of the Second Century to the Council of Nice were engag'd in Opinions contrary to the right Notion we have of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Petavius confesses it And therefore 't is one thing to be mish'd he says in the same Page That Mr. Hill had not inspir'd his Readers with so profound a Veneration for Antiquity which I am sure our Holy Mother the Church of England ever had and hath and 't is her Glory and justly obliges all her Children her Ministers especially to have * Imprimis vero videbunt ne quid unquam doceant pro concione quod à Populo religiosè teneri credi velint nisi quod consentaneum sit Doctrinae veteris aut novi Testamenti quodque ex illa ipsa Doctrina Catholici Patres veteres Episcopi collegerint Qui secus fecerit contraria Doctrina Populum turbaverit excommunicabitur Liber quorundam Canonum Discip Ec. Ang. An. 1571. Sub Tit. Concionatores I take it for granted that this Canon extends to Books as well as Sermons and then quaere whether according to this excellent Canon of our Church Mr. Hill cannot justify what he says in p. 6 7. of his Book for which this Animadverter fanatically charges him with Popery And whether according to the same Canon this Animadverting Foreigner advanced as it were for a Purpose ought not to be Animadverted upon and to be made a Foreigner in a worse Sense than he was before that is to be Excommunicated out of our Church Indeed in what this Animadverter here says he speaks somewhat slily and his Words may possibly be taken in Sensu Favoris Hypothetically only But what he says before precludes such an Interpretation and forbids the Favour For in that he is Categorical That several of the Ancient Fathers were Tritheists and the reverend Dean of St. Paul's a Tritheist too That 's out of doubt with him And therefore says he p. 41. I agree with him Mr. Hill when he tells us that he cannot conceive Three Minds in God without establishing Tritheism But says he he Mr. Hill is absolutely mistaken when he denies that several of the Ancients have acknowledged Three Minds in God And if to be Three Minds is to be Three Substances that 's as clear too as the Day that the Fathers own'd Three Substances in God Nothing says he is more evident than that MOST of the Fathers have acknowledged Three Substances This he says he can soon demonstrate if he will that is I suppose if the Bishop will have him And if Mr. Hill or any Body else shall dare to speak a Word against his Bishop for the future for reflecting upon or saying what he pleases of the Ancient Fathers the Monsieur who he says is almost tempted to do it already will then no doubt be able to hold no longer from Drawing such a Picture of Antiquity with Relation to its Faith in the Holy Trinity as shall not be much to its Advantage p. 31. This is certainly a very Formidable Dangerous Man and I hope it will be a Warning to Mr. Hill and all others to take Care for the Sake of the Ancient Fathers how they provoke him or his Bishop But our Prefacer here Mr. J. B. advances yet further in this Work of Darkness and under a false Pretence of defending the Catholick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity against the Objections of the Socinians and of defending the Dean of St. Paul's by a Book which I dare say that truly Worthy and deservedly Admir'd Person did neither encourage nor approve of doth not only publish such a Profession of his Faith as I am sure there is not a Socinian in England but what will readily own and subscribe to but with unparallell'd Ignorance or something worse brings the Nicene Council All the Oriental Fathers St. Hilary our Blessed Saviour and his Blessed Apostle St. Paul to vouch it that is That the Father Alone is the One only True God the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature and the Jews by Revelation worshipped who he believes was One Divine Person and but One Divine Person For he doth he says most firmly believe the Vnity of God AS it was believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who sure enough believ'd the One God to be but One Divine Person And therefore though there be Gods many and Lords many falsly so call'd and though Christ may be call'd God and the Holy Ghost God that can be only metaphorically for to VS Mr. J. B. and his Co-Believers there is but One only True God the Father Alone And This is the Bottom upon which his suitable Doctrine here in his Preface stands viz. That the First Person of the Blessed Trinity the Father is adequately and convertibly predicated of God but the Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are not that is and All the Earth I am sure cannot make any thing else of it the One True God is the Father alone but the One True God according to the Catholick Faith is not Father Son and Holy Ghost The Scriptures prove the former and 't is downright Blasphemy to deny it And the Scriptures confute the latter and 't is downright Blasphemy as he undertakes to prove it to assert it This I think appears plainly to be his Faith as he hath deliver'd it and which he decretorily establishes with a kind of Anathema And If This be his Faith if This be his Doctrine can the Universities or can the Governours of our Church be unconcern'd to stigmatize such a Believer and to condemn by publick Censure such Doctrine as this is from a Man that writes himself A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England Can we be less concern'd to render to God the things that are God's than to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's I hope not Certainly however such Authors as this may escape for some time there will come a Day of Reckoning for them here as well as hereafter Buchanan and Knox and Goodman and Parsons c. were gone long before but yet a Decretum Oxoniense at last overtook them and justly condemned their Books to lie in Infamous Ashes with their Authors And now Sir to conclude this great Trouble I have given you I know you utterly dislike all harsh tart calumnious Language in the Management of Controversies of Religion But I know too That no Man is more for taking down Pride and Insolence than your self and for taking the wise Man's Direction upon so just an Occasion as this certainly is to answer a Man according to his Way lest he be wise in his own Conceit * Prov. 26.9 And this Rule I hope I have not transgress'd and that it will therefore with my God with you and with all the equal and impartial be my Apology for my Way of Writing I do Sir heartily wish with you that the Acute and Learned Mr. Hill in his Vindication of the
which the Verb Substantive est or sunt may not be so serv'd is in these Cases Resolvendum hoc modo est existens sunt existentes so says Dutrieu Logica p. 3. What Pity it is That a Man who seems to have read no farther in Logick than to the third Page in Dutrieu should be so ill-advis'd as to be shewing his Skill in Logick against the Learned Animadverter For if he had read any farther or any other Logick he could not well be ignorant that there 's no Necessity at all of thus Resolving the Conclusion of the Dean's Syllogism to make a Major and a Minor It had as much a Major and a Minor before it was thus resolv'd as since and to use His own Words None but a Person of no Logick could be ignorant of it Mr. J. B's est is as much a Proposition and hath as much a Subject and a Predicate as Mr. J. B's est talis qualis For est secundi adjecti is altogether as sufficient for a Proposition as when it is the mere verbal Copula or est tertii adjecti nay it makes the Proposition more large and comprehensive that is more Affirmative and Negative And therefore nothing but gross Ignorance which as the wise Man says * Prov. 14.16 maketh a certain sort of Creature to rage and be confident nothing but this could have suffer'd this foolish Man to insult the Animadverter as he doth here in his last Paragraph p. 8. The Animadverter no doubt knows still what he did I believe Forty Years ago that there may be a Proposition Affirmative or Negative with est secundi adjecti as well as with est tertii and that He hath no Occasion at all for est tertii adjecti to prevent the Dean's Conclusion from being a Marriage of a Man to himself Every simple Christian without J. B's pert Learning knows that two are enough to make a Match if they can be married and are not within the prohibited Degrees And therefore he had no Occasion at all to go to Father Dutrieu to give Are not Existent to be married to three distinct c. In Reverence I forbear to speak it out But when all is done let him do what he can for his Life he can never make a Marriage of it For the Dean's Conclusion being a Negative Proposition is rather a Divorce than a Marriage So Petrus à sancto Joseph will tell Him in Log. lib. 2. cap. 2. In Propositionibus Negativis Verbum medium non satis propriè videtur dici Copula cum non uniat inter se extrema sed potius illa separet So unlucky is this Mr. J. B. in his parabolical Wit * Prov. 26.7 The Legs of the Lame are not equal So Well but now Mr. J. B. his Modesty notwithstanding hath taught the Animadverter his First Rudiments in Logick and told him how the Verb Substantive est or sunt in Latin is to be resolv'd and that the Conclusion of the Reverend Dean's Syllogism is resolv'd into this viz. and therefore three distinct infinite intelligent Persons in the Godhead are not existing and that the Term existing in the third Term in this Syllogism and to be supplied in this Syllogism both in the Minor Proposition and Conclusion and that none but a Person of no Logick could have been ignorant of it now then after this sharp Reprimand and Lecture the Animadverter is to take the Dean's Syllogism in its Perfection according to the Second Edition of it by Mr. J. B. Thus Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are three Gods But three distinct Gods are not existing And therefore three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are not existing Now I desire to know what Figure this Syllogism is of It cannot be of the First For then three distinct Gods which is allow'd to be the Middle Term must be the Subject in the Major Proposition and the Predicate in the Minor It cannot be of the Second for then the Middle Term must be the Predicate of the Minor as well as of the Major It cannot be of the Third for then the Middle Term must be the Subject both of Major and Minor And therefore I know no Remedy for him if he will have his Syllogism of any Figure at all but to go to Old Galen and to give him his Fee for a Fourth And if according to that he can justifie that the Major Term may be the Subject of the Conclusion as he hath made it in his Syllogism it may be worth his Money for what I know But if the Major Terminus be in all Syllogisms of the Fourth Figure according to any of the Five Moods belonging to it always the Predicate of the Conclusion then neither can Galen nothing can help him In every Syllogism of the Fourth Figure the Minor Term is predicated of the Middle Term and the Middle Term of the Major so that the same Middle Term is a Major to the Major and yet a Minor to the Minor and so the Minor Term is made a Major to the Major and yet because the Major Term is always in the Conclusion predicated of the Minor Term it is a Major to the Minor which as Scheibler hath observ'd * Op. Log. de Syl. c. 5. Art 2. is as absurd as if we should say some Man is greater than Goliah and yet less than David And therefore saith he Nunquam audimus naturaliter disserentes tales quartae Figurae Syllogismos formare and the Fourth Figure by Logicians is generally Reprobated ‖ Vid. Averroem 1. prior c. 8. in Comment Zabar in lib. de 4 Fig. Syllog interp ad 1. prior But allowing it to be no Fault nor Discredit to a Syllogism to be of the Fourth Figure yet to make the Minor Term as he hath done the Predicate of the Conclusion and the Major the Subject is to make the Minor the Major and the Major the Minor and this is such a Fault and Discredit to Mr. J. B. and his Syllogism as will expose them to the Censure and Contempt of every Baby in Logick and such as I never expect to see clear'd Having thus consider'd Mr. J. B's Syllogism for the Dean let us next consider the Animadverter's for the Dean and we shall easily see which in this Matter is the Dean's best-Friend and hath done him the best Service Mr. J. B. or the Animadverter The Animadverter sets it right for Him Thus Three distinct infinite intelligent Persons are three distinct Gods But Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three distinct Gods and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are not three infinite intelligent Persons Now this is unquestionably a good Syllogism of the Second Figure and is as much to the Dean's Purpose as he can desire But as plainly good as the Animadverter's Syllogism for the Dean and the Socinian is and such as can be prov'd by Mood and Figure yet Mr. J. B. to shew his Skill in Logick is so hardy as
