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
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
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
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
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
Primitive Fathers which God knows they never wanted more had treated the Bishop of Sarum with more Regard to his great Character and had better consider'd that Michael the Arch-Angel when contending with the Devil he disputed about the Body of Moses durst not bring against him a railing Accusation but said The Lord rebuke thee †Jude 9. And more heartily do I wish with you That the unquestionably Ingenious and Learned Animadverter if he must be exercising his Satyr had kept it all for Oliver Cromwell all Regicides Rebels Fanaticks and the like Sinners upon whom he hath bestow'd it plentifully and perhaps plausibly enough and had treated the Reverend Dean more humanely and christianly with a more due Regard to his Former Meritorious Services for our Church and Religion and to that Character which he deservedly hath in the Church and I hope will have a greater And if the Animadverter had done so I am apt to think that his Arguments against the Dean had gone a great deal further and that therefore he may take his ill Language the better and thank him for 't But now as for this Mr. J. B. what must we say to use his own Words Book p. 133. when a Person shall set up for a Critick in the most mysterious Article of our Religion and himself understands not the First Elements of Divinity When such a Person shall undertake after an insolent Manner to Chastize the Animadverter and through his whole Preface and Book shall be perpetually insulting over and vilifying a Man for understanding nothing of Logick or Divinity who let him be what he will else hath been a long while celebrated for a zealous always stedfast Son of the Church of England and for a Man of great Parts and Learning which he I 'll engage never will When such a Person shall be so unsufferably conceited and vain as to think himself not only an Over-Match for the Animadverter but for St. Augustin the Master of the Sentences and all the School-men and Moderns who are their Followers Who after he hath singl'd out the Acute and Learned St. Augustin as he calls him p. 58. for a confuted baffled Man by him and exposed him and mock'd him as a bold ignorant shuffling Father and run down despis'd and ridicul'd the Subtilties of the Schools which 't is certain he hath not Brains to understand though others have shall expose and ridicule the Holy Scriptures themselves and ignorantly pervert them to Senses which 't is certain were never intended by them and shall undertake to publish such a Profession of his Faith as is utterly inconsistent with the Catholick and under a Pretence of defending the Trinity shall ignorantly or treacherously betray it and as St. Peter says shall privily bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought him 2 Pet. 2.1 What shall we say Shall such a Person be complemented Was soft Language ever created for such a Man Who then can deserve to be rebuk'd sharply Tit. 1.3 I do not I am sure I cannot expose and chastize him as he deserves or as the Reverend Dean did the Protestant Reconciler in his Excellent Vindication of the Rights of Ecclesiastical Authority and therefore I hope I shall not fall under your Displeasure for borrowing this Man's hard Words and applying them upon Occasion more suitably to himself and justly lashing him my Equal with his own Rod with which he so irreverently and unjustly presumes to correct in all Respects his Superiour in Vindication of the Rights of Heaven of the Holy and Eternal Jesus and the Ever-Blessed Spirit of God who with the Father according to the Catholick Faith are adequately and convertibly predicated of the One True God which he in Terminis blasphemously denies and impiously says that the Scriptures confute I am Sir most sincerely Your very Affectionate very Humble Servant T. H. A POSTSCRIPT to the READER I Had written a great Part of this Letter to my reverend Friend Mr. R.E. without any the least Thoughts God knows of making it publick But upon a Serious Post-Consideration that it may be a means which I am sure will be a good Piece of Service to our Church and Religion to divert Mr. J. B. from any further Prosecution of a Design which I think I have fully prov'd and satisfy'd you and I hope Mr. J. B. himself he is altogether unfit and unqualify'd for and to oblige him for Shame not to think of Publishing his Threaten'd Second Part of the Vnity of God or at least to be more cautious in it that the Church may not be scandaliz'd and pester'd with any more of his Hasty Births I Resolv'd to let it go abroad with This Protestation That I have no manner of Knowledge of this Mr. J.B. but by his Book That therefore what I have said of or against him is not out of