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
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
IMPAR CONATUI OR Mr. J.B. the Author of an ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the TRINITY Rebuk'd and Prov'd TO BE WHOLLY Vnfit for the Great Work he hath Undertaken WITH Some Account of the Late Scandalous Animadversions on Mr. Hill's BOOK Intituled A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum c. In a Letter to the Reverend Mr. R. E. By THOMAS HOLDSWORTH M.A. Rector of North-Stoneham near Southampton Quare desine jam tibi videri Quod soli tibi Caecili videris Qui Galbam salibus tuis ipsum Possis vincere Sestium Caballum M. Val. Mart. Epig. Lib. 1. Ep. 36. LONDON Printed for William Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCV TO THE READER UPon the Perusal of the following Papers sent to me into the Country to note the Errata of the Press which are many and bad I found one or two of my own The first is in the last Line but two of p. 5. where I speak of an Enthymen as a Syllogism with two Terms and no more Which Mistake I was unwarily betray'd into by considering too slightly and inferring too rashly that because an Enthymem is always under the Defect of a Major or a Minor Proposition therefore it wanted a Major or a Minor Term and consequently had but two Terms But this the Reader if he please to be so candid to me may impute to that Inadvertency and want of critical Care which is usual enough in a private Letter to a Friend as this was only design'd when this Mistake escap'd me or he may pardon it to a Country Retirement from the Vniversity and to a Desuetude of the syllogizing Practice for more than twenty Years The second or rather what may seem to be so without a Caution is in p. 27. at the Bottom of which I say that Mr. J. B. will not find so much as one honest Man that will tell him that the Father here viz. 1 Cor. 8.6 is taken as he takes the Word before hypostatically for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ In which Words I am sensible I express my self somewhat too generally and loosely And therefore I think fit to declare here to prevent Cavil if I can that I know well that many honest Learned Men do take the Word Father here hypostatically as 't is oppos'd to and distinguish'd from the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity the one Lord Jesus Christ in the End of the Verse But as Mr. J.B. urges it Pref. p. 10. as the Word Father relates to the Words immediately precedent to us and to the Words immediately subsequent of whom are All things in this Sense it is as the Word Father in the Text stands thus related that I desire what I say in p. 27. may be understood And in this Sense I thought it to be plain and certain that it is to be taken essentially But if not this I am very sure of that Mr. J. B.'s Argument which I there undertake is never a whit the better for 't Many other Mistakes I am not secure but the Learned and Judicious Reader or Mr. J. B. may find me guilty of Of none I hope that are dangerous or scandalous or in the least prejudicial to the Holy Catholick Faith or to my Holy Mother the Church of England But whatever they may be I resolve by the Grace of God as soon as ever I shall be convinced of them to make what Amends and Satisfaction I can by owning my Offence either by Silence or by a publick Retractation as the Nature of it shall require And I hope Mr. J. B. if he cannot fairly answer and clear himself from what I have objected against him instead of ingaging himself any further in this sublime Controversy for the Management of which I think I have prov'd him to be what God knows I think my self to be Very Vnfit will be so ingenuous and have such a tender Regard for the Honour of our Holy Church and Religion if he be really for it as to do so too ERRATA THE Reader is desired to take Notice of and correct the following Errata some of which quite alter the Sense and some disturb it Page 5 line 18 for Rarety r. Rarity and l. 29 read thus Syllogismus Truncatus Triangulum Truncatum I c. p. 9 l. 21 22. r. J. B. p. 10 l. 3 f. pert r. great and l. 24 f. in r. is p. 13 l. 22 f. other r. their p. 19 l. 25 f. qui r. quae p. 21 l. 11 f. Admirable r. Adorable p. 22 l. 20 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25 l. 26 dele is before to p. 28 l. 16 f. vice r. voce p. 29 l. 26 after Adversary add doth not p. 31 l. 16 r. of a. p. 33 l. 16 f. 