low thoughts should we have of our own knowledge, and how humble ought
we to be before God! There is nothing man is more apt to be proud of
than his knowledge; it is a perfection he glories in; but if our own
knowledge of the little outside and barks of things puffs us up, the
consideration of the infiniteness of God’s knowledge should abate the
tumor: as our beings are nothing in regard to the infiniteness of his
essence, so our knowledge is nothing in regard of the vastness of his
understanding. We have a spark of being, but nothing to the heat of
the sun; we have a drop of knowledge, but nothing to the Divine ocean.
What a vain thing is it for a shallow brook to boast of its streams
before a sea, whose depths are unfathomable! As it is a vanity to
brag of our strength, when we remember the power of God, and of our
prudence, when we glance upon the wisdom of God, so it is no less a
vanity to boast of our knowledge, when we think of the understanding
and knowledge of God. How hard is it for us to know anything![746]
Too much noise deafens us, and too much light dazzles us; too much
distance alienates the object from us, and too much nearness bars up
our sight from beholding it. When we think ourselves to be near the
knowledge of a thing, as a ship to the haven, a puff of wind blows
us away, and the object which we desired to know eternally flies from
us; we burn with a desire of knowledge, and yet are oppressed with
the darkness of ignorance; we spend our days more in dark Egypt, than
in enlightened Goshen. In what narrow bounds is all the knowledge of
the most intelligent persons included![747] How few understand the
exact harmony of their own bodies, the nature of the life they have
in common with other animals! Who understands the nature of his own
faculties, how he knows, and how he wills; how the understanding
proposeth, and how the will embraceth; how his spiritual soul is
united to his material body; what the nature is of the operation of
{a475} our spirits? Nay, who understands the nature of his own body,
the offices of his senses, the motion of his members, how they come to
obey the command of the will, and a thousand other things? What a vain,
weak, and ignorant thing is man, when compared with God! yet there is
not a greater pride to be found among devils, than among ignorant men,
with a little, very little, flashy knowledge. Ignorant man is as proud
as if he knew as God. As the consideration of God’s omniscience should
render him honorable in our eyes, so it should render us vile in our
own. God, because of his knowledge, is so far from disdaining his
creatures, that his omniscience is a minister to his goodness. No
knowledge that we are possessed of should make us swell with too high
a conceit of ourselves, and a disdain of others. We have infinitely
more of ignorance than knowledge. Let us therefore remember, in all
our thoughts of God, that he is God, and we are men; and therefore
ought to be humble, as becomes men, and ignorant and foolish men,
to be; as weak creatures should lie low before an Almighty God, and
impure creatures before a holy God, false creatures before a faithful
God, finite creatures before an infinite God, so should ignorant
creatures before an all‑knowing God. All God’s attributes teach
admiring thoughts of God, and low thoughts of ourselves.
_Instruct. 8._ It may inform us how much this attribute is injured
in the world. The first error after Adam’s eating the forbidden
fruit was the denial of this, as well as the omnipresence of God,
(Gen. iii. 10,) “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I hid myself;”
as if the thickness of the trees could screen him from the eye of
his Creator. And after Cain’s murder, this is the first perfection he
affronts, (Gen. iv. 9), “Where is Abel, thy brother?” saith God. How
roundly doth he answer, “I know not!” as if God were as weak as man,
to be put off with a lie. Man doth as naturally hate this perfection
as much as he cannot naturally but acknowledge it; he wishes God
stripped of this eminency, that he might be incapable to be an
inspector of his crimes, and a searcher of the closets of his heart.
In wishing him deprived of this, there is a hatred of God himself; for
it is a loathing an essential property of God, without which he would
be a pitiful Governor of the world. What a kind of God should that
be, of a sinner’s wishing, that had wanted eyes to see a crime, and
righteousness to punish it! The want of the consideration of this
attribute, is the cause of all sin in the world (Hos. vii. 2), “They
consider not in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness;”
they speak not to their hearts, or make any reflection upon the
infiniteness of my knowledge; it is a high contempt of God, as if he
were an idol, a senseless stock or stone; in all evil practices this
is denied. We know God sees all things, yet we live and walk as if he
knew nothing. We call him omniscient, and live as if he were ignorant;
we say he is all eye, yet act as if he were wholly blind.