to undertake to prove from it to make it plain that the Animadverter does not yet know the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition Really Sir I must profess to you that I think I never before met with any thing so very confident and so extreamly ignorant in the Art of Reasoning as this Man is Here is a First and a Second I cannot call 'em Reasons I know not what to call 'em bad enough advanc'd against the Syllogism as supply'd and perfected by the Animadverter First The Animadverter he says has chang'd the whole Syllogism Chang'd it indeed he has and the Dean if he pleases may thank him for 't For he has like a Man of Art set it right for him as he pretended he has chang'd it from bad to good from being infirm and liable to Exception into a very sound robust Constitution such as cannot be shaken and expos'd And what Harm I pray is there in all this Ay! But the Animadverter has chang'd the whole Syllogism Pray Sir look a little upon his Book and observe how he proves this and you 'll find that his whole Proof amounts to this and no more viz. The Animadverter has chang'd the Conclusion of the Syllogism ergo he has chang'd the whole Syllogism But how has the Animadverter chang'd the Conclusion of the Dean's Syllogism 'T is certain Mr. J. B. hath chang'd it with a Witness and most absurdly contrary to all Rules of Logick hath made the Predicate of the Dean's Conclusion to be the Subject But 't is plain the Predicate as it stands in the Dean's Conclusion and in the Animadverter's is the same and I am somewhat inclin'd to think that so is the Subject too only in one 't is understood and in the other 't is express'd And if Mr. J. B. and I were to wait on the Dean together to ask him what Persons he means and what be other Names whom he denies in His Conclusion to be three distinct infinite intelligent Persons Do you not think Sir or rather are you not sure that the Dean would be on my Side and answer That he means Father Son and Holy Ghost And then how would Mr. J. B. slouch Then I hope the Animadverter hath not chang'd the Conclusion at all but only made it more express Did ever this J. B. hear of any other distinct infinite intelligent Persons which the Orthodox assert and the Socinians deny than Father Son and Holy Ghost And is it not then a very judicious wise Remark and Exception that the Dean in his Conclusion universally denies that there are any distinct infinite intelligent Persons in the Godhead and that the Animadverter in his Conclusion only particularly denies that Father Son and Holy Ghost are distinct infinite intelligent Persons Certainly nothing in the World can be more absurd and ridiculous than this whole Paragraph except it be his next which follows Secondly Then to prove to make it plain very plain that this profound Logician the Animadverter who so often upbraids others with the want of Logick does not yet know the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition and that this great Critick which one would hardly believe almost though he was a long while the Celebrated Oratour for the University of Oxford yet is such a monstrous Blockhead that he cannot construe a Sentence of the plainest Latin unless Care be taken by Mr. J. B. to put the Words for him in their natural Order Por though the Subject commonly precedes the Verb or Copula and the Predicate commonly follows yet Learned Able Mr. J. B. craves leave to tell this great Critick the Animadverter that the Rule is not Vniversal and Mr. J. B. finds for 't is very plain that the Animadverter never could tell or cannot yet tell when it fails So that if the Predicate of a Proposition happens to stand before the Verb est and the Subject to follow the Animadverter is clearly gone he cannot tell which is the Nominative Case that is to come before the Verb est and which is to follow that is he cannot tell which is the Subject and which is the Predicate Little did I think that this Animadverter had been such an arrant Dunce Now I say to prove all this is as easie a thing with Mr. J. B. as 't is for him to confute St. Augustin and to make Fools of all the Schoolmen and Moderns Thus then he proves it to which I beg you to attend a little that you may see what a special A. M. this J. B. is and how fit he is to engage in such a Controversy as he has undertaken In the Conclusion says he of the last Syllogism by which he means and in the next Line but one after calls the former Syllogism which by the way every Man living of common Sense must needs see to be Nonsense and a Contradiction not the Subject but the Predicate was to be supplied Three infinite c. Persons in the former Syllogism which as I observ'd he just before calls the last Syllogism was the Subject and not Predicate of the Conclusion Whereas in the Animadverter's Syllogism he has made three infinite Persons the Predicate that is and I appeal to your self and to all the World whether I do not expound him fairly because Mr. J. B. according to his excellent unusual Skill in the Science of Logick has made the Major Terminus three distinct infinite c. of the Dean's Syllogism to be the Subject of the Conclusion which according to all the allow'd Rules of Logick ought to be the Predicate and the Middle Term being the Predicate of the Major has made the Minor Term the Predicate both of the Minor Proposition and the Conclusion and by so doing has blindly exposed his Syllogism as a defenceless deform'd thing to be ridicul'd and baffl'd by every little Sophister and Freshman of the Universities and hath given full Proof to the World of his most scandalous contemptible Ignorance in that which he so much pretends to Whereas the Animadverter in his Syllogism has plac'd the Predicate exactly right and according to the indisputable Rules of Art plac'd all the three Terms of his Syllogism in their due legitimate Order according to the Second Figure from whence what doth Mr. J. B. inferr Certainly what could never enter into the Head of any Man but an J. B. From whence says Mr. J. B. 't is plain plain I dare swear not to any Man upon the Earth besides himself that this profound Logician the Animadverter who so often upbraids others with the want of Logick Does not yet know the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition c. as before And now Sir You cannot chuse I am sure but stand amaz'd at the Confidence and Ignorance of this Thraso to see him upon this clapping his Wings and crowing as if there were no Remedy now for the Animadverter but to shoot the Pit and to run and hide his Head as a Man he perswades himself by the mighty
Lord Jesus Christ And he means too That the Father who is here predicated of God is not only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity but that he is predicated of God as distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost For would he say or mean that the Father in Conjunction with the two other Blessed Persons is predicated of God no Orthodox Man no true Worshipper of the most adorable Trinity would oppose him and the Animadverter so declares himself on his Side Tritheism p. 230. but he contrary to the Sence and Faith of the Holy Catholick Church of every honest simple Christian of which more by and by declares That the Term Three intelligent Persons is not adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is That God is not Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the same Expressions of Scripture which prove that the Father is Predicated of God confute it Now this being undeniably his Sence of the Term Father is it not a most unpardonable Blunder in such an Undertaker as this Man is to prove that the Father in his Sence is predicated of God by a Text of Scripture where 't is most certain the Term Father is taken in quite another Sence Is this wise Considerer of the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools and pretended Baffler of them both so wretchedly ignorant as not to know that the Term Father attributed to God is as Homonymous as the Term God and that the Father is taken as God is sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First The Word Father as 't is taken personally ratione ad intra in respect of his Son begotten of him from all Eternity for the First Person only of the Blessed Trinity begetting from all Eternity a Con-substantial Son in this Sence the Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost Secondly As the Word Father is taken essentially ratione ad extra in Respect of the whole Creation for the whole Divine Essence in this Sence the Father is not distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost in this Sence the whole Trinity is the Father the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Father In this Sence is the Word Father sometimes taken both in the Old and New Testament Certè constat says Hieron Zanchius Nomine Patris non semper intelligi in Scripturis Personam Patris sed totum Deum ipsum Jehovam Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum De tribus Elohim Par. 2. lib. 5. cap. 5. and in this Sence it is certain is it here taken in 1 Cor. 8.6 where St. Paul tells us That to us there is but one God the Father Let him see Zanchius loc citat Let him see Bishop Pearson on the Creed Art 2. p. 26. Let him see Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase Estius in loc Let him see whom he will he will not find I dare say so much as one honest Man that will tell Him that the Father here is taken as he takes the Word before Hypostatically for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ He might altogether as well and as effectually if he had pleas'd have knock'd down the Animadverter with the 1st Verse of the 1st Chapter of Genesis where Moses tells us That in the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth For this indeed is all that the Apostle here tells us That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things That is though to the Heathens there are Gods many and Lords many yet we Christians are assur'd they are mistaken and are Idolaters and therefore we acknowledge and believe but one God the Father to us there is but one God the Father the Father who in the Beginning created the Heaven and the Earth the Father Almighty as we profess in our Creed Maker of Heaven and Earth of whom therefore the Apostle adds are all things nimirum per Creationem Non enim Filium intendit Apostolus hâc vice omnia comprehendere Estius in loc In this Sence of the Word Father all things are of him by Creation and Conservation and God is the Father of all things by Creation rather than Procreation says Bishop Pearson loc supr citat and therefore in this Sence our Blessed Saviour the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity cannot be of him and cannot be his Son unless Mr. J. B. will have him to be a Creature a Factitious Improper and Metaphorical God only And indeed that I am afraid will appear at last to be at the Bottom of this Man and to be the grand Design and ultimate End of his Book notwithstanding its gaudy deceitful Title of which more by and by I heartily pray to God that it may appear otherwise for his own Soul's Sake not for any Fear I have that ever he or his Pen will do any great Mischief to the Catholick Faith with any who will carefully attend him and have not a Mind to be perverted But if Mr. J. B. means honestly that the Father which he would have to be properly and naturally predicated of God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity distinct and only hypostatically distinct from God the Son who is one and the same true God of one and the same undivided Infinite Eternal Essence with God the Father then in this Sence God the Father in the Passage he alledges from 1 Cor. 8.6 is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ unless he will say That God is the Father of us and of all other things in the same Sence that he is the Father of his only begotten Son our Blessed Lord Christ Jesus And then either he must say that the Lord Jesus is a Creature a Son only in a borrow'd Metaphorical Sence by Creation as we and all things else are and as he is said to be the Father of the Rain in Job 38.28 or else he must say that God the Father of whom are all things as the Apostle says is the Father of all things by a proper Eternal Generation as 't is certain he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And then which will be the more horrid Blasphemer the Animadverter or Mr. J. B. But if to avoid this he will allow it to be plain as most plain it is That the Father in this Passage of St. Paul is certainly not to be taken in the Sence he applies it to then plain it is That this Mighty Divine betrays his gross Ignorance in a plain Text of Scripture or like a mighty pertinent Philosopher undertakes to prove that God is the Father in a Sence of the Word in which his Adversary denies it from a Sence of the Word in which his Adversary and no Body else denies it And thus having I think made it very evident to any impartial Reader how loosely this Man argues or rather how ridiculously he expostulates 2 Pet. 3.16
