the same interpretation. So much for the point of omniscience.

I come next to consider what you have to object to my argument for the Son's eternity. I had put it upon this; that it is described in the same phrases with God the Father's; which, one would think, should be high enough. You tell me that "the Son's metaphysical eternity is no "where expressly revealed." What the fine word, metaphysical, signifies here, I know not. If his eternity is revealed, it is enough for me. That I understand to be revealed, in these two texts, Rev. i. 17. xxii. 13. “I am "the first, and I am the last." "I am Alpha and Omega, "the beginning and the end." That these and the like phrases respect duration, appears from Isa. xliii. 10. compared with Isa. xliv. 6. In the latter, the words are; "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there " is no God." The former, expressing the same thought, runs thus: "Before me was there no God formed, neither "shall there be after me." The phrase of "Alpha and "Omega, first and last," is, in like manner, explained Rev. i. 8. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the "ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and "which is to come." The phrase then respects duration; and it is applied to our blessed Saviour, as hath been shown, Rev. i. 17. xxii. 13. Therefore there was no God before him: therefore he is, in the strictest sense, eternal. You say, "the objector hath not brought one "text of Scripture that at all proveth it." I did not produce all the texts proper upon that head: I designed brevity. Besides, I had a mind to remove the cause, from criticism upon words, to one plain and affecting argument; viz. that the proof of the Son's eternity stands upon the same foot, in Scripture, with the proof of the Father's; and is expressed in as strong words. And for this I appeal, as to the texts above cited, so also to Prov.

Compare also Isa. xlviii. 12. See my Sermons, p. 233.

viii. 22, &c. which you allow to be spoken of the Messias. The original word, which we translate, "from everlast"ing," is the very same with what we meet with in Psal. xc. 2. where also we find a parallel description of eternity, applied to the one God. See also Psal. xciii. 2. I allow your observation, that the Hebrew word may, and sometimes does, signify a limited, as well as it does, at other times, an unlimited duration. And therefore I do not lay all the stress of my argument upon the critical meaning of the word; but upon that, and other circumstances taken together: particularly this circumstance; that the eternity of the Father is described in the same manner, and in the same phrases, with the other; as by "comparing Psal. xc. 2. with Prov. viii. 22, &c. and Rev. i. 8. (supposing that text to be meant of the Father) with Rev. xxii. 13. may fully appear. I do not argue from a single phrase, or the particular force of it; but from several; and these equally applied to both: as it were on purpose to intimate, that though these phrases singly might bear a limited sense; yet considering that God had made choice of them, as most significant to express his own duration; and again made choice of the very same, out of many others, to express his Son's duration too, we might from thence be taught to believe that the Son is coeternal with him.

You are sensible of the objection lying against you; namely, that there is no certain proof, according to your way of reasoning, of the eternity of the Father, in the Old Testament: and so resolute you are in this matter, that, rather than admit the Son to be eternal too, you are content to leave us in the dark, so far as the Old Testa

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlast

even from everlasting to everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the

ment goes, about the other. But, for a salvo to the Father's eternity, you observe, that it is emphatically expressed in the New Testament, (Rom. i. 20.) forgetting that the word atdios occurs but once more, in the New Testament; and then signifies eternal in a limited sense only, or a parte post, as the schools speak. Well then, any thing I see to the contrary, we must contentedly go away, without any Scripture proof of the eternity of the Father, for fear it should oblige us to take in the Son's also. And this, indeed, is what you are beforehand apprehensive of, and prepared for; and therefore it is that you tell us, that "there appears no necessity "at all, that the attribute of eternity should be dis"tinctly revealed with respect to the Father; whose