In particular, this attribute is injured, by invading the peculiar
rights of it, by presuming on it, and by a practical denial of it.
First, By invading the peculiar rights of it. 1. By invocation of
creatures. Praying to saints, by the Romanists, is a disparagement
{a476} to this divine excellency; he that knows all things, is only
fit to have the petitions of men presented to him; prayer supposeth
an omniscient Being, as the object of it; no other being but God
ought to have that honor acknowledged to it; no understanding but
his is infinite; no other presence but his is everywhere; to implore
any deceased creature for a supply of our wants, is to own in them a
property of the Deity, and make them deities that were but men; and
increase their glory by a diminution of God’s honor, in ascribing
that perfection to creatures which belongs only to God. Alas! they
are so far from understanding the desires of our souls, that they
know not the words of our lips: it is against reason to address our
supplications to them that neither understand us nor discern us (Isa.
lxiii. 16), “Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledges us
not.” The Jews never called upon Abraham, though the covenant was made
with him for the whole seed; not one departed saint for the whole four
thousand years, between the creation of the world, and the coming of
Christ, was ever prayed to by the Israelites, or ever imagined to have
a share in God’s omniscience: so that to pray to St. Peter, St. Paul,
much less to St. Roch, St. Swithin, St. Martin, St. Francis, &c. is
such a superstition, that hath no footing in the Scripture. To desire
the prayers of the living, with whom we have a communion, who can
understand and grant our desires, is founded upon a mutual charity;
but to implore persons that are absent, at a great distance from us,
with whom we have not, nor know how to have, any commerce, supposeth
them, in their departure, to have put off humanity, and commenced gods,
and endued with some part of the Divinity to understand our petitions;
we are, indeed, to cherish their memories, consider their examples,
imitate their graces, and observe their doctrines; we are to follow
them as saints, but not elevate them as gods, in ascribing to them
such a knowledge, which is the only necessary right of their and our
common Creator.[748] As the invocation of saints mingles them with
Christ, in the exercise of his office, so it sets them equal with
God in the throne of his omniscience, as if they had as much credit
with God as Christ, by way of mediation, and as much knowledge of
men’s affairs as God himself. Omniscience is peculiar to God, and
incommunicable to any creature; it is the foundation of all religion,
and therefore one of the choicest acts of it; viz. prayer and
invocation. To direct our vows and petitions to any one else, is to
invade the peculiarity of this perfection in God, and to rank some
creatures in a partnership with him in it.
2. This attribute is injured by curiosity of knowledge; especially
of future things, which God hath not discovered in natural causes,
or supernatural revelation. It is a common error of men’s spirits
to aspire to know what God would have hidden, and to pry into Divine
secrets; and many men are more willing to remain without the knowledge
of those things which may, with a little industry, be attained,
than be divested of the curiosity of inquiring into those things
which are above their reach; it is hence that some have laid aside
the study of the common remedies of nature to find out the {a477}
philosopher’s stone, which scarce any ever yet attempted but sunk in
the enterprise.[749] From this inclination to know the most abstruse
and difficult things, it is that the horrors of magic and vanities of
astrology have sprung, whereby men have thought to find, in a commerce
with devils and the jurisdiction of the stars, the events of their
lives, and the disposal of states and kingdoms. Hence, also, arose
those multitudes of ways of divination, invented among the heathen,
and practised too commonly in these ages of the world. This is an
invasion of God’s prerogative, to whom secret things belong (Deut.
