Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	part_n	scripture_n	word_n	3,352	5	4.2263	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90870	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. Samuel Eaton, 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. Decemb. 26. 1650. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Porter, Thomas, d. 1667.	1651 (1651)	Wing P2998D; Thomason E621_9; ESTC R206411	19,159	28

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 EATON and Mr. JOHN KNOWLES for the beating out of the Truth concerning the DIVINITY of JESVS 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 Iesum 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 c. 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 signe of the blew 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 blesse God that hath inclined your heart in your vacant hours specially in the sad time of Gods visitation to appear for Jesus Christ in a controversie of so high concernment As we cannot but acknowledge strength of parts in your adversary in his managing of so bad a cause howsoever streights as it fares with all in such engagements put him upon contradictions so we rejoyce to see your accurate diligence answered with such acutenesse 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 successe c. 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 Emperour that as he was attempting to signe 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 Palsie 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 horrour had seized on you when you first put Pen to paper to print your conference with Master Eaton 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 leasure 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 c. scoured up and trim'd anew I have only pitcht upon one Scripture and the rather because you b The words I confesse at the first blush seem to stand on your side Confer p. 11. hint it speaks most clearly for Master Eatons cause And if but this one Fort be maintained against your scaling Ladders battering Peeces 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 High-flown 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 unbyassed judgment and an unbrib'd affection your own c Conference p. 30. f. rule into Act Betake your self 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 tendred by me with a spirit of love and meeknesse 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 k 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 o 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 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 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 q 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 r 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 s 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. 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 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 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