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
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
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
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
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
IMPAR CONATUI OR Mr. J.B. the Author of an ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the TRINITY Rebuk'd and Prov'd TO BE WHOLLY Vnfit for the Great Work he hath Undertaken WITH Some Account of the Late Scandalous Animadversions on Mr. Hill's BOOK Intituled A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum c. In a Letter to the Reverend Mr. R. E. By THOMAS HOLDSWORTH M.A. Rector of North-Stoneham near Southampton Quare desine jam tibi videri Quod soli tibi Caecili videris Qui Galbam salibus tuis ipsum Possis vincere Sestium Caballum M. Val. Mart. Epig. Lib. 1. Ep. 36. LONDON Printed for William Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCV TO THE READER UPon the Perusal of the following Papers sent to me into the Country to note the Errata of the Press which are many and bad I found one or two of my own The first is in the last Line but two of p. 5. where I speak of an Enthymen as a Syllogism with two Terms and no more Which Mistake I was unwarily betray'd into by considering too slightly and inferring too rashly that because an Enthymem is always under the Defect of a Major or a Minor Proposition therefore it wanted a Major or a Minor Term and consequently had but two Terms But this the Reader if he please to be so candid to me may impute to that Inadvertency and want of critical Care which is usual enough in a private Letter to a Friend as this was only design'd when this Mistake escap'd me or he may pardon it to a Country Retirement from the Vniversity and to a Desuetude of the syllogizing Practice for more than twenty Years The second or rather what may seem to be so without a Caution is in p. 27. at the Bottom of which I say that Mr. J. B. will not find so much as one honest Man that will tell him that the Father here viz. 1 Cor. 8.6 is taken as he takes the Word before hypostatically for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ In which Words I am sensible I express my self somewhat too generally and loosely And therefore I think fit to declare here to prevent Cavil if I can that I know well that many honest Learned Men do take the Word Father here hypostatically as 't is oppos'd to and distinguish'd from the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity the one Lord Jesus Christ in the End of the Verse But as Mr. J.B. urges it Pref. p. 10. as the Word Father relates to the Words immediately precedent to us and to the Words immediately subsequent of whom are All things in this Sense it is as the Word Father in the Text stands thus related that I desire what I say in p. 27. may be understood And in this Sense I thought it to be plain and certain that it is to be taken essentially But if not this I am very sure of that Mr. J. B.'s Argument which I there undertake is never a whit the better for 't Many other Mistakes I am not secure but the Learned and Judicious Reader or Mr. J. B. may find me guilty of Of none I hope that are dangerous or scandalous or in the least prejudicial to the Holy Catholick Faith or to my Holy Mother the Church of England But whatever they may be I resolve by the Grace of God as soon as ever I shall be convinced of them to make what Amends and Satisfaction I can by owning my Offence either by Silence or by a publick Retractation as the Nature of it shall require And I hope Mr. J. B. if he cannot fairly answer and clear himself from what I have objected against him instead of ingaging himself any further in this sublime Controversy for the Management of which I think I have prov'd him to be what God knows I think my self to be Very Vnfit will be so ingenuous and have such a tender Regard for the Honour of our Holy Church and Religion if he be really for it as to do so too ERRATA THE Reader is desired to take Notice of and correct the following Errata some of which quite alter the Sense and some disturb it Page 5 line 18 for Rarety r. Rarity and l. 29 read thus Syllogismus Truncatus Triangulum Truncatum I c. p. 9 l. 21 22. r. J. B. p. 10 l. 3 f. pert r. great and l. 24 f. in r. is p. 13 l. 22 f. other r. their p. 19 l. 25 f. qui r. quae p. 21 l. 11 f. Admirable r. Adorable p. 22 l. 20 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25 l. 26 dele is before to p. 28 l. 16 f. vice r. voce p. 29 l. 26 after Adversary add doth not p. 31 l. 16 r. of a. p. 33 l. 16 f. 