instead of arguing with the Animadverter from Scripture and how like an unlearned Divine and unstable Christian he wrests St. Paul's Words where they are not hard to be understood by every little Novice in Divinity Let us next consider what Reason he hath to swagger and triumph at the rate he doth with his Logicks as he calls it very often in his Book and so 't is more than probable the Critick writ it in his Copy sent to the Press For we may not well suppose that it should be so very often Printed Logicks if he had not very often writ it so in his Copy and therefore I little doubt but that it was at last put amongst the Errata and alter'd in his Preface by the Advice of some wiser Friend Secondly This terrible Man of Logicks then goes on and tells us That had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick he so often upbraids others with the want of he would have understood that if this Proposition be true The Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of a Conversion of putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject and the Subject in the place of the Predicate without any Alteration of the Signa Logica omnis nullus aliquis c. where the Subject and the Predicate are both singular as says he I believe them in this Proposition the Father is God and I have the Consent of the Schools on my Side That is If the Animadverter had understood Logick he would have understood by the Rules of Logick what by the Rules of Logick he cannot and should not understand and what is directly contrary to the Rules of Logick Had this Logical Braggadochio but a little common Sense as well as so much Logicks he would have understood that in this very place Tritheism p. 230 where he says the Animadverter is guilty of downright Blasphemy in noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say that God is the Father the Animadverter immediately subjoins his Reason why according to the Rules of Logick it must be so because says he The Predicate in this Proposition viz. God is the Father is of less Compass than the Subject which where it is not larger ought to be commensurate to it at least Had Mr. J. B. I say but common Sense or had he not scandalously wanted that Skill in Logick which 'tis generally believ'd the Animadverter hath and which I doubt not Mr. J. B. in a short time will feel that he hath he could not but have seen this to be the Animadverter's Reason why he could not understand that this Proposition the Father is God is by the Rules of Logick convertible by a simple Conversion For the Learned Animadverter understands well if Mr. J. B. does not that a good and true Conversion must contain a good Consequence of the Proposition converting to the Proposition converted And that it may do so as the Conimbricenses have stated it according to the Sence of all Logicians it is necessary as they express it Vt Termini non sumantur in unâ latiùs angustiùsve quam in alterâ Logicians are universally agreed that the Subject of a Proposition is always without any Exception that I know of a narrower Compass than the Predicate or at least of an equal but never of a larger And is not the Predicate in this Proposition God is the Father of less Compass than the Subject God is unquestionably predicated of Father Son and Holy Ghost but not so the Father Father Son and Holy Ghost are God is indisputably a true Catholick Proposition but I hope Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Father is not so 'T is the Catholick Faith that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and each Proposition is infallibly Logical and true But the Father is not predicated of the Father but identically and to predicate him of the Son and of the Holy Ghost as unquestionably we may God that is to say the Son is the Father as we may say the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is the Father as we may say the Holy Ghost is God is horridly false and damnably Heretical And can any thing then be plainer than that the Term God is of a larger Compass than the Term the Father And if so nothing can be plainer than that this Proposition the Father is God cannot by the Rules of Logick be capable of a simple Conversion of the Transposition of the Predicate into the place of the Subject Salvâ veritate Well but doth the Animadverter understand what Mr. J. B. believes That in this Proposition the Father is God the Subject and Predicate are both singular and that he hath the Consent of the Schools on his Side Yes yes The Animadverter no doubt understands it very well He understands that God is one or singular as well as that the Father is one or singular And therefore he cannot understand three distinct infinite Minds or the Orthodoxy of the admirable Genebrard's Three Gods no more than he can understand that there are three distinct Fathers And the Animadverter understands too That as Mr. J. B. hath the Consent of the Schools on his Side that the Father and God are both singular so the Animadverter hath the same Consent of the Schools on his Side that as the Father is singular Incommunicably so God is singular Communicably The Father is so Singular as to be Incommunicable to the Son and the Holy Ghost and can therefore be predicated of neither God is so Singular as to be Communicable notwithstanding to Father Son and Holy Ghost and can therefore be predicated of all Three Conjunctly and of each of the Three Distinctly Indeed this is a Communication of one singular undivided Essence to Three distinct Persons which is most mysterious peculiar only to the incomprehensible God cannot be adequately exemplify'd in any thing else and can never be fully comprehended But yet so by divine Revelation infallibly it is And if God be not a Terminus Communis to the Three Divine Persons I would fain know how the Term God can be predicated of the Son and the Holy Ghost as well as of the Father I would fain know how this Man denying it can reconcile his Faith with the Athanasian Creed the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God Whether by it he doth not bring himself under a more unavoidable Dilemma of denying the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God than the Animadverter doth by denying that God is the Father of denying the Divinity of the Father that the Father is God And whether lastly it be not an Argument of a very Peculiar Forehead or of some very great Defect within it for a Man to deny as this Man does what is so very plain and obvious that every Body of common Sense who believes the Trinity must needs
see it and see it with that degree of Evidence as to be as sure of it as that Homo is a common Name to all Men. Let this Man speak out and tell us plainly whether he doth indeed believe that the Son is God and that the Holy Ghost is God as well as that the Father is God If he doth let him tell us then how that 't is possible if the Name or Term God be not common to all Three What this Man offers against this in p. 131. and 132. of his Book is silly and ridiculous beyond all Comparison besides what he himself affords and is alone a Demonstration of the great Unfitness and intolerable Presumption of this Man to ingage himself on this knotty sublime Controversy and to pretend to chastise and ridicule the Animadverter and the Schoolmen at the Rate that he doth I shall crave your Patience to examine this Matter very particularly because he lays so great a Stress upon it The Term Deus says the Animadverter is indeed neither a Genus nor a Species Nevertheless all Divines and Schoolmen allow it to be a Terminus Communis And I dare say they do without any Exception but that of this J. B. and such as deny the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From hence Mr. J. B. inferrs B. p. 131. and finds this great Dictator in Philosophy the Animadverter is yet to learn the First Rudiments in Logick This he finds and upbraids the Animadverter with very often Now that the Term Deus is not a Terminus Communis he undertakes to prove 1st from Logick in which he seems to me to be as great a Conjurer as I am in Magick which I can assure you Sir I never studied at all 2dly from Authority 1. First from his dear Friend Logick And to shew us that he for his part hath enough of it and that HE is not yet to learn the First Rudiments in Logick as he finds this great Dictator in Philosophy the Animadverter is he tells us a Terminus Communis in Logick is the same with a Terminus Universalis with a Terminus Praedicabilis This is false Every Terminus Vniversalis is a Terminus Communis but not è converso For what doth he think of an Equivocal Term Taurus is a Terminus Communis to a Man a Beast a Mountain and to the second Sign in the Zodiack but I hope he will not say it is therefore a Terminus Vniversalis a Terminus Praedicabilis Neither is every Terminus Praedicabilis a Terminus Vniversalis Nay Three of his Five Predicables Differentia proprium accidens are not properly Universals But to let this pass All the Logicians he says he hath had the Fortune to consult speak but of Five Predicables Genus species Differentia Proprium Accidens Well and what then Why then he hath clearly gain'd his Point Then the Animadverter not being absurd enough he thinks to affirm that the Term Deus is either Differentia Proprium or Accidens and affirming here expressly that it is neither a Genus nor a Species it clearly follows against him that the Term Deus is not a Terminus Communis But if it happen to appear that it may be and is a Terminus Communis though it be neither a Genus nor a Species then the Consequence is That this Man by thus fighting in the dark hath miss'd the Animadverter and with one violent Blow hath knock'd down the Platonick Dr. Cudworth for he Generical Unity of the Trinity and for the Specifical Unity his Learned and Acute Petavius and his own more Acute and Learned self in to the Bargain But what is infinitely worse than all this and for which he is utterly inexcusable for venturing concerning this tremendous Mystery to play at Blindman's-Buff in foolishly attempting to make good his Charge of Blasphemy against the Animadverter he hath blasphemously Ungoded the Son and the Holy Ghost For if God be not a Terminus Communis it is impossible it can be predicated of each of the Three Persons of the Ever-Blessed Trinity either as a Genus or a Species and so Dr. Cudworth and Petavius are gone And if because