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
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.
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
Mr. J. B's Principles is I am satisfy'd Unanswerable And now to conclude this Point with his own Gird upon the Animadverter Book p. 54. which however applicable it may be to the Animadverter every Body certainly will allow that it is most justly and appositely so to himself There is not a surer Sign that an Author does not understand the Subject he writes upon than his bringing an Objection which is so plainly and easily retorted upon his own Hypothesis And such an Objection is this which I am next to consider and is the third thing advanc'd by Mr. J.B. against the Animadverter and is urg'd as another Instance of the Animadverter's Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity but is a bright Evidence that he himself is scandalously Guilty of what he charges the Animadverter with and that he is altogether unfit to be trusted with the Management of such an intricate sublime Controversy so much above his Learning and Parts 3. The same Expressions of Scripture says Mr. J. B. confute what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Now in speaking to this I shall first assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us And secondly I shall weigh Mr. J. B's Objection against it Weigh it did I say 'T is too great a Solaecism I shall shew it to have no Weight at all but to be ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant First I shall assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is that as 't is true That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God so 't is as true proper and Logical to say That God is the Father Son and Holy Ghost I cannot pretend to any great Skill in the Fathers and Councils I must own I am as little acquainted with them as I believe Mr. J. B. is I have 'em not and you know Sir that my Circumstances are such as will not allow me to buy many Books and that I may truly complain in the Words of the Admirable Dr. Bull in the Preface to his Defens Fid. Nic. with the Alteration only of one Word Nec potui ipse Homo tenui censu Liberis Auctus Librorum sumptum sustinere However I hope there may be no great Occasion for Fathers and Councils in so plain a Case as I take this to be which the Animadverter tells us and particularly insists upon against the Dean Tritheism p. 230. and that I may safely assert it to be the Catholick Faith Peter Lombard I have who I think I may be very sure understood the Catholick Faith much better than Mr. J. B. doth or I am afraid ever will And he not only very fully and expressly condemns this bold Man as an Adversary to the Truth but in Terminis asserts what the Animadverter tells us to be the Catholick Faith His Words are these Lib. 1. Distinct 4. Lit. c. Quidam tamen VERITATIS ADVERSARII concedunt Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum sive tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sed tamen Nolunt Concedere Vnum Deum sive Vnam Substantiam esse Tres Personas Dicentes Divinam Substantiam Praedicari de Tribus Personis non Tres Personas de Substantia Divina FIDES autem CATHOLIC A TENET AC PRAEDICAT Tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sive Essentiam sive Naturam Divinam VNVM DEVM sive ESSENTIAM Divinam esse TRES PERSONAS After this to confirm what he says he produces several Passages out of several Places of St. Augustin who fully asserts the same Thus that Learned Lutheran Cunradus Dietericus in his Institut Catechet de Symbol Apostol to this Question Quis igitur est Deus in Essentia sua Answers Est Deus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And a little after in the Explication of this Answer hath these Words Essentia nihil aliud est quam illae Tres Personae Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus simul junctae Personae nihil aliud sunt quam illa ipsa Essentia Divina So Vrsin Explicat Catechet Paer 2. sub Quaest 25. So Zanchius de tribus Elohins Par. 2. Lib. 1. c. 3. p. 385 387. So our Holy Mother the Church of England to the Scandal of which therefore he writes himself Presbyter of it in the Holy Communion Service in the proper Preface for Trinity-Sunday obliges us in the most solemn Manner as we are about to take the most Blessed Sacrament of our Dear Saviour's most Precious Body and Blood to own and declare That the God the One God whom we worship is Three Persons Nay which one that hath not read his Book would hardly believe so he himself tells us expressly That 't is the Common Article of the Christian Faith That God is Three Persons Book p. 84. And what an intolerable Piece of Presumption then must it needs be in this Malapert Man to assert that the same Expressions of Scripture confute what the Animadverter tells us and what he himself tells us is the Tommon Article of the Thristian Faith Presumption did I call it It is too mild a Name I esteem it a downright Blasphemy What! Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the Catholick Faith Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the great and most glorious Mystery of our Religion the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which as we profess in the Athanasian Creed except a Man believe faithfully he cannot be sav'd God deliver us from such ignorant or false treacherous Defenders of the Holy Trinity If we who believe the Trinity in Unity are oblig'd to believe the Three Divine Persons to be One God why are we not as well oblig'd to believe One God to be Three Persons who believe the Unity in Trinity I have shewn Mr. J.B. why by the Rules of Logick the Father cannot be predicated of God because the Predicate must not by the Rules of Logick be of less Compass than the Subject Let him shew me if he can That the same Objection or any other lies against the Three Divine Persons being predicated of God And if he cannot and that I am pretty sure of then the Scriptures I hope do not confute what the Animadverter tells us then whatever becomes of what Mr. J.B. tells us what the Animadverter here tells us stands fast and I shall ever I hope believe it as I thank God I always have not only to be true but to be the Catholick Faith For Secondly The Reason which he offers against it which is the Second Thing to be consider'd is as I said before and shall now prove ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant His Reason is this viz. For whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term. This cannot possibly serve for any thing but
