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
80.12 13. And I am clearly instead of trusting them and letting them in by any false treacherous Comprehension for taking the Foxes the little Foxes that spoil the Vines * Cant. 2.15 And I heartily thank God for 't there is yet a great Body of honest learned good Men who value the Honour and Good of the Church of England above all politick worldly Considerations whatsoever of my Opinion But to return to this Comprehension-Man's Comprehensive Creed which will give as great a Liberty of Conscience if not a greater as ever the late King James aim'd at in his Declaration whereby to do HIS Business in one Sense and OVRS in another and will comprehend as many as the licentious Author of a late Letter for Toleration can possibly desire though he doth Believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that the same One Divine Person spake of himself that is I suppose you will allow me he means of himself as One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that this One Divine Person was the Father c. yet he tells you there he doth most firmly believe that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God As it was Believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who Believ'd God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent Nor does this contradict that common Article of the Christian Faith viz. That God is Three Persons as the Socinians vainly pretend and some others unwarily grant them Good God! What strange Delusions are some Men given over unto 2 Thes 2.11 that they should believe a Lye 'T is very true what Mr. J. B. says Book p. 158. That some Persons take a Privilege to speak and write what they please And certainly never any Man made more Use of this Privilege than himself Do the Socinians vainly pretend that it is a Contradiction for One and the same God to be but One Person and yet to be Three Persons If it be not a Contradiction I do averr that nothing can be so Some he says do unwarily grant the Socinian that it is a Contradiction as if some others or rather the most do not What a vile Reflection is this upon the Orthodox nay upon Mankind Let him name me a Christian or a Man besides himself that will say that One Person is Three Persons is no Contradiction We have been ever able and ever shall to defend the Catholick Faith That One and the same God is Three Persons from being a Contradiction and therefore though it be a great and incomprehensible Mystery yet we most firmly believe it as clearly revealed to us in Scripture according to the constant Interpretation given of it by the Holy Catholick Church down to these Days But to say that One and the same Person is Three Persons is to say that One and the same is not One and the same and that Three Persons are not Three Persons but One Person and is therefore such a Contradiction as is impossible to be reveal'd by God that cannot lye and impossible to be defended Let Mr. J. B. if he pleases try what he can do Now if One and the same God who was and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the same One God whom the Heathen Philosophers and the Jews worshipped as no doubt he is and if this One God was One Divine Person which no doubt he was not though believed and worshipped by them but as One Person and that without Heresie God having not made so full a Revelation of himself under that Oeconomy as under the Christian and if Mr. J. B. doth most firmly believe as he saith he doth that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Unity of God AS it was believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who believ'd the One God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent then either he must say that the same God who was but One Divine Person is now since Christianity become Three Divine Persons which is utterly inconsistent with his immutable Nature or that the same One Divine Person was and is Three Divine Persons which is a Contradiction or lastly that that one Divine Person whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped was and is the One only true God And as for the other Two Divine Persons the Son and the Holy Ghost which with that One Divine Person which the Heathens and Jews worshipped and who is the One only true God make up a Trinity of Divine Persons the Term God may indeed be predicated of them but not strictly properly and truly as it is of God the Father For though there be a Trinity of Persons call'd Divine yet 't is God the Father whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped is the One only True God and SO the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God as it was believed by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church are by no means inconsistent And so perhaps honest Genebrard's Three Gods and the Quasi-Specifical Unity is made out in to the Bargain For tho' as Mr. J. B. saith ch 4. n. 19. p. 85. The Reverend Dean never asserted that the Son or Holy Ghost could not be properly call'd the One God or only True God yet he his noble Defender dares to do what the Dean durst not he can and will assert it I saith he p. 86. do assure him the Animadverter