any personal Pique Grudge or Ill-will I bear him but what I beg the candid Reader in his Christian Charity to me to believe purely out of an honest sincere Zeal for the Glory of the Holy and Eternal Trinity AS 't is reveal'd to us in the Holy Bible according to the constant Sense and Interpretation of the Holy Catholick Church from the Holy Apostles Days to our own And particularly of our Holy Mother the Church of England in the First Article of her Religion and in her incomparable Liturgy which I beseech God of his infinite Mercy to preserve intire to us from All clandestine Designs and Practices and All open Assaults and Violations of All fickle new-fangled Teachers and Reformers To which I am sure every true zealous stedfast Son of the Church of England will most heartily and devoutly say with me Amen Amen FINIS
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
deny that the Axiom holds here No Body but a Tritheist denies that God is one that the Divine Essence is one singular infinite undivided Essence and So no Body will deny that God is a Terminus Singularis But as this Tertium Singulare God to which the Father and the Son agree is Communicable or rather Common to Father and Son So no Body will deny but this J. B. that 't is a Terminus Communis And upon this very Ground it is that the School-men and Moderns are not so much concern'd as he like a very suspicious Friend to the Holy Trinity says they are to answer this Famous Objection against the Faith of the Trinity but they think it very easily and plainly answered Jam licet Essentia Divina sit Singularis quia tamen Communicabilis est Tribus Personis ideo NON MIRVM esse illas Personas non esse inter se idem etsi Essentia idem sint says Stahlius upon this very Axiom Tit. 18. Reg. 2. Nay I need send him no farther than to Heereboord upon Burgersdicius which I hope I may be allow'd to quote as well as he Dutrieu since I am sure I do it much more to the Purpose Institut Logic. lib. 2. c. 8. where upon this Rule he will find these Words Haec Regula vera est si illud Tertium Singulare fuerit Incommunicabile at si fuerit Communicabile fallit And then having propos'd this Famous Objection in a Syllogism against the Faith of the Trinity grounded upon this Rule he teacheth every little Freshman that they may not be so much concern'd about it as it seems the School men and the Moderns are thus readily and clearly to answer it In hoc Syllogismo vitium est quod Terminus Medius scilicet Essentia Divina sit quidem Tertium Singulare sed non Incommunicabile nam Communicatur aut potius COMMVNIS EST tribus Personis After this it can be no wonder which otherwise it justly might to see a Passage of Bellarmin produc'd by him in the Margin as expressly against him as he no doubt thinks 't is for him 'T is a peculiar way of thinking certainly that this Man hath got to think that to be for him which every Body else must needs see and think to be against him Bellarmin in Mr. J. B.'s Margin tells us that the Divine Essence though it be singular yet because it is truly in pluribus suppositis habet se per modum Termini Communis Now if Mr. J. B. doth not design by this to shew that none but such Blockheads as Bellarmin and the Animadverter will say that the Term God is a Terminus Communis then in this Case he takes Bellarmin to be his Friend and inferrs that because the Divine Essence habet se per modum Termini Communis therefore 't is not a Terminus Communis which is almost as bad as to inferr because the Divine Essence is a Terminus Communis therefore 't is not a Terminus Communis For allowing that per modum may sometimes signifie no more than a Similitude yet 't is certain here it signifies specificativè by what Bellarmin adds afterwards quare in Praedicationibus fungitur munere vocis Vniversalis which Office of an Universal Word it is impossible it can perform unless it be a Terminus Communis If Mr. J. B. should say that per modum here is taken per modum Similitudinis would it not be very ridiculous for any Man to inferr that therefore he says it is not a Similitude but only the Similitude of a Similitude I would desire Mr. J. B. to look into Scheibler's Metaphysicks lib. 1. c. 7. Tit. 6. Art 2. a very useful place for him upon other Accounts where he will find this Phrase used three times within a little Space one of another Animal says he per modum Vniversalis Communicat se Homini Will Mr. J. B. or any Man inferr from hence that therefore Animal is not an Universal And within Four Lines after he says That an Universal is predicated of many Species per modum Generis And of many Individuals per modum Speciei And can any thing but prodigious Ignorance or Perverseness conclude from hence that Scheibler asserts that an Universal which is predicated of many Species is not a Genus and that an Universal which is predicated of many Individuals is not a Species because he says one habet se per modum Generis and the