Andi n another Place, he gives a noble and elegant Description of this Eternity; viz. (৭) '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 After, or Now; but being One, fills a Sempiternity with one • Now, and in this respect is solely, really Being, neither past nor future, neither Beginning nor Ending.

And Plato says, (r) We attribute to the Eternal Being was and In Timeo, shall be, but not rightly; for according to true Speech or Reason, P.37, 38. we should ascribe to him only Is. And accordingly, in another In Phædro, Place he stiles him, τὸ ov, the Being; which he probably learnt p. 78. from the Jews, and the Writings of Mofes, in which God himself stiles himself, I am ; which surely 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 say, the Greek Lan- P. 28. guage hath Three Ways of speaking, which are sometimes

' render'd Eternal.

The first, αἰῶνιο, or ωρὸ αἰῶνο, οι πρὸ αἰώνων, or πρὸ χρονων αἰωνίων.

"This you say seldom or never signifies a proper Eternity.
The Second, aἴδιο.
This not always.

The Third, Cuwαίδια.

This alone always does so.

And you add, ''Tis very remarkable, that the Bible and Apo• Stolical Fathers never, in this Case of the Antiquity of the • Son, use any but the First; None of these 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 συναίδι always does so? For

(9) Ἔσιν ὁ θεὸς, χρὴ φάναι, κὶ ἔσι και ̓ ἐδένα χρόνον ἀλλα - και ̓ ἀιῶνα ἢ ἀκίνητον κὶ ἄχρονον κὶ ἀνέζκλιτον κι ὁ πρότερον δὲν όξιν ἐδ ̓ ὕςερον ἐδὲ νεώτερον, ἀλλ ̓ εἷς ὢν ἑνὶ τῷ νῦ τὸ ἀἰεὶ πεπλήρωκε, κὶ μόνὸν ὅτι τὸ κει τότον ὄντως ὄν, ὁ γεγονὸς, ἐδι' ἐσόμψον ἐδ ̓ ἀρξάμψον ἐδὲ παυσάμθμον.

(*) T , το λ' έσαι, χρόνο γεγονότα εἴδη φέροντες, λανθάνομῳ ἐπὶ ἢ ἀἴδιον ἐσίαν, ἐκ ὀρθῶς, λέγομεν το δὴ ὡς ζω, ἔστι τε, κι ἔσαι, τῇ ἢ τὸ ἕσι μόνον και ἢ ἀληθῆ λόγον ορισήκει.

:

د

/

συναί

Dr. Hammond on the New

συναί, Coeternal, is only being with a, Eternal; or being what is aἴδιο, Eternal.

And there could be no Occasion to stile 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, so is the Son too. And thus did the Jews, to obviate the Heresy of the Sadducees; for when the Form, in which they concluded all their Benedictions, viz. from Age, was Testament, perverted by the Sadducees to their Sense, 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 existing eternally together.

De Mun

do, p.847,
869.
De Pla.
Philof.

p. 881.

As to the other two Ways in Greek of expreffing Eternity, I do own, that air, and the Derivations from it, do fometimes in Scripture fignify the Age of the World, and the Age of the Gospel, and weὸ αἰῶνα, 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 so ill an Authority or Example, as that of the Sadducees, the worst Sect of all the Jews.

I do own also, that al is sometimes apply'd to Eternity only à Parte post; as in Jude, aἰδίοις δεσμοῖς, Everlasting

Chains :

But that these Words do, in Heathen Authors, signify a proper Eternity when they design 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 ιδιον ἐσταν. Aristotle, in like manner, uses si αἰῶνΘ, ἐξ αἰῶν

μονΘ, to signify Eternity.

Plutarch : ὁ τ8 θεὸς αἰώνιο, ἐξ αἰῶν ὁ θεὸς.

ἀτέρ

And if these 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 express it.

And that a proper Eternity is design'd to be spoken of in the Scriptures, and that in those Places these Words are used to express 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 I shall now

apply'd to the Son,
thew.

as well as to the Father,

P. 28.

'Tis indeed very remarkable, as you say, that the Bible, in the Case of the Antiquity of the Son, never uses any but 'the First; but if it should be so, 'twill not be subservient to your Purpose, because 'tis as remarkable, that tho' αἴδιο

4

is

is us'd when the Eternity of the Father is spoken of, Rom. i. 20. Eternal Godhead; and Wild. vii. 26. Eternal Light; yet generally, and almost always, the First is us'd to express the Eternity of the Father, and therefore, if apply'd to the Son, it must denote also his, not Antiquity, but Eternity.

Now whether you have not been too rash in afsserting, that the First feldom or never signifies a proper Eternity, may be seen by some few Instances of the many which might be pro.

duced.