it is not a Terminus Communis as a Genus or a Species it therefore can be a Terminus Communis no other way then there 's a peremptory End of the Controversy between the Trinitarians and the Unitarians the Trinitarians must be in the Wrong and the Unitarians always in the Right For the Term God cannot be common to Three Persons and therefore as there can be but one God so that one God can be but one Person And therefore according to this his Doctrine Horresco Referens there cannot be God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that is God cannot be truly predicated of each Person for then God would be predicable of more than one and consequently a Terminus Communis to each Person which this Man thinks he hath demonstrated in about half a Score Lines that it cannot be After this I know there can be no need to say any thing to his Second Argument from Authority For we may be sure he can have none that is good However it is so suitable to his Argument from Logick so like himself so fully decretory against the Conversion he contends for and such a clear Justification of my Censure of his Book the last time I was with you that I cannot well pass it by 2. Secondly Then from Authority he proves it plainly thus Not one School-man or Modern who follow them do I verily believe says he B. p. 132. allow this Term Deus to be a Terminus Communis He quotes not one of these School-men or Moderns but Bellarmin in the Margin who is against him and I believe Sir you can easily guess at one very good Reason at least why he doth not Well but doth not Mr. J. B. give a Reason why he doth verily believe so Yes he doth so And a very Doughty one it is As good a Reason almost as any is in his whole Book I must repeat his Words that this Matter may be in the clearer Light That famous Objection says he against the Faith of the Trinity which the School-men and Moderns are so much concern'd to answer viz. That if the Father is God and the Son is God the Father must be the Son grounded upon this Axiom Quae sunt eadem uni Tertio sunt eadem inter se shews the Judgment of the School-men and Moderns that they take this Term Deus to be a Terminus Singularis for that Axiom holds not in a Terminus Communis Now if this Man had studied Seven Years for 't he cou'd not have found out any thing that makes more directly against him and that shews the Judgment of the School-men and Moderns quite contrary to what he says that they take this Term Deus to be a Terminus Communis and for this Reason this very Reason all the Authors which my poor Circumstances and Study will allow me
the Father and that according to Mr. J. B's Sense whatever other Philosophers and Divines may hold is to deny that the Father is God Pulchrè mehercle Dictum sapientèr Teren. Eunuc Act 3. Scen. 1. Papae Jugulâras Hominem Quid illo Mutus illico What can the Animadverter say to this Nothing He must certainly be as mute as a Fish Quid ni esset It is a great Extremity indeed that a Man must be driven to to be forc'd either to say that which he hath condemn'd for absurd and illogical or to condemn the Scriptures for absurd and illogical Dunces If the Animadverter had been forc'd only to quit his Assertion or to condemn some particular Man for an absurd and illogical Dunce there might have been no great Occasion perhaps for a Figure but to be forc'd to condemn not only the Catholick Church and the Schools but the Scriptures too to condemn All These for absurd and illogical Dunces this is very hard indeed and he will want such a Figure for the Phrase as I dare say no Author can furnish him with but Mr. J. B. But I hope it may not be altogether so bad with the Animadverter as Mr. J.B. imagines If the Animadverter will not quit his Assertion which I believe upon good Terms he may and I doubt not but he will I hope there will be no Necessity of bringing any more than One under the aforesaid Condemnation I hope it may be sufficient with the Scriptures the Catholick Church and the Schools to give Glory to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and to own and acknowledge that each Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity is God And if where the Predicate is a Terminus Communis as the Animadverter contends that God is there a particular Sign is to be added to the Predicate when it becomes the Subject as Peter is a Man some Man is Peter and consequently that the Animadverter must be oblig'd by the Rules of Logick in the Conversion of this Proposition The Father is God to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter if there be no Remedy for this then let Mr. J. B. first clear the Platonick and Nicene Hypothesis of the Trinity which as he says both agreed in this That the common Divine Essence was an Vniversal Book p. 104 105. that is let him clear his justify'd Dr. Cudworth who embrac'd he says the Platonick Hypothesis that the Divine Essence was a Genus Let him clear the Nicene Fathers who he says held the Divinity to be a Species Let him clear all the Greek Fathers who as he says from Petavius in hoc Vno Concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Essentiam sive Substantiam sive Naturam quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant GENERALE ESSE aliquid Commune ac Minimè DEFINITVM Book p. 105. and p. 106. that 't is Commune quiddam multis quod Vniversale vocant Let him clear his trusty admir'd Petavius who as he says like a true Jesuite endeavour'd to impose upon his Reader what he did not believe himself and in his elaborate Work of the Trinity made only a seeming Defence for the Faith of the Schools the Singularity of the common Divine Essence which upon his Principles viz. the Authority of the Fathers was impossible and therefore he shamm'd the Notion of the Numerical Vnity in the Room of it This p. 108. is his own Character of his honest dear Petavius with whom he makes such a mighty noise throughout his Book of whose Honesty and Fairness as Acute and Learned as he was in this Controversy let any Man see the Account which the Learned Dr. Bull gives in his Defens Fid. Nicaen Proaem p. 7 8. and then let any honest Man value or trust Petavius afterwards if he can Lastly let him clear his own Hypothesis which he says p. 101. was the Faith of the Nicene Fathers Let him first I say clear all these and then I 'll engage to clear the Animadverter and prove to Mr. J. B's Shame that if the Animadverter by only asserting that the Term God is a Terminus Communis but no Genus nor Species is under any Necessity by the Rules of Logick either of Denying that the Father is God or of declaring in a Logical Conversion of the Proposition That some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter then All These who as he states their Principles not only assert the Divine Essence to be Common but to be an Universal common either as a Genus or a Species by the same Rules of Logick must be under the same if not a much greater Necessity In the mean Time since this Man is so free of his Challenges let me beg the Favour of you if you can possibly do so much for me to send him my Glove as soon as you can and to let him know that if he will stand to this That this Proposition The Father is God is capable of a simple Conversion that is which is the necessary Consequence of it that the Term Father is adequately and convertibly predicated of God And if upon this he will stand to his Arms in the next Paragraph by which he thinks he hath given the Animadverter a most Fatal and Irrecoverable Overthrow viz. That whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term if he will stand to this I Challenge him to avoid if he can by his own Rules of Logick these absurd and intolerably unchristian Consequences viz. That according to this Rule we may say that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one Father In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was the Father And which too will justifie the Patripassian Heresie without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness the Father was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit c. I Believe in one Lord Jesus Christ Father of Father very Father of very Father And if it follows from the Expression God the Father that God is the Father then it will follow from these Expressions God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost and then too according to this Rule we may say that the Father is the Son and the Father is the Holy Ghost I should not dare Sir you may be sure to send such a bold Challenge to such a desperate Heroe who so easily routs the Animadverter baffles St. Augustin and except honest stout Petavius and the invincible Genebrard makes all the School-men and the Moderns too to shrink and fly before him in their dark and slippery way as if the Angel of the Lord drove them But never fear your Friend for this I am very sure in this I shall be too hard for him This to brave him once with his own Words Pref. p. 2. This will still stand unanswer'd and upon
Mr. J. B's Principles is I am satisfy'd Unanswerable And now to conclude this Point with his own Gird upon the Animadverter Book p. 54. which however applicable it may be to the Animadverter every Body certainly will allow that it is most justly and appositely so to himself There is not a surer Sign that an Author does not understand the Subject he writes upon than his bringing an Objection which is so plainly and easily retorted upon his own Hypothesis And such an Objection is this which I am next to consider and is the third thing advanc'd by Mr. J.B. against the Animadverter and is urg'd as another Instance of the Animadverter's Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity but is a bright Evidence that he himself is scandalously Guilty of what he charges the Animadverter with and that he is altogether unfit to be trusted with the Management of such an intricate sublime Controversy so much above his Learning and Parts 3. The same Expressions of Scripture says Mr. J. B. confute what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Now in speaking to this I shall first assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us And secondly I shall weigh Mr. J. B's Objection against it Weigh it did I say 'T is too great a Solaecism I shall shew it to have no Weight at all but to be ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant First I shall assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is that as 't is true That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God so 't is as true proper and Logical to say That God is the Father Son and Holy Ghost I cannot pretend to any great Skill in the Fathers and Councils I must own I am as little acquainted with them as I believe Mr. J. B. is I have 'em not and you know Sir that my Circumstances are such as will not allow me to buy many Books and that I may truly complain in the Words of the Admirable Dr. Bull in the Preface to his Defens Fid. Nic. with the Alteration only of one Word Nec potui ipse Homo tenui censu Liberis Auctus Librorum sumptum sustinere However I hope there may be no great Occasion for Fathers and Councils in so plain a Case as I take this to be which the Animadverter tells us and particularly insists upon against the Dean Tritheism p. 230. and that I may safely assert it to be the Catholick Faith Peter Lombard I have who I think I may be very sure understood the Catholick Faith much better than Mr. J. B. doth or I am afraid ever will And he not only very fully and expressly condemns this bold Man as an Adversary to the Truth but in Terminis asserts what the Animadverter tells us to be the Catholick Faith His Words are these Lib. 1. Distinct 4. Lit. c. Quidam tamen VERITATIS ADVERSARII concedunt Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum sive tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sed tamen Nolunt Concedere Vnum Deum sive Vnam Substantiam esse Tres Personas Dicentes Divinam Substantiam Praedicari de Tribus Personis non Tres Personas de Substantia Divina FIDES autem CATHOLIC A TENET AC PRAEDICAT Tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sive Essentiam sive Naturam Divinam VNVM DEVM sive ESSENTIAM Divinam esse TRES PERSONAS After this to confirm what he says he produces several Passages out of several Places of St. Augustin who fully asserts the same Thus that Learned Lutheran Cunradus Dietericus in his Institut Catechet de Symbol Apostol to this Question Quis igitur est Deus in Essentia sua Answers Est Deus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And a little after in the Explication of this Answer hath these Words Essentia nihil aliud est quam illae Tres Personae Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus simul junctae Personae nihil aliud sunt quam illa ipsa Essentia Divina So Vrsin Explicat Catechet Paer 2. sub Quaest 25. So Zanchius de tribus Elohins Par. 2. Lib. 1. c. 3. p. 385 387. So our Holy Mother the Church of England to the Scandal of which therefore he writes himself Presbyter of it in the Holy Communion Service in the proper Preface for Trinity-Sunday obliges us in the most solemn Manner as we are about to take the most Blessed Sacrament of our Dear Saviour's most Precious Body and Blood to own and declare That the God the One God whom we worship is Three Persons Nay which one that hath not read his Book would hardly believe so he himself tells us expressly That 't is the Common Article of the Christian Faith That God is Three Persons Book p. 84. And what an intolerable Piece of Presumption then must it needs be in this Malapert Man to assert that the same Expressions of Scripture confute what the Animadverter tells us and what he himself tells us is the Tommon Article of the Thristian Faith Presumption did I call it It is too mild a Name I esteem it a downright Blasphemy What! Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the Catholick Faith Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the great and most glorious Mystery of our Religion the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which as we profess in the Athanasian Creed except a Man believe faithfully he cannot be sav'd God deliver us from such ignorant or false treacherous Defenders of the Holy Trinity If we who believe the Trinity in Unity are oblig'd to believe the Three Divine Persons to be One God why are we not as well oblig'd to believe One God to be Three Persons who believe the Unity in Trinity I have shewn Mr. J.B. why by the Rules of Logick the Father cannot be predicated of God because the Predicate must not by the Rules of Logick be of less Compass than the Subject Let him shew me if he can That the same Objection or any other lies against the Three Divine Persons being predicated of God And if he cannot and that I am pretty sure of then the Scriptures I hope do not confute what the Animadverter tells us then whatever becomes of what Mr. J.B. tells us what the Animadverter here tells us stands fast and I shall ever I hope believe it as I thank God I always have not only to be true but to be the Catholick Faith For Secondly The Reason which he offers against it which is the Second Thing to be consider'd is as I said before and shall now prove ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant His Reason is this viz. For whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term. This cannot possibly serve for any thing but
a Rod for his own Breech which I have made bold to lash him with before and expose him to the Pity of his Friends the just Censure of every judicious Reader and the just Scorn and Contempt of his Learned Adversary How he will avoid the grievous Difficulties he brings himself under by this Rule let him look to 't But that according to this Rule we may say as he inferrs from what the Animadverter tells us That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only Begotten Son that our Saviour is the Son of Three intelligent Persons Blessed be Three intelligent Persons even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This is such a gross wretched Blunder that as he truly says not considering at all what he says there needs no Words to expose or confute these Expositions No certainly There needs none for any Body but himself And is it not great Pity Sir and a Scandal to our Universities and Church that there should be such an A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England as J. B. who wants to be told That Three Divine Persons are not One Divine Person and that One Divine Person is not the Three Divine Persons That the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the Person of the Father and that the Person of the Father is not the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost What a strange Stupor is this that this Man labours under And yet must needs be writing of Books and Books of the Blessed Trinity too Is it possible for any Man to be so blind so very hebetious as not to see plainly that the Term God of which the Animadverter says the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated is not taken personally for God the Father It is impossible it should be so taken unless we can suppose that the Animadverter's Assertion is That the Three intelligent Persons are adequately and convertibly predicated of God the Father the First Person of the Blessed Trinity If not if the Term God be not taken by the Animadverter personally for God the Father but Essentially for God as Common to Father Son and Holy Ghost as most evidently it is then allowing this Rule that whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the Place of that Term how could any thing but the most stupid Ignorance inferr from hence that according to this Rule we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. when nothing can be more manifest that Three intelligent Persons are not here in any of the Instances he gives put in the place of that Term God as 't is taken by the Animadverter Essentially and Indefinitely as the Term God that is is common to all the Three Divine Persons and is truly predicated of them simul sumptis But they are put by him in the place of the Term God in a Sence in which it is most certain the Animadverter doth not mean it that is as God is taken definitely and personally for God the Father For God who sent his Son gave his Son and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not God I hope as the Term signifies the whole Trinity all the Three Divine Persons but as it signifies personally the First Person of the Blessed Trinity God the Father distinct from God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And therefore it is most manifest That it can no more follow according to this Rule from what the Animadverter tells us that we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son c. than it can follow that because Father Son and Holy Ghost are God therefore they are God the Father The oftner I read these Words as he expresses himself against the Animadverter Book p. 153. and nothing can be more proper and suitable than to rebuke him with his own uncircumcis'd Lips the more I admire at the presumptuous Confidence of him that wrote them I am sure no Man can give a more convincing Argument of his utter unacquaintance with the Principles of all Philosophy and Divinity This indeed is a Demonstration to me That this Mr. J.B. either wants common Sense or common Honesty or that he is utterly ignorant of the well-known Homonymy of the Term God that in its proper Acceptation it is sometimes taken absolutely indefinitely or as some express it simply and as the School men generally express it essentially In this Sense it is taken for the Divine Essence which is Father Son and Holy Ghost or as Zanchius expresses it De tribus Elohim Par. 1. Lib. 6. cap. 1. p. 259. Pro toto ut it a loquar Deo proque Divina Essentia seu pro Deitate quae nihil est aliud quam Deus ipse totus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And in this Sense it is manifest the Animadverter takes the Term God in what he tells us Sometimes again the Term God is taken definitely distinctly or as some express it Secundum Quid or as the School-men generally speak personally In which Sense it is taken when it is predicated only of some certain Person of the Trinity sometimes of the Person of the Father only sometimes of the Son only and sometimes of the Holy Ghost only in which distinct personal Sense it is manifest that God is to be taken in the Expressions of Scripture which he here alledges when it is said God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. that is God the Father as he himself before determines And in this Sense it is as manifest that the Animadverter doth not take it in what he here tells us So that this Man must say either that he well knew in his Conscience that this which he urges here against the Animadverter is a Non sequitur a mere Sophismo Homenymiae and that he intended only in Imitation of his Father Petau * Book p. 108. to sham his Reader to put a pitiful little Trick upon him which is not well consistent with common Honesty or else I must say that he is scandalously ignorant And so like those conceited Gnosticks St. Paul speaks of who prided themselves in their great Knowledge above that of other Men and suppos'd all other ignorant but themselves If this Man vainly thinketh he knoweth any thing I have too much reason to tell him he knoweth nothing yet as he aught to know Vid. Dr. Hammond's Paraph. in Loc. 1 Cor. 8.2 And yet the Homony my of the Term God which there is hardly I think any little Novice in Divinity that is not less than himself but knows is to use his own Words Pref. p. 3. a very necessary Matter to be known by all who pretend to give us an Hypothesis to solve the sacred Mystery of the Trinity to do otherwise is if any thing be to make a Key for a Lock by the Key-hole only Such a Key is a mere Shew 't
is Ten Thousand to One that it never fits the Wards In this very Paragraph Pref. p. 3. from whence I borrow these Words for him it may be worth your while Sir a little to observe this Thraso that you may the better know the Man strutting like a Crow in a Gutter or like a Cock-Turkey letting down his Wings and raising his Plumes to make himself as big again as really he is thus displaying his intolerable Vain-Glory I Mr. J. B. I Discuss that Important and Fundamental Enquiry in this Mystery viz. What is it whish determines the Singularity or Plurality of the Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons Where I Mr. J. B. by himself first give the Predications themselves which are to be solv'd A very necessary Matter c. ut supr Secondly I Consider the Answers of the Schools and shew their Insufficiency Lastly I endeavour to give the true Solution My Self Besides Six great Things which I doth before and a great many strange Exploits which I doth after And now to serve him again with his own Words Book p. 139. for which I must confess I am often mightily beholden to him they are so very pat for him Make Room for this mighty Man keep Silence and learn from him what the ignorant Animadverter the trifling St. Augustin the impertinent School-men and the silly sottish Moderns their Followers could never teach you before Polo deripere Lunam vocibus possum meis So as Horace hath it somewhere in his Epistles the Witch Canidia boasts But they were but Words I trow Just such vain impotent Braggs as Mr. J. B's are He do those things he so vauntingly tallis of So could the Hag Canidia with her conjuring Words snatch the Moon from her Pole So could Quintus Serenus cure an Ague with his proud cramp Word ABRACADABRA After all I am afraid as I hinted before that there is some lurking Evil some sly Design in this Book which some may not be aware of I am afraid that besides the many Follies Impertinencies Mistakes Absurdities and Contradictions with which his Book abounds we have a Lap-full of wild Gourds and that there is Death in the Pot * 2 Rings 4.39 40. For he seems to me not only to do what he can to puzzle the Cause and slily to undermine the Catholick Faith of the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity but he plainly betrays it and roundly gives it up to those abominable Hereticks whom he pretends to oppose That this he doth I shall undertake