understand, the great God; God, by way of excellence; the Supreme Being. We allow, that the true God, is the great God; and that the great God, is the true God. But we maintain, that the idea of true God, and that of Supreme Being, are two ideas which represent the fame Object in different lights. The former, oppofes the infinite Object to all fuch as falfely bear the name, GoD The latter, contrafts the fame eternal and fovereign Object with every other being in the univerfe; for all creatures are neceffarily and infinitely inferior to him. So that though the very fame adorable Object is fignified by these two Divine characters; yet, as they convey diftinct ideas, they ought not to be confounded. This, however, our opponents conftantly do, when they difpute against us from the text under confideration. It would not avail to fay, The term true conveys the idea of excellence: as, when it is faid, " Conftantine was a true emperor Alexander was a true hero.' Meaning, the one had all the qualities which an emperor ought to have; and the other was a great hero. For though the adjective true, is fomeTimes used to indicate the excellence of the fubject intended; yet it more frequently fignifies the reality of it. As when it is faid, As when it is faid, Henry the fourth was the true king of France, when he fought against the league, after Henry the third's death.' That is, he was then really king; he did not ufurp the crown.-So, in the text before us, the expreffions, "only true God," carrying in them a manifeft allufion to the multitude of Pagan divinities, who falfely bore the name of gods; the epithet true, muft fignify the reality, rather than the excellence of Him to whom it is applied.

But

But if fo it is very cafy to prove that the phrafe, "only true God," should be referred to the Son, as well as to the Father. For if the character, "true God," ought to be confined to the Father; it muft be, either because it is not repeated in the fecond member of the propofition; or because it is too excellent to belong to the Son. Not the former; for we have already proved, that the analogy of language, as well as the verb know,. requires that it fhould be understood. Nor is it the latter; because it is intended to fignify, a God that is not fictitious; one that really exists. And who can doubt, if Jefus Chrift be God, as our opponents themselves acknowledge, that he is, in this fenfe, the true God?-Further: As that God, who is opposed to idols, does not exist merely in the imagination of men, but really andtruly; I demand, whether the epithet true, belong to Jefus Chrift, or not? If not, he is, by the confeffion of our oppofers, a falfe and imaginary god. If it does, he must be the only true God.

66

As

But, perhaps, the word only, connected with "true God," may give the title an excellence,. fo as to render it peculiar to the Father. By no means. For as the term only, determines that of true; fo the term true, limits that of only. the adjective true, is oppofed to falfe; fo the adverb only, is oppofed to many. Only true God," therefore, ftands oppofed to the multitude of falfe gods worshipped by the Heathens. Further: "Only true God," is not the epithet of the Father alone; but of the Father and the Son unitedly. As in this paffage; "Or I only, and Barnabas, "have not we power to forbear working?" Here, it is evident that the term only, which, in conftruction, is the epithet of Paul; is, in the sense of the words, the epithet of Paul and Barnabas conjointly. Again: If the term only had been the epithet,

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 seem 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 im"mortality?" IVe fay, it is of Jefus Chrift: but, for argument fake, we will fuppofe ourfelves under a mistake, in that respect. Whether our opponents attribute the epithet to the Father, or to the Son, is to us indifferent, as to our present purpofe for they will ftill find, that the term only, which is here repeatedly ufed, does not limit fo much as it seems 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 thefe qualities belong alfo to the Son. Can it be faid of the Son, to the exclufion of the Father, "He "is the ONLY Potentate; He ONLY hath immor

tality?" 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: efpecially, 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 againft us with fo much confidence, confirms our fentiment.

CHAP.

CHA P. IV.

An Objection from 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. answered

A

Similar objection is raised, by our opponents,

idol is nothing in the world, and that there is 66 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 66. 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 whichpaffage 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 reason that he, when his defign was to fhew, who this one God is, fhould mention only the Father; if it be true, that this one God is not only the Father, but also the Son, and the Holy Ghoft: • because thefe two laft Perfons were as proper to fhew who the one God is, as the Perfon of the Father; and, confequently, fhould not have been paffed 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 obferved, both in this paffage and several others of a fimilar kind, that the names Father, and God, are not used to fignify one fingle Perfon in the Deity; but that Infinite Effence which is common to all the Divine Per fons. This is what theological writers mean wher

0 5

when they speak of the term God, being taken voids, or effentially. GOD, then, that eternal, invifible, omnipotent, and infinite Being, who is neither the Father alone, 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 Cause, "of whom are all "things, and we in him." In this place he is called Father, in the fame fense as when it is faid, "Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from "above, and cometh down from the Father of

66

lights:" and again, "One God and Father "of all." In which paffages the character, Father, is general; and fignifies, that God is the firft Cause of all things. A character this, like thofe of Creator, Redeemer, Saviour; all which belong to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, because they are applied to the effence which is common to the three Perfons. ·Crellius, therefore, is under à miftake when he fuggefts, that Chrift and the Holy Ghoft are never, in the Scripture, called Father. For Jefus Chrift, is exprefsly called, "the everlafting Father." And as he made the world, and is the great first Caule, 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 everlasting 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.'

The character, Father, may be taken two ways; either, as ftanding alone, or as connected with adjectives, which limit the fignification of it.

When