't is r. is and l. 22 f. on r. in p. 40 l. 14 f. illo r. ille p. 44 l. 15 r. Solecism p. 49 l. 14 dele or before that p. 52 l. 18 r. tells us and l. 28 r. Father's being p. 60 l. 5 f. quam r. quum p. 72 l. 27 r. a vast Several Mispointings there are which are left to the Judgment of the Reader SIR I Intended you these Papers according to my Promise much sooner But besides the Indisposition I was under to write last Week brought upon me I fear by our willful Journying almost all Night from a good House and the best Company the Answer of Mr. J. B. A. M. to the Animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity is to me such a woful Example of Hasty Births that you will pardon me I hope if the Fear of Abortion of such a dangerous scandalous Miscarriage as Mr. J B's whole Book is hath made me go a Fortnight beyond my Reckoning Mr. J. B. begins His Preface to the Reader with a very true and congruous Observation That Hasty Births commonly are imperfect And never I think was it more truly and fully Exemplify'd than by His own Deform'd Creature this His Embryo of a Book And whether He be in earnest or no when He says That He hath reason to fear the Imperfections of it I nothing doubt but Time and the Animadverter if He doth not think so Sorry an Author too much beneath Him Scilicet à magnis ad T E descendere Tauris will quickly make it appear That He hath much more Reason for such a Fear than He is aware of As a Prelibation of what I dare promise you 'll have a full Draught hereafter I shall as I promised you Examine this Doughty Champion's Preface not the former Part of it in which He flourishes with an Account of the rare Exploits and mighty Atchievements of His Book for that will belong to the Examiner of His Book but the latter Part of it in which as Joab did Amasa * 2 Sam. 20. 〈◊〉 10. He takes the Animadverter
Force of his full and clear Evidence against him not easily to be forgotten or pardoned But whether he hath more expos'd the Animadverter for His Syllogism with two Terms and a Proposition with one Term of neither of which doth it appear that the Animadverter is guilty or himself for saying that a Syllogism with two Terms and no more is a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three For denying the Major of a Proposition if it be not the Fault of the Press which his palpable Ignorance may make a Doubt For endeavouring to help the Dean out by changing a Proposition de Secundo Adjacente into a Proposition de Tertio Adjacente concerning which he seems to understand nothing at all of the Matter For making that to be a Marriage of a Subject and Predicate which is plainly a Divorce For making a reprobate Syllogism for the Dean of the Fourth Figure with a Conclusion inverted For making the very same Syllogism in the same Respect to be the last and the former beyond all Possibility of evading the Contradiction Whether I say Mr. J. B. hath more expos'd the Animadverter for what he doth not appear to be guilty of or himself in these things and much more in the Compass of two or three Pages of which I think I may venture to say I have prov'd him guilty and which of the two will be most easily forgotten and pardoned the Insulting Animadverter with a Bottom or Insuiting J. B. with no Bottom I submit Sir to your correct Judgment and impartial Determination 2. The Second thing the Animadverter is taken to task for is his Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity together with his stupid Ignorance in Logick And of this we have two peremptory Instances as clear as the Meridian Light The First is the Animadverter's Noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father Pref. p. 10. The Second is his telling us that the Term three intelligent Persons i. e. the three eternal infinite intelligent Persons of whom the Animadverter speaks before Tritheism p. 130. is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Pref. p. 11. First To note this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father what shall Mr. J. B. call it Shall he call it an Error in Divinity It is too mild a Name he cannot but esteem it downright Blasphemy such blasphemous Stuff that his Modesty cannot but blush to relate it That this is so he makes it very plain if you please to observe him and can understand him 1st from Scripture 2dly from Logick and then up again he gets upon the Animadverter and treads upon him First from Scripture That 's very full and decretory against the Animadverter For how often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Ergo it is a very plain Case God is the Father For he challenges the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the Term of the Father viz. the Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son No doubt the Animadverter will so expound them and so expounded will blush I believe as much as Mr. J. B. can to say the Expressions are absurd and illogical and will blush again for the University and Church if he hath any Tenderness for them to see a Man who writes himself A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England