now to make out very fully and plainly and is the last thing I shall trouble you with about him In the Preface here p. 10 11. he undertakes to prove by Scripture and by Logick That God is the Father that 't is Blasphemy to deny it That if this Proposition be true the Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of such a Conversion as that 't is as true to say that God is the Father as that the Father is God that is That One Person is adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is by necessary Consequence that God is One Person And that he is But One Person and that there 's no such thing as this Trinity of Divine Persons according to the Sense of the School-men and Moderns and the Holy Catholick Church and our Holy Mother the Church of England he tells that the Term God is a singular Predicate that it is not a Terminus Communis as foolish Christians do generally believe it that is That God is not common to Father Son and Holy Ghost but adequately and convertibly predicated of the Father only And therefore very consequently to this he tells us very roundly that 't is false and the Expressions of Scripture confute it to say that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God for that would be utterly inconsistent with and contradictory to the Fathers being adequately and convertibly predicated of the same God that is 't is false and the Expressions of Scripture confute it to say That the One Holy and Eternal God whom we Worship is Three intelligent Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Let him clear himself and prove if he can that I do not expound him honestly justly and fairly If I do not it is very unwittingly and unwillingly God knows And is not this Man then a choice Considerer of the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Trinity Is not this an admirable Champion of the Holy Catholick Faith A precious Defender of the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's I hope the Reverend Dean did not give any thing for him or fetch him far If he did I am sure he hath bought him very dear But I hope and I cannot but believe it that though this Book was Printed for the Dean's Bookseller the Dean knew nothing of it at least did not peruse it till 't was Printed It is very plain I think That this Man under a Pretence of defending the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity doth either ignorantly or treacherously expose and betray it It is very plain here in his Preface that his Doctrine is that God is the Father and is not Father Son and Holy Ghost that is That God is one Person and is not Three Persons and therefore this must be allow'd as a very proper suitable Preface to his Book in which he makes it yet plainer if it be possible that this is his Doctrine and gives it us as his Creed ch 4. n. 18. p. 84. in this Form I Believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was One Divine Person I Believe that the same One Divine Person spake of himself in these sacred Words of the Law I am the Lord thy God c. I also Believe That this One Divine Person was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This is his Confession of Faith which we shall have by and by delivered in another Explanatory Symbol and I 'll engage that there is not a Man upon the Earth who believes that there is but One true God and that there was such a Person upon Earth as Jesus Christ let him be Jew Gentile Arian Sabellian Socinian what he will but will freely join with him in it and subscribe to it Agreeably to this Faith he thinks fit to Curry a little and Declare B. p. 100. that he is not for Persecution no not of the Socinians 'T is very strange if he should I 'll warrant him a notable swinging Latitudinatian I am not my self for Persecution in the true Sense of the Word but yet I am not for setting aside the penal Laws and Test I am for keeping up the Hedges of our Vineyard if the good God so please that all they that go by may not pluck off her Grapes that the wild Boar out of the Wood may not root it up and the wild Beasts of the Field devour it * Psalm
80.12 13. And I am clearly instead of trusting them and letting them in by any false treacherous Comprehension for taking the Foxes the little Foxes that spoil the Vines * Cant. 2.15 And I heartily thank God for 't there is yet a great Body of honest learned good Men who value the Honour and Good of the Church of England above all politick worldly Considerations whatsoever of my Opinion But to return to this Comprehension-Man's Comprehensive Creed which will give as great a Liberty of Conscience if not a greater as ever the late King James aim'd at in his Declaration whereby to do HIS Business in one Sense and OVRS in another and will comprehend as many as the licentious Author of a late Letter for Toleration can possibly desire though he doth Believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that the same One Divine Person spake of himself that is I suppose you will allow me he means of himself as One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that this One Divine Person was the Father c. yet he tells you there he doth most firmly believe that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God As it was Believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who Believ'd God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent Nor does this contradict that common Article of the Christian Faith viz. That God is Three Persons as the Socinians vainly pretend and some others unwarily grant them Good God! What strange Delusions are some Men given over unto 2 Thes 2.11 that they should believe a Lye 'T is very true what Mr. J. B. says Book p. 158. That some Persons take a Privilege to speak and write what they please And certainly never any Man made more Use of this Privilege than himself Do the Socinians vainly pretend that it is a Contradiction for One and the same God to be but One Person and yet to be Three Persons If it be not a Contradiction I do averr that nothing can be so Some he says do unwarily grant the Socinian that it is a Contradiction as if some others or rather the most do not What a vile Reflection is this upon the Orthodox nay upon Mankind Let him name me a Christian or a Man besides himself that will say that One Person is Three Persons is no Contradiction We have been ever able and ever shall to defend the Catholick Faith That One and the same God is Three Persons from being a Contradiction and therefore though it be a great and incomprehensible Mystery yet we most firmly believe it as clearly revealed to us in Scripture according to the constant Interpretation given of it by the Holy Catholick Church down to these Days But to say that One and the same Person is Three Persons is to say that One and the same is not One and the same and that Three Persons are not Three Persons but One Person and is therefore such a Contradiction as is impossible to be reveal'd by God that cannot lye and impossible to be defended Let Mr. J. B. if he pleases try what he can do Now if One and the same God who was and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the same One God whom the Heathen Philosophers and the Jews worshipped as no doubt he is and if this One God was One Divine Person which no doubt he was not though believed and worshipped by them but as One Person and that without Heresie God having not made so full a Revelation of himself under that Oeconomy as under the Christian and if Mr. J. B. doth most firmly believe as he saith he doth that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Unity of God AS it was believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who believ'd the One God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent then either he must say that the same God who was but One Divine Person is now since Christianity become Three Divine Persons which is utterly inconsistent with his immutable Nature or that the same One Divine Person was and is Three Divine Persons which is a Contradiction or lastly that that one Divine Person whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped was and is the One only true God And as for the other Two Divine Persons the Son and the Holy Ghost which with that One Divine Person which the Heathens and Jews worshipped and who is the One only true God make up a Trinity of Divine Persons the Term God may indeed be predicated of them but not strictly properly and truly as it is of God the Father For though there be a Trinity of Persons call'd Divine yet 't is God the Father whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped is the One only True God and SO the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God as it was believed by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church are by no means inconsistent And so perhaps honest Genebrard's Three Gods and the Quasi-Specifical Unity is made out in to the Bargain For tho' as Mr. J. B. saith ch 4. n. 19. p. 85. The Reverend Dean never asserted that the Son or Holy Ghost could not be properly call'd the One God or only True God yet he his noble Defender dares to do what the Dean durst not he can and will assert it I saith he p. 86. do assure him the Animadverter that I am neither afraid of him nor the Socinians I crave no Favour at either of their Hands for This Profession of my Faith that the Title of One God only True God is a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone Now 't is out Now you see clearly why he will have the Term God in the Preface to be adequately and convertibly predicated of the Father and will not allow it the Scriptures he saith confute it to be adequately and convertibly predicated of Father Son and Holy Ghost Certainly whatever Occasion this Man may have to be Afraid of the Animadverter he can have none at all to be Afraid of the Socinians unless it be as the Psalmist says That they should laugh him to Scorn * Psalm 80.6 for pretending to be their Adversary For such a Trinity as this is it is certain the Socinians who are the Followers of Bidle do believe and contend for If the Title of One God only True God be appropriated and peculiar only to the Person of the Father a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone then let any Man prove if he can That the Son or the Holy Ghost is properly God unless he can prove that there be more Gods than one Let Mr. J.B. with all his Logicks and vast Stock of Reason prove if he can That this Profession of his
