The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation . MAny there are , who forced by the evidence of the Words , grant all that which we say , but not to the same purpose : For they say , that the Father is not therefore called the only true God , to excl●de the Son and holy Spirit from the same Godhead ; but only to exclude Idols , or the false Gods of the Heathen . For that here the TRUE God is opposed to false ones . And indeed it is true , that only the Father is therefore called the true God , to exclude them from true Godhead , who were then falsely esteemed and worshipped for gods : but nevertheless , it is done by Christ in such a manner , as is of larger extent , and excludeth not only them , but all others also , besides the Father , from the most high Godhead .

Wherefore it is given us to understand , that if the most high Godhead is attributed to any one besides the Father of Jesus Christ , it is done erroneously . Now as for that which we assert , both the force of the words , and the occasion or cause intimated by the Adversaries themselves doth require . For as to the first , such is the force of the word , ONLY , as that it excludeth all others from the communion of the predicate , besides him to whom it is applied . But he to whom the word ONLY , if you consider the sence ( for we will afterwards speak of the construction of the words ) is applied , is the Father of Jesus Christ , as they themselves confess ; with whom we have now to do . And the Predicate is , THE TRUE GOD , or the Most High God : Wherefore the word ONLY doth from the communion of the Predicate , exclude all besides the Father , and consequently Christ and the holy Spirit . As to the latter ; either therefore the gods of the Heathen , are by these words of Christ understood to be excluded from true Godhead , because it is apparent that they are different from the Father , whom Christ calleth the only true God ; or because it is already apparent that they are false gods . Not for the latter cause , for otherwise they would be judged already excluded from true Godhead , before they were understood to be excluded by vertue of the words of Christ , nor would there be need to make use of these words to that purpose . If for the former cause , it is necessary that all , who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ , should be excluded from that true or most high Godhead ; for otherwise the Argument which should from these words be drawn to exclude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead , would be invalid . For it would be thus , if it should by way of Syllogism be proposed : some different from the Father of Jesus Christ , are not the true God . The Idols of the Heathen are different from the Father of Jesus Christ ; therefore are not the true god . The Major would be particular in the first figure , which makes the consequence invalid . Wherefore although the false Opinion of the Heathen touching their Idols , gave occasion to Christ , to call his Father the only true God , yet did he so shape his words , that others also might be excluded from that true Godhead ? and not only they , to whom supream Godhead was then falsely attributed , but such also to whom the same might in time to come be likewise falsly attributed . For , that we may add this also , who doubteth that Peter ( for example ) Paul , Gabriel , Michael , are by vertue of these words of Christ , strongly excluded from the most high Godhead ? But there was then none , that held them to be most high Gods ; nor consequently did Christ specially intend , to exclude them from the Deity . Wherefore the force of the words and meaning is of a larger extent than the occasion of them , and is rightly drawn forth to others likewise , besides the Idols of the Gentiles . Neither may any one here say , that therefore not only the Idols of the Gentiles , but also those Men and Angels , are by vertue of these words , excluded from the most high Godhead , because they are not of the same essence or substance , but that the Son and holy Spirit are not excluded , because they are of the same Essence with the Father ; Since it is agreeable , if any thing be attributed to the Father only , that those persons should not be excluded from the communion thereof , which have the same numerical substance : For besides , that this is indeed nothing else than to take that for granted which is most in controversie ; when Christ called his Father the only true God , he meant no less the only Person of the Father , then the Essence or Substance , & consequently no less excluded them from that true and most high Godhead , who were different Persons from the Father , then who were different Substances . For Christ useth a popular kind of speaking , and applyeth himself to the capacity of his Disciples . For therefore he with a clear voice uttered Prayers to the Father in their presence , that he might both instruct and comfort them no less with this supplication to the Father , then he had formerly by speaking to them . But among the people , yea among all , THE FATHER ONLY doth no less denote the only person of the Father , then the Substance ; and consequently doth no less exclude all different persons from the Father , than Substances . Besides , when the Vulgar think of a Person different from the Father , they also presently think of a Substance different from him . Where they conceive one Substance , they cannot think of a different Person . Certainly concerning Moods , Subsistences , Suppositalities and Personalities , which existing in the same numerical Substance , do constitute Persons really distinct , even at this day the vulgar sort of Christians do not think : so unlikely is it , that heretofore among the Jews , even Fishermen did know them .

