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
Force of his full and clear Evidence against him not easily to be forgotten or pardoned But whether he hath more expos'd the Animadverter for His Syllogism with two Terms and a Proposition with one Term of neither of which doth it appear that the Animadverter is guilty or himself for saying that a Syllogism with two Terms and no more is a Triangle with two Sides only or a Square with three For denying the Major of a Proposition if it be not the Fault of the Press which his palpable Ignorance may make a Doubt For endeavouring to help the Dean out by changing a Proposition de Secundo Adjacente into a Proposition de Tertio Adjacente concerning which he seems to understand nothing at all of the Matter For making that to be a Marriage of a Subject and Predicate which is plainly a Divorce For making a reprobate Syllogism for the Dean of the Fourth Figure with a Conclusion inverted For making the very same Syllogism in the same Respect to be the last and the former beyond all Possibility of evading the Contradiction Whether I say Mr. J. B. hath more expos'd the Animadverter for what he doth not appear to be guilty of or himself in these things and much more in the Compass of two or three Pages of which I think I may venture to say I have prov'd him guilty and which of the two will be most easily forgotten and pardoned the Insulting Animadverter with a Bottom or Insuiting J. B. with no Bottom I submit Sir to your correct Judgment and impartial Determination 2. The Second thing the Animadverter is taken to task for is his Absurdity Heterodoxy and Blasphemy in Divinity together with his stupid Ignorance in Logick And of this we have two peremptory Instances as clear as the Meridian Light The First is the Animadverter's Noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father Pref. p. 10. The Second is his telling us that the Term three intelligent Persons i. e. the three eternal infinite intelligent Persons of whom the Animadverter speaks before Tritheism p. 130. is adequately and convertibly predicated of God Pref. p. 11. First To note this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say That God is the Father what shall Mr. J. B. call it Shall he call it an Error in Divinity It is too mild a Name he cannot but esteem it downright Blasphemy such blasphemous Stuff that his Modesty cannot but blush to relate it That this is so he makes it very plain if you please to observe him and can understand him 1st from Scripture 2dly from Logick and then up again he gets upon the Animadverter and treads upon him First from Scripture That 's very full and decretory against the Animadverter For how often do the sacred Scriptures tell us that God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son Ergo it is a very plain Case God is the Father For he challenges the Animadverter any other ways to expound them than by the Term of the Father viz. the Father sent his Son gave his only begotten Son No doubt the Animadverter will so expound them and so expounded will blush I believe as much as Mr. J. B. can to say the Expressions are absurd and illogical and will blush again for the University and Church if he hath any Tenderness for them to see a Man who writes himself A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England to pretend to dispute in Print concerning the most difficult Point in the World and yet to write at such a loose ridiculous childish Rate The Animadverter Denies that God is the Father and Mr. J. B. to confute him effectually from Scripture and to convict him of Blasphemy proves from Scripture what 't is certain he does not deny All that he pretends to for what I can see from Scripture is That the Father may be put in Apposition to God Does not Scripture all the Creeds says he use the Expression of God the Father Yes And who denies it Doth not he think in his Conscience that the Animadverter uses it himself Or doth he think that he never says his Creed or his Prayers And can a Man in the most solemn Manner profess that he believes in God the Father and upon his Knees in the Litany invoke God the Father Can such a Man be suppos'd with any Candour and Charity to believe the Expression unlawful absurd and illogical his Adversary therefore cannot be suppos'd no not by himself to deny the Passages which he urges out of Scripture nor what he immediately and directly inferrs from them To what purpose then doth this Man ask over and over Are these Expressions absurd and illogical Unless it be to expose his Folly and Impertinence and to shew that he loves what no Man of Sense else can to hear himself talk The Animadverter certainly doth not deny that our Blessed Lord is the Son of God the Father or that God the Father is as proper and orthodox an Expression as it is usual But he denies That therefore it follows that 't is proper and Logical to say that God is the Father But that it seems is plainly for Want of Logick in the Animadverter For says Mr. J. B. had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick be so often upbraids others with the want of he would have known that God the Father is equivalent in Logick to this that God is A Father and if A Father THE Father Very profound I dare swear the Animadverter doth not understand Logick as this Man does nor any Body else that can be said to understand it at all In what Logick is it that God the Father is equivalent to this that God IS a Father I am apt to think that this Man hath got a Logick of his own which he keeps lock'd up for his own private Use upon Occasion and in that perhaps it may be but I dare say in no other Is the Expression God the Father a Proposition What then to exclaim in his own Way Can there be a Proposition without a Copula That is in other Words Can there be an Affirmative and nothing Affirm'd If the Animadverter had said any thing like this what a Noise should we have had about the Marriage of a Man to himself and that without a Copula too If God the Father be equivalent in Logick to this that God IS a Father then I hope Mr. J. B. will allow that God is a Father is equivalent to God the Father and if so God the Father must be a Proposition there 's no avoiding it For therefore a Proposition is said to be equipollent or equivalent because there 's another Proposition to which it is equivalent And hence it is set down by Logicians as one of the first things requir'd to denominate a Proposition equipollent or equivalent Vt sint non una sed duae pluresve Propositiones qui dicuntur aequipollentes And if God the Father be a