that I am neither afraid of him nor the Socinians I crave no Favour at either of their Hands for This Profession of my Faith that the Title of One God only True God is a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone Now 't is out Now you see clearly why he will have the Term God in the Preface to be adequately and convertibly predicated of the Father and will not allow it the Scriptures he saith confute it to be adequately and convertibly predicated of Father Son and Holy Ghost Certainly whatever Occasion this Man may have to be Afraid of the Animadverter he can have none at all to be Afraid of the Socinians unless it be as the Psalmist says That they should laugh him to Scorn * Psalm 80.6 for pretending to be their Adversary For such a Trinity as this is it is certain the Socinians who are the Followers of Bidle do believe and contend for If the Title of One God only True God be appropriated and peculiar only to the Person of the Father a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone then let any Man prove if he can That the Son or the Holy Ghost is properly God unless he can prove that there be more Gods than one Let Mr. J.B. with all his Logicks and vast Stock of Reason prove if he can That this Profession of his
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
Force of his full and clear Evidence against him not easily to be forgotten or pardoned But whether he hath more expos'd the Animadverter for His Syllogism with two Terms and a Proposition with one Term of neither of which doth it appear that the Animadverter is guilty or himself for saying that a Syllogism with two Terms and no more is a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three For denying the Major of a Proposition if it be not the Fault of the Press which his palpable Ignorance may make a Doubt For endeavouring to help the Dean out by changing a Proposition de Secundo Adjacente into a Proposition de Tertio Adjacente concerning which he seems to understand nothing at all of the Matter For making that to be a Marriage of a Subject and Predicate which is plainly a Divorce For making a reprobate Syllogism for the Dean of the Fourth Figure with a Conclusion inverted For making the very same Syllogism in the same Respect to be the last and the former beyond all Possibility of evading the Contradiction Whether I say Mr. J. B. hath more expos'd the Animadverter for what he doth not appear to be guilty of or himself in these things and much more in the Compass of two or three Pages of which I think I may venture to say I have prov'd him guilty and which of the two will be most easily forgotten and pardoned the Insulting Animadverter with a Bottom or Insuiting J. B. with no Bottom I submit Sir to your correct Judgment and impartial Determination 2. The Second thing the Animadverter is taken to task for is his Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity together with his stupid Ignorance in Logick And of this we have two peremptory Instances as clear as the Meridian Light The First is the Animadverter's Noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father Pref. p. 10. The Second is his telling us that the Term three intelligent Persons i. e. the three eternal infinite intelligent Persons of whom the Animadverter speaks before Tritheism p. 130. is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Pref. p. 11. First To note this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father what shall Mr. J. B. call it Shall he call it an Error in Divinity It is too mild a Name he cannot but esteem it downright Blasphemy such blasphemous Stuff that his Modesty cannot but blush to relate it That this is so he makes it very plain if you please to observe him and can understand him 1st from Scripture 2dly from Logick and then up again he gets upon the Animadverter and treads upon him First from Scripture That 's very full and decretory against the Animadverter For how often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Ergo it is a very plain Case God is the Father For he challenges the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the Term of the Father viz. the Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son No doubt the Animadverter will so expound them and so expounded will blush I believe as much as Mr. J. B. can to say the Expressions are absurd and illogical and will blush again for the University and Church if he hath any Tenderness for them to see a Man who writes himself A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England to pretend to dispute in Print concerning the most difficult Point in the World and yet to write at such a loose ridiculous childish Rate The Animadverter Denies that God is the Father and Mr. J. B. to confute him effectually from Scripture and to convict him of Blasphemy proves from Scripture what 't is certain he does not deny All that he pretends to for what I can see from Scripture is That the Father may be put in Apposition to God Does not Scripture all the Creeds says he use the Expression of God the Father Yes And who denies it Doth not he think in his Conscience that the Animadverter uses it himself Or doth he