other per modum Speciei This indeed says Mr. J. B. the School-men and Moderns which by what I have said you may be sure he is intimately well acquainted with do hold that this Term Deus is a Terminus Singularis Communicabilis Communicable by Predication as a Terminus Communis but in it self a Terminus Singularis Be it so This is enough to vindicate the Animadverter's Skill in Logick and to evince that he may be allow'd to understand Logick and to upbraid justly Mr. J. B. with the want of it though he doth not understand that if this Proposition be true The Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of a Conversion by which he means as he afterwards explains himself a simple Conversion For if there be no more in it than this which he allows That the Term God in the Proposition is Communicable by Predication as a Terminus Communis this is enough to make the Proposition Incapable by the Rules of Logick of a simple Conversion this is enough to evince that such a Conversion is directly contrary to the Rules of Logick For 't is an allow'd Rule in Logick That Simplex Conversio non habet Locum in Propositionibus Singularibus quatenus Praedicatam est Terminus Communis Well but says Mr. J. B. * Pref. p. 11. 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 upon this up he gets upon the poor undone Animadverter and mauls him most wofully with a cruel unavoidable Dilemma under which he hath him so fast that now there 's no wagging no Help for him but either speak he must with the Scriptures the Catholick Church the Schools and Mr. J. B. in saying That God is the Father or condemn he must All These for absurd and illogical Dunces not only the Schools and Mr. J.B. but the Catholick Church and the Scriptures must be condemn'd for absurd and illogical Dunces A thing certainly never heard of before And declare too he must that we ought to say that some particular God is the Father as some particular Man is Peter What shall this miserably hamper'd Animadverter do Will he deny the Divinity of the Father I hope not If not all the Power of Logick cannot relieve him I Mr. J. B. Challenge Him to avoid one of these Phrases if he can by the Rules of Logick unless he denies the Divinity of
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
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
As for our Blessed Saviour he faith indeed St. John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee the only True God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But doth it follow from hence that our Saviour appropriates this Title of only True God to the Person of the Father Never any Body that I can find made such an Inference but the worst of Hereticks and with them indeed nothing is more frequent He cannot I dare say name me one Heretick Author who denies the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity but what urges these Words of our Saviour to prove the very thing he contends for Parologismus Secundus isque Frequentissimus says Zanchy de Tribus Elohim par 2. c. 2. p. 382 383. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quum scilicet argumentantur ex Scripturarum locis qui multiplicem possunt habere sensum Ipsi vero Haeretici illum arripiunt qui neque cum aliis Scripturis neque cum analogia Fidei est consentaneus Vt verbi gratiâ quum probant Solum Patrem ideo esse Illum Unum Deum c. quia dixit Christus haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum Jo. 17.3 Now that what the Hereticks and Mr. J. B. contend for doth not follow from hence he thus goes on clearly to evince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est in his verbis Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I shall translate his following Words exactly into English * Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referri ad Subjectum id est ad l'atrem ut sit sensus solum Patrem esse verum Deum vel ad Praedicatum ut sit sensus Patrem esse illum Deum verum qui iolus unus est Hic alter sensus meliùs convenit cum structura verborum consentancus est cum aliis Sacris Literis Neque enim propterea negatur Filius esse verus ille Deus qui solus unus est quia hoc ibi affirmatur de Patre Id quod etiam Thomas Aquinas observavit contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Deinde etiamsi admittatur Prima Lectio potest tamen bifarià m intelligi nempe aut Solum Patrem ita esse verum Deum ut excludatur Filius Spiritus sanctus Sed hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis non congruit Aut ut alia tantum omnia quae non sunt ejusdem cum Patre essentiae negentur esse Deus Atque hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis pulchrè convenit That Word only may be referred to the Subject that is to the Father so as that the Sense may be the Father only is the True God Or to the Predicate so as that the Sense may be the Father is that True God who is Alone and One. This latter Sense doth both better agree with