A Vindication, Argument 1
Arg. 1. That doctrine that denyes and deſtroyes that one onelyonly true God, and brings in a ſtrange and a falſe God, that Doctrine deſtroyes the true Goſpel and Scriptures, and brings in another Goſpel and Scriptures: But this Doctrine of his, that makes whole Chriſt a creature, doth ſo: Therfore, &c.
The Major admits of no doubt, becauſe the Scripture is cleer, that there is but one onelyonly true God, Deut. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 6.
The Minor muſt have proof, and thus I confirm it: If the one onelyonly true God be both three and one, three in Perſons, and one in Eſſence; be Father, Son, and Spirit, which are called three, and yet are but one; then that Doctrine which makes God to be but one and one, viz. one in perſon, and one in eſſence, and makes the Father onelyonly to be God, excluding the Son and Spirit, denyes and deſtroyes the true God, and ſets up a falſe God.
My proof for the Minor again (for the Major is unqueſtionable) is 1 Joh. 5. 7, 9. There are three that bear witneſs in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and theſe three are one.
What will he anſwer to this Scripture?
He will not deny, but that the three that are here ſpoken of, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are three perſons, (for he hath granted it all along in his diſcourſe, that they are three diſtinct perſons) but the oneneſs of theſe three in eſſence, is that which he denyes; that they are one God, is not yeilded by him; becauſe the words foreign are not found in one copy of the Greek; But this anſwer may be given, that in all other copies theſe words are found, which renders that copy, where they are wanting, ſuſpicious, and the 9. verſe makes it manifeſt that it is ſo; for the three witneſſes in the 7. ver. are called the witneſs of one God in ver. 9. if we receive the witneſs of man, the witneſs of God is greater; what witneſs of God is this? it is the witneſs of the three that was ſpoken of in ver. 7. which are ſaid to be but one God. And it is obſervable, that the three witneſſes on earth, are ſaid to agree in one, ver. 8. but thoſe in heaven to be one: it is foreign in ver. 7. and foreign in ver. 8. in all the moſt approved copies, which the concurrence of ver. 9. with ver. 7. juſtifies, as was ſaid before.
However it be, there is ſtrength enough in this argument to them that grant the God-head of Chriſt; they muſt confeſs whether they will or no, that the true God is denyed, and a falſe God brought in: for if the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Son be not the Father, nor the Father the Son: and yet there be not two Gods, but one God; then this one God is the Father and Son, (I do not exclude the Spirit, but I ſpeak to thoſe who acknowledge Father and Son both of them to be God) they muſt confeſs that they are both of them but one and the ſame God; and then it comes to this, that the true God is one in two, and it is two in one, according to their tenent, that is, one God in eſſence, and two in perſons, or two perſons in one eſſence: the conſequence of which is this, they muſt conclude, that whoever makes the eſſence to be one, and the perſon to be but one, the Father to be God, and he alone to be God, and the Son not to be God, much leſs the holy Ghoſt, ſuch an one brings in a ſtrange God, and unſcripturall God, deſtroyes the true God which is Father and Son, as themſelves acknowledg, yea and Spirit alſo, as they will not deny. And how then can any ſuch perſon make the denying of Chriſt to be God a triviall errour, not greatly conſequential, nor of ſuch moment, as to be ſo greatly contended for? not fundamentall nor damnable, though perſiſted in? when as yet it is the denying of the onelyonly God, which is not Father alone, but Father, Son and Spirit.
But why ſhould I conteſt with friends, which confeſſe the Diety of Chriſt? I am ſorry there ſhould be any occaſion, I will turn again upon the adverſary.
