A Serious EXERCITATION Upon, Or an Impassionate Vindication OF 1 John 5. 20. This is the true God—  
In Reference to a printed Conference between Mr. SAMVEL ETON, and Mr. JOHN KNOWLES for the beating out of the Truth concerning the DIVINITY of JESUS CHRIST.  
By Thomas Porter M. A. Minister of the Gospel at Whitchurch.  
Tamet si hunc locum eludere ARRIANI conati sunt, & illis HODIE subscribunt QUIDAM; hîc tamen insigne habemus DIVINITATIS Christi Elogium.  Calv. in 1 John 5. 20. 
Omnes ANTICHRISTI Christum negant aliquo modo. Verbis? Hoc falsum: Plurimi enim tam clarè professi sunt jesum esse Christum quam ullus Catholicorum, si sola verba attendas, ARRIANI, Nestoriani, Eutychiani, alii  Chamier de Antichristo. l. 17. c. 11. f. 4. 
ARRIUS erat staturâ valdè longus, subtristi specie figuratus velut dolosus Serpens, qui decipere posset omne innocens cor per VERSUTUM SUUM PRAETEXTUM— DULCIS erat in COLLOQUIO, persuadens semper animas ac BLANDIENS, etc.  Epiph. l. 2. Tom. 2. Haeres. 69. 

Decemb. 26. 1650.  
Imprimatur,  
Edm. Calamy.   
London, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Ralph Smith, at the sign of the blue Bible in Cornhill near the Royal Exchange. 1651.   

An Extract of a Letterwritten from some Ministers of the Gospel to the Author of the Exercitation or Vindication.  
SIR,  
WE bless God that hath inclined your heart in your vacant hours (specially in the sad time of God's visitation) to appear for Jesus Christ, in a controversy of so high concernment. As we cannot but acknowledge strength of parts in your adversary, in his managing of so bad a cause; howsoever; straits (as it fares with all in such engagements) put him upon contradictions; so we rejoice to see your accurate diligence answered with such acuteness, that his wiles have no lurking hole left to avoid the force of Truth in your Answer,— We would fain see that eldest son of Anak fall. The Lord in whose cause you engage, give an happy success, etc.   

To Master JOHN KNOWLES late Preacher at Chester.  
SIR,  
IT is reported of Valens 
a Jubet Valens edictum de Basilio in exilium mittendo conscribi, quod cum sua manu ratum facere conaretur, ne apicem quidem unum alicujus literae facere potuit; siquidem ruptus est calamus, neque id semel sed iterum ac tertio accidit. Ac cum impium illud Edictum confirmate impensiùs laboraret, concussa est dextera, tremorque eum occupavit. Atque cùm animo esset prae metu prope attonito, chartam manibus dilaceravit. Theodor. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 17.  (that Arrian Emperor) that as he was attempting to sign an Edict for the banishing of Basil, he could not write one tittle of a Letter, Providence breaking his Pen three several times; at the fourth assay his hand was stricken with a shaking Palsy, and thereupon as a man affrighted with his own hands, he tore in pieces the Paper. In this you might have imitated him, if the spirit of horror had seized on you, when you first put Pen to paper to print your conference with Master Eton. Howsoever, you are beholding to free grace in sparing you, who have not spared to rob Jesus Christ (as much as in you lieth) of his Deity. I have no leisure to reply to your whole book (though its feasible, being for the most part but a Magazine of the rusty Armour of Arrius, Samosatenus, Servetus, Socinus, Valentinus Gentiles, etc. scoured up and trimmed anew) I have only pitched upon one Scripture, and the rather because you 
b The words I confess at the first blush seem to stand on your side. Confer. p. 11.  hint, it speaks most clearly for Master eaton's cause. And if (but) this one Fort be maintained against your scaling Ladders, battering Pieces and powder Mines, you have no great reason to cry VICTORIA (though you may be beaten off from the rest too, notwithstanding your desperate assaults.) I have (according to the advice of your Highflown Epistoler) studied to reason and not to revile, especially you being so much as by face unknown to me. Beseeching you to draw (with an  judgement and an unbribed affection) your own 
c Conference p. 30. f.  rule into Act: Betake yourself to reason, whereby the spirit may convince you of WHOM the text under Examination is to be understood. Let all be taken by you, as tendered by me, with a spirit of love and meekness. And the Lord give you the Spirit of a sound mind and understanding in all things, which is the Cordial prayers of him who is  
Yours if you be indeed for Christ, T. P.   

