THese words relate not to the Son but to the Mr. Knowls p. 11. Sect. 1. Father only. For 1. If we consider those words, as an entire body of themselves, not having dependance on the words immedi­ately preceding, as probably they have not, being by a full point separated from them, then they are the Epitome, Abridgment, or Summe of the whole Epistle. And so the Apostles mind seems to be this: This father which I have in this my Epistle trea­ted of, is the true God; and this Iesus Christ of whom I have spoken, and in whom ye have believed, is eternal life, i.e. the way to it.

1. Sir consider, how you can acquit your self from the Reply. guilt of two contradictions. 1. These words relate to the fa­ther—AS AN INTIRE body of themselves. Are the same words in the same respect, absolute and not abso­lute, [Page 2] relative and not relative? is not here an implicit contradiction? 2. You say, line 10, 11. The words re­late not to the Son, but to the Father only; And yet you say, line 20. These words, viz. eternal life are spoken of Jesus Christ. Is not here an explicit contradiction? For if the words which you call an Epitome, &c. relate in whole or in part to the Son Jesus Christ, then not to the Father ONLY.

2. Consider whether you have observed the rule Deut. 4. 1. with 12. 32. of not adding to the word, when you say, This Father,—and THIS Jesus Christ is eternal life. I am sure that terme THIS is but once mentioned in the text under de­bate, and that only in the beginning, not in the middle of the sentence. Indeed Quaerat hic aliquis annon liceat addere verbo dei Glossas sive Declarationes. Resp. licet; Dummodo illae sint consenta­neae verbo Dei scripto, & genuinum Scripturae sensum, ex ipsa sententiarum cohaerentia & collatione Scripturae milium loco­rum aperiant. Pisc. in lec. Obs. 2. Piscator moves a question, whether it be lawful to adde a Glosse or Exposition to the Word written, and answers affirmatively with this Caution, That it be agreeable to the Word, and that it opens the genuine sense of Scripture, &c. Which whether it be observed by you, let the learned judge, when both Parties are heard fully. Your crude expressions could not be pretermit­ted without such (rude yet) just Animadversions.

3. The reducing of this your answer into an argument, will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weaknesse, as you be speak Master Eaton. p. 51.

The Epitome, &c. of this whole Epistle relates to the Fa­ther only. But these words: This is the true God and eternal life are such an Epitome—Therefore—

Sir, (not to repeat the forenamed contradictions) you (your self being judge,) cannot but condemn the major of palpable falshood, and if you would assay to prove it, (to use your own phrase) would be an endlesse labour. Your Minor is of the same stamp. For in all reason the last, vers. 20. (Babes keep your selves from idols) should be [Page 3] a part of the Epitome, (if there be any suchthing) of the whole Epistle, specially consisting of (Agenda as well as Credenda) Practical as well as Doctrinal matter.

But how prove you the Minor? Because (say you) they are as an intire body of themselves, not depending on the words immediately preceding. Is this all? Sir, your major implyed is false, (viz.) The words which are, As an intire body of themselves—are the Epitome of this Epistle; For, are the words mentioned in the last verse an Epitome of the whole Epistle? which yet are as an intire body of themselves, &c. and do they therefore relate to the Fa­ther only? But how prove you that these words under examination, are an intire body of themselves, not ha­ving dependance on the words immediately foregoing? Its probable (you say) because they are by a full point sepa­rated from them.

But Sir, must probabilities passe for proofs? and Cri­ticisms for Syllogisms? Among sundry instances (even in this chapter, to go no further) I shall cull out one or two, which I fairly present to your serious con­sideration. Its said ver. 3.— ‘And his Commandments’ are not grievous: These words are by a full point sepa­rated (in the Greek) from the words immediately pre­ceding, yet must needs have dependance on them, as evidently appears by the [...]. Relative HIS. Again ver. 7. its said— ‘And these three are one; Which words are so se­parated’ (yet its as clear as the Sun, that) they depend on the words immediately foregoing, viz. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Again tis said, ‘v. 9.’ —For this is the witnesse of God.—These words also are sepa­rated by a full point, and yet they have dependance on the words immediately preceding, as is manifest by the Conjunction [...]. FOR, and the Relative THIS, yea in [Page 4] this very ver. 20.— ‘And we are in him that is true, even’ in his Sonne Jesus Christ. These words are also separated by a full point; yet (if you adhere to Erasmus or Tindals reading, and your own glosse thereupon) they must have dependance on the words immediately foregoing. You may (if you please) peruse the chapter, and so be an eye-witnesse of more instances; and you may more pro­bably conclude, that though these words are by a full point separated from the words immediately prece­ding, yet they have a dependance on them. If all this will not leave a conviction on your spirit, may I not say with the Apostle in another case, James 2. 4. Are you not then partial in your self?

You have been unhappy in your first Answer; sure you will be more successeful in the second, which runs thus.