Wherefore if Christ fitting himself to the capacity of the Vulgar , would have all different Substances from the Father , be excluded from the most high Godhead , he would also have all different Persons from the Father excluded from the same . Whence we are given to understand that in these words , the contrary to what is urged in this exception , is rather taken for granted , namely , that he who is distinguished in Person from the Father , as Christ is , is also distinguished from him in Substance ; and consequently , by virtue of these words of Christ , are excluded from that true and most high Godhead .

And this is so much the more to be believed touching Christ , in that the Disciples , who were then present , did not only see him to be a true man , but also heard him distinguished from the Father , as a Messenger from the Sender ; and also that he poured out prayers unto the same , and begged glory of him . Again , if none by vertue of these words of Christ , is excluded from the true Godhead , although he manifestly differ in person from the Father , unless it be also apparent that he is different from him in Essence , it will follow , that he cannot be confuted by these words , who shall say , that Gabriel ( for example ) Peter , Paul , or finally Jupiter , Neptune , or the other gods of the Heathen , are the true God , differing indeed from the Father in Persons , but yet of the same Essence with him ; namely , in such a manner , as they commonly think of Christ , or the holy Spirit .

But who seeth not that such Persons , whether true or feigned , are by vertue of these words of Christ , most efficaciously excluded from the Deity , so that one confess them to be DIVERS from the Father .

But they say , that we our selves contend , that if any thing be attributed to God only , it is not presently denied to them , who depend on him , or are subordinate to him , in the number of whom we rank Christ . Wherefore although the FATHER ONLY be called the true God , yet is not Christ presently denied to be a true God . As neither when God only is said to be * * Rom. 16.27 . 1 Tim. 1.17 . Jude 25 wise , or † † 1 Tim. 6.15 . potent , or to have ‖ ‖ Ibid. ver. 16. Immortality , are they excluded from these attributes , who have received them from God ? But this Objection , if the thing be rightly understood , is so far from overthrowing our Opinion and Argumentation from the words of Christ , that it doth confirm it . For neither do we hold , that Christ is by vertue of these words wholy excluded from true Godhead ; namely , if true Godhead be more largely taken , so as to comprehend that Godhead also , which doth indeed , and not only , in the false opinion of men , depend on the most high Godhead . * * Chap. 13. Chap. 8 , & 9. For we have shown in our Book of God and his Attributes , that the name GOD , is in its own Nature common , and agreeth to all them , who have so●e sublime Empire , or eminent Power ; as to Princes and Magistrates on the Earth ; in the Heavens , to Angels ; and above all these , to Christ , the Head of all Angels , and King of all kings ; but by way of Excellency to that Supream and Independent Monarch , and attributed to him as proper . Wherefore our meaning only is , that Christ , by vertue of the words in contest , is excluded from that true Deity , by way of excellency so called ; that is , from Supream and Independent Deity . For by these words , first , all besides the Father are held to be excluded from Supream Godhead ; and consequently , from Deity taken more largely , all such who have not received it from the Father ; to whom alone supream and independent Divinity is said to agree . For he is accounted as Independent , who doth not depend on him , on whom only he can truly depend . Whence all the Idols of the Gentiles , are by vertue of these words , or rather , of the sence therein comprehended , simply excluded from true Godhead ; since they were so far from truly depending on the Father , as that they were not believed to depend . But Christ is not excluded therefrom , because his dependance on the Father , in respect of his Divine Empire over all things , and Worship suitable to such an Empire , hath by most evident proofs been demonstrated .

