Andi n another Place, he gives a noble and elegant Defcrip- ei toe, tion of this Eternity; viz. (4) God, we must say, is, and is p. 393. ⚫ with respect to no Time, but of a timeless, immoveable, and indeclinable Age or Eternity; of which there is no Before, or C After, or Now; but being One, fills a Sempiternity with one Now, and in this respect is folely, really Being, neither past nor future, neither Beginning nor Ending. And Plato fays, (r) We attribute to the Eternal Being was and In Timæo, fhall be, but not rightly; for according to true Speech or Reason, P.37, 38. we should afcribe to him only Is. And accordingly, in another In Phædro, Place he ftiles him, To ov, the Being; which he probably learnt p. 78. from the Jews, and the Writings of Mofes, in which God himfelf ftiles himself, I am; which furely denotes his Eternity: So that it does appear in Scripture, even immediately from God himself; and tho' the Manner was above our Faculties, yet the Thing is not fo; for it was an Answer to Moses's Question, and was to fatisfy, and it did fatisfy him and all the Jews, to whom he was fent. But in Support of your Opinion, you fay, the Greek Lan- P. 28. guage hath Three Ways of fpeaking, which are fometimes render'd Eternal. The first, air, or we aiûvo, or we aiwvwv, or wee χρόνων αιωνίων. This you fay feldom or never fignifies a proper Eternity. The Second, alo. This not always. The Third, Cairo. This alone always does fo. And you add, ''Tis very remarkable, that the Bible and Apoftolical Fathers never, in this Cafe of the Antiquity of the Son, ufe any but the Firft; None of thefe before the Council of Nice more than the First, and very rarely the Second; while • Athanafius and his Followers, and none before them, directly ventur❜d on the Third Way of speaking, and call'd the Son • Coeternal. This last makes a fair Shew, but indeed is very trifling; for if a' does not fignify a proper Eternity when apply'd to God, how can you say that ovvai always does fo? For (9) Ἔσιν ὁ θεὸς, καὶ φάναι, καὶ ἔσι κατ' ἐδένα χρόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ αιώνα ἢ ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄχρονον καὶ ἀνέγκλιτον και ο πρότερον κα δὲν ὅσιν ἐδ ̓ ὕστερον ἐδὲ νεώτερον, ἀλλ ̓ εἷς ἐν ἑνὶ τῷ ναῶ τὸ αιεὶ πεπλήρωνε και μόνον ὅτι τὸ καὶ τὸτον ὄντως ὄν, ο γεγονὸς, ἐδ' ἐσόπρον ἐδ' αρξάμμον ἐδὲ παυσάμθμον. (*) Το γ' τ, το 7' ἔςαι, χρόνο γεγονότΘ εἴδη φέροντες, λαμ πάνομαι ότι * αΐδιον ἐσίαν, ἐκ ορθώς, λέγοιμ δ ως ἔει τε καὶ ἔσαι, τῇ ἢ τὸ ἔςι μόνον και ὲ ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει. συναί " Dr. Ham mond on ouvain, Coeternal, is only being with a, Eternal; or, being what is a, Eternal. ; in And there could be no Occafion to ftile the Son Coeternal, till Hereticks fubtilly and fraudulently call'd him God, and yet deny'd his Eternity à Parte ante, which was imply'd in God and therefore to obviate that Fallacy and Equivocation, 'twas requir'd that they should declare him Coeternal, that is, as the Father is Eternal, fo is the Son too. And thus did the Jews, to obviate the Herefy of the Sadducees; for when the Form, which they concluded all their Benedictions, viz. from Age, was Teftament, perverted by the Sadducees to their Senfe, viz. of the World; they appointed the Form to be, From Age and to Age, that is, of this World, and of the World to come after the Day of Doom. Now in the Nature and Reason of the Thing, if the Son be Eternal, he must be Coeternal with the Father, that is, Eternal as well as the Father, neither being before or after the other, but both exifting eternally together. De Mun do, p. 847, De Pla. P. 28. As to the other two Ways in Greek of expreffing Eternity, I do own, that aid, and the Derivations from it, do fometimes in Scripture fignify the Age of the World, and the Age of the Gospel, and we air, before the World began: But I am very forry the Inference from this Notion, and the Application of it, has been by you deriv'd from fo ill an Authority or Example, as that of the Sadducees, the worft Sect of all the Jews. I do own alfo, that is