When alone, it fignifies that Perfon in the Godhead, who is distinguished from the Son; but in this text it is limited. We must not say, “To '' us there is but one God, the Father," and ftop there; but we must add, "of whom are all

things." Had the apoftle faid, There is but one God, the first 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 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 firft Cause, of whom are all things. Now it is plain, that "the Father, of whom are all things, and, the first 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 work of Redemption, under very different views. The Father appoints, the Son executes, and the Holy Ghoft 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; hold, ing 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, Gon, which is common to all the Perfons of the most holy and glorious Trinity, fhould be more frequently given to the Father, who fuftains 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 adversaries 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 Jefus Chrift. Becaufe 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 understood of the Other. Jefus does 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 seen the Father also."

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 represented 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

thofe perfections? And when it is faid, "The "things of God knoweth ovdels, no one, but the "Spirit of God;" muft we from hence conclude, that the Father and the Son are ignorant of the things of God?

From these 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 God who is oppofed to idols; and to affert his infinite fuperiority over the deities of the Heathen, the angels of heaven, and the kings of the earth, who are fometimes called gods. This being the apoftle's defign, he defcribes God in fuch a manner, as exalts him far above all other beings; and, well remembering what the prophet had faid of all fictitious divinities, "The "gods that have not made the heavens and the "earth, even they fhall perish from the earth, "and from under these heavens ;" he gives this oppofite defcription of the true God: To us "there is but one God, the Father, of whom are "all things, and we in him.”

Our author proceeds. The apostle's defign was, to explain who this one God is. But does he explain a thing well, who omits more particulars that are proper to illuftrate it, than he expreffes? and who, inftead of mentioning

• three

three Perfons, fpeaks only of one, as the apostle would do in this place, if the opinion of our • adversaries were true? Who, among them, defigning to explain and to fhew who this one God is, would mention only the Father, and fay; There is but one God, the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift? and would not rather fay, There is but one God, the Father, Son, and Holy 'Ghoft.'-I reply; The defign of the inspired writer was, not fully to explain who the one God is, but to make him known fo far as his fubject required; by giving him a character which exalts him infinitely above all created intelligences and fictitious gods; calling him "the "Father, of whom are all things.' Nor is it

neceffary, every time we fpeak of a thing, that we should endeavour to explain it; much lefs, every time we defcribe a thing by fome epithet, that we fhould explain it fully. The fame apoftle declares, "I determined not to know

any thing among you, fave Jefus Chrift and "him crucified." But fhall we fay, The dif courfe is abfurd; because the apoftle, undertaking to defcribe the way of falvation, omits more things than he expreffes? for he does not mention God the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, nor eternal. life, nor many other objects which are propofed to our faith, in the holy Scriptures.-When the Philippian Jailer inquired what he fhould do to be faved; and was anfwered, by Paul and Silas, "Believe on the Lord Jefus Chrift, and thou "fhalt be faved;" will our learned opponent fay, that those ambaffadors of Chrift fpake impertinently on that occafion? The Jailer defired to know, how he might obtain falvation. A most important query, concerning the greatest of all bleffings. Their bufinefs was to answer the

query;

query; and it was equally neceffary for them to be full and explicit, on fuch an occafion, as upon that before us. Yet thefe unerring guides did not direct the trembling querift, to believe in the Father, nor in the Holy Spirit, though it was neceffary he should do fo; for he was to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. Nor did they, fo far as the history informs us, tell him to repent; though repentance was no lefs neceffary than faith. The Ethiopian eunuch professes his faith in these words; "I believe that Jefus Chrift is "the Son of God." But was this the whole of his faith? If not, can we fay that he explained himself well, when he concealed more then he expreffed 'It is neither neceffary, nor poffible, to say every thing belonging to a fubject, on all occafions: and a man must be ignorant, both of Divine and human language, to imagine, that an explanation given of any thing by an adjective, fhould be an exact definition of it, according to the rules of logic, and take in the whole extent of its object. Philofophers, indeed, fpeak thus; but people in common speak in a different manner. True it is, fince we began to dispute on these important fubjects, we choofe to exprefs ourselves, with fuch caution as would be needlefs, if these questions had never been agitated: and, therefore, when speaking of the Supreme Being, we frequently fay, One God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But how often do we exprefs ourfelves, otherwife? On how many occafions do we give. thanks to God, as the author of our being and falvation, through Jefus Chrift the mediator? which is a way of speaking fimilar to that of the apoftle, in the text before us.

Who among them would fail to fay, It is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft? They

• must,