Censure from both the Vniversities Shall the Books of Buchanan and Milton and Goodwin and Baxter and Hunton and Hobbes and Owen c. be justly censur'd and condemn'd to Flames for Blaspheming the King And shall such as these escape for Blaspheming the great God the most adorable Trinity and our most holy Religion Shall Men be allowed to dally and play Stolida Procacitate as Martial's Words are with the most tremendous Mysteries and incomprehensible Things of Faith Shall Men be allow'd with rude and licentious Hands to break down the sacred Inclosures of our Faith that Hedge of Thorns as I remember the Reverend Dean well calls it in his Apology and endeavour with a kind of Sacrilege to dispossess and rob the Church of those Terms and Distinctions she hath been so long in Possession of and with which she hath so long successfully defended her Faith of a Holy Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity Have these Primitive Terms and Distinctions long before ever the School-men were in Being been always sufficient to encounter with and effectually to baffle and defeat the most numerous and most subtle Hereticks or no If not then it seems that which we call the Catholick Faith in this Article hath been all along till now a baffled indefensible Faith If they have as most certainly they have why are they not as sufficient now as they have been all along What need have we of Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness and Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits In Reference to the Sacred Articles of Religion saith Mr. J. B. Book p. 65. and it is the best thing said in his whole Book in which I heartily agree with him we ought to have a double Care not only to think but speak inoffensively To take Care that our Words as well as our Opinions be Orthodox and especially ought we to be thus cautious in the mysterious Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation where a Word disorder'd I had almost said a Comma displac'd may render us in the Judgment of the warm contending Parties guilty of no less than Heresie 'T is St. Augustin 's Observation concerning the Mystery of the Trinity That nec Periculosiùs alicubi erratur nec laboriosiùs aliquid quaeritur It is no where more dangerous to err nor more difficult to apprehend than in this mysterious Subject A wise Person will have a great Care to keep the beaten Path to speak in the receiv'd Language of the Church The Learned Calvin gives us his own Experience Expertus pridem sum quidem saepiùs quicunque de verbis pertinaciùs litigant fovere occultum virus That they who obstinately quarrel against the Phrases of the Church are Hereticks in their Hearts I have no hard Thoughts of the Reverend Dean God knows my Heart No Man hath a truer Honour and Veneration for him than my self I only wish he had taken this double Care not only to think but to speak inoffensively I wish he had taken a greater Care to keep the beaten Path to speak in the receiv'd Language of the Church and then who can doubt but that he who hath so admirably well acquitted himself against our Popish Adversaries who hath so baffl'd and triumph'd over our dissenting Adversaries and who hath been such a severe and just Scourge to Protestant Reconcilers Trimmers and Comprehension-Men who can doubt but that he would have had the same Glory and Success against our Socinian Adversaries But to undertake a Defence of the Catholick Faith of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity by Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness however ingenious it may be however defensible it may be is going a new and unusual Way to work or at least with new and unusual Terms contrary to a common and good Rule in Divinity Novae Insolitae Locutiones in Mysteriis Fidei non sunt usurpandae But to assert Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits whatever Genebrard One School-man may say as Learned and a more Orthodox Man than he pronounces Certè Perniciosum Dogma est Tres constituere Spiritus aeternos distinctos Nam Januam aperit non solum ad Arianismum sed Palam Gentilismum sapit Benedict Aretius Loc. Theolog. Loc. 1. p. 4. It is certainly says he a Pernicious Doctrine to constitute Three eternal distinct Spirits For it not only opens a Door to Arianism Vitandi sunt omnes modi loquendi qui Haereticis vel in Speciem favere videntur Qui igitur de Tribus Personis adorandae Trinitatis loquuntur ii uti non debent supradicto loquendi modo dicentes eas esse Tres Substantias ne favere videantur Arianis Macedonianis Valentino Gentili ejus Sectatoribus Rob. Baronii Philof Theol. Ancillans Exercitat 1. Artic. 9. p. 41. but it plainly relishes of Heathenism The Reverend Dean himself as well as Mr. J. B. notwithstanding what his Genebrard says allows it to be new and unusual and therefore be sure to assert it and insist upon it is not as Mr. J. B. gravely advises it is not to have a great Care to keep the beaten Path to speak in the receiv'd Language of the Church which he says a wise Person will do If the Reverend Dean means no more by Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits than Three distinct infinite Persons why should he alter the constant universal Language of the Church Why should he not be satisfied with asserting a Trinity only of Three Divine Persons which in an ineffable incomprehensible Manner are One infinite Spirit or God Why should Occasion be given to the Enemies of the Tri-Une God and our most Holy Religion to blaspheme Cannot a Trinity of Divine Persons in One infinite undivided Essence be defended unless we assert Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits How hath it been defended all along hitherto But this is not the worst of it That which I chiefly mean that which calls loudest for a Decretum Oxoniense for a Theological Censure from both the Universities is the foul pernicious Spirit of Latitudinarianism which being transform'd by an infernal Artifice appears much abroad like an Angel of Light like the only Complaisant Sober Moderate Peaceable Healing Angel But Sheep's Clothing is such a common Disguise and worn so very thin that we can easily look through it and see the ravening Wolf under If the false Prophets will be playing their juggling Tricks we need not be deceiv'd by them unless we will our selves Our Blessed Saviour who would have us enter in at the strait Gate Matt. 7.13 15 16. and to go the narrow Way which leadeth unto Life and to avoid as we would Death the wide Gate and the Latitudinarian Way which he saith leadeth to Destruction hath commanded us to beware of false Prophets and that we may know them he hath given us a certain infallible Direction by their Fruits that is as the Word Fruits is certainly here to be understood by their Designs and Doctrine Behold then the working of
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
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