xxix. 29); “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but revealed
things belong to us and our children.” It is an intolerable boldness
to attempt to fathom those, the knowledge whereof God hath reserved
to himself, and to search that which God will have to surpass our
understandings, whereby we more truly envy God a knowledge superior
to our own, than we, in Adam, imagined that he envied us. Ambition is
the greatest cause of this; ambition to be accounted some great thing
among men, by reason of a knowledge estranged from the common mass of
mankind, but more especially that soaring pride to be equal with God,
which lurks in our nature ever since the fall of our first parents:
this is not yet laid aside by men, though it was the first thing that
embroiled the world with the wrath of God. Some think a curiosity
of knowledge was the cause of the fall of devils; I am sure it was
the fall of Adam, and is yet the crime of his posterity; had he been
contented to know what God had furnished him with, neither he nor his
posterity had smarted under the venom of the serpent’s breath. All
curious and bold inquiries into things not revealed are an attempt
upon the throne of God, and are both sinful and pernicious, like
to glaring upon the sun, where, instead of a greater acuteness, we
meet with blindness, and too dearly buy our ignorance in attempting
a superfluous knowledge. As God’s knowledge is destined to the
government of the world, so should ours be to the advantage of the
world, and not degenerate into vain speculations.
3. This attribute is injured by swearing by creatures. To swear
by the name of God, in a righteous cause,[750] when we are lawfully
called to it by a superior power, or for the necessary decision of
some controversy, for the ends of charity and justice, is an act
of religion, and a part of worship, founded upon, and directed to,
the honor of this attribute; by it we acknowledge the glory of his
infallible knowledge of all things; but to swear by false gods, or by
any creature, is blasphemous; it sets the creature in the place of God,
and invests it in that which is the peculiar honor of the Divinity;
for when any swear truly, they intend the invocation of an infallible
Witness, and the bringing an undoubted testimony for what they do
assert: while, any, therefore, swear by a creature, or a false god,
they profess that that creature, or that which they esteem to be a god,
is an infallible witness, which to be is only the right of God; they
attribute to the creature that which is the property of God alone, to
know the heart, and to be a witness whether they speak true or no: and
this was accounted, by all nations, the true design {a478} of an oath.
As to swear falsely is a plain denial of the all‑knowledge of God, so
to swear by any creature is to set the creature upon the throne of God,
in ascribing that perfection to the creature which sovereignly belongs
to the Creator; for it is not in the power of any to witness to the
truth of the heart, but of him that is the searcher of hearts.
4. We sin against this attribute by censuring the hearts of others.
An open crime, indeed, falls under our cognizance, and therefore under
our judgment; for whatsoever falls under the authority of man to be
punished, falls under the judgment of man to be censured, as an act
contrary to the law of God; yet, when a censure is built upon the evil
of the act which is obvious to the view, if we take a step farther to
judge the heart and state, we leave the revealed rule of the law, and
ambitiously erect a tribunal equal with God’s, and usurp a judicial
power, pertaining only to the Supreme Governor of the world, and
consequently pretend to be possessed of the perfection of omniscience,
which is necessary to render him capable of the exercise of that
sovereign authority: for it is in respect of his dominion that God
hath the supreme right to judge; and in respect of his knowledge
that he hath an incommunicable capacity to judge. In an action
that is doubtful, the good or evil whereof depends only upon God’s
determination, and wherein much of the judgment depends upon the
discerning the intention of the agent, we cannot judge any man without
a manifest invasion of God’s peculiar right: such actions are to be
tried by God’s knowledge, not by our surmises; God only is the master
in such cases, to whom a person stands or falls (Rom. xiv. 4). ’Till
the true principle and ends of an action be known by the confession
of the party acting it, a true judgment of it is not in our power.
Principles and ends lie deep and hid from us; and it is intolerable
pride to pretend to have a joint key with God to open that cabinet
which he hath reserved to himself. Besides the violation of the rule
of charity in misconstruing actions which may be great and generous in
their root and principle, we invade God’s right, as if our ungrounded
imaginations and conjectures were in joint commission with this
sovereign perfection; and thereby we become usurping judges of
evil thoughts (James ii. 4). It is, therefore, a boldness worthy to
be punished by the judge, to assume to ourselves the capacity and
authority of him who is the only Judge: for as the execution of the
Divine law, for the inward violation of it, belongs only to God, so is
the right of judging a prerogative belonging only to his omniscience;
his right is, therefore, invaded, if we pretend to a knowledge of it.
