Mr. J. B's Principles is I am satisfy'd Unanswerable And now to conclude this Point with his own Gird upon the Animadverter Book p. 54. which however applicable it may be to the Animadverter every Body certainly will allow that it is most justly and appositely so to himself There is not a surer Sign that an Author does not understand the Subject he writes upon than his bringing an Objection which is so plainly and easily retorted upon his own Hypothesis And such an Objection is this which I am next to consider and is the third thing advanc'd by Mr. J.B. against the Animadverter and is urg'd as another Instance of the Animadverter's Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity but is a bright Evidence that he himself is scandalously Guilty of what he charges the Animadverter with and that he is altogether unfit to be trusted with the Management of such an intricate sublime Controversy so much above his Learning and Parts 3. The same Expressions of Scripture says Mr. J. B. confute what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Now in speaking to this I shall first assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us And secondly I shall weigh Mr. J. B's Objection against it Weigh it did I say 'T is too great a Solaecism I shall shew it to have no Weight at all but to be ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant First I shall assert the Truth of what the Animadverter tells us that the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated of God that is that as 't is true That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are God so 't is as true proper and Logical to say That God is the Father Son and Holy Ghost I cannot pretend to any great Skill in the Fathers and Councils I must own I am as little acquainted with them as I believe Mr. J. B. is I have 'em not and you know Sir that my Circumstances are such as will not allow me to buy many Books and that I may truly complain in the Words of the Admirable Dr. Bull in the Preface to his Defens Fid. Nic. with the Alteration only of one Word Nec potui ipse Homo tenui censu Liberis Auctus Librorum sumptum sustinere However I hope there may be no great Occasion for Fathers and Councils in so plain a Case as I take this to be which the Animadverter tells us and particularly insists upon against the Dean Tritheism p. 230. and that I may safely assert it to be the Catholick Faith Peter Lombard I have who I think I may be very sure understood the Catholick Faith much better than Mr. J. B. doth or I am afraid ever will And he not only very fully and expressly condemns this bold Man as an Adversary to the Truth but in Terminis asserts what the Animadverter tells us to be the Catholick Faith His Words are these Lib. 1. Distinct 4. Lit. c. Quidam tamen VERITATIS ADVERSARII concedunt Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum sive tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sed tamen Nolunt Concedere Vnum Deum sive Vnam Substantiam esse Tres Personas Dicentes Divinam Substantiam Praedicari de Tribus Personis non Tres Personas de Substantia Divina FIDES autem CATHOLIC A TENET AC PRAEDICAT Tres Personas esse Vnum Deum Vnam Substantiam sive Essentiam sive Naturam Divinam VNVM DEVM sive ESSENTIAM Divinam esse TRES PERSONAS After this to confirm what he says he produces several Passages out of several Places of St. Augustin who fully asserts the same Thus that Learned Lutheran Cunradus Dietericus in his Institut Catechet de Symbol Apostol to this Question Quis igitur est Deus in Essentia sua Answers Est Deus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And a little after in the Explication of this Answer hath these Words Essentia nihil aliud est quam illae Tres Personae Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus simul junctae Personae nihil aliud sunt quam illa ipsa Essentia Divina So Vrsin Explicat Catechet Paer 2. sub Quaest 25. So Zanchius de tribus Elohins Par. 2. Lib. 1. c. 3. p. 385 387. So our Holy Mother the Church of England to the Scandal of which therefore he writes himself Presbyter of it in the Holy Communion Service in the proper Preface for Trinity-Sunday obliges us in the most solemn Manner as we are about to take the most Blessed Sacrament of our Dear Saviour's most Precious Body and Blood to own and declare That the God the One God whom we worship is Three Persons Nay which one that hath not read his Book would hardly believe so he himself tells us expressly That 't is the Common Article of the Christian Faith That God is Three Persons Book p. 84. And what an intolerable Piece of Presumption then must it needs be in this Malapert Man to assert that the same Expressions of Scripture confute what the Animadverter tells us and what he himself tells us is the Tommon Article of the Thristian Faith Presumption did I call it It is too mild a Name I esteem it a downright Blasphemy What! Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the Catholick Faith Do the Expressions of Scripture confute the great and most glorious Mystery of our Religion the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which as we profess in the Athanasian Creed except a Man believe faithfully he cannot be sav'd God deliver us from such ignorant or false treacherous Defenders of the Holy Trinity If we who believe the Trinity in Unity are oblig'd to believe the Three Divine Persons to be One God why are we not as well oblig'd to believe One God to be Three Persons who believe the Unity in Trinity I have shewn Mr. J.B. why by the Rules of Logick the Father cannot be predicated of God because the Predicate must not by the Rules of Logick be of less Compass than the Subject Let him shew me if he can That the same Objection or any other lies against the Three Divine Persons being predicated of God And if he cannot and that I am pretty sure of then the Scriptures I hope do not confute what the Animadverter tells us then whatever becomes of what Mr. J.B. tells us what the Animadverter here tells us stands fast and I shall ever I hope believe it as I thank God I always have not only to be true but to be the Catholick Faith For Secondly The Reason which he offers against it which is the Second Thing to be consider'd is as I said before and shall now prove ridiculously absurd and prodigiously ignorant His Reason is this viz. For whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term. This cannot possibly serve for any thing but
by the Beard and smites Him in the fifth Rib and cracks and bounces as if with His keen Ironies and blunt Charges and blunter Arguments He had kill'd Him dead as if neither He nor any Body else should ever have any more Occasion to strike Him again For He proves Him Pref. p. 8. to be blind past all Remedy blinder than the Dean's Son at the Vniversity the meanest Sophister of a Year's standing which by the way as He hath express'd Himself is a Complement upon the Dean's Son for which the Dean and His Son cannot but think Themselves much oblig'd to Him that He wants to be taught the first Rudiments of Logick That He is a Person of no Logick at all That 't is plain He doth not yet know the Predicate and Subject of a Proposition p. 9. That in Divinity He is not only guilty of Error but downright Blasphemy such blasphemous Stuff that the modest good Man cannot relate it without Blushing p. 10. and this Blasphemy is the Consequence of His great Ignorance of the receiv'd Language of the Church p. 12. that He is so ignorant as if He had never read the Scriptures never learn'd His Catechism nay not his Creed p. 10. Poor Animadverter Omnibus Invideas Livide Nemo Tibi Now Sir I cannot deny but that the Animadverter hath been much Declaim'd against as an Envious Proud Ill-natur'd Scurrilous Person and I must needs say if he had not been too much so He could not have treated so great and good a Man and of such excellent Parts as the Dean of St. Paul's certainly is and is generally and justly allow'd to be with so much Scorn and Contempt so rudely and unchristianly But I am sure you will agree with me That as bad as the Animadverter is or can be represented to be by His greatest Enemies it was never heard before that He was so incomparably Ignorant such an egregious Blockhead as this Mr. J. B. attempts to prove Him But on the contrary was always when in the University and since allow'd to be a Man of great Wit and Parts and a well Educated and well Studied Scholar And therefore Mr. J. B. in Treating and Representing the Animadverter at this boisterous Rate doth either justify the Animadverter in His Usage of the Dean of St. Paul's or doth expose and condemn Himself for being as Bad and as Impudent at least as He paints the Animadverter And doth by it reduce Himself to another unlucky Dilemma That either all others are Fools and mistaken in their Notions of the Animadverter or He Himself is so in His Character of Him Such a Character as was never before given Him and with Truth and Conscience never can A Character that reflects rudely and undutifully upon the University and upon the Church and which I doubt He was not well aware of most severely upon Himself For by this Character which He so weakly and vainly endeavours to prove and fix upon the Animadverter He strongly proves and effectually discovers that 't is He Himself is the Man to whom in good earnest and with too much Truth it belongs That this is so I think I shall be able to make appear to you very plainly and fully by Attacking this Gentleman in His strongest Works in the Five or Six last Pages of His Preface in which He takes all the Advantages against the Animadverter that possibly He can singles out Two or Three Passages out of His whole Book of Tritheism