think that he never says his Creed or his Prayers And can a Man in the most solemn Manner profess that he believes in God the Father and upon his Knees in the Litany invoke God the Father Can such a Man be suppos'd with any Candour and Charity to believe the Expression unlawful absurd and illogical his Adversary therefore cannot be suppos'd no not by himself to deny the Passages which he urges out of Scripture nor what he immediately and directly inferrs from them To what purpose then doth this Man ask over and over Are these Expressions absurd and illogical Unless it be to expose his Folly and Impertinence and to shew that he loves what no Man of Sense else can to hear himself talk The Animadverter certainly doth not deny that our Blessed Lord is the Son of God the Father or that God the Father is as proper and orthodox an Expression as it is usual But he denies That therefore it follows that 't is proper and Logical to say that God is the Father But that it seems is plainly for Want of Logick in the Animadverter For says Mr. J. B. had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick be so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is A Father and if A Father THE Father Very profound I dare swear the Animadverter doth not understand Logick as this Man does nor any Body else that can be said to understand it at all In what Logick is it that God the Father is equivalent to this that God IS a Father I am apt to think that this Man hath got a Logick of his own which he keeps lock'd up for his own private Use upon Occasion and in that perhaps it may be but I dare say in no other Is the Expression God the Father a Proposition What then to exclaim in his own Way Can there be a Proposition without a Copula That is in other Words Can there be an Affirmative and nothing Affirm'd If the Animadverter had said any thing like this what a Noise should we have had about the Marriage of a Man to himself and that without a Copula too If God the Father be equivalent in Logick to this that God IS a Father then I hope Mr. J. B. will allow that God is a Father is equivalent to God the Father and if so God the Father must be a Proposition there 's no avoiding it For therefore a Proposition is said to be equipollent or equivalent because there 's another Proposition to which it is equivalent And hence it is set down by Logicians as one of the first things requir'd to denominate a Proposition equipollent or equivalent Vt sint non una sed duae pluresve Propositiones qui dicuntur aequipollentes And if God the Father be a
the Father and that according to Mr. J. B's Sense whatever other Philosophers and Divines may hold is to deny that the Father is God Pulchrè mehercle Dictum sapientèr Teren. Eunuc Act 3. Scen. 1. Papae Jugulâras Hominem Quid illo Mutus illico What can the Animadverter say to this Nothing He must certainly be as mute as a Fish Quid ni esset It is a great Extremity indeed that a Man must be driven to to be forc'd either to say that which he hath condemn'd for absurd and illogical or to condemn the Scriptures for absurd and illogical Dunces If the Animadverter had been forc'd only to quit his Assertion or to condemn some particular Man for an absurd and illogical Dunce there might have been no great Occasion perhaps for a Figure but to be forc'd to condemn not only the Catholick Church and the Schools but the Scriptures too to condemn All These for absurd and illogical Dunces this is very hard indeed and he will want such a Figure for the Phrase as I dare say no Author can furnish him with but Mr. J. B. But I hope it may not be altogether so bad with the Animadverter as Mr. J.B. imagines If the Animadverter will not quit his Assertion which I believe upon good Terms he may and I doubt not but he will I hope there will be no Necessity of bringing any more than One under the aforesaid Condemnation I hope it may be sufficient with the Scriptures the Catholick Church and the Schools to give Glory to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and to own and acknowledge that each Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity is God And if where the Predicate is a Terminus Communis as the Animadverter contends that God is there a particular Sign is to be added to the Predicate when it becomes the Subject as Peter is a Man some Man is Peter and consequently that the Animadverter must be oblig'd by the Rules of Logick in the Conversion of this Proposition The Father is God to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter if there be no Remedy for this then let Mr. J. B. first clear the Platonick and Nicene Hypothesis of the Trinity which as he says both agreed in this That the common Divine Essence was an Vniversal Book p. 104 105. that is let him clear his justify'd Dr. Cudworth who embrac'd he says the Platonick Hypothesis that the Divine Essence was a Genus Let him clear the Nicene Fathers who he says held the Divinity to be a Species Let him clear all the Greek Fathers who as he says from Petavius in hoc Vno Concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Essentiam sive Substantiam sive Naturam quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant GENERALE ESSE aliquid Commune ac Minimè DEFINITVM Book p. 105. and p. 106. that 't is Commune quiddam multis quod Vniversale vocant Let him clear his trusty admir'd Petavius who as he says like a true Jesuite endeavour'd to impose upon his Reader what he did not believe himself and in his elaborate Work of the Trinity made only a seeming Defence for the Faith of the Schools the Singularity of the common Divine Essence which upon his Principles viz. the Authority of the Fathers was impossible and therefore he shamm'd the Notion of the Numerical Vnity in the Room of it This p. 108. is his own Character of his honest dear Petavius with whom he makes such a mighty noise throughout his Book of whose Honesty and Fairness as Acute and Learned as he was in this Controversy let any Man see the Account which the Learned Dr. Bull gives in his Defens Fid. Nicaen Proaem p. 7 8. and then let any honest Man value or trust Petavius afterwards if he can Lastly let him clear his own Hypothesis which he says p. 101. was the Faith of the Nicene Fathers Let him first I say clear all these and then I 'll engage to clear the Animadverter and prove to Mr. J. B's Shame that if the Animadverter by only asserting that the Term God is a Terminus Communis but no Genus nor Species is under any Necessity by the Rules of Logick either of Denying that the Father is God or of declaring in a Logical Conversion of the Proposition That some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter then All These who as he states their Principles not only assert the Divine Essence to be Common but to be an Universal common either as a Genus or a Species by the same Rules of Logick must be under the same if not a much greater Necessity In the mean Time since this Man is so free of his Challenges let me beg the Favour of you if you can possibly do so much for me to send him my Glove as soon as you can and to let him know that if he will stand to this That this Proposition The Father is God is capable of a simple Conversion that is which is the necessary Consequence of it that the Term Father is adequately and convertibly predicated of God And if upon this he will stand to his Arms in the next Paragraph by which he thinks he hath given the Animadverter a most Fatal and Irrecoverable Overthrow viz. That whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term if he will stand to this I Challenge him to avoid if he can by his own Rules of Logick these absurd and intolerably unchristian Consequences viz. That according to this Rule we may say that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one Father In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was the Father And which too will justifie the Patripassian Heresie without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness the Father was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit c. I Believe in one Lord Jesus Christ Father of Father very Father of very Father And if it follows from the Expression God the Father that God is the Father then it will follow from these Expressions God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost and then too according to this Rule we may say that the Father is the Son and the Father is the Holy Ghost I should not dare Sir you may be sure to send such a bold Challenge to such a desperate Heroe who so easily routs the Animadverter baffles St. Augustin and except honest stout Petavius and the invincible Genebrard makes all the School-men and the Moderns too to shrink and fly before him in their dark and slippery way as if the Angel of the Lord drove them But never fear your Friend for this I am very sure in this I shall be too hard for him This to brave him once with his own Words Pref. p. 2. This will still stand unanswer'd and upon
Faith is not by his own Confession worse than Socinian worse than Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians which saith he Book p. 173. are not levell'd against the Fundamental Truth of this Article the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity If as he says he plainly sees that Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians are not levell'd against this Fundamental Truth he might one would think if he had not wink'd hard have seen as plainly that this Profession of his Faith is directly levell'd against it For is it not most ridiculously absurd a monstrous Contradiction to assert the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity and yet to deny that the Son or the Holy Ghost may be call'd True God But if it be proper and peculiar to the Father alone to be the One God the only True God it is demonstrable that neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost can be so Unless the Father Alone can be the One God and not the One God the only True God and not the only True God And therefore I 'll be bold to challenge this mighty Challenger to clear if he can this Profession of his Faith from being a monstrous Contradiction or a monstrous Heresie It will nothing avail him to say That 't is the Title of One God only True God which he asserts to be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone For if the Father alone be