't is r. is and l. 22 f. on r. in p. 40 l. 14 f. illo r. ille p. 44 l. 15 r. Solecism p. 49 l. 14 dele or before that p. 52 l. 18 r. tells us and l. 28 r. Father's being p. 60 l. 5 f. quam r. quum p. 72 l. 27 r. a vast Several Mispointings there are which are left to the Judgment of the Reader SIR I Intended you these Papers according to my Promise much sooner But besides the Indisposition I was under to write last Week brought upon me I fear by our willful Journying almost all Night from a good House and the best Company the Answer of Mr. J. B. A. M. to the Animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity is to me such a woful Example of Hasty Births that you will pardon me I hope if the Fear of Abortion of such a dangerous scandalous Miscarriage as Mr. J B's whole Book is hath made me go a Fortnight beyond my Reckoning Mr. J. B. begins His Preface to the Reader with a very true and congruous Observation That Hasty Births commonly are imperfect And never I think was it more truly and fully Exemplify'd than by His own Deform'd Creature this His Embryo of a Book And whether He be in earnest or no when He says That He hath reason to fear the Imperfections of it I nothing doubt but Time and the Animadverter if He doth not think so Sorry an Author too much beneath Him Scilicet à magnis ad T E descendere Tauris will quickly make it appear That He hath much more Reason for such a Fear than He is aware of As a Prelibation of what I dare promise you 'll have a full Draught hereafter I shall as I promised you Examine this Doughty Champion's Preface not the former Part of it in which He flourishes with an Account of the rare Exploits and mighty Atchievements of His Book for that will belong to the Examiner of His Book but the latter Part of it in which as Joab did Amasa * 2 Sam. 20. 〈◊〉 10. He takes the Animadverter
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
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
a Rod for his own Breech which I have made bold to lash him with before and expose him to the Pity of his Friends the just Censure of every judicious Reader and the just Scorn and Contempt of his Learned Adversary How he will avoid the grievous Difficulties he brings himself under by this Rule let him look to 't But that according to this Rule we may say as he inferrs from what the Animadverter tells us That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only Begotten Son that our Saviour is the Son of Three intelligent Persons Blessed be Three intelligent Persons even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This is such a gross wretched Blunder that as he truly says not considering at all what he says there needs no Words to expose or confute these Expositions No certainly There needs none for any Body but himself And is it not great Pity Sir and a Scandal to our Universities and Church that there should be such an A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England as J. B. who wants to be told That Three Divine Persons are not One Divine Person and that One Divine Person is not the Three Divine Persons That the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the Person of the Father and that the Person of the Father is not the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost What a strange Stupor is this that this Man labours under And yet must needs be writing of Books and Books of the Blessed Trinity too Is it possible for any Man to be so blind so very hebetious as not to see plainly that the Term God of which the Animadverter says the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated is not taken personally for God the Father It is impossible it should be so taken unless we can suppose that the Animadverter's Assertion is That the Three intelligent Persons are adequately and convertibly predicated of God the Father the First Person of the Blessed Trinity If not if the Term God be not taken by the Animadverter personally for God the Father but Essentially for God as Common to Father Son and Holy Ghost as most evidently it is then allowing this Rule that whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the Place of that Term how could any thing but the most stupid Ignorance inferr from hence that according to this Rule we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. when nothing can be more manifest that Three intelligent Persons are not here in any of the Instances he gives put in the place of that Term God as 't is taken by the Animadverter Essentially and Indefinitely as the Term God that is is common to all the Three Divine Persons and is truly predicated of them simul sumptis But they are put by him in the place of the Term God in a Sence in which it is most certain the Animadverter doth not mean it that is as God is taken definitely and personally for God the Father For God who sent his Son gave his Son and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not God I hope as the Term signifies the whole Trinity all the Three Divine Persons but as it signifies personally the First Person of the Blessed Trinity God the Father distinct from God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And therefore it is most manifest That it can no more follow