2. Were it granted, that these words, (This is the true God, &c.) do depend on the foregoing words: yet will it Mr. Knowles Sect. 2. not follow of necessity, that the Son, not the Father is the antecedent to the Relative THIS, and so that the sentence must be thus understood, This Son is the true God. In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father, And we know that the Son of God is come, i.e. we beleevers assuredly know that the Son of God is already come in the flesh, notwithstanding many at this time gainsay and deny it; And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, i.e. and this Jesus Christ being in the bosome of the Father, and having received from him the promise of the Spirit; hath annointed the eyes of our minds that we might savingly know him, i.e. the true God, as some Greek Copies have it, And we are in him that is true &c.—If with Erasmus and Tindal we read the [Page 5] words, thus, And we are in him that is true through his Son Iesus Christ; the meaning is this, we have not only apprehension of, but also union and Commu­nion with him who is the true God, by the means of his Son Jesus Christ; but if we follow Piscator, the words hold out that Omnes, and fellowship which the Saints have with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ; for thus he would have them read; And we are in him that is true; (to wit the Father) and in his Son Jesus Christ. But last of all, if we consent with Hie­rom, who by making a redundant, hath them thus; False; for he reads thus, And we are in his true Son. And we are in this true Son Jesus Christ. Now the words that follow, relate to the Father, This is the true God, and the Apostle intends the Father.

Sir, me thinks I see you here like a bird in a net, hop­ping and fluttering to get out; but all in vain. For Reply.

1. If by the foregoing words, you mean immediately preceding (as in your first answer) it will and doth of NECESSITY follow, that the Son, not the Father, is the Antecedent to the Relative THIS. Weigh well the Ar­gument.

If the words (This is the true God) depend on the words immediately foregoing, then the Son and not the Fa­ther is the Antecedent to the Relative This. But these words (This is the true God) depend on the words im­mediately foregoing. Therefore—

The Major is undeniable, unlesse a man will deny snow to be white. The Minor you seem to grant, and so yield the cause. If not, I pray you tell me which are the words immediately foregoing the Relative THIS? Are not these words, Jesus Christ? Look on the Original, our English Translation, or any of the three Versions men­tioned by you, and its evident there is nothing but a full [Page 6] point (as you say) between the words Iesus Christ, and the Relative THIS.

2. I know not to what purpose you mention three se­veral readings, and three several meanings accordingly, unlesse it be to cast a mist before your Readers eyes (as they say, the fish Polypus doth cast out a black humour) thereby to escape; you fix not on any of these readings or meanings. Orthodox Divines maintain it for a truth against Papists, Revera uni­cus duntaxat uniuscujusque loci Sacrae Scripturae sen­sus est. Alsteds Praecog. Theol. l. 2. c. 100. Vi­de Ames. Prole­gom. in Psal. 2. & Chamier. Panstrat. Cath. De Scripturae sensu l. 5. c. 1. & 2 It. Rivet. Isagog. ad Scripturam sacram. c. 14. There is but one sense of Scripture. I know several men give several meanings of one and the same place of Scripture, and its difficult to determine which is the genuine; but this is to be impu­ted to the Reliques of darknesse in mans understanding, since the fall of Adam. The Scripture sure is no Nose of wax.

But to the Authority of Erasmus and Tindal I oppose (with Zanch. detri­bus clohim; pars altera. l. 3. c. 6. Zanchius) the Authority of all the Fathers almost, and of the Church of God, who read and understand the words as we do, For if that of Erasmus—be cur­rant, it should be [...], not [...], through, not in his Son;—To the Authority of Piscator I oppose the Au­thority of Oecumenius, who hath collected the Fathers sentences and sense too on the text, making the latter clause exegetical to the former. Neither can you with reason consent with Hierom (I suppose you mean the old Latine Translation, which is doubted, nay denied by the learned Rivet. Isag. c. 11. Chamier. de vulg. Lat. e­ditione l. 24. c. 4. s. 7. &c. to be Hieroms) for if of two Prepositions one is redundant [...]., then of two articles one is redundant also, (which is somewhat uncouth) and perhaps the Relative too, or else miserably perverted, for its not in THIS Son, but in HIS Son.

3. Its either an untrue or an improper expression to say [Page 7] in the precedent words there is mention made of the Fa­ther; for the word MENTION doth not signifie an im­plicit intimation, but an explicit nomination. You say p. 10. no mention made of any o­ther nature in the man Christ. But I say its implyed in Isa. 46. Re­view also your p. 15. Pos. 1. & p. 39. e. g. Heb. 11. 22. Joseph made MENTION of the departing of the children of Israel,—what kind of mention that was, you may read, Gen. 50. 24, 25. Therefore elsewhere, the term BY NAME is added exegetically, Iosh. 21. 9. 1 Chron. 4. 38. I grant the Father is implyed, (because of the Relative—Son) but the Father is not mentioned (to speak properly and truly) in the precedent words; but this by the By, let it go.

4. Compare head and foot of this your answer, and I Petitio Prin­cipii, idem per idem. am much mistaken if you do not shamefully beg the question, and too confidently assert, the Apostle intends the Father. Sir, is not this ( [...]) the thing con­troverted and to be proved?