the Contexture of the Words and is more agreeable with other places of Scripture And therefore it is not here denied that the Son is that True God who is alone and One because this is affirm'd here of the Father The very same hath Thomas Aquinas observ'd contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Again admitting the first Reading of the Words and then the meaning must be That the Father only is the True God either so as to exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost which is a Sense inconsistent with other places of Scripture or so as to deny all other things to be God which are not of the same Essence with the Father And this Sense doth exactly well agree with the other parts of Scripture Thus Zanchy loc supr Citat In this last Sense of Zanchy doth Vrsin determine That these Words of our Saviour are to be taken Amongst the various Sophisms which are brought by Hereticks against the True Divinity of the Son of God this he reckons for one of the chiefest And amongst the general Rules which he gives for answering Hereticks he gives us One particularly for the easie answering their Argument from those Words of our Saviour to prove that he is not the only True God which he says his Father is vid. Explicat Catechet par 2. sub Quaest 33. By his calling the Father the only True God non excluditur à vera Deitate Filius c. The Son is not excluded from being the True God but Idols and False Deities to which the Father the True God is oppos'd And a little after under the same Question having put the Heretical Objection from those Words of our Saviour for appropriating the Title of the Only True God to the Father which is the profess'd great Article of Mr. J. B's Creed he thus answers 1st 1. Ibi fit oppositio non Patris Filii Spiritus sancti fed Dei Idolorum atque Creaturarum Particula igitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solum non excludit à Deitate Filium Spiritum sanctum Sed tantum ea quibus Pater verus Deus opponitur 2. Est fallacia Divisionis Sequitur enim quem misisti Jesum Christum Ergo in hoc etiam consistit vita aeterna ut Jesus Christus à Patre missus similiter cognoscatur esse verus Deus sicut dicitur 1 Joh. 5.20 Hic est verus Deus vita aeterna 3. Est criam fallacia Compositionis Nam Exclusiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non pertinet ad Subjectum Te fed ad Praedicatum verum Deum quod Articulus ostendit in Graeco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensus enim est ut cognoscant Te Patrem esse Deum illum qui solus est verus Deus Vrsm Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Q. 33. p. 2â—0 There is no Opposition of Father Son and Holy Ghost as if the Father were the only True God and not the Son and the Holy Ghost but the Opposition is of the only True God to False Gods And therefore the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost but only those things to which the Father the True God is oppos'd 2dly It is Fallacia Divisionis For it follows and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Therefore in this also consists Life Eternal That Jesus Christ sent by the Father may in like manner also with the Father be acknowledg'd The only True God as St. John says 1 Ep. 5.20 speaking of Christ This is the True God and Eternal Life 3dly It is a Fallacy of Composition For the exclusive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not belong to the Subject Thee the Father but to the Predicate True God And this the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews That they might know Thee the only True God For the Sense is That they might know Thee the Father to be that God who alone is the True God Thus Vrsin thus the most Learned Dr. Hammond who perhaps was as Knowing and as Orthodox a Man as himself will tell him in Paraph. in Loc. That
the Mystery of Iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vehement the subtle the underhand working of the Mystery of Iniquity After a long but blessed be God hitherto vain and fruitless Attack upon our Out-works and incomparable Liturgy we find at last Men at work to Sap the very Foundation of our Church to undermine and subvert the Fundamental Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence and so to pull down not only the Church of England but the Holy Catholick Church all at once It must be dangerous to charge my good Lord Bishop of Sarum with having any Hand in this because he is a Peer of the Realm and therefore I here Declare I do not But I hope I may be permitted to ask a civil Question or Two without Offence though some may think I look asquint upon my Lord. What can any Man mean in a State of this Controversy to call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons as the Opinion of a Third Party of Men but when he comes to speak of them himself to call 'em the Blessed Three and to assign 'em only such a general Distinction as for what I know will agree