with their cries, if they had
not thought God had an eye to see them, and an ear to hear them? And
indeed the very notion of a God at the first blush, speaks him a Being
endued with understanding; no man can imagine a Creator void of one
of the noblest perfections belonging to those creatures, that are the
flower and cream of his works.
2. Therefore all nations acknowledge this, as well as the existence
and being of God. No nation but had their temples, particular
ceremonies of worship, and presented their sacrifices, which they
could not have been so vain as to do, without an acknowledgment of
this attribute. This notion of God’s knowledge owed not its rise to
tradition, but to natural implantation; it was born and grew up with
every rational creature. Though the several nations and men of the
world agreed not in one kind of deity, or in their sentiments of his
nature or other perfections, some judging him clothed with a fine and
pure body, others judging him an uncompounded spirit, some fixing him
to a seat in the heavens, others owning his universal presence in all
parts of the world; yet they all agreed in the universality of his
knowledge, and their own consciences reflecting their crimes, unknown
to any but themselves, would keep this notion in some vigor, whether
they would or no. Now this being implanted in the minds of all men by
nature, cannot be false, for nature imprints {a410} not in the minds
of all men an assent to a falsity. Nature would not pervert the reason
and minds of men. Universal notions of God are from original, not
lapsed nature, and preserved in mankind in order to a restoration from
a lapsed state. The heathens did acknowledge this: in all the solemn
covenants, solemnized with oaths and the invocation of the name of
God, this attribute was supposed.[679] They confessed knowledge to
be peculiar to the Deity; _scientia deorum vita_, saith Cicero. Some
called him Νοῦς, _mens_, mind, pure understanding, without any note,
Ἐπόπτης, the inspector of all. As they called him life, because he was
the author of life, so they called him _intellectus_, because he was
the author of all knowledge and understanding in his creatures; and
one being asked, whether any man could be hid from God? no, saith
he, not so much as thinking.[680] Some call him the eye of the world;
and the Egyptians represented God by an eye on the top of a sceptre,
because God is all eye, and can be ignorant of nothing.
And the same nation made eyes and ears of the most excellent metals,
consecrating them to God, and hanging them up in the midst of their
temples, in signification of God’s seeing and hearing all things;
hence they called God light, as well as the Scripture, because all
things are visible to him.
For the better understanding of this, we will enquire, I. What kind
of knowledge or understanding there is in God. II. What God knows.
III. How God knows things. IV. The proof that God knows all things.
V. The use of all to ourselves.
I. What kind of understanding or knowledge there is in God. The
knowledge of God in Scripture hath various names, according to the
various relations or objects of it: in respect of present things, it
is called knowledge or sight; in respect of things past, remembrance;
in respect of things future, or to come, it is called foreknowledge,
or prescience (1 Pet. i. 2); in regard of the universality of
the objects, it is called omniscience; in regard to the simple
understanding of things, it is called knowledge; in regard of acting
and modelling the ways of acting, it is called wisdom and prudence
(Eph. i. 8). He must have knowledge, otherwise he could not be wise;
wisdom is the flower of knowledge, and knowledge is the root of wisdom.
As to what this knowledge is, if we know what knowledge is in man, we
may apprehend what it is in God, removing all imperfection from it,
and ascribing to him the most eminent way of understanding; because
we cannot comprehend God, but as he is pleased to condescend to us
in his own ways of discovery, that is, under some way of similitude
to his perfectest creatures, therefore we have a notion of God by
his understanding and will; understanding, whereby he conceives
and apprehends things; will, whereby he extends himself in acting
according to his wisdom, and whereby he doth approve or disapprove;
yet we must not measure his understanding by our own, or think it to
be of so gross a temper as a created mind; that he hath eyes of flesh,
or sees or knows as man {a411} sees (Job x. 4). We can no more measure
his knowledge by ours than we can measure his essence by our essence.
As he hath an incomprehensible essence, to which ours is but as a drop
of a bucket, so he hath an incomprehensible knowledge, to which ours
is but as a grain of dust, or mere darkness: his thoughts are above our
thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth. The knowledge of God is
variously divided by the schools, and acknowledged by all divines.