Either Father and Son (I exclude not the Spirit, but I am pleading the Sons Godhead, and not the Spirits, and ſhewing the heinouſneſs of the errour of denying it) I ſay either the Father and the Son are the onelyonly God, or elſe there is no God at all, for the Scripture ſaith Joh. 10. 30 that the Father and Chriſt are one in power, which is an eſſentiall attribute, and then they are one in eſſence, and ſo one God; and yet they are two diſtinct perſons. Joh. 8. 17. 18. It is written in your law, that the teſtimony of two men is true, I am one that bear witneſs of my ſelf, and my Father heareth witneſs of me. If the Father and the Son be two diſtinct witneſſes, then they two are diſtinct perſons; for none can be witneſſes but perſons; and two manifeſtations of the ſame perſon cannot be ſaid to be two diſtinct witneſſes; nor would the proof which is fetcht from the law (where the witneſſes were diſtinct perſons) be ſutable. But he will confeſs this, that the Father and Son are diſtinct perſons, and diſtinct witneſſes alſo: and if ſo, he cannot with any face deny the other, that they are one, as well as two, becauſe Chriſt ſaith ſo in the above named place; one, viz. in power, in eſſence, in Godhead. And indeed, the very context (where they are called two witneſſes) will witneſs that they are but one God. the Jews reject his witneſs of himſelf, ſuch as they took him to be, which was a meer man (for the law alowed it not that any man ſhould be admitted to bear witneſs of himſelf;) but he notwithſtanding bears himſelf out by the law, to be an adequate witneſſe of himſelf; but herein he hath recourſe to that of himſelf, which they ſaw not, which they knew not, as ver. 14. ſhewes, I know whence I came, ye cannot tell whence I came. He could not mean it of his ſoul, for they could not look upon him without a ſoul, and ſoul and body made but one man; and notwithſtanding both, he would be an unadequate witneſs of himſelf: But he means another thing, diſtinct both from ſoul and body, and from his manhood; which might be a witneſs of him as man, and this could be nothing but his Godhead and he joynes himſelf (according to this) with the Father, as a diſtinct witneſs, but the ſame God. The reſult is then, that the one true God, though but one in eſſence, yet is not one ſingle perſon, but ſubſiſts in a plurality of perſons. Therefore he that makes his ſubſiſtence to be ſingle, and ſuch as his eſſence is, denyes and deſtroyes this one onelyonly God. Which I prove further.
The Father is ſaid to be the onelyonly true God, John 17. 3. and the Son is called the true God, 1 John 5. 20. This Adjective [onelyonly] refers not to the ſubject perſon Father, but refers to the predicate or thing that the Father is ſaid to be, viz. the true God, which is but onelyonly one, which is clear from a paralell place in Jer. 22. 30. where the word onelyonly is uſed in like manner, the children of Iſrael and Judah have onelyonly done evill, have onelyonly provoked me, The word onelyonly is not to be applyed to the ſubject perſons ſpoken of, as if they onelyonly, and no other people had done evill, and provoked God; but it is to be applyed to the thing that is ſpoken of them, they have only done evill, and onelyonly provoked; that is, they have done nothing elſe but evill, nothing elſe but provoke; ſo in John, the Father is ſaid to be the one only true God, but not he only to be the true God; for the Son is called the true God as wel as he, in the place before named in 1 Joh. 5. 20. Whence I argue, that the one only true God is Father and Son, (as for the holy Ghoſt, I always include him though I have not occaſion to ſpeak of him here:) & there is no God, no true God, but that God that is Father and Son; and he that denys either of theſe, denyes this one onelyonly true God. He then that acknowlegeth the perſon of the Father to be God, but acknowledgeth not the perſon of the Son to be God, brings in a ſtrange God, an unſcripturall God, and a falſe God. For there is no ſuch God as ſubſiſts in the perſon of the Father onelyonly; and hence it is that the Apoſtle John ſaith, 1 John 2. 22, 23. he is an Antichriſt that denyeth the Father and the Son: And he that denyeth the Son, denyeth the Father alſo; that is, ſuch an one acknowledgeth not the true God at all, what-ever men may think of him.