But because this assertion (the Apostle intends the Father on­ly) Mr. Knowles Sect. 3. is contrary to many mens interpretation, take for the backing of it these few reasons.

Sir, you might have said EVERY mans interpretation Reply. saving old and new Opposers of Christs Deity. I hope you are not like Ishmael, Gen. 16. 12. whose hand will be against eve­ry man,—not like those Jews mentioned, 1 Thes. 2. 14. 15. who were contrary to all men. There is a singu­larity which is a shrewd signe of Arrogancy. 2. If your Assertion be contrary to ALL, MOST or MANY mens in­terpretation, you have need not only of many but strong reasons, for the backing of it and flanking of it too. 3. No matter (I confesse) how few, but how strong rea­sons are. I would not take reasons Nonnumero sed pondere. by number, but by weight. Let it therefore appear what strength or weight is in your reasons, as you call them.

Reas. 1. Because the text will Grammatically bear it; for Mr. Knowles Sect. 4. [Page 8] the words may be thus rendred, That is the true God, and so the Antecedent to the Relative is not the person immediately foregoing, which is Iesus Christ, but another spoken of at a further distance, to wit the Fa­ther.

1. Sir your skil in Grammar is not so great as your Reply. skill in Logick seems to be. Calvin saith, Relativum [...] ad PROXI­MAM Perso­nam restringi solet. Calv. loc. the Relative THIS is wont to be restrained to the next person, i.e. To the person immediately foregoing, which is Iesus Christ, and not to another spoken of at a further distance, to wit the Father. Beza saith, Pronominis istius propria significatio po­stulat ut ad Christum hoc referatur. Beza Annot. in loc. The proper signification of this Pronoun, requires that THIS be referred unto Christ, Zanchius saith, Ad PROX­IMUM mem­brum referen­dum esse Pro­nomen [...] Grammatica docet. Zanch. loc. praedict. GRAMMER teacheth, that the Pronoun THIS is to be referred to the next number. To name no more, I suppose these or any of these eminent Mi­nisters of the Gospel were as good Grammarians as Master KNOWLES.

2. You alledge not one place of Scripture, wherein the Relative THIS is rendred THAT. If you could, you would not (I suppose) have left it so naked without armes in the open field. What? must we take again your word for proofe? I wish a better, for there is no goodnesse in that. I hope Sir, you will take the language which you bestow on Mr. Eaton, p. 51.

3. Its more then probable, it ought not to be rendred THAT; for even in this Epistle, its an eleven times translated THIS (beside this text in hand) and so always to my best observation in the Gospel of Iohn. Now if this be the proper signification of the Relative THIS, and so used constantly by the Apostle in his Gospel and Epistle; ought it not to be so rendred here?

4. Its said Iohn 1. 20. This is he of whom I said, &c. Al­so 1 Iohn 5. 6. This is he that came by water and bloud. [Page 9] —Would it not be a silly shift to say the Apostle in­tends the Father, because the text will Grammatically bear it? For may not the words be thus rendred? THAT IS, &c.—when he that hath but half an eye may see, that not the Father, but Iesus Christ is the Antece­dent to the Relative.

5. You say the words MAY be thus rendred, THAT IS the true God. If you mean De posse, who denyes it? your subtil (but unsound) wit can do it and hath done it; If de jure, I deny it on the former grounds.

6. What an absurd illogical and Atheological argu­ment is this? If the words may be thus rendred—then the Apostle intends the Father. But the words may be thus rendred—Therefore—

Sir, you may perceive the weaknesse of the Minor by weighing the Premises. Your Major or Consequence I deny; for the translation of the words can never suffici­ently prove the intention of the Apostle.

Reas. 2. Because Iesus Christ nowhere in Scripture is Mr. Knowles Sect. 5. called the true God, and therefore is it the more que­stionable whether he be so called here; the place being somewhat doubtful and ambiguous.

Somewhat doubtful and ambiguous; to whom Sir? Reply. Not to Beda, Quid aper­tius hic verbis? quid dulcius?—Verum Deum dixerat esse filium, verum Deum HUNC esse multoties re­petit. Bed. loc. who saith, What is more plain then these words? what is more sweet?—He (viz. the Apostle) cals the Son of God the true God,—he repeats it over and over again, This is the true God; nor to Calvin, who saith Tamersihunc locum eludere ARRIANI conati sunt, & illis hodie subscribunt QuIDAM; Hîc tamen insigne habe­mus Divinitatis Christi Elogium. Calv. loc. Although the Arrians have endeavoured to elude this place, and some at this day subscribe to them, yet here we have a notable proof of Christs Divinity. Nor to Beza, Continet etiam hic locus EXPRES­SVM Divinitatis Christi testimonium, Beza. in loc. & Piscat. who saith, This place containeth an expresse testimony of Christs [Page 10] Divinity. Nor to Zanchius, who saith, Hic APER­TE Apostolus Christum vo­cat verum De­um—Locus est insignis ad asserendam Christi Divi­nitatem. Zanc. loc. Praedict. 1. Here the Apostle clearly calleth Christ the true God.——A notable place to prove the true and eternal Deity of Iesus Christ. But is the place doubtful and ambiguous to your self? I do not beleeve it, because of your mincing the matter, being SOMEWHAT doubtful—I cannot but think, in wri­ting this your heart check't your hand. The place is plain; he that runs may read it; The water is clear enough if the Elephant would not mud it. But your second reason shall now be examined; Which is this; Iesus Christ is no where in Scripture called the true God.

