Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A44140
|
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 unfit 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 ... : in a letter to the Reverend Mr. R.E. / by Thomas Holdsworth.
|
Holdsworth, Thomas.
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing H2407; ESTC R27413
|
59,646
|
88
|
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