Lord Jesus Christ And he means too That the Father who is here predicated of God is not only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity but that he is predicated of God as distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost For would he say or mean that the Father in Conjunction with the two other Blessed Persons is predicated of God no Orthodox Man no true Worshipper of the most adorable Trinity would oppose him and the Animadverter so declares himself on his Side Tritheism p. 230. but he contrary to the Sence and Faith of the Holy Catholick Church of every honest simple Christian of which more by and by declares That the Term Three intelligent Persons is not adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is That God is not Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the same Expressions of Scripture which prove that the Father is Predicated of God confute it Now this being undeniably his Sence of the Term Father is it not a most unpardonable Blunder in such an Undertaker as this Man is to prove that the Father in his Sence is predicated of God by a Text of Scripture where 't is most certain the Term Father is taken in quite another Sence Is this wise Considerer of the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools and pretended Baffler of them both so wretchedly ignorant as not to know that the Term Father attributed to God is as Homonymous as the Term God and that the Father is taken as God is sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First The Word Father as 't is taken personally ratione ad intra in respect of his Son begotten of him from all Eternity for the First Person only of the Blessed Trinity begetting from all Eternity a Con-substantial Son in this Sence the Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost Secondly As the Word Father is taken essentially ratione ad extra in Respect of the whole Creation for the whole Divine Essence in this Sence the Father is not distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost in this Sence the whole Trinity is the Father the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Father In this Sence is the Word Father sometimes taken both in the Old and New Testament Certè constat says Hieron Zanchius Nomine Patris non semper intelligi in Scripturis Personam Patris sed totum Deum ipsum Jehovam Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum De tribus Elohim Par. 2. lib. 5. cap. 5. and in this Sence it is certain is it here taken in 1 Cor. 8.6 where St. Paul tells us That to us there is but one God the Father Let him see Zanchius loc citat Let him see Bishop Pearson on the Creed Art 2. p. 26. Let him see Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase Estius in loc Let him see whom he will he will not find I dare say so much as one honest Man that will tell Him that the Father here is taken as he takes the Word before Hypostatically for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ He might altogether as well and as effectually if he had pleas'd have knock'd down the Animadverter with the 1st Verse of the 1st Chapter of Genesis where Moses tells us That in the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth For this indeed is all that the Apostle here tells us That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things That is though to the Heathens there are Gods many and Lords many yet we Christians are assur'd they are mistaken and are Idolaters and therefore we acknowledge and believe but one God the Father to us there is but one God the Father the Father who in the Beginning created the Heaven and the Earth the Father Almighty as we profess in our Creed Maker of Heaven and Earth of whom therefore the Apostle adds are all things nimirum per Creationem Non enim Filium intendit Apostolus hâc vice omnia comprehendere Estius in loc In this Sence of the Word Father all things are of him by Creation and Conservation and God is the Father of all things by Creation rather than Procreation says Bishop Pearson loc supr citat and therefore in this Sence our Blessed Saviour the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity cannot be of him and cannot be his Son unless Mr. J. B. will have him to be a Creature a Factitious Improper and Metaphorical God only And indeed that I am afraid will appear at last to be at the Bottom of this Man and to be the grand Design and ultimate End of his Book notwithstanding its gaudy deceitful Title of which more by and by I heartily pray to God that it may appear otherwise for his own Soul's Sake not for any Fear I have that ever he or his Pen will do any great Mischief to the Catholick Faith with any who will carefully attend him and have not a Mind to be perverted But if Mr. J. B. means honestly that the Father which he would have to be properly and naturally predicated of God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity distinct and only hypostatically distinct from God the Son who is one and the same true God of one and the same undivided Infinite Eternal Essence with God the Father then in this Sence God the Father in the Passage he alledges from 1 Cor. 8.6 is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ unless he will say That God is the Father of us and of all other things in the same Sence that he is the Father of his only begotten Son our Blessed Lord Christ Jesus And then either he must say that the Lord Jesus is a Creature a Son only in a borrow'd Metaphorical Sence by Creation as we and all things else are and as he is said to be the Father of the Rain in Job 38.28 or else he must say that God the Father of whom are all things as the Apostle says is the Father of all things by a proper Eternal Generation as 't is certain he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And then which will be the more horrid Blasphemer the Animadverter or Mr. J. B. But if to avoid this he will allow it to be plain as most plain it is That the Father in this Passage of St. Paul is certainly not to be taken in the Sence he applies it to then plain it is That this Mighty Divine betrays his gross Ignorance in a plain Text of Scripture or like a mighty pertinent Philosopher undertakes to prove that God is the Father in a Sence of the Word in which his Adversary denies it from a Sence of the Word in which his Adversary and no Body else denies it And thus having I think made it very evident to any impartial Reader how loosely this Man argues or rather how ridiculously he expostulates 2 Pet. 3.16