not Revera the One God the only True God it cannot be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father alone to be so call'd unless we will lye for the Father and say that he alone is what alone he is not What is proper and personal in Divinity and common Sense is incommunicable and therefore if to be One God only True God be the proper and personal Title of the Father alone the Father alone must enjoy it Neither Son nor Holy Ghost can have it nor can it be predicated of the whole Trinity unless the Father alone is the whole Trinity It is plain therefore if any thing by Words can be so That this Man according to this his publick Profession of Faith doth deny the Catholick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity which he falsly and insidiously or ignorantly by the gaudy pompous Title of his Book pretends to defend For he denies the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God the only True God For if they the Three Divine Persons be truly and properly One God the only True God no Man living I suppose will deny but that they may truly and properly be so call'd And he denies the true Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost For if the Father alone be One God only True God how can the Son be God and the Holy Ghost be God but improperly and metaphorically True God according to this Man's Principles neither of them can be for the only True God is the Father alone This is this Mans Faith according to the defying publick Profession which he here makes of it And to make himself the more blasphemous more abominable and inexcusable he quotes and brings in with unparallell'd Ignorance and Confidence 1st The Nicene Council 2dly All the Oriental Fathers 3dly Our Blessed Saviour 4thly St. Hilary and 5thly St. Paul to abett and patronize him in it Book p. 85. 1. First As for the Nicene Council which he says appropriates this Title to the Father What can be more false and imposing Credimus in Vnum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem Vnigenitum Filium ejus Jesum Christum Spiritum sanctum Non Tres Deos fed Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum Unum Deum colimus confitemur Non sic Unum Deum quasi Solitarium c. Lamb. Danaei Expos Symb. Apost ex Patrib Orthodox Art 1. p. 6 7. where he may find Authorities enough out of the Fathers against him Credo in Deum Nomen Dei hic sumitur essentialiter pro Deo Patre Filio Spiritu sancto Quia verbum Credo cum Particula in refertur eodem modo ad omnes Tres Personas Deitatis Vrsin in Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Quaest 26. He will not deny I believe that the Term God in the Apostles Creed is taken in the same Sense with that in the Nicene for that Bishop Pearson upon the Creed has observ'd Art 1. p. 23. That this Creed in the Churches of the East before the Council of Nice had that Addition in it I believe in One God that is says Dr. Comber I confess with my Mouth That I believe in my Heart in One God a pure and infinite Spirit distinguished into Three Persons the First of which is God the Father c. Compan to the Temple Part 3 d. S. 5. And therefore says Zanchy most fully and expressly against what this Man asserts to prove from the Creed that 't is the Father alone who is the One God is a mere Fallacia Compositionis which the Hereticks make use of to prove their and this Man's Faith from the Creed Quam scilicet conjungunt in oratione quae sunt distinguenda ut verbi gratia quum probant ideo Solum Patrem esse Deum verum quia in Symbolo legimus Credo in Unum Deum Patrem Hic enim conjungunt Nomen Patris cum Nomine Dei nullamque interponunt distinctionem inter Dei Patris Nomen cùm tamen distinctè ita legendum esse videatur ut primo dicatur in genere Credo in Deum postea vero per Personas quasi per partes explicetur quis sit iste Deus nempe Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Hi enim Tres Elohim sunt ceu partes non totales fed essentiales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovae Hieron Zanch. de Tribus Elohim Par. 2. c. 2. p. 383. I am almost confident that this intolerably bold Man cannot produce so much as one Author who so interprets the Beginning of the Nicene Creed that the Title of One God is appropriated to the Father in Opposition to the Son and the Holy Ghost And as the One God is not appropriated in that Creed to the Father but referrs to all the Three Persons so neither is the Title of only True God But this very Creed which this frontless Man quotes for him is expressly full and decretory against him and not only calls the Second Person the Son God of God but very God of very God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum verum de Deo vero True God of True God And is it not very likely now that all the Oriental Fathers and our Blessed Saviour should determine for him against the express Words of the Nicene Creed Secondly As for All the Oriental Fathers every one of them no doubt he hath read and understands throughly well we must take his Word that what they say in the Nicene Creed they do not say nor believe These are some of the Fruits of Hasty Births Thirdly
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