according to this Rule from what the Animadverter tells us that we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son c. than it can follow that because Father Son and Holy Ghost are God therefore they are God the Father The oftner I read these Words as he expresses himself against the Animadverter Book p. 153. and nothing can be more proper and suitable than to rebuke him with his own uncircumcis'd Lips the more I admire at the presumptuous Confidence of him that wrote them I am sure no Man can give a more convincing Argument of his utter unacquaintance with the Principles of all Philosophy and Divinity This indeed is a Demonstration to me That this Mr. J.B. either wants common Sense or common Honesty or that he is utterly ignorant of the well-known Homonymy of the Term God that in its proper Acceptation it is sometimes taken absolutely indefinitely or as some express it simply and as the School men generally express it essentially In this Sense it is taken for the Divine Essence which is Father Son and Holy Ghost or as Zanchius expresses it De tribus Elohim Par. 1. Lib. 6. cap. 1. p. 259. Pro toto ut it a loquar Deo proque Divina Essentia seu pro Deitate quae nihil est aliud quam Deus ipse totus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And in this Sense it is manifest the Animadverter takes the Term God in what he tells us Sometimes again the Term God is taken definitely distinctly or as some express it Secundum Quid or as the School-men generally speak personally In which Sense it is taken when it is predicated only of some certain Person of the Trinity sometimes of the Person of the Father only sometimes of the Son only and sometimes of the Holy Ghost only in which distinct personal Sense it is manifest that God is to be taken in the Expressions of Scripture which he here alledges when it is said God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. that is God the Father as he himself before determines And in this Sense it is as manifest that the Animadverter doth not take it in what he here tells us So that this Man must say either that he well knew in his Conscience that this which he urges here against the Animadverter is a Non sequitur a mere Sophismo Homenymiae and that he intended only in Imitation of his Father Petau * Book p. 108. to sham his Reader to put a pitiful little Trick upon him which is not well consistent with common Honesty or else I must say that he is scandalously ignorant And so like those conceited Gnosticks St. Paul speaks of who prided themselves in their great Knowledge above that of other Men and suppos'd all other ignorant but themselves If this Man vainly thinketh he knoweth any thing I have too much reason to tell him he knoweth nothing yet as he aught to know Vid. Dr. Hammond's Paraph. in Loc. 1 Cor. 8.2 And yet the Homony my of the Term God which there is hardly I think any little Novice in Divinity that is not less than himself but knows is to use his own Words Pref. p. 3. a very necessary Matter to be known by all who pretend to give us an Hypothesis to solve the sacred Mystery of the Trinity to do otherwise is if any thing be to make a Key for a Lock by the Key-hole only Such a Key is a mere Shew 't
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
if Men will be Partakers of this Eternal Life beside the Knowledge of the Father the only True God they must embrace Christ and acknowledge him as the only True God also for which he quotes 1 Joh. 5.20 where the same beloved Disciple who records these Words of our Blessed Saviour expressly determines to the Shame and Confusion of all wicked Hereticks and idle ignorant forward Considerers who must needs be making of new Creeds and appropriate the Title of One God only True God to the Father Alone That this his Son Jesus Christ is the True God and Eternal Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE True God Hic agitur non solum de vero Deo fed de illo Vno vero Deo ut Articulus in graeco additus indicat Catech. Rac. And says the extraordinary Bishop Pearson upon these Words I can conclude no less than that our Saviour is the True God so styl'd in the Scriptures by way of Eminency with an Article prefix'd as the first Christian Writers which immediately follow'd the Apostles did both speak and write Expos Creed Art 2. p. 132. 