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
it is plain That the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefix'd to the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Place of the Predicate denotes notwithstanding the Subject and accordingly is render'd in our Translation not according to the Order in which the Words lie God was the Word but The Word was God So in St. John 4.24 where we have God put in Apposition to Spirit where the Copula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least is not express'd but understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in the Place of the Subject yet because it is a Word of a greater Latitude and the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore is it certainly the Predicate and accordingly our Translators were wiser than to render it according to the natural Order of the Words a Spirit is God but God is a Spirit So that this I think may pass for a Demonstration of Mr. J. B's conceited Ignorance and that if he had a Thousand Expressions in Scripture where the Father is put in Apposition to God nay and a Thousand more in which there was this very Proposition in Terminis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be so far from proving what he contends for that the Father is predicated of God that it would prove the quite contrary and would unquestionably be Translated The Father is God Well But God the Father being as Mr. J. B. says equivalent in Logick to this That God is a Father is it not a very plain Case that the Animadverter hath not that Skill in Logick he so often upbraids others with the want of For otherwise it seems he would have known that if God be A Father then he is THE Father God is A Father and if A Father THE Father Is not this again very Acute and Admirable What an Over-grown Logical-Noddle must this Mr. J. B. needs have I dare say there is not an ordinary Logician to be met with but will think he might as well have inferr'd immediately from the Expression God the Father that God is the Father as that God is A Father without being at the absurd impertinent Trouble of proving that God is the Father because God is A Father But this perhaps was to show That though he can freely acknowledge Pref. p. 5. that his Genius his Education or Negligence never led him to study Criticism in Words even in his native Language less in the Learned Languages yet his Skill in Particles is very critical and extraordinary and extraordinary very extraordinary indeed it is Did you ever hear Sir before or any Man else that if the Particle A is prefix'd to a Word that therefore the Particle the must After this Rate Mr. J. B. if he pleases may prove himself to be the Writer in this unhappy Controversy about the Trinity the Writer and none else or the Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not excepting Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum or his French Defender For A Writer he must be allow'd to be such as it is and if A Writer the Writer Mr. J. B. is an A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England such an one as he is doth it therefore follow that he is THE A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England Pref. p. 10. God forbid To prevent this mischievous Consequence I must tell this great Critick that 't is a known Rule in Logick à Positione Superioris ad Positionem Inferioris non valet Consequentia It will follow from the Position of The to the Position of A but not e converso that being Distinguishing Restraining and Definite this of a greater Latitude and Indefinite And therefore though a near Friend of yours be the S. Warden of the College and if the S. Warden no doubt A S. Warden yet I dare say the Rest of the Fellows will hardly allow that because your Friend the S. Warden is A Fellow that he is therefore the Fellow How happy was it for that Blessed Martyr A. Bishop Laud that Mr. J. B. was not his Adversary instead of the Jesuite Fisher For in his Conference with the Jesuite Confer 20. he allows the Jesuite that the Church of Rome is A Church but not The Church Now if J. B. had been to have manag'd the Arch Bishop he would have confounded him presently in two or three Words from his own Concession and if A Church The Church Now pray Sir which do you think would weigh down if as he would have it Pref. p. 5. The Animadverter's Criticism in Philosophy and his in Philology were put in the Balance together But Criticism in Philology he confesses is not his Talent His Genius his Education or Negligence never led him to it But for Philosophy and Divinity have at you the Animadverter is nothing to him Though for my part I am apt to think That though J. B. is A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England yet as to these Philosophy and Divinity he is what Holy David says * Psalm 62.9 of Men of high Degree a Lye And that when he comes to be laid in the Balance for his Philosophy and Divinity by the Animadverter he will be found to be deceitful upon the Weights altogether lighter than the Animadverter nay than Vanity it self One irrefragable Proof of this amongst the rest is one of his Scriptural Proofs which I have not yet taken Notice of that is to say God is the Father is no absurd illogical Proposition St. Paul tells us says he That to us there is one God and Father Now whether he means that St. Paul tells us this which is most likely in 1 Cor. 8.6 where St. Paul tells us To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things or that he tells us this in Ephes 4.6 which I shall consider hereafter where he says that there is one God and Father of all for his Words do not exactly agree with either Place but seem to be made up of both and there is no other Place to which they may be referr'd This is most certain that neither Place doth any more prove what he would have viz. That God is the Father that is that the Father the First Person of the Blessed Trinity the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may be properly and Logically predicated of God than he can prove that Pontius Pilate is a Saint as the poor ignorant Man thought he was because he is in the Apostles Creed That by the Father here which he would have to be the Predicate of this Proposition he means the First Person of the Blessed Trinity the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ there can I think be no Dispute His Design obliges him to mean so Without it he doth not oppose the Animadverter And he himself plainly proves that so he doth mean by what he says before and by the Text immediately subjoin'd to this viz. Blessed be God even the Father of our
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