muft, indeed, fo exprefs themfelves, if they 'would speak agreeably to their own principles. Much more ought the apoftle to have spoken ' after that manner, if he had been of their fentiment; because it was his duty to give no occafion to the great and pernicious error, as they think it, of believing that God is one, as well in Perfon, as in effence; and that none but the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift is God.'-It is not neceffary, to fpeak agreeably to our principles, that we fhould always fully exprefs them. Though we are verily perfuaded of the mystery of the Trinity, yet we may confiftently speak of the Father, without mentioning the Son; and of the Son, without mentioning the Father; and of the Holy Spirit, without mentioning either the Father, or the Son. For there is no necef-1 fity that every thing we fay concerning God, fhould be attended with an explicit declaration> of this grand mystery.

Nor was it neceffary that the apoftle fhould be fo very apprehenfive of giving occafion to an heretical opinion, by expreffing himself as he does, in this, paffage. Such an infinuation, however, comes with a very ill grace from the lips and pens of our opponents, and betrays their inadvertence to a great degree; for it may be retorted upon them with the utmost propriety and unanswerable force. Was it proper for the apoftles, was it their duty, to avoid giving occafion to pernicious errors? Ought they not, then, to have forborn the use of fuch language · as tended, frongly tended, to lead mankind into error and impiety, into blafphemy and idolatry? Could they, without renouncing all concern for the falvation of man and the glory of God, apply to Jefus the peculiar, effential, and incom

municable

་

municable characters of JEHOVAH? Could they, without affronting their Maker and laying a fnare for immortal fouls, apply to Chrift, a mere creature, thofe oracles which manifeftly speak only of the true God? Or could they, with a due regard to the honour of the Eternal Sovereign and the happiness of their fellow-creatures, affert, that Chrift is GOD; that "he is before all things, and that he created all things;" that he" is the Firft and the Laft; equal with God, "and one with the Father;" that before him "every knee fhall bow," and that "all the "angels are commanded to worship him?" Nay, in those very paffages which are produced against us, the apoftles affociate Chrift with the Father, as a performer of the fame works and a partaker of the fame glories. They affert, that life eternal confifts in the knowledge of Chrift, no lefs than in that of the Father; and, in this text, where Jefus is oppofed to all falfe gods, it is faid, "To us there is but one GOD, the Fa"ther, OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE 66 IN HIM; and one LORD, Jefus Chrift, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM;" as if the Son were on a level with his Father. Could any thing be more arrogant and impious than this familiarity, with which Jefus Chrift treats the Infinite God, if it be true that he is a mere creature? for it must not be forgotten, that thefe, as well as other expreffions of a fimilar kind, were penned by his authority and his direction. What, fhall the Holy Ghoft confine his care to the falvation of our adverfaries, by avoiding every occafion of betraying them into pernicious errors; while he takes little or no heed to preferve us from blafphemy and idolatry! But, whatever had become of us, as there is no

thing fo precious, nothing fo great, as the incommunicable glories of the Godhead; it might have been expected, that the Holy Spirit would take particular care, in penning the New Teftament, that no occafion fhould be given to Chriftians to rob God of his honours, by giving them

to a mere creature.

'From whence it appears, that what fome of ⚫ them answer is idle, when they fuggeft, that the apostle calls this one God, "the Father," by attribution, as they exprefs it. For if fo, he would not have inftructed the vulgar Chriftians, but rather have led them into a pernicious error. For the people do not know in what this attribution confifts; nay, many C among the learned have never heard it so much

as mentioned.'-The term attribution may, perhaps, be unknown to many; but the thing is well known, and it is that about which we are chiefly concerned. Attribution confifts, in giving a name to one only, which belongs to others. For example: As the name, LORD, belongs to both the Father and the Son, when it is given to Christ only, it is called an attribution and fo, as the name, GoD, belongs to them both, it is an attribution to give it to the Father only. Thofe gracious characters, REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, are common to the Father with Jefus Chrift; when, therefore, it is affirmed of the latter, "There is none other name under hea"ven, given among men, whereby we must be "faved" it is called an attribution, or an appropriation of a name, common to the Father and the Son, to the latter only.-Shall we fay, that the Scripture knows nothing of a love of appreciation, and a love of intention, because these terms come from the schools and are not found

in the Bible? The names, indeed, are not there; but the ideas, intended by them, are strongly expreffed in that facred Volume. The former confifts, in loving God with all our hearts; the latter, in forfaking kindred, property, and life itself, at his command and for his glory.-So, in the cafe before us. Either, then, our opponent who makes the objection, meant only, that the term attribution is ftrange to vulgar Chriftians; or that the thing, reprefented by it, was equally unknown. If the term, we have nothing to object. If the thing, his mistake may be rectified by fhewing, that in these words, "ONE LORD, Jefus Chrift," there is an attribution perfectly fimilar to that which we find in thefe; "ONE GOD, the Father."

If the term GOD, be understood in this place,

as peculiar to the Father; either it includes a particular excellency, and is taken for that • Perfon who is the fource of the Other; or for the Father, without denoting any particular excellency. If the former, we have already fhewed, that they who fpeak thus, either contradict themfelves, and acknowledge that the Father only is the Supreme God; or elfe they fay nothing to the purpose. If the latter, the apoftle must have fpoken impertinently. For the question was not, whether the Father is but one; but, whether God is but one; as appears from the preceding words.'- Here we retort upon Crellius. If the term LORD be taken in this place, as peculiar to the Son; either it includes a particular excellency, and is taken for the Perfon who has an original authority; or for one poffeffed of dominion, without denoting any particular excellency. If the former, they who fpeak thus, either contradict themselves, and acknowledge that the Son is the Supreme Lord; or elfe they fay nothing to the purpofe. If the latter, the apostle

apostle must have spoken impertinently. For the question was not, whether the Son is but one; but, whether the Lord is but one; as appears from the preceding words.

Our adverfaries, if they can, may answer this objection: as for us, we are not concerned in it. For what is this argument but a mere fophifm? The term GOD, by being appropriated to the Father, does not lofe its natural fignification. It ftill denotes that infinite excellence which diftinguishes his effence, to whom it is applied, from all that are called gods, or lords, whether on earth, or in heaven. The FATHER, who is here oppofed, not to the Son, nor to the Holy Ghoft, for that was not the queftion; but, to falfe gods, to magiftrates, and to angels, is reprefented as infinitely fuperior to "all that is called "god." But what infurmountable difficulty is there in all this? Is not JESUS alfo oppofed, in this place, not to the Father, for that was not the queftion; but to all thofe that are called lords, whether on earth or in heaven ?

CHAP. V.

An Objection from Luke i. 35. answered. Another objection, against the doctrine main

tained, is formed by our adverfaries on the following words: "The Holy Ghost shall come "upon thee, and the power of the Highest fhall "overfhadow thee; therefore alfo that Holy "Thing which fhall be born of thee, fhall be "called, THE SON OF GOD." From hence they infer, that the fublime title, SON OF GOD, is founded on the miraculous conception of Jefus, by the Holy Spirit. Here they demand, how Chrift could be fo called, on account of his wonderful