fometimes apply'd to Eternity only à Parte poft; as in Fude, aidius deoquois, Everlasting Chains : But that thefe Words do, in Heathen Authors, fignify á proper Eternity when they defign it, and Eternity à Parte poft, according to the Subject-Matter, I think, cannot be deny'd. Plato, in the Place before-mention'd, calls God didlov sav. Ariftotle, in like manner, ufes alav©, ai@v© ȧrigor, to fignify Eternity. Plutarch : 6 28 θεός αἰώνια, ξ αἰῶνα ὁ θεός. And if thefe Words do not fignify a proper Eternity, I defire you to tell me any Greek Words, that have been us'd by any Greek Authors, to exprefs it. And that a proper Eternity is defign'd to be fpoken of in the Scriptures, and that in those Places thefe Words are used to exprefs it, and cannot there be understood and apply'd to the Age of the Gospel, or the Age or Beginning of the World, or a Time before the Beginning of it; and that these Words are apply'd to the Son, as well as to the Father, I shall now fhew. 'Tis indeed very remarkable, as you fay, that the Bible, in the Cafe of the Antiquity of the Son, never ufes any but the First; but if it should be fo, 'twill not be fubfervient to your Purpose, because 'tis as remarkable, that tho' ♪ 4 is is us'd when the Eternity of the Father is spoken of, Rom. i. 20. Eternal Godhead, and Wifd. vii. 26. Eternal Light; yet generally, and almost always, the Firft is us'd to exprefs the Eternity of the Father, and therefore, if apply'd to the Son, it must denote alfo his, not Antiquity, but Eternity. Now whether you have not been too rafh in afferting, that the First feldom or never fignifies a proper Eternity, may be feen by fome few Inftances of the many which might be produced. Gen. xxi. 33. The Name of the Lord was there call'd, The Everlafting God. Ifaiah 2 xl. 28. Rom. xvi. 26. +} Everlasting God. Dan iv. 34. His Dominion Everlafting. Pfal. xc. 2. In all these Places aid is us'd. From everlasting to everlasting. Σεν. 48. Σ απὸ τὸ αἰῶνΘ ἕως τὸ αἰῶν Θ. xli. 13. ἀπὸ τὸ αἰῶν Θεἰς τὰ αἰῶνα. xcii. 2. ἀπὸ τὸ αἰῶνΘ σὺ εἶ xxix. 10. The Lord is King for ever. cxix. 89. For ever thy Word is fettled in Heaven. Deut. xxxii. 40. I lift up my Hand to Heaven, and fay, I live for ever. Dan. xii. 7. Sware by him who liveth for ever. εἰς + αἰῶνα. Rev. iv. 9. Who liveth for ever and ever. I Pet. v. 11. To him be Glory for ever and ever. Pfalm x. 16. The Lord is King for ever and ever. Ifaiah lvii. 15. Who inhabiteth Eternity. κατοικῶν * αἰῶνα. Pfal. cxlv. 13. Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom. βασιλεία πάντων αἰώνων. Now if these and many more fuch Texts should be interpreted of the Age of the World, or of the Gospel, how unworthy muft fuch a Construction be of the Majefty and Glorious Attributes of God? and indeed how abfurd? for then they will run thus: The God of the Age, who inhabits the Age. His 2 Cor. iv. 18. His Power, Dominion, Kingdom and Ways are of the His Word remaineth even in Heaven, but to the Age, or End Who is to be praised from the Beginning of the Age to the Who from the Age, or Beginning of the World, is God, or is, How then is els savas to be tranflated in the Lord's Prayer? Is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory of God, to the Ages only, or the End of the World? And does the Son of God teach us, when we pray, to say fo? St. Paul fays, the Things which are seen are temporal, but the Things which are not feen are divia, eternal; but according to your Notion you must render it, are to the End of the World, that is, are temporal. Is not this abfurd, and turning the Scripture into Nonfenfe? Could the Heathens happily find an Eternal Godhead, and have the infpir'd Prophets fpoke of him and his Dominion as only of 1 Pet. i.19. this World? Is this the fure Word of Prophecy, the Light that fhines in a dark Place? And is this Light, and the Light of the Gospel too, more dim than the Light of Nature and our Reafon, by which we are affur'd he must be Infinite and Eternal, or not God? And is this Truth not to be mention'd in Scripture, left it should dazzle our Eyes, and yet was