1. Sir, Many things are so and so, though not called so in Scripture; to say nothing of the Christian Sabbath which is nowhere in Scripture called Sunday, is it no' therfore Sunday? or may it not be so called by us, as well as by Diodate, 1 Cor. 16. 2. and Iustin Martyr, [...], &c, SO­LIS DIE communiter omnes conven­tum agimus. Iust. Martyr. Apol. 2. that most an­cient and incorrupt Writer, as learned Gomarus De investi­gatione Sab. c. 6. s. 39. stiles him? But Baptisme and the Lords Supper are nowhere in Scripture called Sacraments; are they not therefore Sacraments? 2. Nowhere in Scripture it is said there are only two Sacraments of the New Testament; Are there any more? or therefore are there not only two Sa­craments of the new Testament? 3. The whole Church of Christ is nowhere in Scripture called Catholique; is there not therefore a Catholique Church? Though the terme is not, yet the thing is in Scripture, Eph. 3. 15, Of whom the whole Family in heaven and earth is na­med. 4. Christs death is nowhere in Scripture called satisfactory or meritorious; is it not therefore satisfacto­ry or meritorious? 5. A sinners justification is no­where in Scripture called justification by faith only; is it not therefore by faith only? 6. Its observed to my hand by Camero, Certè nus­quam legas, vera fides, vera spes, vera cha­ritas. Cam. Resp. ad epist. viri do­cti. c. 19. p. 777. that nowhere in Scripture is a Christians [Page 11] faith called true faith, his hope a true hope, his charity true charity; is therefore his faith not a true faith, his hope and charity not true?

2. Are you such a great stranger in Israel, that you know not that received and undoubted maxime? There are sundry things but once mentioned in Scripture; were it granted that Jesus Christ is no where else in Scripture called the true God, its enough if he be so called here, Pronomine illo [...] signi­ficatum fuisse as most certainly he is. This one text (if there be no more) is a sufficient foundation for a Saint to bottome his faith upon. The Christian Sabbath is but once in the New Testament called the Lords day, Revel. 1. 10. a Johanne Christum ip­sum CERTO CERTIVS est. Zanch. ib. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day. Is it not therefore the Lords day? I confesse indeed Beza saith in his Annota­tions on 1 Cor. 16. 2. upon the first day of the week he found in an ancient copy added [...], being the Lords day; to wit, on the first day of the week, being the Lords day, but we find it not so in our books in the forenamed place of the Corinthians. Again, Church­officers are but once in the New Testament called The Church, Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church. Are they not therefore the Church? but because those instances are liable to exceptions, and men of parts and Piety differ in their opinion and exposition; I shall wave them, and give you some few pregnant and pertinent instances a­mong many. e. g. The Lattesse in Cant, 2. 9. (shewing himself through the Lattesse) is nowhere else used in the Hebrew, if Mr. Ainsworth may be beleeved. Nor that casting down (of the lapsed Angels) to hell or hel-ward, 2 Pet. 2. 4. is no where else used, if Mr. Mede The word [...] in S. Peter is [...]. Vide los-Medes works, 4^o. p. 101. 102. may be beleeved; and I ammuch deceived if that word [...] in 1 Tim. 2. 12.—(Nor to usurp authority over the man) be any where else in Scripture used; Are these things [Page 12] therefore any whit the more questionable? Secondly, Though Ames. expli­catio Analyti­ca in 1 Pet. 2. 13 Superiority of Power & Civil Government it self be simply and absolutely commanded by God, and therefore called an Ordinance of God, Rom. 15. 1, 2. yet this or that forme of Government, or special man­ner of Power, is not determined by God, but by men; therefore called in 1 Pet. 2. 13. an ordinance of man, or as it might be rendred, [...]. So the Vulg. and Erasm. an humane creature or cre­ation, a phrase used nowhere else; is it therefore the more questionable, whether a Magistrate or Magi­stracy be an Ordinance of man? 3. The Church com­pact of Jews and Gentiles, is but once called one new man, Eph. 2. 15.—to make in himself of twain one new man; is it therefore the more questionable? Fourthly, To put all out of doubt, (because the matter in agitation is about Christ) Christ himself is but once said to be in the forme of God, Phil. 2. 6. The expresse image of his Person, Heb. 1. 3. (or as the words may be read) The Character of his substance: The beginning of the Creation of God, Rev. 3. 14. The first-born of every creature, Col. 1. 15. The true bread, John 6. 32. The true vine, cap. 15. 1. Is it therefore any whit the more que­stionable whether Iesus Christ may be so called? I trow not.