Charg'd c. which He thinks to be the weakest and most indefensible and then plays upon Him with all His Might His whole Artillery And here one would think if ever He should do the Animadverter's Business as He thinks He has done But that now shall be try'd Three things He sets upon the Animadverter for The First is produc'd as an Instance of the Animadverter's profound Judgment in the Science as He calls it of Logick after which He says He will conclude his Epistle Pref. p. 7. Though after this before He concludes He produces Two distinct Instances more to convict Him of Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity and stupid Ignorance in Logic Which Two distinct Instances too He calls but One Pref. p. 10. from whence I doubt not if He had made such a Discovery in the Animadverter He would presently have cried out and Inferr'd for certain that this ignorant Animadverter could not tell Twenty that the Animadverter was so very ignorant that He knew not that Two and One made Three or that One added to One made Two But I am not willing and have no need to make such Inferences and I wish they were less frequent in Mr. J. B. and others As for the Animadverter's Profound Judgment by which this Catechrestical Man means His Profound Ignorance in the Science forsooth of Logick That is plain to a Demonstration as plain as that there cannot be a Triangle with Two Sides only or a Square with Three For says Mr. J. B. very wittily and shrewdly A Syllogism with two Terms and no more is a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three Bless me thought I what doth this Man mean The least he can mean is That a Syllogism with two Terms and no more is as absurd and impossible as a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three If so then here 's a Mathematical Demonstration for you Sir That this naughty ignorant Animadverter doth the Reverend Dean much Wrong For how can the Reverend Dean make a Syllogism with two Terms and no more when the thing is as impossible as a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three For a Syllogism with two Terms and no more 't is no better nor worse is a Triangle c. Upon my Word Sir this is a notable cunning Way to clear the Dean and becoming the Acumen of Mr. J. B. very well But what now If a Syllogism with two Terms and no more be not a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three but do as vastly differ as that which is not only possible but very easie usual and common differs from that which is utterly impossible What then why then 't is one Demonstration that Mr. J. B. is not the Man some Folks may take Him to be If you know Sir how to direct to this Mr. J. B. for I do not let me beg the Favour of you to write to Him that your Friend T. H. if he hath any Occasion for such a Rarety as He thought was impossible to be had for Love or Money hath a Thousand Syllogisms at His Service and each Syllogism you may pawn your Honour for Him if you please shall have but two Terms and no more and I question not but the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's hath so many more at His Service and all that He expects in Return is That Mr. J. B. if possibly He can would be so kind to Him as to oblige Him but with
Force of his full and clear Evidence against him not easily to be forgotten or pardoned But whether he hath more expos'd the Animadverter for His Syllogism with two Terms and a Proposition with one Term of neither of which doth it appear that the Animadverter is guilty or himself for saying that a Syllogism with two Terms and no more is a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three For denying the Major of a Proposition if it be not the Fault of the Press which his palpable Ignorance may make a Doubt For endeavouring to help the Dean out by changing a Proposition de Secundo Adjacente into a Proposition de Tertio Adjacente concerning which he seems to understand nothing at all of the Matter For making that to be a Marriage of a Subject and Predicate which is plainly a Divorce For making a reprobate Syllogism for the Dean of the Fourth Figure with a Conclusion inverted For making the very same Syllogism in the same Respect to be the last and the former beyond all Possibility of evading the Contradiction Whether I say Mr. J. B. hath more expos'd the Animadverter for what he doth not appear to be guilty of or himself in these things and much more in the Compass of two or three Pages of which I think I may venture to say I have prov'd him guilty and which of the two will be most easily forgotten and pardoned the Insulting Animadverter with a Bottom or Insuiting J. B. with no Bottom I submit Sir to your correct Judgment and impartial Determination 2. The Second thing the Animadverter is taken to task for is his Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity together with his