Gen. xxi. 33. The Name of the Lord was there call'd, The E

verlasting God.

Ifaiahxl. 28.

}

Sxxvi. 4.

Rom. xvi. 26.

Everlasting God.

Dan iv. 34. His Dominion Everlasting.

Hab. iii. 6. His Ways are Everlasting.

Pfal.

cvi. 48.

In all these Places αἰώνι is us'd.

From everlasting to everlasting. τὸ αἰῶν Θ ἕως το αἰῶν Θ. From everlasting to everlasting. xli. 13.2 ἀπὸ τὸ αἰῶν Θεἰς + αἰῶνα. SThou art from everlasting.

xcii. 2. Σἀπὸ τὸ αἰῶνα σὺ εἶ. xxix. 10. The Lord is King for ever.

cxix. 89. For ever thy Word is settled in Heaven.

Deut. xxxii. 40. I lift up my Hand to Heaven, and say, 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.

εἰς τοὺ αἰῶνας το αἰώνων.

Pfalm x. 16. The Lord is King for ever and ever.

εἰς ἢ αἰῶνα κὶ εἰς ἢ αἰῶνα τῦ αἰῶνο.

Isaiah Ivii. 15. Who inhabiteth Eternity.

κατοικῶν ἢ αἰῶνα.

Pfal. cxlv. 13. Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.

βασιλεῖα πάντων αἰῶνων.

Now if these and many more such Texts should be interpreted of the Age of the World, or of the Gospel, how unworthy must such a Construction be of the Majesty 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

His Power, Dominion, Kingdom and ways are of the
Age.

His Word remaineth even in Heaven, but to the Age, or End
of the World.

Who is to be praised from the Beginning of the Age to the
End of the Age.

Who from the Age, or Beginning of the World, is God, or is,
and lives to the End of the World: So that he begins and
ends with the World.

How then is εἰς του αιῶνας τo be translated 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 2 Cor. iv. teach us, when we pray, to say so? St. Paul says, the Things which are seen are temporal, but the Things which are not seen are αἰώνια, eternal; but according to your Notion you must render it, are to the End of the World, that is, are temporal. Is not this absurd, and turning the Scripture into Nonfenfe ?

18.

Could the Heathens happily find an Eternal Godhead, and have the inspir'd Prophets spoke of him and his Dominion as only of 1 Pet. 1.19. this World? Is this the fure Word of Prophecy, the Light that shines 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 assur'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 Arti

Matt. xi.

25.27.

Gal. iv. 9. cle of all Religion, and deny it to Revelation, and the Voice of

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 these Expreffions to have fully denoted an absolute Eternity; (for in the Greek Authors they are generally so understood;) but you apprehend the Consequence, which is inevi table, that if the same Things, and indeed the inseparable 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 chuse (I will not fay to deny, tho' your Construction of αἰώνι 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 some of the many Texts, which plainly and fully express and declare in the same Terms, or equiva lent with the above-mention'd, the Divinity of our Saviour, his Eternity, and other essential incommunicable Attributes of the Supreme God: But this will be more proper, after I have confider'd

fider'd the Texts of Scripture, which you have quoted to support your Doctrine: Which I now proceed to do.

The first 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 fastned, he begat me before the V. 25. Hills.

The Word in the Septuagint is indeed ἔκτισε, created; but Bishop Patrick in his Comment says, that according to the Hebrem Verity, 'This Text, if it belongs to this Matter, appears ' to have been, as St. John speaks, with the Father in the Be'ginning, being his only Begotten before all Worlds; and so the Hebrew Word, which we translate poffefs, sometimes fignifies in Scripture, and is render'd by the Septuagint in ano'ther Place, viz. Zech. iii. 5. ἐγλύνησε, begot.

I observe, that in the 25th Verse 'tis, he begat me, which seems to agree with what Bishop Patrick says of the Signification of the Hebrew Word in the 22d Verse, and explains what is meant by created; not that Created and Begotten are the same Thing, as I have shewn before out of Tertullian, and what I have said upon it.

Befides, you render, and so do our Bibles, the 25th Verse, he begat me; but it should be, begets me, γενά με, in the Present Tense; and Origen's Observation upon it is very just, viz. 9. Hom. in - He generates me before the Hills; he did not say 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 Verse, before the World, and our Bibles, Everlasting, the Words are wρό τε αἰῶνα : Of this I have spoken already, and shewn how improper your Conftruction is.

But I must go back to Bishop Patrick, who says indeed, that the Ancient Christians 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 so, but very differently from your Construction 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.

6

And really your own following Quotations out of Ecclefiafticus, do confirm Bishop Patrick's Construction of Wisdom in this Chapter of the Proverbs, as I shall thew; which will also be an Answer