this paffage; "Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" Here, it is evident that the term only, which, in construction, is the epithet of Paul; is, in the fenfe of the words, the epithet of Paul and Barnabas conjointly.-Again: If the term only had been the epithet, not of God, as including both the Father and the Son, but of the Father; if the text had been thus read, That they might know the Father only to be the true God; yet it would have required fome caution, not to overftrain the fenfe of the word only; which does not always exprefs the idea of exclufion, fo much as it may feem to do. This appears by an unquestionable inftance. For of whom does the Scripture fpeak, when it fays; "The bleffed and ONLY "Potentate; the King of kings, and Lord of lords; "who ONLY hath immortality?" We fay, it is of Jefus Christ: but, for argument fake, we will suppose ourselves under a mistake, in that refpect. Whether our opponents attribute the epithet to the Father, or to the Son, is to us indifferent, as to our prefent purpose: for they will fill find, that the term only, which is here repeatedly used, does not limit fo much as it feems to do. Can it be faid of the Father, to the exclufion of the Son, "That he

is the ONLY Potentate;" that "He ONLY hath "immortality?" No, doubtlefs; for both these qualitics belong alfo to the Son. Can it be faid of the Son, to the exclufion of the Father, "He is the ONLY Poten

'

tate; He ONLY hath immortality?" Certainly not; for both eternity and dominion belong to the Father. If, then, the word only, when applied to the Father, exclude other objects, but not the Son; and if, when applied to the Son, it exclude not the Father; it follows, that the fame term, in the paffage before us, if it had been applied directly to the Father, would not have warranted us to fay, that the Son is excluded: especially, as the Son is called GOD, and the TRUE GOD, as well as the Father. Hence it appears that this paffage, which our adverfaries produce against us with so much confidence, confirms our fentiment.

CHAPTER IV.

An Objection from I Cor. viii, 4, 5, 6. answered.

A SIMILAR objection is raised, by our

opponents, on the following text: "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none "other God but one. For though there be that are "called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; as there "be gods many, and lords many: but to us there is "but one God, the Father; of whom are all things. " and we in him; and one Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom " are all things, and we by him."-On which paffage Crellius forms this argument: What could be faid more clearly to prove, that there is no God but the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift? Paul, explaining who this one God is, fays, he is the Father; not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But there was no ' reafon that he, when his defign was to thew, who this one God is, should mention only the Father; if it be true, that this one God is not only the Father, but alfo the Son, and the Holy Ghoft: because these two 'last Persons were as proper to fhew who the one God is, as the perfon of the Father; and, confequently, 'fhould not have been passed over in filence.'

Here I fhall make a few reflections, which may ferve as fo many general anfwers to this objection. And it may be observed, both in this paffage and feveral others of a fimilar kind, that the names Father, and God, are not used to fignify one single Person in the Deity; but that Infinite Effence which is common to all the Divine Perfons. This is what theological writers mean, when they speak of the term God, being taken ovoiwlŵs, or effentially. GOD, then, that eternal, invifible, omnipotent, and infinite Being, who is neither the Father alone,

A a

nor the Son alone, nor the Holy Spirit alone; but, who comprehends the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; is called Father in a large and general fenfe, because he is the firft Caufe," of whom are all things, " and we in him." In this place he is called Father, in the fame fenfe as when it is faid, "Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and cometh "down from the Father of lights" and again, "One "God and Father of all." In which paffages the character, Father, is general; and fignifies, that God is the first Cause of all things. A character this, like thofe of Creator, Redeemer, Saviour; all which belong to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because they are applied to the effence which is common to the three Perfons.-Crellius, therefore, is under a mistake when he fuggefts, that Chrift and the Holy Ghoft are never, in the Scripture, called Father. For Jefus Christ is exprefsly called, "the everlafling Father." And as he made the world, and is the great first Caufe, he may with propriety be called the Father of all things; for "all things were made by him, and without him was "not any thing made that was made."-Should it be faid, Though he is called "the everlafting Father," yet not fimply the Father: I answer, Neither is God called fimply, the Father, in the paffage before us; but the Father, of whom are all things."