to pretend to dispute in Print concerning the most difficult Point in the World and yet to write at such a loose ridiculous childish Rate The Animadverter Denies that God is the Father and Mr. J. B. to confute him effectually from Scripture and to convict him of Blasphemy proves from Scripture what 't is certain he does not deny All that he pretends to for what I can see from Scripture is That the Father may be put in Apposition to God Does not Scripture all the Creeds says he use the Expression of God the Father Yes And who denies it Doth not he think in his Conscience that the Animadverter uses it himself Or doth he think that he never says his Creed or his Prayers And can a Man in the most solemn Manner profess that he believes in God the Father and upon his Knees in the Litany invoke God the Father Can such a Man be suppos'd with any Candour and Charity to believe the Expression unlawful absurd and illogical his Adversary therefore cannot be suppos'd no not by himself to deny the Passages which he urges out of Scripture nor what he immediately and directly inferrs from them To what purpose then doth this Man ask over and over Are these Expressions absurd and illogical Unless it be to expose his Folly and Impertinence and to shew that he loves what no Man of Sense else can to hear himself talk The Animadverter certainly doth not deny that our Blessed Lord is the Son of God the Father or that God the Father is as proper and orthodox an Expression as it is usual But he denies That therefore it follows that 't is proper and Logical to say that God is the Father But that it seems is plainly for Want of Logick in the Animadverter For says Mr. J. B. had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick be so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is A Father and if A Father THE Father Very profound I dare swear the Animadverter doth not understand Logick as this Man does nor any Body else that can be said to understand it at all In what Logick is it that God the Father is equivalent to this that God IS a Father I am apt to think that this Man hath got a Logick of his own which he keeps lock'd up for his own private Use upon Occasion and in that perhaps it may be but I dare say in no other Is the Expression God the Father a Proposition What then to exclaim in his own Way Can there be a Proposition without a Copula That is in other Words Can there be an Affirmative and nothing Affirm'd If the Animadverter had said any thing like this what a Noise should we have had about the Marriage of a Man to himself and that without a Copula too If God the Father be equivalent in Logick to this that God IS a Father then I hope Mr. J. B. will allow that God is a Father is equivalent to God the Father and if so God the Father must be a Proposition there 's no avoiding it For therefore a Proposition is said to be equipollent or equivalent because there 's another Proposition to which it is equivalent And hence it is set down by Logicians as one of the first things requir'd to denominate a Proposition equipollent or equivalent Vt sint non una sed duae pluresve Propositiones qui dicuntur aequipollentes And if God the Father be a
Proposition then there must be a Subject and a Predicate and then the Father is predicated of God and that 's impossible unless we will say God is the Father And if the Expression be come to that at last then Mr. J. B. is gone again for then it will not be equivalent to this that God is the Father but identical with it For that is said to be equivalent and it cannot be otherwise which hath the same Sense but not the same Words But that is said to be identical which hath the same Words as well as the same Sence But not to insist upon this I will allow Mr. J. B. if he pleases That it may be inferr'd from this Expression God the Father either that God is the Father or that the Father is God which is as much as in reason he can desire But now how will Mr. J. B. prove that 't is the former Proposition which must be inferr'd and not the latter or that both may be inferr'd If it must follow from this Expression God the Father that God IS the Father that is That the Father is properly and Logically predicated of God then it must be upon this Ground That whenever one Word is put truly in Apposition to another Word as here the Word Father is put in Apposition to the Word God that Word must be truly predicable of the Word to which it is put in Apposition But this is certainly not so For a Species may be and very frequently is put in Apposition to a Genus and an individuum to a Species yet I hope Mr. J. B. will not say That therefore the Species is to be predicated of the Genus and the Individuum of the Species In this Expression a Living Creature Man Man is put in Apposition to a Living Creature doth it therefore