This humor of men the apostle checks, when he saith (1 Cor. iv. 5),
“He that judgeth me is the Lord; therefore judge nothing before the
time, until the Lord come, who will manifest the counsels of all
hearts.” It is not the time yet for God to erect the tribunal for the
trial of men’s hearts, and the principles of their actions; he hath
reserved the glorious discovery of this attribute for another season:
we must not, therefore, presume to judge of the counsels of men’s
hearts till God hath revealed them by opening the treasures of his
own knowledge; much less are we to judge any man’s final condition.
Manasseh may sacrifice to devils, {a479} and unconverted Paul tear
the church in pieces; but God had mercy on them, and called them. The
actions may be censured, not the state, for we know not whom God may
call. In censuring men, we may doubly imitate the devil, in a false
accusation of the brethren, as well as in an ambitious usurpation of
the rights of God.
Secondly, This perfection is injured by presuming upon it, or
making an ill use of it. As in the neglect of prayer for the supply of
men’s wants, because God knows them already, so that that which is an
encouragement to prayer, they make the reason of restraining it before
God. Prayer is not to administer knowledge to God, but to acknowledge
this admirable perfection of the Divine nature. If God did not know,
there were indeed no use of prayer; it would be as vain a thing to
send up our prayers to heaven, as to implore the senseless statue,
or picture of a prince, for a protection. We pray because God knows:
for though he knows our wants with a knowledge of vision, yet he
will not know them with a knowledge of supply, till he be sought unto
(Matt. vi. 32, 33; vii. 11.) All the excellencies of God are ground of
adoration; and this excellency is the ground of that part of worship
we call prayer. If God be to be worshipped, he is to be called upon:
invocations of his name in our necessities is a chief act of worship;
whence the temple, the place of solemn worship, was not called the
house of sacrifice, but the house of prayer. Prayer was not appointed
for God’s information, as if he were ignorant, but for the expression
of our desires; not to furnish him with a knowledge of what we want,
but to manifest to him, by some rational sign convenient to our nature,
our sense of that want, which he knows by himself. So that prayer is
not designed to acquaint God with our wants, but to express the desire
of a remedy of our wants. God knows our wants, but hath not made
promises barely to our wants, but to our asking, that his omniscience
in hearing, as well as his sufficiency in supplying, may have a
sensible honor in our acknowledgments and receipts. It is therefore an
ill use of this excellency of God to neglect prayer to him as needless,
because he knows already.
Thirdly. This perfection of God is wronged by a practical denial
of it. It is the language of every sin, and so God takes it when he
comes to reckon with men for their impieties. Upon this he charges
the greatness of the iniquity of Israel, the overflowing of blood in
the land, and the perverseness of the city: “They say, the Lord hath
forsaken the earth, and the Lord sees not” (Ezek. ix. 9): they deny
his eyes to see, and his resolution to punish.
1. It will appear, in forbearing sin from a sense of man’s knowledge,
not of God’s. Open impieties are refrained because of the eye of man,
but secret sins are not checked because of the eye of God. Wickedness
is committed in darkness, that is restrained in light, as if darkness
were as great a clog to God’s eyes as it is to ours; as though his
eyes were muffled with the curtains of the night (Job xxii. 14.) This,
it is likely, was at the root of Jonah’s flight; he might have some
secret thought that his Master’s eye could not follow him, as though
the close hatches of a ship could secure him from the knowledge of
God, as well as the sides of a ship {a480} could from the dashing of
the waves. What lies most upon the conscience when it is graciously
wounded, is least regarded or contemned when it is basely inclined.