AN EXERCITATION On 1 JOHN 5. 10. This is the true God and eternal life.  
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 dependence on the words immediately preceding, as probably they have not, being by a full point separated from them, than they are the Epitome, Abridgement, or Sum 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 jesus 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 yourself from the 
Reply.  guilt of two contradictions. 1. These words relate to the father— AS AN ENTIRE body of themselves. Are the same words in the same respect, absolute and not absolute, 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, etc. relate in whole or in part to the Son Jesus Christ, than not to the Father ONLY.  
2. Consider whether you have observed the rule 
a 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 term THIS is but once mentioned in the text under debate, and that only in the beginning, not in the middle of the sentence. Indeed 
b 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 add a Gloss 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, etc. 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 weakness, as you be speak Master Eton. p. 51.  
The Epitome, etc. 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 falsehood, and if you would assay to prove it, (to use your own phrase) would be an endless labour. Your Minor is of the same stamp. For in all reason the last, vers. 20. (Babes keep yourselves from idols) should be 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 entire body of themselves, not depending on the words immediately preceding. Is this all? Sir, your major employed is false, (viz.) The words which are, As an entire 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 entire body of themselves, etc. and do they therefore relate to the Father only? But how prove you that these words under examination, are an entire body of themselves, not having dependence on the words immediately foregoing? It's probable (you say) because they are by a full point separated from them.  
But Sir, must probabilities pass 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. It's 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 dependence on them, as evidently appears by the 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Relative HIS. Again ver. 7. it's said— And these three are one; Which words are so separated (yet it's 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 witness of God.— These words also are separated by a full point, and yet they have dependence on the words immediately preceding, as is manifest by the Conjunction 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  FOR, and the Relative THIS, yea in this very ver. 20.— And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. These words are also separated by a full point; yet (if you adhere to Erasmus or tindal's reading, and your own gloss thereupon) they must have dependence on the words immediately foregoing. You may (if you please) peruse the chapter, and so be an eyewitness 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 dependence on them. If all this will not leave a conviction on your spirit, may I not say with the Apostle in another case, 
e James 2. 4.  Are you not then partial in yourself?  
You have been unhappy in your first Answer; sure you will be more successful in the second, which runs thus.  
2. Were it granted, that these words, (This is the true God, etc.) 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 believers 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 bosom of the Father, and having received from him the promise of the Spirit; hath anointed 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 words, thus, And we are in him that is true through his Son jesus 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, than 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, unless 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 point (as you say) between the words jesus Christ, and the Relative THIS.  
2. I know not to what purpose you mention three several readings, and three several meanings accordingly, unless 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, 
f 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 Relics of darkness in man's 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 
g 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 Father's 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 Latin Translation, which is doubted, nay denied by the learned 
h Rivet. Isag. c. 11. Chamier. de vulg. Lat. editione l. 24. c. 4. s. 7. etc.  to be Hieroms) for if of two Prepositions one is redundant 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , then of two articles one is redundant also, (which is somewhat uncouth) and perhaps the Relative too, or else miserably perverted, for it's not in THIS Son, but in HIS Son.  
3. It's either an untrue or an improper expression to say in the precedent words there is mention made of the Father; for the word MENTION doth not signify an implicit intimation, but an explicit nomination. 
k You say p. 10. no mention made of any other nature in the man Christ. But I say it's employed 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 employed, (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 men's interpretation, take for the backing of it these few reasons.  