Now what we speak touching this place , doth likewise come to pass in others , wherein such Attributes are attributed to God only ; which nevertheless are communicated to others besides him . For in them likewise , all besides God are excluded from the Communion of those Attributes taken by way of excellency , and strictly . For God is said to be only wise , powerful , having Immortality , not because he alone is simply wise , powerful , immortal , but because he is only such of himself . And therefore all others besides God , are by vertue of such words , excluded from independent and underived Wisdom , Power and Immortality ; and then at length simply and universally excluded from those Attributes , when it is apparent that they have not received them from God , to whom they first agree , and consequently do not herein indeed depend on him . A seigned Dependency , is by right accounted for nothing . Whence it is understood , what our meaning is , when we say , That if any thing is in the Scripture attributed to God only , it is not presently denyed to them , who are dependent on God , and subordinate to him : For we mean not that such Attributes are in no wise denyed unto them ; ( for they are denied unto them being taken by way of Excellency ) but that they are not presently denyed simply and universally , or in a larger signification .

But perhaps they with whom we now have to do , will object and say , that they do in some sort hold the same : For that the Father only is called the true or most high God , because he is the Fountain of Divinity , and consequently in regard thereof hath a Prerogative above the Son and holy Spirit , inasmuch as They have the Divine Essence from Him , but He from no other . For which reason they expresly call the Father God of himself , thereby opposing him to the Son and holy Spirit . But they who answer thus , either contradict themselves , or say nothing ; and obtrude upon us bare words instead of things : for if the Father hath a true Prerogative or Excellency above the Son and holy Spirit , so that for it the Name of GOD may be attributed to the Father alone , but taken away from the Son and holy Spirit ; it cannot be that the Son and holy Spirit should be the supream and most high God : for nothing in any wise more worthy , nothing more excellent than the most high God , can possibly be imagined : And they themselves , in Athanasius's Creed , contend that in the Trinity nothing is before or after , nothing greater or less : But if the Father is the Fountain of Divinity , in respect of the Son and holy Spirit , how will there be the same Numerical Divinity of the Father , Son , and holy Spirit ? for the Father would be the Fountain of his own Divinity , or Divine Essence , before and after himself : How , if the Father be the Fountain of the other Persons , shall not the Son and holy Spirit depend on the Father ? How shall not each be an Effect of the Father ? and finally , How shall the Son and holy Spirit be the supream and most high God ? for He is dependent on none , is the Effect of none . But if they will not acknowledge these things , what else do they , then obtrude upon us empty words instead of things , and so say nothing ? and upon what ground , I pray , dare they to this purpose wrest the words of the Scripture , which are most plain , and exposed to the capacity of the rudest understanding ? for how can an ignorant man ( that I may not now speak any thing of the Learned ) conceive in his mind that the Father only is the most high God , when in the mean time he is commanded to believe that also the Son and holy Spirit is the same most high God ? How can he imagine a Prerogative of any one above one who is the most high God ? How the Prerogative of him above one who is the same Numerical God with himself ? How him to be the Fountain of other Persons , on whom they do not depend as Effects on a Cause ? Certainly this is not to teach an ignorant man , but quite to take away his Understanding , and to cause that he who comprehended something , does now comprehend nothing at all : Which will also happen to learned Men , if they will endeaver to consider things , and rather conceive them in their mind , then to cozen themselves and others with a meer sound of words . By this also it may easily be understood , how we ought to answer them who say that the Name of GOD is by an attribution or an appropriation , as they speak , both here and elsewhere ascribed to the Father , and that , as we now suppose , to him onely : for either they grant that the Name of GOD is by reason of the Prerogative which the Father hath above the Son and holy Spirit , attributed to him onely as proper , and so tacitly taken away from the Son and holy Spirit ; or without any regard to that Prerogative : If the first , how they may be refuted , we have already spoken ; if the latter , they shall be able to shew by no sufficient Example , out of either sacred or prophane Writers , or out of the vulgar Custom of speaking , that an Attribute equally common to Many , may be rightly ascribed to but One of them , in such a manner as that it may be said to agree to him ONLY . Wherefore no regard is to be had to such an attribution in these words of Christ .

