Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy…

That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. These words, as God, either he understands [Greek or Hebrew] essentially, or [Greek or Hebrew] personally, that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of God, which is common to the Son of God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one, or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole Argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my Theses, which affirmed that an Universal Dominion and Kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator, (in which capacity ⟨p. 32⟩he is only King of the Church,) but as he is the Eternal Son of God. In opposing of which Assertion, as the Reverend Brother was before Nihil Respondens, so now he is twice nought. But if in the other sense he understands his Proposition, (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said,) then I still aver his Proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved before by a clear demonstration. That which is given to Christ, he hath it not as God. But life, glory, &c. is given to Christ; Ergo, Christ hath not life, glory, &c. as God. The Reverend Brother saith, I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the Major is mine own, and the Minor is the very Scripture. Yet he denies the conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, That which was given this poor man, he had not before, but a shilling was given this poor man: Ergo, He had not a shilling before. Where both Propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false, saith he, contrary to the axiome, Ex veris nil nisi verum. You are extremely out Sir, your Syllogism of the poor man is fallacia ab amphibolia. The Major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the Major of my Argument to be your own, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the Minor to be Scripture.

That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. These words, as God, either he understands 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 essentially, or 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 personally, that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of God, which is common to the Sonne of God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one, or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole Argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my Theses, which affirmed that an Universall Dominion and Kingdome over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator, (in which capacity