Sir, you might have said EVERY man's interpretation 
Reply.  saving old and new Opposers of Christ's Deity. I hope you are not like Ishmael, 
l 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 sign of Arrogancy. 2. If your Assertion be contrary to ALL, MOST or MANY men's 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 confess) how few, but how strong reasons are. I would not take reasons 
m 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.  the words may be thus rendered, That is the true God, and so the Antecedent to the Relative is not the person immediately foregoing, which is jesus Christ, but another spoken of at a further distance, to wit the Father.  
1. Sir your skill in Grammar is not so great as your 
Reply.  skill in Logic seems to be. Calvin saith, 
n 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 jesus Christ, and not to another spoken of at a further distance, to wit the Father. Beza saith, 
o 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, 
p Ad PROXIMUM membrum referendum esse Pronomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammatica docet. Zanch. loc. predict.  GRAMMAR 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 allege not one place of Scripture, wherein the Relative THIS is rendered THAT. If you could, you would not (I suppose) have left it so naked without arms in the open field. What? must we take again your word for proof? I wish a better, for there is no goodness in that. I hope Sir, you will take the language which you bestow on Mr. Eton, p. 51.  
3. It's more than probable, it ought not to be rendered THAT; for even in this Epistle, it's an eleven times translated THIS (beside this text in hand) and so always to my best observation in the Gospel of john. 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 rendered here?  
4. It's said john 1. 20. This is he of whom I said, etc. Also 1 john 5. 6. This is he that came by water and blood. — 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 rendered? THAT IS, etc.— when he that hath but half an eye may see, that not the Father, but jesus Christ is the Antecedent to the Relative.  
5. You say the words MAY be thus rendered, THAT IS the true God. If you mean De posse, who denies it? your subtle (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 rendered— then the Apostle intends the Father. But the words may be thus rendered— Therefore—  
Sir, you may perceive the weakness 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 jesus 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, 
q 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 than these words? what is more sweet?— He (viz. the Apostle) calls the Son of God the true God,— he repeats it over and over again, This is the true God; nor to Calvin, who saith 
r 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 Christ's Divinity. Nor to Beza, 
s Continet etiam hic locus EXPRESSUM Divinitatis Christi testimonium, Beza. in loc. & Piscat.  who saith, This place containeth an express testimony of Christ's Divinity. Nor to Zanchius, who saith, 
t Hic APERTE Apostolus Christum vocat verum Deum— Locus est insignis ad asserendam Christi Divinitatem. Zanc. loc. Predict 1.  Here the Apostle clearly calleth Christ the true God.—— A notable place to prove the true and eternal Deity of jesus Christ. But is the place doubtful and ambiguous to yourself? I do not believe it, because of your mincing the matter, being SOMEWHAT doubtful— I cannot but think, in writing this your heart checked 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; jesus 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 therefore Sunday? or may it not be so called by us, as well as by Diodate, 1 Cor. 16. 2. and justin Martyr, 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c, SOLIS DIE communiter omnes conventum agimus. Iust. Martyr. Apol. 2.  that most ancient and incorrupt Writer, as learned Gomarus 
w De investigatione Sab. c. 6. s. 39  styles him? But Baptism 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 Catholic; is there not therefore a Catholic Church? Though the term is not, yet the thing is in Scripture, Eph. 3. 15, Of whom the whole Family in heaven and earth is named. 4. Christ's death is nowhere in Scripture called satisfactory or meritorious; is it not therefore satisfactory or meritorious? 5. A sinner's justification is nowhere in Scripture called justification by faith only; is it not therefore by faith only? 6. It's observed to my hand by Camero, 
x 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 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 maxim? There are sundry things but once mentioned in Scripture; were it granted that Jesus Christ is not where else in Scripture called the true God, it's enough if he be so called here, 
y 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 bottom 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 CERTIUS est. Zanch. ib.  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Is it not therefore the Lords day? I confess 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 Lord's day; to wit, on the first day of the week, being the Lord's day, but we find it not so in our books in the forenamed place of the Corinthians. Again, Church-officers 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 (showing himself through the Lattesse) is nowhere else used in the Hebrew, if Mr. Ainsworth may be believed. Nor that casting down (of the lapsed Angels) to hell or helward, 2 Pet. 2. 4. is not where else used, if Mr. Mede 
z The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide los-Medes works, 4ᵒ. p. 101. 102.  may be believed; 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 therefore any whit the more questionable? Secondly, Though 
a Ames. explicatio Analytica in 1 Pet. 2. 13  Superiority of Power & Civil Government itself be simply and absolutely commanded by God, and therefore called an Ordinance of God, Rom. 15. 1, 2. yet this or that form 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 rendered, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 form of God, Phil. 2. 6. The express 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 firstborn 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 jesus Christ may be so called? I trow not.  