The second answer to the Argument . But now let us refute other things which are wont to be alledged by way of answer to this first Testimony of our Opinion . There are therefore some who deny that the words of Christ before cited , contain this Opinion , which is admitted by others , namely , That the Father Onely is the true God ; for they explain the Words in another , and that a two-fold way : Some say that the word ONLY doth not belong to the Subject of Christs words , which if we consider the sence is the Father , but to the Predicate , namely , The TRUE GOD , for that Christ doth say , That THE FATHER IS THE ONELY TRUE GOD , and not THE FATHER ONLY IS THE TRUE GOD : Which first proposition doth not hinder , but that the Son also , or the holy Spirit may be called the True God , yea , the Onely True God : Inasmuch as these Propositions are not repugnant one to the other , the Father is the only true God , and the Son or the holy Spirit is the true God , or the only true God . But * * The third Answer to the Argument . others contend that these words are so to be ordered and construed , that the sence may be , THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL , THAT THEY KNOW THEE , AND WHOM THOV HAST SENT JESVS CHRIST , TO BE THE ONLY TRVE GOD : So that these words are so far from excluding Christ from supream Deity , that they rather are to be thought expresly to attribute the same unto him ; Which Answers , what weight they carry with them , let us fee.

As to the first therefore , they are exceedingly mistaken : The confutation of the second Answer . for the Adjective ONLY , as oft as it is imployed to exclude other Subjects from the communion of the Predicate , belongs to the Subject , not the Predicate . Now that in this place the word Onely is imployed to exclude other Subjects , namely , Idols , from the communion the Predicate , which is the True God , all the Adversaries contend ; wherefore it belongeth not to the Predicate , but to the Subject , which , if we consider the sence , is none but the Father . And that you may more plainly perceive the thing , see whether by our or their opinion , the Idols or gods of the Gentiles are strongly excluded from true Deity : If you follow our Opinion , the business is dispatched ▪ for , if Onely the Father of Christ be the true God , certainly Idols cannot so be , since they are not the Father of Christ . But if you follow their Opinion , the business is not yet dispatched : for they hold , that notwithstanding that Proposition , THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRVE GOD , the same Predicate may also be applied to other Subjects : for that it may nevertheless be said THE SON IS THE TRUE GOD , yea , THE ONLY TRUE GOD , in like manner also the Holy Spirit . And therefore these words of Christ would not by themselves hinder , but that the same Predicate might also be attributed to infinite other Subjects : so that it would not be apparent from these words of Christ , that Idols are not the true God , but that were wholly to be understood from elsewhere .

