Two dissertations, I. Concerning the end for which God created the world. II. The…

1. THAT no notion of God's last end in the creation of the world is agreeable to reason, which would truly imply or infer any indigence, insufficiency and mutability in God; or any dependence of the Creator on the creature, for any part of his perfection or happiness. Because it is evident, by both scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy; that he stands in no need of, cannot be profited by, or receive any thing from the creature; or be truly hurt, or be the subject of any sufferings or impair of his glory and felicity from any other being. I need not stand to produce the proofs of God's ⟨p. 13⟩being such a one, it being so universally allowed and maintained by such as call themselves christians.—The notion of God's creating the world in order to receive any thing properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation; which implies a being's receiving it's existence, & all that belongs to it's being, out of nothing. And this implies the most perfect, absolute and universal derivation and dependence. Now, if the creature receives it's all from God entirely and perfectly, how is it possible that it should have any thing to add to God, to make him in any respect more than he was before, and so the Creator become dependent on the creature?

1. THAT no notion of God's last end in the creation of the world is agreable to reason, which would truly imply or infer any indigence, insufficiency and mutability in God; or any dependence of the Creator on the creature, for any part of his perfection or happiness. Because it is evident, by both scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy; that he stands in no need of, cannot be profited by, or receive any thing from the creature; or be truly hurt, or be the subject of any sufferings or impair of his glory and felicity from any other being. I need not stand to produce the proofs of God's ⟨p. 13⟩being such a one, it being so universally allowed and maintained by such as call themselves christians.—The notion of God's creating the world in order to receive any thing properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation; which implies a being's receiving it's existence, & all that belongs to it's being, out of nothing. And this implies the most perfect, absolute and universal derivation and dependence. Now, if the creature receives it's all from God entirely and perfectly, how is it possible that it should have any thing to add to God, to make him in any respect more than he was before, and so the Creator become dependent on the creature?