for

eternity our reason infallibly assures us of," (p. 50.) Infallibly assures: so you say; and, I believe, in my own way, I might be able to maintain your assertion. But I profess to you, that I do not, at present, apprehend how, upon your principles, you will be able to make any complete demonstration of it. It would be ridiculous to talk of proving from reason only, without revelation, that the Person whom we call the Father, the God of Jews and Christians, is the eternal God. I will therefore presume that you mean by reason, reason and revelation both together; and if you effectually prove your point from both, it shall suffice. You can demonstrate that there must be some eternal God, in the metaphysical sense, as you call it, of these words: but since the Father, the God of Jews and Christians, has not declared, either that he is eternal, or God, in the metaphysical sense, it does not appear how he is at all concerned in it. He has said, indeed, that there is no God besides him; but as he did not mean it in the metaphysical sense, there may be another, in that sense, besides him, notwithstanding: nay, it is certain there are and have been other Gods; even in the same sense: for Moses was a

* Jude 6.

God unto Pharaoh; and Christ is God; and therefore this cannot be literally true. It can only mean, that he is emphatically God, in some respect or other; perhaps as being God of our system; or God of the Jews and Christians, his peculium. It is true, he has called himself Jehovah; which if it signified necessary existence and independence, it would be an irrefragable proof of his being the eternal God. But it unfortunately happens that Jehovah signifies no more than a person of honour and integrity, who is true to his word, and performs his promises, (p. 19.) He has farther declared himself to be Creator of the world: but this "exercise of creating, "being finite, does not necessarily infer an infinite sub"ject," (p. 48.) Besides "that this office and character, "relative to us, presupposes not, nor is at all more per"fect for, the eternal past duration of his being," (see p. 50.) What shall I think of next? I must ingenuously own, I am utterly nonplused; and therefore must desire you, whenever you favour me with a reply, to make out your demonstration. But let us proceed.

Having given us a reason, why it was not necessary that the supposed eternity of the Father should be revealed, you go on to acquaint us, why it was not needful to declare the supposed eternity of the Son. And here you give either two reasons, or one; I hardly know whether. "His office and character," you say, "relative "to us, does not presuppose it." I know that very wise and judicious men have thought, that it does presuppose it. Bishop Bull, for instance, has spoke admirably well upon that head: but the passage being too long to transcribe, I shall only refer to it. How you come to take for granted a thing which you know nothing of, and which it is impossible either for you or any man else to prove, I know not. It is very manifest that, unless you have a full idea of the whole work of redemption, and can tell as well what belongs to a Redeemer, and a

Judge of the whole universe, as you can what belongs to a rector of a parish, you can pass no certain judgment. No man can certainly define the utmost of what was needful in the case; because no man can dive into the utmost depth of it. There may be more than you, or I, or perhaps angels, can see in that mysterious dispensation; and therefore it is the height of presumption to pronounce, that any power, less than infinite, might be equal to it. I do not say that the argument for Christ's Divinity, drawn from the greatness of the work of Redemption, and the honours consequent upon it, amounts to a perfect demonstration: but this I say, and am very clear in what I say, that it is much surer arguing for the affirmative, from what we know; than for the negative, from what we know not. It is possible our proof may not be sufficient: but it is, a priori, impossible that yours should. Whether we can maintain our point may perhaps be a question: but it is out of all question, that you cannot maintain yours.

Having answered this your first reason, why it was not necessary to reveal the Son's eternity, I proceed to the remaining words; which if I perfectly understood, I might know whether they are a distinct reason, or only an appendage to the former. They are these: "Nor is "it" (Christ's office and character) "at all more perfect "for the eternal past duration of his being," (p. 50.) I have been considering why that word past was inserted, and what it can mean, in that place. It seems to be opposed either to present, or else to, to come, tacitly understood. At first, I thought thus: that it might be put in to prevent our imagining that Christ's office might not be at all more perfect for the eternal duration of his being to come. But considering again, that if he does but continue till the office is completed and perfected, it is all one, in respect of that office, whether his duration hold longer or no, I thought, that could not be the meaning. Reflecting again, I conceived that past might possibly have relation to the office considered as present,