the Father and that according to Mr. J. B's Sense whatever other Philosophers and Divines may hold is to deny that the Father is God Pulchrè mehercle Dictum sapientèr Teren. Eunuc Act 3. Scen. 1. Papae Jugulâras Hominem Quid illo Mutus illico What can the Animadverter say to this Nothing He must certainly be as mute as a Fish Quid ni esset It is a great Extremity indeed that a Man must be driven to to be forc'd either to say that which he hath condemn'd for absurd and illogical or to condemn the Scriptures for absurd and illogical Dunces If the Animadverter had been forc'd only to quit his Assertion or to condemn some particular Man for an absurd and illogical Dunce there might have been no great Occasion perhaps for a Figure but to be forc'd to condemn not only the Catholick Church and the Schools but the Scriptures too to condemn All These for absurd and illogical Dunces this is very hard indeed and he will want such a Figure for the Phrase as I dare say no Author can furnish him with but Mr. J. B. But I hope it may not be altogether so bad with the Animadverter as Mr. J.B. imagines If the Animadverter will not quit his Assertion which I believe upon good Terms he may and I doubt not but he will I hope there will be no Necessity of bringing any more than One under the aforesaid Condemnation I hope it may be sufficient with the Scriptures the Catholick Church and the Schools to give Glory to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and to own and acknowledge that each Person of the Ever-Blessed Trinity is God And if where the Predicate is a Terminus Communis as the Animadverter contends that God is there a particular Sign is to be added to the Predicate when it becomes the Subject as Peter is a Man some Man is Peter and consequently that the Animadverter must be oblig'd by the Rules of Logick in the Conversion of this Proposition The Father is God to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter if there be no Remedy for this then let Mr. J. B. first clear the Platonick and Nicene Hypothesis of the Trinity which as he says both agreed in this That the common Divine Essence was an Vniversal Book p. 104 105. that is let him clear his justify'd Dr. Cudworth who embrac'd he says the Platonick Hypothesis that the Divine Essence was a Genus Let him clear the Nicene Fathers who he says held the Divinity to be a Species Let him clear all the Greek Fathers who as he says from Petavius in hoc Vno Concordant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Essentiam sive Substantiam sive Naturam quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant GENERALE ESSE aliquid Commune ac Minimè DEFINITVM Book p. 105. and p. 106. that 't is Commune quiddam multis quod Vniversale vocant Let him clear his trusty admir'd Petavius who as he says like a true Jesuite endeavour'd to impose upon his Reader what he did not believe himself and in his elaborate Work of the Trinity made only a seeming Defence for the Faith of the Schools the Singularity of the common Divine Essence which upon his Principles viz. the Authority of the Fathers was impossible and therefore he shamm'd the Notion of the Numerical Vnity in the Room of it This p. 108. is his own Character of his honest dear Petavius with whom he makes such a mighty noise throughout his Book of whose Honesty and Fairness as Acute and Learned as he was in this Controversy let any Man see the Account which the Learned Dr. Bull gives in his Defens Fid. Nicaen Proaem p. 7 8. and then let any honest Man value or trust Petavius afterwards if he can Lastly let him clear his own Hypothesis which he says p. 101. was the Faith of the Nicene Fathers Let him first I say clear all these and then I 'll engage to clear the Animadverter and prove to Mr. J. B's Shame that if the Animadverter by only asserting that the Term God is a Terminus Communis but no Genus nor Species is under any Necessity by the Rules of Logick either of Denying that the Father is God or of declaring in a Logical Conversion of the Proposition That some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter then All These who as he states their Principles not only assert the Divine Essence to be Common but to be an Universal common either as a Genus or a Species by the same Rules of Logick must be under the same if not a much greater Necessity In the mean Time since this Man is so free of his Challenges let me beg the Favour of you if you can possibly do so much for me to send him my Glove as soon as you can and to let him know that if he will stand to this That this Proposition The Father is God is capable of a simple Conversion that is which is the necessary Consequence of it that the Term Father is adequately and convertibly predicated of God And if upon this he will stand to his Arms in the next Paragraph by which he thinks he hath given the Animadverter a most Fatal and Irrecoverable Overthrow viz. That whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the place of that Term if he will stand to this I Challenge him to avoid if he can by his own Rules of Logick these absurd and intolerably unchristian Consequences viz. That according to this Rule we may say that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one Father In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was the Father And which too will justifie the Patripassian Heresie without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness the Father was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit c. I Believe in one Lord Jesus Christ Father of Father very Father of very Father And if it follows from the Expression God the Father that God is the Father then it will follow from these Expressions God the Son and God the Holy Ghost that God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost and then too according to this Rule we may say that the Father is the Son and the Father is the Holy Ghost I should not dare Sir you may be sure to send such a bold Challenge to such a desperate Heroe who so easily routs the Animadverter baffles St. Augustin and except honest stout Petavius and the invincible Genebrard makes all the School-men and the Moderns too to shrink and fly before him in their dark and slippery way as if the Angel of the Lord drove them But never fear your Friend for this I am very sure in this I shall be too hard for him This to brave him once with his own Words Pref. p. 2. This will still stand unanswer'd and upon
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
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