follow that a Living Creature is a Man This would be a very good way to prove a Man to be an Horse A Master of Arts and Presbyter of the Church of England Mr. J.B. where Mr. J.B. is put in Apposition to a Master of Arts and Presbyter of the Church of England Doth it therefore follow that this Proposition A Master of Arts and Presbyter of the Church of England is Mr. J. B. is no absurd illogical Proposition If not some arch malicious Sophister or other may prove me to be Mr. J. B. which whatever Mr. J. B's Preferments may be I would not be for Two-pence Unless Mr. J. B. by his mighty Skill in Logick will prove himself not to be the Author of this Preface and the following Book A Thousand Instances of this Nature may be given But it may be sufficient to tell this great Critick That when one Word is put in Apposition to another it is sometimes as Grammarians tell us Restringendae Generalitatis gratiâ to Restrain and Limit the Signification of that Word to which it is put in Apposition as Vrbs Roma Animal Equus And for this Reason I doubt not you 'll allow for this very Reason is the Father in this Expression which Mr. J. B. urges put in Apposition to God to restrain the Word God which is common to all the Three Persons of the ever Blessed most Admirable Trinity to the Signification only of the First Person to signifie that God who sent his Son who gave his only Begotten Son is not to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but personally that 't is God even the Father So that 't is deducible from thence if he will That the Father who sent his Son Jesus who gave his only Begotten Son is God as 't is deducible from our saying the City Rome and the Animal an Horse that Rome is a City and a Horse is an Animal But it will no more follow as I conceive from our saying God the Father that God is the Father than from our saying the City Rome and the Animal an Horse that a City is Rome and an Animal is an Horse But to give Mr. J. B. further Scope still allowing him all that he can possibly desire That from the Expression God the Father this Proposition may be inferr'd God is the Father How will he prove that the Father in that Proposition is the Predicate and the Term God the Subject For that 's the Question betwixt him and the Animadverter If he will mean no more by it than that the Father is God The Animadverter and he are agreed Which I doubt they never will be Hath Mr. J. B. so soon forgot what he told this great Critick the Animadverter in the beginning of this Page That tho' the Subject commonly precedes the Verb or Copula and the Predicate commonly follows yet this Rule is not Vniversal Or shall we find at last that 't is he himself is the Man who cannot yet tell when it fails Truly 't is somewhat suspicious For the Particle The as Mr. Walker hath observ'd in his Treatise of English Particles answers to the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 't is a Question in Logick an Articulus Graecus semper nolet Propositionis Subjectum Now though it be not universally true that the Greek Article doth denote the Subject of a Proposition yet 't is generally allow'd by Logicians and Grammarians to be a good Rule to correct the Transposition or Translocation of the Terms by attending to the prepositive Article and the Greeks do generally prefix it to the Subject of a Proposition And where it is otherwise as sometimes it may be it is where the Nature of the Term doth forbid it to be a Subject which I am sure the Term Father here in the Case before us doth not To give an Instance or two of this How will M. J. B. construe that of Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will he construe it Vnus est Servus Domus Dominus I know what the Dr. will say to one of your School-Boys that should construe it so But the true Education a Boy hath under him will teach him to begin with the last first with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Master is one Servant of the House So is that of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Order the Words lie in to be render'd By Nature an uncertain Creature is a Friend Though it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unquestionably the Subject of the Proposition Mr. J. B. very Soberly and Christianly tells the Animadverter B. ch 7. p. 139. that he is a great Opiniator who has forgot his Bible behind him quite forgot Christ and his Twelve Apostles Against which virulent unchristian Charge I hope I may be secure by adding to Menander and Plato the Authority of the Holy Book of God which I am sure is fully against him in St. John 1.1 where we have the true Divinity of the Holy Jesus thus asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to take Notice how some Hereticks have perverted this Proposition concerning which vid. Bp. Pearson on the Creed Art 2. p. 120.