Yet further, the Father is called the only God, Joh. 17. 3. & Chriſt is cald the only God, Jud. 4, 24, 25. But ſome think otherwiſe, that the Father, and not Chriſt is called the only God, and that Jude ſpeaks in ver. 4. of Jeſus Chriſt afterwards, as diſtinct from the onelyonly God: but that it is otherwiſe I prove firſt from the right tranſlation of the Greek; foreign. that is, denying the onelyonly God and Maſter, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. It is not ſaid the onelyonly God and the Maſter (with an article) the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; for then he had ſpoken of two perſons that they denyed, viz. the onelyonly God, (that is one) and the Master, the Lord Jeſus Christ (that is another:) but it is ſaid, the onelyonly God and Master, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, as ſpeaking of one perſon, only which is Chriſt. 2. From the concordance betwixt this Scripture, and that in 2 Pet. 2. 1. They are paralell in three particulars, 1. In the title that is put upon Chriſt in both places, he is called foreign, which in both places is tranſlated in our Bibles, Lord; but is rather to be turned Maſter. 2. The crime and fault that is charged upon them is the ſame, it is denying their Lord, or their Maſter. 3. The perſons ſeeme to be the ſame in both places, for they are in all things deſcribed alike, falſe Teachers in one place, filthy dreamers in the other place: they privily come in and act and worke in the one place, they creep in at unawares in the other place. They walke after the fleſh, and deſpiſe government in one place, They defile the fleſh, deſpiſe dominion in the other place. Their judgement of long time lingreth not, and their damnation ſlumbreth not, in one place; and they were before of old ordained to condemnation in the other place. Their ruine is ſet forth by the punniſhment which God inflicted upon the Angells that fell, and upon the old world, and upon Sodom and Gomorrah in one place; and in the other place by the Children of Iſrael that fell in the Wilderneſſe by unbeliefe, and by the Apoſtate Angells, and by Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities about them. So that it ſeems to be one and the ſame Prophecie wherewith both Peter and Jude were inſpired, and which they have left upon record for the benefit of the Church: Therefore the one muſt help to expound the other: the crime then of denying (which both the Apoſtles ſpeake of) hath the ſame object, viz. Jeſus Chriſt, and not the Father: it is clear that Chriſt alone is the object of that wicked act of thoſe ſpoken of in Peter; therefore Chriſt alone and not the Father, is the object of the ſame wicked act ſpoken of in Jude. And indeed there were never any Chriſtian Teachers, (and of ſuch both the Apoſtles ſpeake) that did deny the Father to be God, but the Son Jeſus Chriſt was denyed by many. And if we make a ſerious inſpection into verſe 25. of Jude, and compare it with the precedent verſe, we ſhall find that Chriſt is ſpoken of, and not the Father; and if ſo, then Chriſt is called the onelyonly wiſe God; for it is the ſame perſon that preſents ſaints faultleſs before the preſence of his glory, who is called the onelyonly wiſe God. But who is that? The Apoſtle Paul declares who he is in Eph. 5. 27. it is Chriſt, who is deſcribed to give himſelfe for the Chuch, and to have waſhed it with his owne bloud, that he may preſent it a glorious Church to himſelfe.
Whence I thus Argue, If the Father be the only God, and if the Son be alſo the only God, and yet there are not two only Gods, but one onelyonly God, then this one onelyonly God is both Father and Son; that is, this one onelyonly God, though but one in eſſence, yet is two at leaſt in perſons (but indeed is three, but that is ſomewhat beſide my undertaking;) and then it will follow, that that God where an unity onelyonly is granted, both in eſſence and perſonality, is not the onelyonly God, which the Goſpel and other Scriptures hold out, and conſequently is a falſe God: for I would ask this queſtion, ſuppoſe a perſon ſhould acknowledge Chriſt to be the only God, and ſhould deny the Father to be God, could this man be ſaid to acknowledge the one onelyonly true God which the Scriptures ſpeak of? I ſuppoſe none will be ſo abſurd as to aſſert it, therefore if Chriſt be the onelyonly God as the Father is, he that acknowledgeth the Father without him, acknowledgeth not the only true God; and ſo is guilty of deſtroying the Scriptures, and bringing in another Scripture in a maine fundamental point of it.