William Beveridge: All that is in God is God

Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Thanks to @Shanny01 for pointing me in the direction of William Beveridge's exposition of the 39 Articles. Beveridge's treatment of theology proper is pure gold. Here is a preview of a longer extract, but do try to read the whole blog post if you have the time:

... These properties of mercy, power, love, &.c., as they are in us, they are accidents, and so really distinguished both from our souls, and from one another: but as they are 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 him or his essence they can- not be, for then he would be of himself imperfect; there being some property or perfection, which in his own nature he is not.

And 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 itself 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, or indeed any of them, should be finite. And as they are not finite, so neither can they be infinite, if really distinguished from his essence: for then there would be something really distinguished from God infinite as well as God; and by consequence 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. ...

For more, see William Beveridge: All that is in God is God.


Puritanboard Clerk
It's a standard way to gloss divine simplicity. If anything in God isn't God, then God depends on something else in order to be God. So far, so good. It does get difficult in trying to say that if both attributes are God, and everything in God is identical (being God and what not), then attributes A and B would also have to be identical.

But as it is, it is a good gloss.
Not open for further replies.