3. Admit (for Argument sake) that Iesus Christ is no where else in Scripture called the true God: yet (by your leave) he is called God, John 1. 1. Blessed God, Rom. 9. 5. Great God, Tit. 2. 13. The mighty God, Isa. 9. 6. &c. All which (and many more Titles ascribed to him in holy Scripture) amount to this, The true God, notwithstand­ing your exceptions against the forenamed places, which like Fig-leaves (if I be not prevented by a better pen) shall be removed, and your nakednesse discovered. Ie­sus [Page 13] Christ is no where called in Scripture Gods Minister, Gods Instrument, Gods Viceroy, Gods Reprseentative, &c. yet you beleeve Scripture holds forth that which a­mounts thereto; else you would not so frequently call Christ by such names, and will you be a Didymist here? But to use a better instance, The Scripture saith we are justified without works, we are justified by faith, doth not all amount to this, we are justified by faith on­ly? So here—

4. What will you say if Iesus Christ be elsewhere in Scripture called the true God? I humbly conceive so, Jer. 10. 10. But the Lord is the true God. I am not igno­rant it is in the Original Aelohim Aemeth, the God of truth. But it is an usual Hebraisme, as in the same verse, A King of eternity, i.e. an eternal King, and so (to name no more) 2 Cor. 1. 3.—Genitivus pro Adjectivo—i.e. Pater summe miseri­cors. Grot. The father of mercies, i.e. A mer­ciful father. Now that Iesus Christ is here implyed, and to be understood, take for the clearing and confirming of it these few reasons.

1. Because these words in the beginning of the se­venth verse (Who would not feare thee O King of Nations!) spoken and applyed to Christ, Praebet hic Titulus NON OBSCVRVM Divinitatis Agni argu­mentum, cui tanquam Au­thori opus il­lud stupendum devictae bestiae acceptum fe­runt, & praedi­cant sancti. Pareus in loc. Rev. 15. 3, 4. Thus our Translators of the Bible into English understood it, as appears by the interchangable quotation. And this is more probable, because Beza saith Arethas reads the words in Revel. forenamed— [...] King of Nations, i.e. Of all the Saints of, in, or among the Na­tions.

2. Because the work of Creation, mentioned ver. 12. which is proper to the most High, Psal. 104. 25, 26. is ascribed to Christ, Heb. 1. 10, 11, 12. your distinction, p. 35. of an Agent principal and instrumental, in the work of Creation, and your bold assertion thereupon, [Page 14] that Iesus Christ was only an instrumental Agent in the Creation of the world (which shall be examined in its proper place,) will not help you a jot at this dead lift.

3. Because of the name of this true God, vers. 16. The Lord of Hosts is his name, You acknow­ledge p. 10. This noble name is by the A­postle from Isay 6. 3. tran­slated Lord Almighty, Rev. 4. 8. And given to him that sits on the Throne. Which name is given to Jesus Christ, if you will compare, Isa. 6. 10. with John 12. 41. ‘These things said Isaias, when he saw his glo­ry and spake of HIM.’ The relative refers to Christ in the precedent vers. 37. ‘Though HE had done so many miracles before them, yet they beleeved not on HIM.’ Who is he? The Lord Jesus, vers. 36. These things spake Ie­sus,—And it refers to Christ in the subsequent, vers. 42.—Many beleeved on HIM,—but they did not con­fesse HIM. If the context carry it to Christ, therefore of necessity here, vers. 41. So that (I hope) it is evident that Jesus Christ is elsewhere in Scripture called The true God; and that your second reason is very frail and false. Mr. Knowles Sect. 6.

Reas. 3. Because the father is called the true God di­stinct from the Son, 1 Thess. 1. 9, 10.—How ye tur­ned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, &c.—It is evident from this text, that the Father distinct from the Son is called the li­ving and true God; and therefore it is probable in the text under examination, the Father only is intended in this expression, This is the true God.

Give me leave to trusse up this reason into an Argu­ment Reply. without wronging you; if in the 1 Thes. 1. 9, 10. the Father distinct from the Son is called the true God, then also its probable in 1 Iohn 5. 20. But the former is true. Therefore—

Or thus. He that is distinct from the true God, is not [Page 15] the true God; Iesus Christ is distinct from the true God; Therefore—

Sir, if you take to the first Syllogistical forme, I deny your consequence; for the Father even distinct from the A mea non se­quit [...]r. Son, may be called the true God in 1 Thes. 1. 9, 10. and yet the Son—may be called the true God in 1 Iohn 5. 20. you your self foresaw the inconsequence, and therefore you assert it but as probable; and probabilities (I imagine) will not carry it.

