and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent;' whether they would affirm that the expreffions, only true King, belong to the Father exclusively of the Son? or whether they would allow them to belong to both? They would, I am perfuaded, understand the words thus; This is life eternal, to know thee the only true King; thee, Father, with him whom thou haft fent, even Jefus Chrift. Now, as the name God, on their principles, is no lefs appellative then the term king; they ought, if they would act confiftently, to understand the words of our Lord thus: This is life eternal, that they might know thee to be the true God; thee, Father, with him whom thou haft fent, even Jesus Christ.

The adjective true, will furnifh us with another argument. By the "true God," our opponents undertand, 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, opposes 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 thefe 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 ufed to indicate the excellence of the fubject intended; yet it more frequently fignifies the reality of it. 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 if fo it is very easy to prove that the phrase, "only true God," fhould be referred to the Son, as as well as to the Father. For if the character, "true "God," ought to be confined to the Father; it must be, either because it is not repeated in the second 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 fiilious; one that really exifts. And whe 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 and truly; 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.

For.

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. as the term only, determines that of true; fo the term rue, limits that of only. As the adjective true, is-opposed to falfe; fo the adverb only, is oppofed to many. "Only "true God," therefore, ftands opposed 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 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 Jesus Chrift: but, for argument fake, we will fuppofe 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 purpofe for they will fill find, that the term only, which is here repeatedly ufed, 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 thefe qualities belong alfo to the Son. Can it be faid of the Son, to the exclufion of the Father, "He is the ONLY Poten66 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 againft us with fo much confidence, confirms our fentiment.

CHAPTER IV.

An Objection from 1 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 Jesus Christ, 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 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 alfo the Son, and the Holy Gholt: because these 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 Perfons. This is what theological writers mean, when they speak of the term God, being taken ours, 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 sense, 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 those 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 Ghost are never, in the Scripture, called Father. For Jefus Chrift 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.'

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 fignifies that Perfon in the Godhead, who is diftinguished from the Son; but in this text it is limitted. We must not fay, "To us there is but one God, the "Father," and stop there; but we must add,. “ of "whom are all things." Had the apostle said, There is but one God, the firft Caufe, 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