Faith is not by his own Confession worse than Socinian worse than Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians which saith he Book p. 173. are not levell'd against the Fundamental Truth of this Article the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity If as he says he plainly sees that Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians are not levell'd against this Fundamental Truth he might one would think if he had not wink'd hard have seen as plainly that this Profession of his Faith is directly levell'd against it For is it not most ridiculously absurd a monstrous Contradiction to assert the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity and yet to deny that the Son or the Holy Ghost may be call'd True God But if it be proper and peculiar to the Father alone to be the One God the only True God it is demonstrable that neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost can be so Unless the Father Alone can be the One God and not the One God the only True God and not the only True God And therefore I 'll be bold to challenge this mighty Challenger to clear if he can this Profession of his Faith from being a monstrous Contradiction or a monstrous Heresie It will nothing avail him to say That 't is the Title of One God only True God which he asserts to be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone For if the Father alone be not Revera the One God the only True God it cannot be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father alone to be so call'd unless we will lye for the Father and say that he alone is what alone he is not What is proper and personal in Divinity and common Sense is incommunicable and therefore if to be One God only True God be the proper and personal Title of the Father alone the Father alone must enjoy it Neither Son nor Holy Ghost can have it nor can it be predicated of the whole Trinity unless the Father alone is the whole Trinity It is plain therefore if any thing by Words can be so That this Man according to this his publick Profession of Faith doth deny the Catholick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity which he falsly and insidiously or ignorantly by the gaudy pompous Title of his Book pretends to defend For he denies the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God the only True God For if they the Three Divine Persons be truly and properly One God the only True God no Man living I suppose will deny but that they may truly and properly be so call'd And he denies the true Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost For if the Father alone be One God only True God how can the Son be God and the Holy Ghost be God but improperly and metaphorically True God according to this Man's Principles neither of them can be for the only True God is the Father alone This is this Mans Faith according to the defying publick Profession which he here makes of it And to make himself the more blasphemous more abominable and inexcusable he quotes and brings in with unparallell'd Ignorance and Confidence 1st The Nicene Council 2dly All the Oriental Fathers 3dly Our Blessed Saviour 4thly St. Hilary and 5thly St. Paul to abett and patronize him in it Book p. 85. 1. First As for the Nicene Council which he says appropriates this Title to the Father What can be more false and imposing Credimus in Vnum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem Vnigenitum Filium ejus Jesum Christum Spiritum sanctum Non Tres Deos fed Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum Unum Deum colimus confitemur Non sic Unum Deum quasi Solitarium c. Lamb. Danaei Expos Symb. Apost ex Patrib Orthodox Art 1. p. 6 7. where he may find Authorities enough out of the Fathers against him Credo in Deum Nomen Dei hic sumitur essentialiter pro Deo Patre Filio Spiritu sancto Quia verbum Credo cum Particula in refertur eodem modo ad omnes Tres Personas Deitatis Vrsin in Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Quaest 26. He will not deny I believe that the Term God in the Apostles Creed is taken in the same Sense with that in the Nicene for that Bishop Pearson upon the Creed has observ'd Art 1. p. 23. That this Creed in the Churches of the East before the Council of Nice had that Addition in it I believe in One God that is says Dr. Comber I confess with my Mouth That I believe in my Heart in One God a pure and infinite Spirit distinguished into Three Persons the First of which is God the Father c. Compan to the Temple Part 3 d. S. 5. And therefore says Zanchy most fully and expressly against what this Man asserts to prove from the Creed that 't is the Father alone who is the One God is a mere Fallacia Compositionis which the Hereticks make use of to prove their and this Man's Faith from the Creed Quam scilicet conjungunt in oratione quae sunt distinguenda ut verbi gratia quum probant ideo Solum Patrem esse Deum verum quia in Symbolo legimus Credo in Unum Deum Patrem Hic enim conjungunt Nomen Patris cum Nomine Dei nullamque interponunt distinctionem inter Dei Patris Nomen cùm tamen distinctè ita legendum esse videatur ut primo dicatur in genere Credo in Deum postea vero per Personas quasi per partes explicetur quis sit iste Deus nempe Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Hi enim Tres Elohim sunt ceu partes non totales fed essentiales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovae Hieron Zanch. de Tribus Elohim Par. 2. c. 2. p. 383. I am almost confident that this intolerably bold Man cannot produce so much as one Author who so interprets the Beginning of the Nicene Creed that the Title of One God is appropriated to the Father in Opposition to the Son and the Holy Ghost And as the One God is not appropriated in that Creed to the Father but referrs to all the Three Persons so neither is the Title of only True God But this very Creed which this frontless Man quotes for him is expressly full and decretory against him and not only calls the Second Person the Son God of God but very God of very God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum verum de Deo vero True God of True God And is it not very likely now that all the Oriental Fathers and our Blessed Saviour should determine for him against the express Words of the Nicene Creed Secondly As for All the Oriental Fathers every one of them no doubt he hath read and understands throughly well we must take his Word that what they say in the Nicene Creed they do not say nor believe These are some of the Fruits of Hasty Births Thirdly
As for our Blessed Saviour he faith indeed St. John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee the only True God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But doth it follow from hence that our Saviour appropriates this Title of only True God to the Person of the Father Never any Body that I can find made such an Inference but the worst of Hereticks and with them indeed nothing is more frequent He cannot I dare say name me one Heretick Author who denies the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity but what urges these Words of our Saviour to prove the very thing he contends for Parologismus Secundus isque Frequentissimus says Zanchy de Tribus Elohim par 2. c. 2. p. 382 383. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quum scilicet argumentantur ex Scripturarum locis qui multiplicem possunt habere sensum Ipsi vero Haeretici illum arripiunt qui neque cum aliis Scripturis neque cum analogia Fidei est consentaneus Vt verbi gratiâ quum probant Solum Patrem ideo esse Illum Unum Deum c. quia dixit Christus haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum Jo. 17.3 Now that what the Hereticks and Mr. J. B. contend for doth not follow from hence he thus goes on clearly to evince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est in his verbis Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I shall translate his following Words exactly into English * Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referri ad Subjectum id est ad l'atrem ut sit sensus solum Patrem esse verum Deum vel ad Praedicatum ut sit sensus Patrem esse illum Deum verum qui iolus unus est Hic alter sensus meliùs convenit cum structura verborum consentancus est cum aliis Sacris Literis Neque enim propterea negatur Filius esse verus ille Deus qui solus unus est quia hoc ibi affirmatur de Patre Id quod etiam Thomas Aquinas observavit contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Deinde etiamsi admittatur Prima Lectio potest tamen bifarià m intelligi nempe aut Solum Patrem ita esse verum Deum ut excludatur Filius Spiritus sanctus Sed hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis non congruit Aut ut alia tantum omnia quae non sunt ejusdem cum Patre essentiae negentur esse Deus Atque hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis pulchrè convenit That Word only may be referred to the Subject that is to the Father so as that the Sense may be the Father only is the True God Or to the Predicate so as that the Sense may be the Father is that True God who is Alone and One. This latter Sense doth both better agree with the Contexture of the Words and is more agreeable with other places of Scripture And therefore it is not here denied that the Son is that True God who is alone and One because this is affirm'd here of the Father The very same hath Thomas Aquinas observ'd contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Again admitting the first Reading of the Words and then the meaning must be That the Father only is the True God either so as to exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost which is a Sense inconsistent with other places of Scripture or so as to deny all other things to be God which are not of the same Essence with the Father And this Sense doth exactly well agree with the other parts of Scripture Thus Zanchy loc supr Citat In this last Sense of Zanchy doth Vrsin determine That these Words of our Saviour are to be taken Amongst the various Sophisms which are brought by Hereticks against the True Divinity of the Son of God this he reckons for one of the chiefest And amongst the general Rules which he gives for answering Hereticks he gives us One particularly for the easie answering their Argument from those Words of our Saviour to prove that he is not the only True God which he says his Father is vid. Explicat Catechet par 2. sub Quaest 33. By his calling the Father the only True God non excluditur à vera Deitate Filius c. The Son is not excluded from being the True God but Idols and False Deities to which the Father the True God is oppos'd And a little after under the same Question having put the Heretical Objection from those Words of our Saviour for appropriating the Title of the Only True God to the Father which is the profess'd great Article of Mr. J. B's Creed he thus answers 1st 1. Ibi fit oppositio non Patris Filii Spiritus sancti fed Dei Idolorum atque Creaturarum Particula igitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solum non excludit à Deitate Filium Spiritum sanctum Sed tantum ea quibus Pater verus Deus opponitur 2. Est fallacia Divisionis Sequitur enim quem misisti Jesum Christum Ergo in hoc etiam consistit vita aeterna ut Jesus Christus à Patre missus similiter cognoscatur esse verus Deus sicut dicitur 1 Joh. 5.20 Hic est verus Deus vita aeterna 3. Est criam fallacia Compositionis Nam Exclusiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non pertinet ad Subjectum Te fed ad Praedicatum verum Deum quod Articulus ostendit in Graeco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensus enim est ut cognoscant Te Patrem esse Deum illum qui solus est verus Deus Vrsm Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Q. 33. p. 2â—0 There is no Opposition of Father Son and Holy Ghost as if the Father were the only True God and not the Son and the Holy Ghost but the Opposition is of the only True God to False Gods And therefore the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost but only those things to which the Father the True God is oppos'd 2dly It is Fallacia Divisionis For it follows and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Therefore in this also consists Life Eternal That Jesus Christ sent by the Father may in like manner also with the Father be acknowledg'd The only True God as St. John says 1 Ep. 5.20 speaking of Christ This is the True God and Eternal Life 3dly It is a Fallacy of Composition For the exclusive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not belong to the Subject Thee the Father but to the Predicate True God And this the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews That they might know Thee the only True God For the Sense is That they might know Thee the Father to be that God who alone is the True God Thus Vrsin thus the most Learned Dr. Hammond who perhaps was as Knowing and as Orthodox a Man as himself will tell him in Paraph. in Loc. That