reveal'd unto Babes? Why are we turn'd back to weak and beggarly Rudiments to learn from Nature, and owe to it, our Faith of this fundamental ArtiGal. iv. 9. cle of all Religion, and deny it to Revelation, and the Voice of Matt. xi. 25.27. John viii. 19. God himself from Heaven, I am? But in the Words of our Saviour, If you had known me, you would have known my Father also, you would certainly have allow'd thefe Expreffions to have fully denoted an abfolute Eternity; (for in the Greek Authors they are generally fo underflood;) but you apprehend the Confequence, which is inevi table, that if the fame Things, and indeed the infeparable Perfections of God and Eternity be attributed to the Son, as well as to the Father, then he must be God equal to the Father: But rather than allow Eternity to the Son, you chufe (I will not fay to deny, tho' your Conftruction of air in the beforemention'd Texts amounts to it, but ) to take from us the best Evidence we can have, of the Eternity of the Father himself, which is the Revelation he has given us of himself in the Scriptures. I should now mention fome of the many Texts, which plainly and fully exprefs and declare in the fame Terms, or equiva lent with the above-mention'd, the Divinity of our Saviour, his Eternity, and other effential incommunicable Attributes of the Supreme God: But this will be more proper, after I have con fider'd fider'd the Texts of Scripture, which you have quoted to fupport your Doctrine: Which I now proceed to do. The firft Text you quote is out of Proverbs, which you ren- Chap. viii. der thus, p.9. The Lord created me the Beginning of his Ways for his Works: V. 22. Before the World he founded me, in the Beginning before he made V. 23. the Earth. Before the Fountains of Water came. V. 25. Before the Mountains were faftned, he begat me before the V. 25. Hills. The Word in the Septuagint is indeed ennor, created; but Bishop Patrick in his Comment fays, that according to the Hebrew Verity, This Text, if it belongs to this Matter, appears < to have been, as St. John fpeaks, with the Father in the Be"ginning, being his only Begotten before all Worlds; and fo the Hebrew Word, which we tranflate poffefs, fometimes fignifies in Scripture, and is render'd by the Septuagint in ano ther Place, viz. Zech. iii. 5. óvnos, begot. I obferve, that in the 25th Verfe 'tis, he begat me, which feems to agree with what Bishop Patrick fays of the Signification of the Hebrew Word in the 22d Verfe, and explains what is meant by created; not that Created and Begotten are the fame Thing, as I have fhewn before out of Tertullian, and what I have faid upon it. Befides, you render, and fo do our Bibles, the 25th Verfe, he begat me, but it should be, begets me, java μs, in the Prefent Tense; and Origen's Obfervation upon it is very juft, viz. 9. Hom. in He generates me before the Hills; he did not fay begat, but Jerem. begets, by which Sempiternity is fignify'd, as Origen says in p. 106. another Place cited by you, and of which I have taken notice before, with whom it is always to-day; and, as Plato faid, Is is the only proper Term to be used of God. And what you render in the 23d Verfe, before the World, and our Bibles, Everlasting, the Words are we rỸ aiŵv&: Of this I have fpoken already, and fhewn how improper your Conftruction is. But I must go back to Bishop Patrick, who fays indeed, that the Ancient Chriftians thought this Text might be apply'd to the Son of God, the Eternal Wisdom, (and the Authors, which I have here before cited, have done fo, but very differently from your Conftruction of them) but he adds, that they were not refolv'd whether they ought not to be apply'd to him rather in his human Nature; and he delivers his own Opinion, that Solomon thought of nothing but the wife Directions God had • given them in his Word reveal'd to them by Moses and the • Prophets. And really your own following Quotations out of Ecclefiafticus, do confirm Bishop Patrick's Conftruction of Wisdom in chis Chapter of the Proverbs, as I fhall fhew; which will also be an Answer |