If you own the latter Argument, The major is false; for the Spirit as well as Christ is distinct from the true God (in some sense) and yet is the true God, Certè S Sp. ita in Deo, ex Deo, & Dei est, ut Deus sit, viz. [...]. Synops. par. Theol. Disp. 9. s. 28. Acts 5. 3, 4. Isa. 6. 9. with Acts 28. 25. 1 Cor. 6. 19. with 1 Cor. 6. 16. May not I as well argue out of Mark 16. 7. Tell his disciples and Peter, that Peter was none of Christs disci­ples, because he is distinct from them; and out of the title of Psal. 18.—from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul, that Saul was none of Davids enemies; for he is distinct from them. But as he appeal­ed from Philip to Philip, so do I from Mr. Knowls to Mr. Knowls, who seems to answer with indignation. pag. 39. What? Was Saul none of Davids enemies? He was;—But why do I go so far? will you conclude waiting is no serving, because its evident from this text, 1 Thes. 1. 9, 10. That waiting is distinguished from serving—to serve and to wait—

Reas. 4. Bcause the Father is called the ONLY true Mr. Knowles Sect. 7. God, Iohn 17. 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Je­sus Christ. Here the Father is called the only true God, and so the Son is excluded from being the true God, and therefore of necessity in 1 Iohn 5. 20. The Father only is intended. Reply.

[Page 16] Your Argument (I take it) runs thus. If the Father be called the only true God in Iohn 17. 3. Then of neces­sity in 1 John 5. 20. But the former is true. Therefore.—or thus, The Sonne is excluded from being true God, in Ioh. 17. 3. Therfore of necessity in 1 Ioh. 5. 20.

Sir, your former inference must be probable, this last necessary, if you must be beleeved; but in truth there is no probability in the former, much lesse necessity in this. For,

1. If from this place you are so bold as to argue Je­sus Christ out of his Deity; I imagine, you will make no bones to argue Divers passa­ges in your book hint as much as page 22. 27, 34. &c. the Holy Ghost also out of his Deity. Your Argument doth militate as strongly (in shew) a­gainst the one, as against the other; and then quo vadis? whither are you going?

2. This word ONLY is not always an So Chrysost. citing 1 Cor. 9. 6 where the par­ticle ONLY doth not ex­clude but com­mend Barna­ba [...]. exclusive particle, as may appear, 1. By your own allegations. For you, p. 11. line 10. The words, 1 Iohn 5. 20. This is the true God and eternal life, relate to the Father only, and yet you do not exclude the Son, line 19. 20. of the same page; you say pag. 18. Isaac is called Abrahams only be­gotten Son, yet you exclude not Ishmael by Hagar, and others he had by Keturah, though I grant he was Abra­hams only begotten Son by promise. Again, you in pag. 46. quote Mat. 4. 10. Him only shalt thou serve. Though God only is to be worshipped and served, yet it seems to me you do not exclude Christ. If you do, is it not contra­ry to Joh. 5. 23? That all men should honour the Son EVEN as they honour the Father. If you do not, then (your self being Iudge) the term Only is not always exclusive. But second­ly it will appear by other instances, Iob. 9. 8. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens,—Although you understand it spoken of God the Father, yet can you not exclude the [Page 17] Son; for those words, Heb. 1. 10. (And the heavens are the works of thy hands) are spoken to Christ, as appears by your conjunction. And—in the beginning of your tenth page compared with pag, 8. Again Zanc. l. 3. c. 10 p. 484. Peter saith of Christ, Acts 4. 12. Neither is there salvation in any other, there is none other name under heaven given among men, wher­by we must be saved, will you exclude the Father from sa­vingus? no. Tit. 3. ver. 4, 5, 6.—yea, will you ex­clude Jesus Christ, (I say not your self emitting such Arguments and Answers against the Deity of Iesus Christ) from being wise? because its said, Rom. 16. 27.—Thus Greg. Nazianz. argued long since. Si soli sapienti Deo, aut soli haben­ti immortali­tatem, lucem inaccessam ha­bitanti—sic intelligas, non abibit, quin ad mortem con­demnatus fili­us, aut tenebrae aut NON SA­PIENS sit—de Theologia. l. 4. p 265. Edit. Lat-Muscul.— to God only wise?—when yet you acknow­ledge page 26. according to the Scripture of truth, Col. 2. 3. In him are hid all treasures of Wisedome and Knowledge, yea, and he is expressely called the Wisedome of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. To say nothing of your not daring (I be­leeve) to exclude Iesus Christ from having immortality, when Paul saith of the Father, 1 Tim. 6. 16. Who ONLY hath immortality. To conclude, will you exclude Sarah from being called of God, because its said Isa. 51. 2. I called Abraham alone? No, Piscator Vxorem ha­bebat cùm vo­caretur. Pisc. in loc. can tell you he had a wife when he was called, and the story confirms it. If it be said Abraham might be called alone, though Sarah named in the same verse were called in him, she being one with him; So the Father may be called here the only true God, though Iesus Christ is not to be excluded, he being one with him in nature and essence, not in work on­ly, as you say, Iohn 10. 30. which hereafter (God willing) shall be demonstrated.