4thly St. Hilary he says expressly asserts this the Title of only True God to be debitum Honorem Patri No doubt but St. Hilary may But what 's this to his Purpose No Body will deny it to be an Honour due to the Father But the Question is whether it be an Honour due to the Father only or alone exclusively of the Son and the Holy Ghost Let him produce St. Hilary saying that and then One St. Hilary may be allow'd to speak for him 'Till then we may be satisfy'd that St. Hilary Patronizes this Appropriation no more than as he says St. Paul does which is 5. His 5th and last Argument St. Paul he says has Patroniz'd this Appropriation Ephes 4.6 To us there is One God and Father What he means by adding to us to the Text There is One God and Father I cannot tell and I do verily believe that he cannot tell himself But this I can tell and am very sure of that this is an Invincible Proof of his more than ordinary scandalous ignorance If his adding to us signifies any thing it must be directly against himself It must be to restrain the Relation of God's being a Father to us his Creatures or to us Men in particular to us his Children by Creation or by Adoption in Opposition to or by way of Distinction from his Son Christ Jesus his Son by Nature by a strictly proper true Generation And in truth in this Sense is the Term Father here most certainly to be taken Not for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but for the Father of all things of all Men or of the Elect at least for such a Father as we invoke in our Pater Noster such a Father as the Son himself and the Holy Ghost himself is Not for the Father the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity as distinct from the Second Person and the Third the Son and the Holy Ghost but for the Father who is all Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And let him produce me one Author if he can who is accounted Orthodox who doth not take the Term Father here in this Sense that is That the Title here of Father given by St. Paul to God is not Personal but Essential ratione ad extra And if so as most certainly so it is then this Appropriation which he says St. Paul here patronizes it is certain St. Paul here doth not patronize but directly contrary to that which he contends for and asserts and cites St. Paul for St. Paul here gives the Title of One God to God the Son and God the Holy Ghost as well as to God the Father that is to Father Son and Holy Ghost not taken distinctly but conjunctly And if this Man had but attended a little to common Sense and to the Words which immediately follow those which he quotes he could not but have seen this * Dicitur autem Pater on nium quia on nium Creatâ—… Gubernatoâ— est Tam Fâ—…lius autem Crâ—ator est Spâ—ritus sanctus quam Pater ut ante ostensum est Et sic saepè apud Prophetas accipitur sic etiam ad Ephes 4. Vnus De Pater omnium qui est super omnia Suo scilicet absoluto summo Imperio At etiam Filiâ— super omnia Jo. 3.31 Et per omnia Sua scilicet Universali Providentia per omnia diffusâ—… Rom. 9.5 At etiam Christus omnia agit Heb. 1.3 Et in omnibus vobis Conjunctione Iâ—habitatione per suum Spiritum Est autem in nobis etiam Filius cum Patre Jo. 14.23 〈◊〉 apparet hoc dictum Apostoli ad Solam Patris Personam non posse Restringi Hi. Zanch. de Tribus Eâ—…bim Par. 2. Lib. 5. c. 6. p. 539. There is says St. Paul One God and Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of All of all Things or of all Men who is above All and through All and in you All. Above all by his absolute supream Power and Dominion So also is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity God the Son said to be above All St. John 3.31 And through All that is by his universal fatherly Care and good Providence diffus'd through all things So also is the Person of the Son who by this Apostle St. Paul Rom. 9.5 is said to be over All God Blessed for ever Amen And Heb. 1.3 that he upholds All things by his Power And in you All that is by his gracious Conjunction with us and Inhabitation in us by his Holy Spirit So also is God the Son in us as well as God the Father as our Blessed Lord himself tells us St. Joh. 14.23 And Jesus answer'd and said unto him if a Man love me he will keep my Words And my Father will love him and WE will come unto him and make OUR abode with him And thus it appears says the Learned Zanchy That this Saying of the Apostle there is One God and Father cannot be restrain'd to the Person of the Father alone And is not this then an admirable Proof that St. Paul patronizes this Appropriation That the Title of One God is the proper personal Prerogative of the Father alone That is That the First Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity the Father alone of our Lord Jesus Christ is One God because Father Son and Holy Ghost are so That is That the Father Alone is so because the Father alone is not so 'T is like Mr. J. B's Way of arguing Now Sir I appeal to you nay I think I may to all the Orthodox World whether if Mr. J. B. will not be Orthodox with the Animadverter and Bellarmin he may not be esteem'd an Heretick Arian and Macedonian without our Saviour 〈◊〉 p. 86. St. Paul St. Hilary and all the Oriental Fathers Whether such Books as these do not call loud for a Decretum Oxoniense for a Theological
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