1. A knowledge _visionis et simplicis intelligentiæ_; the one we may
call a sight, the other an understanding; the one refers to sense, the
other to the mind. (1.) A knowledge of vision or sight. Thus God knows
himself and all things that really were, are, or shall be in time;
all those things which he hath decreed to be, though they are not yet
actually sprung up in the world, but lie couchant in their causes.
(2.) A knowledge of intelligence or simple understanding. The object
of this is not things that are in being, or that shall by any decree
of God ever be existent in the world, but such things as are possible
to be wrought by the power of God, though they shall never in the
least peep up into being, but lie forever wrapt up in darkness and
nothing.[681] This also is a necessary knowledge to be allowed to God,
because the object of this knowledge is necessary. The possibility
of more creatures than ever were or shall be, is a conclusion that
hath a necessary truth in it; as it is necessary that the power of God
can produce more creatures, though it be not necessary that it should
produce more creatures, so it is necessary that whatsoever the power
of God can work, is possible to be. And as God knows this possibility,
so he knows all the objects that are thus possible; and herein doth
much consist the infiniteness of his knowledge, as shall be shown
presently. These two kinds of knowledge differ; that of vision, is of
things which God hath decreed to be, though they are not yet; that of
intelligence is of things which never shall be; yet they may be, or
are possible to be, if God please to will and order their being; one
respects things that shall be, the other, things that may be, and
are not repugnant to the nature of God to be. The knowledge of vision
follows the act of God’s will, and supposeth an act of God’s will
before, decreeing things to be. (If we could suppose any first or
second in God’s decree, we might say God knew them as possible before
he decreed them; he knew them as future, because he decreed them.)
For without the will of God decreeing a thing to come to pass, God
cannot know that it will infallibly come to pass. But the knowledge of
intelligence stands without any act of his will, in order to the being
of those things he knows; he knows possible things only in his power;
he knows other things both in his power as able to effect them, and
in his will, as determining the being of them; such knowledge we must
grant to be in God, for there is such a kind of knowledge in man;
for man doth not only know and see what is before his eyes in this
world, but he may have a conception of many more worlds, and many more
creatures, which he knows are possible to the power of God.
2. There is a speculative and practical knowledge in God. (1.) A
{a412} speculative knowledge is, when the truth of a thing is known
without a respect to any working or practical operation. The knowledge
of things possible is in God only speculative,[682] and some say God’s
knowledge of himself is only speculative, because there is nothing
for God to work in himself: and though he knows himself, yet this
knowledge of himself doth not terminate there, but flowers into a
love of himself, and delight in himself; yet this love of himself, and
delight in himself, is not enough to make it a practical knowledge,
because it is natural, and naturally and necessarily flows from the
knowledge of himself and his own goodness: he cannot but love himself,
and delight in himself, upon the knowledge of himself. But that which
is properly practice, is where there is a dominion over the action,
and it is wrought not naturally and necessarily, but in a way of
freedom and counsel. As when we see a beautiful flower or other thing,
there ariseth a delight in the mind; this no man will call practice,
because it is a natural affection of the will, arising from the virtue
of the object, without any consideration of the understanding in a
practical manner by counselling, commanding, &c. (2.) A practical
knowledge: which tends to operation and practice, and is the principle
of working about things that are known; as the knowledge an artificer
hath in an art or mystery. This knowledge is in God: the knowledge
he hath of the things he hath decreed, is such a kind of knowledge;
for it terminates in the act of creation, which is not a natural and
necessary act, as the loving himself, and delighting in himself is,
but wholly free: for it was at his liberty whether he would create
them or no; this is called discretion (Jer. x. 12): “He hath stretched
out the heavens by his discretion.” Such also is his knowledge of
the things he hath created, and which are in being, for it terminates
in the government of them for his own glorious ends. It is by this
knowledge “the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down their
dew” (Prov. iii. 20). This is a knowledge whereby he knows the essence,
qualities, and properties of what he creates and governs in order to
his own glory, and the common good of the world over which he resides;
so that speculative knowledge is God’s knowledge of himself and things
possible; practical knowledge is his knowledge of his creatures and
things governable; yet in some sort this practical knowledge is not
only of things that are made, but of things which are possible, which
God might make, though he will not: for as he knows that they can
be created, so he knows how they are to be created, and how to be
governed, though he never will create them. This is a practical
knowledge: for it is not requisite to constitute a knowledge practical,
actually to act, but that the knowledge in itself be referable to
action.[683]