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
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
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
Primitive Fathers which God knows they never wanted more had treated the Bishop of Sarum with more Regard to his great Character and had better consider'd that Michael the Arch-Angel when contending with the Devil he disputed about the Body of Moses durst not bring against him a railing Accusation but said The Lord rebuke thee †Jude 9. And more heartily do I wish with you That the unquestionably Ingenious and Learned Animadverter if he must be exercising his Satyr had kept it all for Oliver Cromwell all Regicides Rebels Fanaticks and the like Sinners upon whom he hath bestow'd it plentifully and perhaps plausibly enough and had treated the Reverend Dean more humanely and christianly with a more due Regard to his Former Meritorious Services for our Church and Religion and to that Character which he deservedly hath in the Church and I hope will have a greater And if the Animadverter had done so I am apt to think that his Arguments against the Dean had gone a great deal further and that therefore he may take his ill Language the better and thank him for 't But now as for this Mr. J. B. what must we say to use his own Words Book p. 133. when a Person shall set up for a Critick in the most mysterious Article of our Religion and himself understands not the First Elements of Divinity When such a Person shall undertake after an insolent Manner to Chastize the Animadverter and through his whole Preface and Book shall be perpetually insulting over and vilifying a Man for understanding nothing of Logick or Divinity who let him be what he will else hath been a long while celebrated for a zealous always stedfast Son of the Church of England and for a Man of great Parts and Learning which he I 'll engage never will When such a Person shall be so unsufferably conceited and vain as to think himself not only an Over-Match for the Animadverter but for St. Augustin the Master of the Sentences and all the School-men and Moderns who are their Followers Who after he hath singl'd out the Acute and Learned St. Augustin as he calls him p. 58. for a confuted baffled Man by him and exposed him and mock'd him as a bold ignorant shuffling Father and run down despis'd and ridicul'd the Subtilties of the Schools which 't is certain he hath not Brains to understand though others have shall expose and ridicule the Holy Scriptures themselves and ignorantly pervert them to Senses which 't is certain were never intended by them and shall undertake to publish such a Profession of his Faith as is utterly inconsistent with the Catholick and under a Pretence of defending the Trinity shall ignorantly or treacherously betray it and as St. Peter says shall privily bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought him 2 Pet. 2.1 What shall we say Shall such a Person be complemented Was soft Language ever created for such a Man Who then can deserve to be rebuk'd sharply Tit. 1.3 I do not I am sure I cannot expose and chastize him as he deserves or as the Reverend Dean did the Protestant Reconciler in his Excellent Vindication of the Rights of Ecclesiastical Authority and therefore I hope I shall not fall under your Displeasure for borrowing this Man's hard Words and applying them upon Occasion more suitably to himself and justly lashing him my Equal with his own Rod with which he so irreverently and unjustly presumes to correct in all Respects his Superiour in Vindication of the Rights of Heaven of the Holy and Eternal Jesus and the Ever-Blessed Spirit of God who with the Father according to the Catholick Faith are adequately and convertibly predicated of the One True God which he in Terminis blasphemously denies and impiously says that the Scriptures confute I am Sir most sincerely Your very Affectionate very Humble Servant T. H. A POSTSCRIPT to the READER I Had written a great Part of this Letter to my reverend Friend Mr. R.E. without any the least Thoughts God knows of making it publick But upon a Serious Post-Consideration that it may be a means which I am sure will be a good Piece of Service to our Church and Religion to divert Mr. J. B. from any further Prosecution of a Design which I think I have fully prov'd and satisfy'd you and I hope Mr. J. B. himself he is altogether unfit and unqualify'd for and to oblige him for Shame not to think of Publishing his Threaten'd Second Part of the Vnity of God or at least to be more cautious in it that the Church may not be scandaliz'd and pester'd with any more of his Hasty Births I Resolv'd to let it go abroad with This Protestation That I have no manner of Knowledge of this Mr. J.B. but by his Book That therefore what I have said of or against him is not out of any personal Pique Grudge or Ill-will I bear him but what I beg the candid Reader in his Christian Charity to me to believe purely out of an honest sincere Zeal for the Glory of the Holy and Eternal Trinity AS 't is reveal'd to us in the Holy Bible according to the constant Sense and Interpretation of the Holy Catholick Church from the Holy Apostles Days to our own And particularly of our Holy Mother the Church of England in the First Article of her Religion and in her incomparable Liturgy which I beseech God of his infinite Mercy to preserve intire to us from All clandestine Designs and Practices and All open Assaults and Violations of All fickle new-fangled Teachers and Reformers To which I am sure every true zealous stedfast Son of the Church of England will most heartily and devoutly say with me Amen Amen FINIS
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