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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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