Perhaps some one will say , That the Subject , to which the word ONLY is immediately adjoyned , is the name of GOD , not the FAther ; and the Predicate from the Communion whereof other Subjects are excluded , is the word TRUE . For that the sence is , that the Father is that God , who only is true . But this shift likewise is vain , and that for two Reasons ; First , Because the word TRUE is not here such a Predicate , as here signifieth any thing by it self , and denoteth some peculiar Attribute of any thing , but only together with it , whereto it is adjoyned . For neither doth TRUE in this place signifie the same with Trusty , or truth speaking ; but when it is opposed to a thing that is false , or falsely so called , it signifies nothing but the reality of the thing to which it is annexed . And therefore it is predicated of nothing by it self , but together with it to which it is annexed which in this place , is God . So that , being taken together with that word , it signifies him , who in truth and very deed , and not only in the opinion of men , is God . Thus we say that Christ is a true Man , is the true Messiah , and so forth . For it is all one as if you should say , that he is truly and in very deed a Man , and the Messiah ; not falsely , nor only in the Opinion of Men. Wherefore these words , THE TRUE GOD , are not so to be parted , as that the one may again constitute a Subject , the other a Predicate , and the word ONLY thought to be applied to that of GOD , that the Predicate of TRUE may be removed from all other Subjects besides God ; but the words TRUE GOD , do joyntly constitute one Predicate ; and the word ONLY must be thought to be annexed unto the Subject thereof , namely , the Father ; that all other Subjects beside the Father , may be excluded from the Communion of this Predicate , namely , The True God . And indeed the design of Christ was not simply to exclude Idols , or the Gods of the Heathen from truth , but to shew that they are to be excluded from true Godhead , or not to be accounted true Gods . But if you say , the word GOD is again to be repeated , that the sence may be , That the Father is that God who onely is the true God ; what else will you do , than make Christ to speake that by circuity of words , which any one would simply utter , and so without necessity double both the Subject and the Predicate , referring the Subject again to the Predicate ; as if any one should take this speech directed to Christ , THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE THE ONLY TRUE CHRIST OR MESSIAS , and rather express it thus , THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE TO BE THAT CHRIST WHICH ONLY IS THE TRUE CHRIST ; then simply to say , THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE WHO ONLY ART THE TRUE CHRIST OR MESSIAS . For , that we may also adde the other Reason , although the words were so to be taken , as if it were said that the Father is that God who only is the true God ; yet would it be all one as if it were said , That the Father onely is the true God : As if I should say , Christ is that Man who Onely was born of a Virgin , or Christ is that Man who Onely is the true M●ssias ; it is all one as if I should say , Christ Onely is the Man born of a Virgin , Christ Onely is the true Messias . Thus also , Elias is that Prophet who Onely was carried towards Heaven in a fiery Chariot ; it is all one as if I should say , Elias Onely is that Prophet who was carried towards Heaven in a fiery Chariot : Likewise Gabriel is that Angel who Onely declared to the Virgin Mary the Conception of Christ , it is all one as if you should say , Gabriel Onely is that Angel which declared to the Virgin Mary the Conception of Christ . Neither shall they bring any instance to the contrary , either our of the Scripture or other approved Authors , or out of the common and vulgar use of speaking . Certain it is , that as often as any one is said to be that , to which onely some other thing is attributed , it is all one as if it should be said that both did joyntly agree to that first subject only .

Neither do they quit themselves handsomely , who feign Examples of this sort ; as namely , That a certain Church ( we for instance sake , will take the ancient Church of Antioch ) is that Church which onely is a true Church , although there be other true Churches extant together with it : for they say , that we must speak thus , The Church of Antioch is a Church that onely is true ; namely , because it is of the number of those Churches which onely are true Churches . Thus another would say , Peter is a living Creature which onely is rational , because he is one of those living Creatures which onely are rational . But those Examples are without Example : for it should be proved by some sufficient Example , either sacred or prophane , that one may rightly speak in that manner : Out of the Scripture they shall not produce an Example , neither do the Vulgar speak so : But Christ speaks after the Vulgar fashion . Now that they do not speak rightly , who make use of such Examples , is hence evident : because wh●n we say , that any Church onely is a true Church , if so be we hold that there are many true Churches by the name of that Church which onely is true , we do not understand any particular Church taken separately , but the whole kind or rather species of that Church : for it cannot be said of any particular Church taken separately , that it onely is a true Church : otherwise it would be rightly said , that the Church of Antioch onely was a true Church , which they themselves will not admit , who feign such Examples : But that doth agree as proper to that whole species or kind of Churches , namely , which professeth the saving Doctrine of Christ , and is rightly said to accord to that onely .

Now this which we say , is also hence apparant , in that when we will attribute to any Church Onely the name of a true Church , we cannot adde to that Church the word every , which would signifie that the same might be affirmed of all Churches separately : for it is not agreeable to say , Every Church professing the saving Doctrine of Christ is onely a true Church ; but onely simply , A Church professing the saving Doctrine of Christ , onely is a true Church : But when we call the Church of Antioch a Church , we so take the name of the Church , as that it denoteth a particular Church , and one considered separately ; or a Church taken distributively , not collectively : For one cannot separately predicate the whole kinde , or species taken collectively , of any Individuum . Wherefore one cannot likewise say , That the Church of Antioch is that Church which onely is true . In the same manner it is not rightly said , That Peter is that living Creature that onely is rational ; for Peter is not that whole kinde or species of a living Creature , to which onely it agreeth to be rational : and so in the rest .