6

The character, Father, may be taken two ways; either, as ftanding alone, or as connected with adjectives, which limit the fignification of it. When alone, it ignifies that Perfon in the Godhead, who is diftinguifhed from the Son; but in this text it is limitted. We must not fay, "To us there is but one God, the Father," and ftop there; but we must add, "of es whom are all things." Had the apostle faid, There is but one God, the firfl Cause, of whom are all things; our opponents could have found nothing in the words, which they would have imagined to be in their favour. And though we could not find a fimilar epithet given

46

to Jefus Chrift, or to the Holy Spirit; this would not prevent our concluding, that He to whom Infallibility gives the names, and afcribes the works of God, is the first Caufe, of whom are all things. Now it is plain, that "the Father, of whom are all things;" and, the firft Caufe, of whom are all things, are equivalent propofitions. Confequently, our adverfaries have no more advantage from the former, than they could have by the latter.

But though the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, have all the fame effence; yet they are revealed, in the woɛ k of Redemption, under very different views. The Father appoints, the Son executes, and the Holy Ghost applies. The Father, in a more particular manner, fuftains the character of the offended Deity, and afferts the honours of Divine government: for which reafon he is more frequently called Gon, than the other adorable Perfons. The Son appears as mediator; holding the place of man, yet invefted with the rights of the Godhead. And the Holy Ghoft holds the place of the Father, and of Jefus Chrift, fupplying the abfence of the latter. We need not wonder, therefore, that the name, GoD, which is common to all the Perfons of the moft holy and glorious Trinity, fhould be more frequently given to the Father, who fultains the Divine character in a very particular manner, in the wonderful œconomy of Redemption.

Again: The adjective one, which here limits the name, GoD, fhould not be understood in that rigour of fignification which our adverfaries urge. For though it utterly excludes the "gods many and lords many,' that are here mentioned, from having any claim to the character of Deity; yet, without entirely departing from the analogy of faith, it cannot be understood as militating against the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Because he not only bears the names and titles of the true God; but is alfo reprefented, by the unerring Spirit, as poffeffing the attributes and performing the works, as

requiring the honours and receiving the adoration, which are peculiar to the Infinite Supreme. Such is the union between the Father and the Son, that, in refpect of their effential glories, what is afferted of the One, is to be underflood of the Other. Jefus docs not only fay, "I and the Father are one;" but also affirms, that, he who honours the Son, honours the Father "alfo. And again he fays, "All that the Father hath, is mine-He that hath feen Me, hath feen the "Father alfo."

46

Hence it follows, that when the Scripture afcribes any perfection to the Father alone, it does not mean to exclude the Son. This our opponents are obliged to acknowledge; and, in fo doing, confefs the weakness of their own objection. For when God is reprefented as the only Saviour, will they except our great Mediator? Or, when Chrift is exhibited, in the gofpel, as the only Saviour, there being no falvation in any other; will they exclude the Father? The Scripture afferts, that "God

only is wife;" that He only is good; but muft we confider the term only, as excluding Jefus Chrift from an intereft in thofe perfections? And when it is faid, "The things of God knoweth oudtis, no one, but the "Spirit of God;" must we from hence conclude, that the Father and the Son are ignorant of the things of God?

From thefe general reflections I come to my author. Paul, explaining who this one God is, fays, he is the Father; not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' -This is a great mistake. For Paul neither explains who this one God is, nor does he fay that he is the Father, to the exclufion of the Son and Holy Spirit. He does not explain who this one God is; or, if it be called an explanation, it is an imperfect one, and only adapted to the matter in hand. It was not his bufinefs, in this place, to explain the nature of the Father of our Lord, and to fhew what the Father had more excellent than the Son. His bufinefs was, to characterize that