3. Admit (for Argument sake) that jesus Christ is not 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. etc. 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 nakedness discovered. jesus Christ is not where called in Scripture God's Minister, God's Instrument, God's Viceroy, God's Reprseentative, etc. yet you believe 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 jesus 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.— 
e Genitivus pro Adjectivo— i.e. Pater sum misericors. Grot.  The father of mercies, i.e. A merciful father. Now that jesus Christ is here employed, 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 fear thee O King of Nations!) spoken and applied to Christ, 
f Praebet hic Titulus NON OBSCURUM 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— 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  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, that jesus 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, 
h 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 spoke of HIM. The relative refers to Christ in the precedent vers. 37. Though HE had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on HIM. Who is he? The Lord Jesus, vers. 36. These things spoke jesus,— And it refers to Christ in the subsequent, vers. 42.— Many believed on HIM,— but they did not confess 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, etc.— 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 truss 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 john 5. 20. But the former is true. Therefore—  
Or thus. He that is distinct from the true God, is not the true God; jesus Christ is distinct from the true God; Therefore—  
Sir, if you take to the first Syllogistical form, 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 john 5. 20. you yourself 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, 
i 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 Christ's 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 David's 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 David's 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. Because the Father is called the ONLY true 
Mr. Knowles Sect. 7.  God, john 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 john 5. 20. The Father only is intended. 
Reply.   
Your Argument (I take it) runs thus. If the Father be called the only true God in john 17. 3. Then of necessity in 1 John 5. 20. But the former is true. Therefore.— or thus, The Son is excluded from being true God, in joh. 17. 3. Therefore of necessity in 1 joh. 5. 20.  
Sir, your former inference must be probable, this last necessary, if you must be believed; but in truth there is no probability in the former, much less 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 
k Divers passages in your book hint as much as page 22. 27, 34. etc.  the Holy Ghost also out of his Deity. Your Argument doth militate as strongly (in show) 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 john 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 Abraham's only begotten Son, yet you exclude not Ishmael by Hagar, and others he had by Keturah, though I grant he was Abraham's 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 judge) the term Only is not always exclusive. But secondly it will appear by other instances, job. 9 8. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens,— Although you understand it spoken of God the Father, yet can you not exclude the 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 
l 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, whereby 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 yourself emitting such Arguments and Answers against the Deity of jesus Christ) from being wise? because it's said, Rom. 16. 27.— 
m 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 Wisdom and Knowledge, yea, and he is expressly called the Wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. To say nothing of your not daring (I believe) to exclude jesus 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 it's said Isa. 51. 2. I called Abraham alone? No, Piscator 
n 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 jesus Christ is not to be excluded, he being one with him in nature and essence, not in work only, as you say, john 10. 30. which hereafter (God willing) shall be demonstrated.  