stupid Ignorance in Logick And of this we have two peremptory Instances as clear as the Meridian Light The First is the Animadverter's Noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father Pref. p. 10. The Second is his telling us that the Term three intelligent Persons i. e. the three eternal infinite intelligent Persons of whom the Animadverter speaks before Tritheism p. 130. is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Pref. p. 11. First To note this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father what shall Mr. J. B. call it Shall he call it an Error in Divinity It is too mild a Name he cannot but esteem it downright Blasphemy such blasphemous Stuff that his Modesty cannot but blush to relate it That this is so he makes it very plain if you please to observe him and can understand him 1st from Scripture 2dly from Logick and then up again he gets upon the Animadverter and treads upon him First from Scripture That 's very full and decretory against the Animadverter For how often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Ergo it is a very plain Case God is the Father For he challenges the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the Term of the Father viz. the Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son No doubt the Animadverter will so expound them and so expounded will blush I believe as much as Mr. J. B. can to say the Expressions are absurd and illogical and will blush again for the University and Church if he hath any Tenderness for them to see a Man who writes himself A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England to pretend to dispute in Print concerning the most difficult Point in the World and yet to write at such a loose ridiculous childish Rate The Animadverter Denies that God is the Father and Mr. J. B. to confute him effectually from Scripture and to convict him of Blasphemy proves from Scripture what 't is certain he does not deny All that he pretends to for what I can see from Scripture is That the Father may be put in Apposition to God Does not Scripture all the Creeds says he use the Expression of God the Father Yes And who denies it Doth not he think in his Conscience that the Animadverter uses it himself Or doth he think that he never says his Creed or his Prayers And can a Man in the most solemn Manner profess that he believes in God the Father and upon his Knees in the Litany invoke God the Father Can such a Man be suppos'd with any Candour and Charity to believe the Expression unlawful absurd and illogical his Adversary therefore cannot be suppos'd no not by himself to deny the Passages which he urges out of Scripture nor what he immediately and directly inferrs from them To what purpose then doth this Man ask over and over Are these Expressions absurd and illogical Unless it be to expose his Folly and Impertinence and to shew that he loves what no Man of Sense else can to hear himself talk The Animadverter certainly doth not deny that our Blessed Lord is the Son of God the Father or that God the Father is as proper and orthodox an Expression as it is usual But he denies That therefore it follows that 't is proper and Logical to say that God is the Father But that it seems is plainly for Want of Logick in the Animadverter For says Mr. J. B. had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick be so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is A Father and if A Father THE Father Very profound I dare swear the Animadverter doth not understand Logick as this Man does nor any Body else that can be said to understand it at all In what Logick is it that God the Father is equivalent to this that God IS a Father I am apt to think that this Man hath got a Logick of his own which he keeps lock'd up for his own private Use upon Occasion and in that perhaps it may be but I dare say in no other Is the Expression God the Father a Proposition What then to exclaim in his own Way Can there be a Proposition without a Copula That is in other Words Can there be an Affirmative and nothing Affirm'd If the Animadverter had said any thing like this what a Noise should we have had about the Marriage of a Man to himself and that without a Copula too If God the Father be equivalent in Logick to this that God IS a Father then I hope Mr. J. B. will allow that God is a Father is equivalent to God the Father and if so God the Father must be a Proposition there 's no avoiding it For therefore a Proposition is said to be equipollent or equivalent because there 's another Proposition to which it is equivalent And hence it is set down by Logicians as one of the first things requir'd to denominate a Proposition equipollent or equivalent Vt sint non una sed duae pluresve Propositiones qui dicuntur aequipollentes And if God the Father be a
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