3. There is a knowledge of approbation, as well as apprehension.
This the Scripture often mentions. Words of understanding are used to
signify the acts of affection. This knowledge adds to the simple act
of the understanding, the complacency and pleasure of the will, and
is improperly knowledge, because it belongs to the will, and not to
the understanding; only it is radically in the understanding, because
affection implies knowledge: men cannot approve of {a413} that which
they are ignorant of. Thus knowledge is taken (Amos iii. 2), “You only
have I known of all the families of the earth;” and (2 Tim. ii. 19),
“The Lord knows who are his,” that is, he loves them; he doth not
only know them, but acknowledges them for his own. It notes, not
only an exact understanding, but a special care of them; and so is
that to be understood (Gen. i.), “God saw every thing that he had
made, and behold it was very good:” that is, he saw it with an eye
of approbation, as well as apprehension. This is grounded upon God’s
knowledge of vision, his sight of his creatures; for God doth not love
or delight in anything but what is actually in being, or what he hath
decreed to bring into being. On the contrary, also, when God doth not
approve, he is said not to know (Matt. xxv. 12), “I know you not,”
and (Matt. vii. 23), “I never knew you;” he doth not approve of their
works. It is not an ignorance of understanding, but an ignorance of
will; for while he saith he never knew them, he testifies that he did
know them, in rendering the reason of his disapproving them, because
he knows all their works: so he knows them, and doth not know them
in a different manner: he knows them so as to understand them, but
he doth not know them so as to love them. We must, then, ascribe an
universal knowledge to God. If we deny him a speculative knowledge,
or knowledge of intelligence, we destroy his Deity, we make him
ignorant of his own power: if we deny him practical knowledge, we
deny ourselves to be his creatures; for, as his creatures, we are the
fruits of this, his discretion, discovered in creation: if we deny
his knowledge of vision, we deny his governing dominion. How can he
exercise a sovereign and uncontrollable dominion, that is ignorant
of the nature and qualities of the things he is to govern? If he had
not knowledge he could make no revelation; he that knows not cannot
dictate; we could then have no Scripture. To deny God knowledge, is
to dash out the Scripture, and demolish the Deity. God is described in
Zech. iii. 9, “with seven eyes,” to show his perfect knowledge of all
things, all occurrences in the world; and the cherubims, or whatsoever
is meant by the wings, are described to be full of eyes, both “before
and behind” (Ezek. i. 18), round about them; much more is God all
eye, all ear, all understanding. The sun is a natural image of God;
if the sun had an eye, it would see; if it had an understanding, it
would know all visible things; it would see what it shines upon, and
understand what it influenceth, in the most obscure bowels of the
earth. Doth God excel his creature, the sun, in excellency and beauty,
and not in light and understanding? certainly more than the sun excels
an atom or grain of dust. We may yet make some representation of this
knowledge of God by a lower thing, a picture, which seems to look
upon every one, though there be never so great a multitude in the
room where it hangs; no man can cast his eye upon it, but it seems to
behold him in particular, and so exactly, as if there were none but
him upon whom the eye of it were fixed; and every man finds the same
cast of it: shall art frame a thing of that nature, and shall not the
God of art and all knowledge, be much more in reality than that is
in imagination? Shall not God have a far greater capacity to behold
everything in {a414} the world, which is infinitely less to him than
a wide room to a picture?
II. The second thing, What God knows; how far his understanding
reaches.