David’s heart smote him not only for his sin in the gross, but as
particularly cirumstantiated by the commission of it in the sight of
God (Ps. li. 4): “Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this
evil in thy sight.” None knew the reason of Uriah’s death but myself,
and because others knew it not, I neglected any regard to this Divine
eye. When Jacob’s sons used their brother Joseph so barbarously, they
took care to hide it from their father, but cast away all thoughts
of God, from whom it could not be concealed. Doth not the presence of
a child bridle a man from the act of a longed‑for sin, when the eye
of God is of no force to restrain him, as if God’s knowledge were of
less value than the sight of a little boy or girl, as if a child only
could see, and God were blind? He that will forbear an unworthy action
for fear of an informer, will not forbear it for God; as if God’s
omniscience were not as full an intelligencer to him, as man can be
an informer to a magistrate. As we acknowledge the power of men seeing
us when we are ashamed to commit a filthy action in their view, so
we discover the power of God seeing us, when we regard not what we do
before the light of his eyes. Secret sins are more against God than
open: open sins are against the law; secret sins are against the law,
and this prime perfection of his nature. The majesty of God is not
only violated, but the omniscience of God disowned, who is the only
witness; we must, in all of them, either imagine him to be without
eyes to behold us, or without an arm of justice to punish us. And
often it is, I believe, in such cases, that if any thoughts of God’s
knowledge strike upon men, they quickly damp them, lest they should
begin to know what they fear, and fear that they might not eat their
pleasant sinful morsels.
2. It appears in partial confessions of sin before God. As by a free,
full, and ingenious confession, we offer a due glory to this attribute,
so by a feigned and curtailed confession, we deny him the honor of
it: for, though by any confession we in part own him to be a Sovereign
and Judge, yet by a half and pared acknowledgment, we own him to be
no more than a humane and ignorant one. Achan’s full confession gave
God the glory of his omniscience, manifested in the discovery of his
secret crime. “And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee,
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him” (Joshua
vii. 19). And so (Ps. l. 23): “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me,”
or confession, as the word signifieth, in which sense I would rather
take it, referring to this attribute, which God seems to tax sinners
with the denial of (ver. 21), telling them that he would open the
records of their sins before them, and indict them particularly for
every one. If, therefore, you would glorify this attribute, which
shall one day break open your consciences, offer to me a sincere
confession. When David speaks of the happiness of a pardoned man,
he adds, “in whose spirit there is no guile,”[751] not meaning a
sincerity in general, but an ingenuity in confessing. To excuse, or
extenuate sin, is to deny God the {a481} knowledge of the depths of
our deceitful hearts: when we will mince it rather than aggravate it;
lay it upon the inducements of others, when it was the free act of our
own wills, study shifts to deceive our Judge; this is to speak lies of
him, as the expression is (Hos. vii. 13), as though he were a God easy
to be cheated, and knew no more than we were willing to declare. What
did Saul’s transferring his sin from himself to the people (1 Sam. xv.
15), but charge God with a defect in this attribute? When man could
not be like God, in his knowledge, he would fancy a God like to him
in his ignorance, and imagine a possibility of hiding himself from his
knowledge. And all men tread, more or less, in their father’s steps,
and are fruitful to devise distinctions to disguise errors in doctrine,
and excuses to palliate errors in practice: this crime Job removes
from himself, when he speaks of several acts of his sincerity (Job
xxxi. 33): “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my
iniquity in my bosom:” I hid not any of my sins in my own conscience,
but acknowledged God a witness to them, and gave him the glory of his
knowledge by a free confession. I did not conceal it from God as Adam
did, or as men ordinarily do; as if God could understand no more of
their secret crimes than they will let him, and had no more sense of
their faults than they would furnish him with. As the first rise of
confession is the owning of this attribute (for the justice of God
would not scare men, nor the holiness of God awe them, without a sense
of his knowledge of their iniquities), so to drop out some fragments
of confession, discover some sins, and conceal others, is a plain
denial of the extensiveness of the Divine knowledge.