3. What if the words may be read thus?—To know thee, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent, the only true God. Thus the Son is not excluded from being the true God, but included (or rather expressed) to be the true God. [Page 18] Such trajections are very frequent in Scripture. To in­stance only in the Scripture quoted by you in your se­cond reason, 1 Thes. 1. 10.—And to wait for his Son from heaven, even Iesus whom he raised from the dead. Your learned man Grotius Ethic trans­positio, pro [...] ut Act. 6 10. expressely asserts a transposition here, reading the words thus,—And to wait for his Son,—even Iesus whom he raised from the dead. And that it is so here in the text under debate. Dan. Heinsius Hic si Chry­sostomo credi­mus, hoc vole­bat Dominus [...]. Heins. in loc. (a Critical man, and therefore more likely to take with your Critical wit) confirms it out of sundry Greek Au­thors, alledging that Chrysostome so reads them, as the mind of Iesus Christ, and concludes: This therefore is the true sense, that they may know thee, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent, the only true God. This is no new interpre­tation, (and if it were new, no matter if it be right) It is very ancient. Beside Chrysostome aforementioned, Au­gustine saith, Ordo verbo­rum est, ut te & quem misisti Jesum Christū cognoscant ve­rum Deum. Aug. Tract. 105. in Joh. This is the order of the words, that they may know thee, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent, the only true God. And Quod qui­dem Arriani sic solent accipere quasi non sit Filius verus Deus——an­swers; ordo ver­borum. est, &c. de Trin. l. 6. c. 9. elsewhere telling us that the Arrians were so wont to take this place, as if the Son were not God, useth the same expression, This is the order of the words, &c. Ambrose also saith, Christum non EXCLVDE­RE se, quin verus sit Deus, ex hoc ipso lo­co perspicuum est; illu [...] enim in cujus cog­nitione, vita ae­terna positasit, quî possit non esse Deum? Ambr. de side l. 5. c. 2. Its evident from this place, that Christ doth not EXCLUDE himself from being the true God, because life lies in knowing HIM. I shall conclude with Tertullian who argues from this text otherwise then you do. If Christ would not have himself to be understood the true God also, why did he adde [and whom thon hast sent Iesus Christ] Else he had said [And whom thou hast sent, the MAN Iesus Christ—] But since he hath joyned himself with God, he BY THIS CONIUNCTION, would be under­stood, as indeed he is, THE TRUE GOD.

4. But take the words as they lie in our English tran­slation, Yet it will not of NECESSITY follow, that Christ is [Page 19] excluded from being the true God. For the Father is not opposed to the Son, but to idols and false Gods: And then the sens [...] seems to be this: Life eternal consists in this, that leaving the multitude of false Gods, we might know even Iesus Christ, not a false god, as idols are, hut the true God also as the father is. Thus many ancient Writers understood it, Sane mea est opinio, illud, cognoscant te solum verum Deum, ad eos, qui cùm Dii di­cantur, tamen non sunt, tol­l [...]ndos valere. Alioquin, si Christo ex ad­verso respon­derit—adje­ctum non esset & quem misi­sti Jesum Chri­stum. Greg. Naz. ibid. My opinion (saith Nazian.) is, That those words, the only true God, Take away those who are called gods but indeed are not, NOT Iesus Christ, for then it had not been added,—and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. To the same purpose Basil Qui verus est Deus, ad eos, qui ex opposito falso distingun­tur, dicitur, sc­non existentes. Bas. contra Eu­nom. l 4. p. 177. the Great, and Cyril Patrem à falsis & solo nomine Diis distinguens, so­lum verumque Deum appel­lat. Cyril. in loc. l. 11. c. 16. & in Thesauro. l. 10. c. 6. A­lexander, and others (whom I could name) deliver them­selves. But because you professe you like Reason and Scripture best, I will deal with you that way. That this is spoken in opposition to, and exclusion of salse gods, its more then probable by the constant language of the Scriptures elsewhere. e. g. Ier. 10. 10. But the Lord is the true God—compared with v. 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16. Where Iehovah the true and living God is abundantly opposed to false gods; and is it not evident in the text foremen­tioned? 1 Thess. 1. 9.—How ye turned from idols—to serve—THE TRUE GOD. Nay, is it not clear in the text under Examination? 1 Iohn 5. 20. ‘That we may know him that is TRUE, and we are in him that is TRUE. This is the TRUE God.’ Now it follows im­mediatly, ver. 21.—Keep your selves from IDOLS. Is not the true God in all these places opposed to idols?

