this sense, the apostle John will be the best commentator in the beginning of his gospel.

These goings forth may also include the great works he performed, and remarkable appearances he made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, &c. And this sense of his goings forth, is no way contrary to the other clause" from everlasting:" for there seems plainly to be a gradation in the two parts of the sentence. So that these appearances he made, with his works of creation and government, may be pointed out in his "goings forth of old," which agree well with an expression of the psalmist on the same subject.—“ Ò* God, when thou wentest forth before thy people," &c. and also with the scripture use of the word of old: and the other idea of his counsels of love, wisdom, and grace, concerning his people, will be meant in his goings forth from everlasting." Now, instead of that text being a proof of eternal generation, it rather exhibits his economical character, set up from everlasting as the mediator, guide, and governor of his church; together with the dispensations of his grace and goodness to them, in ancient ages of the world.-It is the same whom Micah says should be born in Bethlehem, and be ruler in Israel, which is none other than Jesus Christ, the SON OF GOD.

86

I have now done with the texts in the old testament, which are brought to support eternal generation, and I think he will be very wise that can find it in any one of them. The first text in the new testament that claims our consideration, is the answer of Peter to his master's question, "Whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, thou art Christ, the Son of the living GOD." The reader

Psa. Ixviii. 7.

will remember, that this text was considered at some length, as an objection against that sense of Christ's sonship, which I formerly proved. To what was said thereon, beginning at page 215, I beg leave to add in this place:

That it increases my astonishment, to find so many who profess the highest regard for the divine glory of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and seem to abhor the conceits of such as are for accounting them no more than inferior deities; yet agreeing with them on the very principles on which they build their scheme, particularly in limiting the term LIVING GOD, to the person of the Father, exclusive of the Word and Holy Ghost. This is the certain consequence of all they say for their cause, from this and several other similar texts. Indeed the Arian scheme and that called the orthodox, both require it should be so: and without this be supposed, they must both fall. The Arian says, he is God, but inferior to and created by the living GOD; the Orthodox say, he is a Son, as he is God, and was begotten by the living God. In both, the term living God is supposed to be peculiar to the Father, exclusive of Christ and the Spirit. Dr. Clark, the modern champion for the Arian cause, lays it down as a maxim, "that the word GoD in scripture, never signifies a complex notion of more persons than one: but always means one person only, viz. the person of the Father singly, or the person of the Son singly."

Now, if this is granted them, all other difficulties they reckon easily surmountable in proving the inferior Deity of Christ; for, say they, "all these terms, living God, only wise God, one God, great God, &c. must be limited to the Father only, consequently all that is said of Christ as God, is in an inferior sense, as the Father's servant, instru

ment, &c. And the supporters of the other scheme also, must in consistency with their own terms explain every text where the Son of God is mentioned in favor of the Arian hypothesis. For if the divine. person of Christ be included in the term living God, or in the term God, where he is mentioned as the Son of God, then their whole scheme is destroyed; and all I have been contending for granted, viz. That it is under another consideration that he is called SON, than that wherein he is called GOD.

The Holy Ghost by this hypothesis, must be also excluded from the glory of this title living God. Peremptorily to exclude him, is the same as to say, he is not the living God. Yet for the honor and safety of this scheme, excluded he must be, let the consequence be ever so dangerous to truth, for to include the Holy Ghost in this term, makes the divine person of the Lord Jesus, to be the Son of the Holy Ghost, which will wound this human scheme in a very tender part, viz. that of his being begotten only by the person of the Father. Now, let the admirers of this scheme, choose whether they will degrade the divine persons of the Word and Spirit, by denying them the honor of this title the living God, which is the same with saying they are not God; or expose their human hypothesis to the charge of self-contradiction, which, if maintained, sets revelation at variance with itself. Every impartial reader must account it an amaz. ing infatuation in favor of that darling notion, which has not the least countenance in scripture; that to support it, they will give up the glory of Christ into the hands of such as affirm that he is not properly God. As for my own part, in all the twenty-five texts where this term living God is mentioned, I see no reason why the divine three

may not be included without doing violence to the analogy of faith or the scope of the passages.

There are two passages in John,-which a great deal of weight is laid upon, in support of Christ being a Son, as he is God. Our Lord, in the course of his teaching, had asserted, that God was his Father. The Jews, through their malice and prejudice charge him with blasphemy; for according as they drew the inference, by saying that God was his Father, he made himself equal with God; and taking it for granted, that their inference was just, the advocates for eternal generation conclude, that Christ is God, as he is a Son.

Ans. If our Lord's answer to the Jews in both places be carefully attended to, especially the first, which serves to explain the other, it will appear quite different from what either the Jews, or their modern friends do suppose. As to the first we are told that Jesus said, "my Father worketh hitherto, and I work." For this the Jews sought to kill him, because he said God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Now, hear his defence; "Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.-For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.—I can do nothing of myself, I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father that sent me." In this reply of our Lord, it is very plain that he contradicts their inference, by declaring in the strongest terms his inferior character as a Son. As God, he knows all things of himself, can do all things by his own power and will,-is supreme and independent,——

*John v. 18, 19. and X. 30-39.

and his knowledge, will, and power, are the same, not different from, much less subordinate to the Father's: but all this he expressly denies of himself as a Son; therefore, if we will believe Jesus, rather than the malicious Jews, he is not God, as he is a SoN: or he must be such a God as-some think he is, subordinate, inferior, and dependent, for these are plain in his character of himself, as a Son. So that this passage is a direct proof of his sonship belonging to his inferior character, and therefore may be added to the other arguments to that purpose above.

As to the other passage, it must be of the same import, if one place may be allowed to explain another. Here also they accuse him for calling himself the Son of God; and he had certainly the same notion of his own sonship now as formerly, so that we might here shew his sense of sonship from his former answer to a similar charge against him; but as he replies in other terms, we shall consider how far they favor the cause they are brought to support.

It is observable that though the character of the Messiah be so exhibited in the old testament, that some among the Jews might probably know he was God, as well as man; yet they were in general shamefully ignorant of his true character. For had they thought of his Deity, that question of our Lord would not have silenced them, "If the Messiah be David's Son, how could David call him Lord?" Or, "if David calls him Lord, how is he his Son?" The least thought of his Deity, would have easily resolved this difficulty; but it is evident they had no such notion of the Messiah. The design of these wicked Jews, was to bring the highest accusations against our Savior, and to load him with the grossest calumnies that their wit