if Men will be Partakers of this Eternal Life beside the Knowledge of the Father the only True God they must embrace Christ and acknowledge him as the only True God also for which he quotes 1 Joh. 5.20 where the same beloved Disciple who records these Words of our Blessed Saviour expressly determines to the Shame and Confusion of all wicked Hereticks and idle ignorant forward Considerers who must needs be making of new Creeds and appropriate the Title of One God only True God to the Father Alone That this his Son Jesus Christ is the True God and Eternal Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE True God Hic agitur non solum de vero Deo fed de illo Vno vero Deo ut Articulus in graeco additus indicat Catech. Rac. And says the extraordinary Bishop Pearson upon these Words I can conclude no less than that our Saviour is the True God so styl'd in the Scriptures by way of Eminency with an Article prefix'd as the first Christian Writers which immediately follow'd the Apostles did both speak and write Expos Creed Art 2. p. 132. 4thly St. Hilary he says expressly asserts this the Title of only True God to be debitum Honorem Patri No doubt but St. Hilary may But what 's this to his Purpose No Body will deny it to be an Honour due to the Father But the Question is whether it be an Honour due to the Father only or alone exclusively of the Son and the Holy Ghost Let him produce St. Hilary saying that and then One St. Hilary may be allow'd to speak for him 'Till then we may be satisfy'd that St. Hilary Patronizes this Appropriation no more than as he says St. Paul does which is 5. His 5th and last Argument St. Paul he says has Patroniz'd this Appropriation Ephes 4.6 To us there is One God and Father What he means by adding to us to the Text There is One God and Father I cannot tell and I do verily believe that he cannot tell himself But this I can tell and am very sure of that this is an Invincible Proof of his more than ordinary scandalous ignorance If his adding to us signifies any thing it must be directly against himself It must be to restrain the Relation of God's being a Father to us his Creatures or to us Men in particular to us his Children by Creation or by Adoption in Opposition to or by way of Distinction from his Son Christ Jesus his Son by Nature by a strictly proper true Generation And in truth in this Sense is the Term Father here most certainly to be taken Not for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but for the Father of all things of all Men or of the Elect at least for such a Father as we invoke in our Pater Noster such a Father as the Son himself and the Holy Ghost himself is Not for the Father the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity as distinct from the Second Person and the Third the Son and the Holy Ghost but for the Father who is all Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And let him produce me one Author if he can who is accounted Orthodox who doth not take the Term Father here in this Sense that is That the Title here of Father given by St. Paul to God is not Personal but Essential ratione ad extra And if so as most certainly so it is then this Appropriation which he says St. Paul here patronizes it is certain St. Paul here doth not patronize but directly contrary to that which he contends for and asserts and cites St. Paul for St. Paul here gives the Title of One God to God the Son and God the Holy Ghost as well as to God the Father that is to Father Son and Holy Ghost not taken distinctly but conjunctly And if this Man had but attended a little to common Sense and to the Words which immediately follow those which he quotes he could not but have seen this * Dicitur autem Pater on nium quia on nium Creatâ—… Gubernatoâ— est Tam Fâ—…lius autem Crâ—ator est Spâ—ritus sanctus quam Pater ut ante ostensum est Et sic saepè apud Prophetas accipitur sic etiam ad Ephes 4. Vnus De Pater omnium qui est super omnia Suo scilicet absoluto summo Imperio At etiam Filiâ— super omnia Jo. 3.31 Et per omnia Sua scilicet Universali Providentia per omnia diffusâ—… Rom. 9.5 At etiam Christus omnia agit Heb. 1.3 Et in omnibus vobis Conjunctione Iâ—habitatione per suum Spiritum Est autem in nobis etiam Filius cum Patre Jo. 14.23 〈◊〉 apparet hoc dictum Apostoli ad Solam Patris Personam non posse Restringi Hi. Zanch. de Tribus Eâ—…bim Par. 2. Lib. 5. c. 6. p. 539. There is says St. Paul One God and Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of All of all Things or of all Men who is above All and through All and in you All. Above all by his absolute supream Power and Dominion So also is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity God the Son said to be above All St. John 3.31 And through All that is by his universal fatherly Care and good Providence diffus'd through all things So also is the Person of the Son who by this Apostle St. Paul Rom. 9.5 is said to be over All God Blessed for ever Amen And Heb. 1.3 that he upholds All things by his Power And in you All that is by his gracious Conjunction with us and Inhabitation in us by his Holy Spirit So also is God the Son in us as well as God the Father as our Blessed Lord himself tells us St. Joh. 14.23 And Jesus answer'd and said unto him if a Man love me he will keep my Words And my Father will love him and WE will come unto him and make OUR abode with him And thus it appears says the Learned Zanchy That this Saying of the Apostle there is One God and Father cannot be restrain'd to the Person of the Father alone And is not this then an admirable Proof that St. Paul patronizes this Appropriation That the Title of One God is the proper personal Prerogative of the Father alone That is That the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity the Father alone of our Lord Jesus Christ is One God because Father Son and Holy Ghost are so That is That the Father Alone is so because the Father alone is not so 'T is like Mr. J. B's Way of arguing Now Sir I appeal to you nay I think I may to all the Orthodox World whether if Mr. J. B. will not be Orthodox with the Animadverter and Bellarmin he may not be esteem'd an Heretick Arian and Macedonian without our Saviour 〈◊〉 p. 86. St. Paul St. Hilary and all the Oriental Fathers Whether such Books as these do not call loud for a Decretum Oxoniense for a Theological
the Mystery of Iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vehement the subtle the underhand working of the Mystery of Iniquity After a long but blessed be God hitherto vain and fruitless Attack upon our Out-works and incomparable Liturgy we find at last Men at work to Sap the very Foundation of our Church to undermine and subvert the Fundamental Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence and so to pull down not only the Church of England but the Holy Catholick Church all at once It must be dangerous to charge my good Lord Bishop of Sarum with having any Hand in this because he is a Peer of the Realm and therefore I here Declare I do not But I hope I may be permitted to ask a civil Question or Two without Offence though some may think I look asquint upon my Lord. What can any Man mean in a State of this Controversy to call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons as the Opinion of a Third Party of Men but when he comes to speak of them himself to call 'em the Blessed Three and to assign 'em only such a general Distinction as for what I know will agree to the Hypothesis of any Heretick whatsoever that ever yet appear'd against a Trinity of Divine Persons as believ'd by the Holy Catholick Church What Sabellian Arian Macedonian Socinian Anti-Trinitarian of any Sort will stick to call the Father Son and Holy Ghost the Blessed Three Some will have them to be the Blessed Three but not Three distinct Persons but only Three Names for One and the same God Some will have 'em to be the Blessed Three but not One and the same God And others will have 'em to be Three distinct Gods However such Men as these tell us what they mean and what they would have But what can that Man mean who though he may now and then for Fashion's Sake that is for the Sake of Trimming call 'em Three Persons yet in a Catechetical Decisive Discourse to the Clergy shall plainly affect to call 'em the Blessed Three Why not the Three Blessed Persons according to the constant Language and Faith of the Church * The Reason which the Animadverter on Mr. Hill 's Book gives why the Bishop of Sarum in a late Discourse of his doth not every where make use of the Word Person which is consecrated by so long a Custom in the Church and why he does more frequently say the Blessed Three is because they are not call'd Persons in Scripture and the Arians and Socinians look upon it as Foreign and which the Foreign Doctor himself says needs to be softned to give it a Sense free from Absurdity in the Matter of the Trinity and that it serves only to render the Dispute intricate Vid. Animadversions on Mr. Hill 's Book p. 4 5. Why That my Reverend Brethren may such a Man say is a doubtful disputed Case Call 'em only the Blessed Three and then you are sure then you speak the true Latitudinarian Language then you are sure that is to be on the sunny Side of the Hedge then you are sure to offend none of the Three Parties But that say I is a Mistake my Reverend Brethren For though it may be no Offence to the Jews nor to the Gentiles 1 Cor 10.32 c. Yet a very grievous Offence I am very sure it is to the Church of God to allow Men a Liberty as the Case of the Church now stands to express their Faith in the Trinity at this loose Rate to style the Father Son and Holy Ghost the Blessed Three For that may signifie Three mere Modes or Three Names only Three Somewhats e'en what Men please the Ancient Fathers indeed were pleased universally to call 'em the Three Blessed Persons or something equivalent to the calling them Three Persons which inferr'd a Real Personal Distinction But they too many of them and the Moderns too in their Defence of the Holy Catholick Faith against those they call'd Hereticks have perhaps gone beyond due Bounds nay it may be justly questioned whether by what they have deliver'd down to us concerning this Mystery they have made it better to be understood or more firmly believ'd or whether others have not taken Advantage to represent these Subtilties as Dregs either of Aeones of the Valentinians or of the Platonick Notions And it being long before these Theories were well stated and settled it is no Wonder if many of the Fathers have not only differ'd from One another but even from themselves in speaking upon this Argument When Men go about to explain a thing of which they can have no distinct Idea it is very natural for them to run out into vaust Multiplicity of Words into great Length and much Darkness and Confusion Many impertinent Similes will be urg'd and often impertinent Reasonings will be made use of all which are the unavoidable Consequences of a Man's going about to explain to others what he does not distinctly understand himself And so the Fathers are to be cashier'd not to be regarded in this Matter What Matter is it what a parcel of old doating Doctors say who have gone beyond due Bounds contradicted each other and themselves who use many impertinent Similes run out into a vaust Length and Confusion while they talk of things to others which they understand not themselves Besides too these Fathers were no Latitudinarians They were a Sort of strait-lac'd stiff old Gentlemen who hated what we call Trimming mortally and could never be perswaded for the Sake of Comprehension to sacrifice any part of the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church to the Caprice of Sabellians or Arians Novatians or Donatists or any Hereticks or Schismaticks whatsoever Very agreeably to this out came Animadversions on Mr. Hill's Book Intituled A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. In a Letter to a Person of Quality Which Person of Quality as a French Divine in our Neighbourhood reports is my Lord Bishop of Sarum who order'd it to be Translated out of its Original French into English and to be Printed In which Letter these Ignorant Impertinent Self-Contradicting Old Fathers without any Reverence or Regard to their Venerable Grey Hairs are run down and troden under Foot most wofully And the Author of it like a good humble fawning Creature very devoutly Sacrifices the Primitive Fathers to his Maker the Bishop and very impiously gives them up to the Hereticks Dr. Bull he says Animadvers p. 32. and some Learned Men indeed have endeavour'd to give a good Sense to their Expressions and by a long Compass of Consequences to reduce them to the Ordinary Notions But it will not do Notwithstanding all Dr. Bull 's Endeavours to reduce what the Fathers say concerning the Trinity to an Orthodox Sense p. 52. They were certainly Hereticks as bad Hereticks as those they oppos'd for all that For says this prophane Patrum-Mastix p. 51. Most of the Fathers from the middle