is Ten Thousand to One that it never fits the Wards In this very Paragraph Pref. p. 3. from whence I borrow these Words for him it may be worth your while Sir a little to observe this Thraso that you may the better know the Man strutting like a Crow in a Gutter or like a Cock-Turkey letting down his Wings and raising his Plumes to make himself as big again as really he is thus displaying his intolerable Vain-Glory I Mr. J. B. I Discuss that Important and Fundamental Enquiry in this Mystery viz. What is it whish determines the Singularity or Plurality of the Predication of any Attribute concerning the Divine Persons Where I Mr. J. B. by himself first give the Predications themselves which are to be solv'd A very necessary Matter c. ut supr Secondly I Consider the Answers of the Schools and shew their Insufficiency Lastly I endeavour to give the true Solution My Self Besides Six great Things which I doth before and a great many strange Exploits which I doth after And now to serve him again with his own Words Book p. 139. for which I must confess I am often mightily beholden to him they are so very pat for him Make Room for this mighty Man keep Silence and learn from him what the ignorant Animadverter the trifling St. Augustin the impertinent School-men and the silly sottish Moderns their Followers could never teach you before Polo deripere Lunam vocibus possum meis So as Horace hath it somewhere in his Epistles the Witch Canidia boasts But they were but Words I trow Just such vain impotent Braggs as Mr. J. B's are He do those things he so vauntingly tallis of So could the Hag Canidia with her conjuring Words snatch the Moon from her Pole So could Quintus Serenus cure an Ague with his proud cramp Word ABRACADABRA After all I am afraid as I hinted before that there is some lurking Evil some sly Design in this Book which some may not be aware of I am afraid that besides the many Follies Impertinencies Mistakes Absurdities and Contradictions with which his Book abounds we have a Lap-full of wild Gourds and that there is Death in the Pot * 2 Rings 4.39 40. For he seems to me not only to do what he can to puzzle the Cause and slily to undermine the Catholick Faith of the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity but he plainly betrays it and roundly gives it up to those abominable Hereticks whom he pretends to oppose That this he doth I shall undertake now to make out very fully and plainly and is the last thing I shall trouble you with about him In the Preface here p. 10 11. he undertakes to prove by Scripture and by Logick That God is the Father that 't is Blasphemy to deny it That if this Proposition be true the Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of such a Conversion as that 't is as true to say that God is the Father as that the Father is God that is That One Person is adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is by necessary Consequence that God is One Person And that he is But One Person and that there 's no such thing as this Trinity of Divine Persons according to the Sense of the School-men and Moderns and the Holy Catholick Church and our Holy Mother the Church of England he tells that the Term God is a singular Predicate that it is not a Terminus Communis as foolish Christians do generally believe it that is That God is not common to Father Son and Holy Ghost but adequately and convertibly predicated of the Father only And therefore very consequently to this he tells us very roundly that 't is false and the Expressions of Scripture confute it to say that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God for that would be utterly inconsistent with and contradictory to the Fathers being adequately and convertibly predicated of the same God that is 't is false and the Expressions of Scripture confute it to say That the One Holy and Eternal God whom we Worship is Three intelligent Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Let him clear himself and prove if he can that I do not expound him honestly justly and fairly If I do not it is very unwittingly and unwillingly God knows And is not this Man then a choice Considerer of the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools concerning the Trinity Is not this an admirable Champion of the Holy Catholick Faith A precious Defender of the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's I hope the Reverend Dean did not give any thing for him or fetch him far If he did I am sure he hath bought him very dear But I hope and I cannot but believe it that though this Book was Printed for the Dean's Bookseller the Dean knew nothing of it at least did not peruse it till 't was Printed It is very plain I think That this Man under a Pretence of defending the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity doth either ignorantly or treacherously expose and betray it It is very plain here in his Preface that his Doctrine is that God is the Father and is not Father Son and Holy Ghost that is That God is one Person and is not Three Persons and therefore this must be allow'd as a very proper suitable Preface to his Book in which he makes it yet plainer if it be possible that this is his Doctrine and gives it us as his Creed ch 4. n. 18. p. 84. in this Form I Believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was One Divine Person I Believe that the same One Divine Person spake of himself in these sacred Words of the Law I am the Lord thy God c. I also Believe That this One Divine Person was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This is his Confession of Faith which we shall have by and by delivered in another Explanatory Symbol and I 'll engage that there is not a Man upon the Earth who believes that there is but One true God and that there was such a Person upon Earth as Jesus Christ let him be Jew Gentile Arian Sabellian Socinian what he will but will freely join with him in it and subscribe to it Agreeably to this Faith he thinks fit to Curry a little and Declare B. p. 100. that he is not for Persecution no not of the Socinians 'T is very strange if he should I 'll warrant him a notable swinging Latitudinatian I am not my self for Persecution in the true Sense of the Word but yet I am not for setting aside the penal Laws and Test I am for keeping up the Hedges of our Vineyard if the good God so please that all they that go by may not pluck off her Grapes that the wild Boar out of the Wood may not root it up and the wild Beasts of the Field devour it * Psalm
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