3. What if the words may be read thus?— To know thee, and jesus 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. 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 jesus whom he raised from the dead. Your learned man Grotius 
o Ethic transpositio, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Act. 6 10.  expressly asserts a transposition here, reading the words thus,— And to wait for his Son,— even jesus whom he raised from the dead. And that it is so here in the text under debate. Dan. Heinsius 
p 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, alleging that chrysostom so reads them, as the mind of jesus Christ, and concludes: This therefore is the true sense, that they may know thee, and jesus 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 chrysostom aforementioned, Augustine saith, 
q Ordo verborum est, ut te & quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant verum Deum. Aug. Tract. 105. in Joh.  This is the order of the words, that they may know thee, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, the only true God. And 
r Quod quidem Arriani sic solent accipere quasi non sit Filius verus Deus—— answers; ordo verborum. est, etc. 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, etc. Ambrose also saith, 
s Christum non EXCLUDERE se, quin verus sit Deus, ex hoc ipso loco perspicuum est; illu● enim in cujus cognition, vita aeterna positasit, quî possit non esse Deum? Ambr. de side l. 5. c. 2.  It's 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 than you do. If Christ would not have himself to be understood the true God also, why did he add [and whom thou hast sent jesus Christ] Else he had said [And whom thou hast sent, the MAN jesus Christ—] But since he hath joined himself with God, he BY THIS CONJUNCTION, 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 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 jesus Christ, not a false god, as idols are, hut the true God also as the father is. Thus many ancient Writers understood it, 
t 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 jesus Christ, for than it had not been added,— and whom thou hast sent jesus Christ. To the same purpose Basil 
u 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 
w 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 profess you like Reason and Scripture best, I will deal with you that way. That this is spoken in opposition to, and exclusion of  gods, it's more than probable by the constant language of the Scriptures elsewhere. e. g. jer. 10. 10. But the Lord is the true God— compared with v. 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16. Where jehovah 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 john 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 immediately, ver. 21.— Keep yourselves 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 
x Particula exclusiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non conjungitur cum subjecto TE, sed cum praedicato VERUM Deum. Sancti. de trib. Elohim. pars altra. l. 3. c. 10. p. 483.  joined 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. It's 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 Answer hath cut in sunder the sinews of the Arrians Argument heretofore out of this place, 
y Maldonat. in loc.  and is as keen now (through God's blessing) for aught I know. Suppose one should argue thus; The Sun is the only true light in the day time to enlighten our Hemisphere, therefore the beams of the Sun are not, who sees not the fallacy & falsehood 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 endeavoured 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 
z Incipit primùm omnium à Christi Personae descriptione— Hujus igitur primum omnium Deitatem aeternam proponit. Beza.  beginning of john's Epistle, holds forth the subject of his preaching & writing, viz. the person— 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  of Jesus Christ, ch. 1. 1.— of (or concerning) the Word of life. Now it's more than 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 mere 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 and necessary cause of asserting the Deity of jesus Christ. You say 
b Pag 11.  many at this time did arise, who did gainsay and deny the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. So (say I) many at this time 
c 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 gainsay and deny the Deity of jesus Christ, holding Christ to be a mere man, or whole Christ to be a creature, as Master Knowls doth, page 20. etc.—  
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 Privilege of the most high, as appears by the Saints prayers, Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 9 And by God's performance, 1 King. 3. 12. I have given thee a wise and understanding heart.— Or if you please, let me form your Gloss into an Argument.  
He that hath anoint the eyes of our minds, that we might savingly know God is the true God. But jesus Christ hath so anointed— 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. It's God only who gives this knowledge, 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts—  
3. This knowledge can never be had, God not giving it, Deut. 28.  
4.— Now it's your own Concession, jesus Christ gives this knowledge.    
4. Because believers are said (in the same verse) to be in him that is true, which the Apostle expounds to be even in his Son jesus Christ, In him that is true, who is he? his Son jesus Christ. And lest any should doubt of whom he speaks, he adds immediately. This is the true God.  
5. Because of the proper signification, and frequent, nay constant use of the Relative 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  THIS, which relates to the next member or antecedent, and therefore to the Son of God, as hath been showed 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 confess my ignorance or inadvertency.  
6. Because jesus Christ (you confess) is here said to be eternal life, and why then is not jesus Christ this true God, when 
e 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 jesus Christ be acknowledged here to be 
f 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 Gloss by itself in the close of your first answer, it will not of necessity follow, For God's ordinances and our performances, 
g 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 
h 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 JESUS CHRIST IS THE TRUE GOD.  
FINIS.