To wind up all, this particle ONLY, is not to be Particula ex­clusiva [...] non conjungi­tur cum subje­cto TE, sed cū praedicato VE­RUM Deum. Sancti. de trib. Elohim. pars al­tra. l. 3. c. 10. p. 483. joyned with the subject THEE, but with the Predicate GOD, as is apparent by the other epithet TRUE, which be­longs to the Predicate GOD, and not to the subject THEE. Its one thing to say—that they might know THEE ONLY the true God, and another thing to say—that they might know thee the ONLY true God. This [Page 20] Answer hath cut in sunder the sinews of the Arrians Ar­gument heretofore out of this place, Maldonat. in loc. and is as keen now (through Gods blessing) for ought I know. Suppose one should argue thus; The Sun is the only true light in the day time to inlighten our Hemisphere, therfore the beams of the Sun are not, who sees not the fallacy & falshood of this consequence? Doth it not rather follow, that the beams with the Sun are the only true light. So it is here (only let not the comparison be stretched beyond my intention) This text rather holds him forth to be the true God then excludes him (as you harshly speak) from being the true God. Now (the premises being considered) it will not (I think) of NECESSITY follow that in 1 Joh. 5. 20. The Father is ONLY intended.

Sir, having (I hope) taken off the edge of your rea­sons, (whereby you indeavoured to prove, that the Sect. 8. words under examination relate not to the Son but to the Father only) Give me leave on the contrary to tender to you some reasons, why the words—relate not to the Father, but to the Son.

1. Because the Incipit pri­mùm omni­um à Christi Personae de­scriptione—Hujus igitur primum omni­um Deitatem aeternam pro­ponit. Beza. beginning of Iohns Epistle, holds forth the subject of his preaching & writing, viz. the per­son— [...]— of Jesus Christ, ch. 1. 1.—of (or concerning) the Word of life. Now its more then probable, that the End or Conclusion of the Epistle, is suitable to the Pre­face or beginning. This reason may be cogent, (if not to others, yet) to Mr. Knowls, who is carried with meer probabilities for the most part.

2. Because there is no great necessity rationally ima­ginable, that should move or constrain the Apostle so strenuously and industriously to assert, the Deity of the Father. For what man (within the pale of the Christian Church) did deny or doubt of it? But there might be just [Page 21] and necessary cause of asserting the Deity of Iesus Christ. You say Pag 11. many at this time did arise, who did gain-say and deny the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. So (say I) many at this time Ebion & Ce­rinthus solum hominem cen­suerunt Chri­stum. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 21, 22. & Epiphan. Hae­res. 51. & Au­gust. de Hares. c. 8. & 10. did arise, who did gain-say and deny the Deity of Iesus Christ, holding Christ to be a meer man, or whole Christ to be a creature, as Master Knowls doth, page 20. &c.—

3. Because of the great work ascribed to the Son of God vers. 20.—And hath given us an understanding to know him.—This is the Royal Priviledge of the most high, as appears by the Saints prayers, Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 9. And by Gods performance, 1 King. 3. 12. I have given thee a wise and understanding heart.—Or if you please, let me forme your Glosse into an Argument.

He that hath annoint the eyes of our minds, that we might savingly know God is the true God. But Iesus Christ hath so annointed—Therefore—

The Minor is your own, p. 11. The Major is as clear as the Sun, yet take the strength of it in these few positi­ons briefly.

• 1. Saving knowledge is a gift, Mat. 13. 11. To you it is GIVEN to know—
• 2. Its God only who gives this knowledge, 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded the light to shine out of darknesse, hath shined in our hearts—
• 3. This knowledge can never be had, God not giving it, Deut. 28.
• 4.—Now its your own Concession, Iesus Christ gives this knowledge.

4. Because beleevers are said (in the same verse) to be in him that is true, which the Apostle expounds to be e­ven in his Son Iesus Christ, In him that is true, who is he? his Son Iesus Christ. And least any should doubt of [Page 22] whom he speaks, he adds immediatly. This is the true God.

5. Because of the proper signification, and frequent, nay constant use of the Relative [...]. THIS, which relates to the next member or antecedent, and therefore to the Son of God, as hath been shewed before. For if John had meant as you do, he should have said; [...] or [...], not [...], Ille not Iste, THAT not THIS. And I challenge you to produce any one text in the New Testament to the contrary, and I shall candidly confesse my ignorance or inadvertency.

6. Because Iesus Christ (you confesse) is here said to be eternal life, and why then is not Iesus Christ this true God, when De uno certi ac eodem u­trumque prae­dicat, quod ( [...]. Christus verus sit deus ac vita aeter­na. Calv. in loc. both are spoken of one and the same Person? Certainly if Iesus Christ be acknowledged here to be Illa aeterna vita. Pisc. the eternal life, it cannot be denied (according to the laws of a true copulate Axiom) that THIS JESUS CHRIST IS THE TRUE GOD. Indeed if we take your Glosse by it self in the close of your first answer, it will not of necessity follow, For Gods ordinances and our performances, Via and Reg­num, non cau­sa regnandi. Bern. are the way to eternal life. If this be your meaning, what is it but a crumb of Socinianism, and contrary to the stream of Expositors? But in charity I will judge you to be of the same mind Page 8. with Pareus, and your learned and godly man mentioned. page 9. That Christ is also the Author of eternal life to all that obey him. In this sense pure reason cannot but bring in this Verdict (to use your own expression, pag. 35.) THIS JE­SƲS CHRIST IS THE TRUE GOD.