to the Hypothesis of any Heretick whatsoever that ever yet appear'd against a Trinity of Divine Persons as believ'd by the Holy Catholick Church What Sabellian Arian Macedonian Socinian Anti-Trinitarian of any Sort will stick to call the Father Son and Holy Ghost the Blessed Three Some will have them to be the Blessed Three but not Three distinct Persons but only Three Names for One and the same God Some will have 'em to be the Blessed Three but not One and the same God And others will have 'em to be Three distinct Gods However such Men as these tell us what they mean and what they would have But what can that Man mean who though he may now and then for Fashion's Sake that is for the Sake of Trimming call 'em Three Persons yet in a Catechetical Decisive Discourse to the Clergy shall plainly affect to call 'em the Blessed Three Why not the Three Blessed Persons according to the constant Language and Faith of the Church * The Reason which the Animadverter on Mr. Hill 's Book gives why the Bishop of Sarum in a late Discourse of his doth not every where make use of the Word Person which is consecrated by so long a Custom in the Church and why he does more frequently say the Blessed Three is because they are not call'd Persons in Scripture and the Arians and Socinians look upon it as Foreign and which the Foreign Doctor himself says needs to be softned to give it a Sense free from Absurdity in the Matter of the Trinity and that it serves only to render the Dispute intricate Vid. Animadversions on Mr. Hill 's Book p. 4 5. Why That my Reverend Brethren may such a Man say is a doubtful disputed Case Call 'em only the Blessed Three and then you are sure then you speak the true Latitudinarian Language then you are sure that is to be on the sunny Side of the Hedge then you are sure to offend none of the Three Parties But that say I is a Mistake my Reverend Brethren For though it may be no Offence to the Jews nor to the Gentiles 1 Cor 10.32 c. Yet a very grievous Offence I am very sure it is to the Church of God to allow Men a Liberty as the Case of the Church now stands to express their Faith in the Trinity at this loose Rate to style the Father Son and Holy Ghost the Blessed Three For that may signifie Three mere Modes or Three Names only Three Somewhats e'en what Men please the Ancient Fathers indeed were pleased universally to call 'em the Three Blessed Persons or something equivalent to the calling them Three Persons which inferr'd a Real Personal Distinction But they too many of them and the Moderns too in their Defence of the Holy Catholick Faith against those they call'd Hereticks have perhaps gone beyond due Bounds nay it may be justly questioned whether by what they have deliver'd down to us concerning this Mystery they have made it better to be understood or more firmly believ'd or whether others have not taken Advantage to represent these Subtilties as Dregs either of Aeones of the Valentinians or of the Platonick Notions And it being long before these Theories were well stated and settled it is no Wonder if many of the Fathers have not only differ'd from One another but even from themselves in speaking upon this Argument When Men go about to explain a thing of which they can have no distinct Idea it is very natural for them to run out into vaust Multiplicity of Words into great Length and much Darkness and Confusion Many impertinent Similes will be urg'd and often impertinent Reasonings will be made use of all which are the unavoidable Consequences of a Man's going about to explain to others what he does not distinctly understand himself And so the Fathers are to be cashier'd not to be regarded in this Matter What Matter is it what a parcel of old doating Doctors say who have gone beyond due Bounds contradicted each other and themselves who use many impertinent Similes run out into a vaust Length and Confusion while they talk of things to others which they understand not themselves Besides too these Fathers were no Latitudinarians They were a Sort of strait-lac'd stiff old Gentlemen who hated what we call Trimming mortally and could never be perswaded for the Sake of Comprehension to sacrifice any part of the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church to the Caprice of Sabellians or Arians Novatians or Donatists or any Hereticks or Schismaticks whatsoever Very agreeably to this out came Animadversions on Mr. Hill's Book Intituled A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. In a Letter to a Person of Quality Which Person of Quality as a French Divine in our Neighbourhood reports is my Lord Bishop of Sarum who order'd it to be Translated out of its Original French into English and to be Printed In which Letter these Ignorant Impertinent Self-Contradicting Old Fathers without any Reverence or Regard to their Venerable Grey Hairs are run down and troden under Foot most wofully And the Author of it like a good humble fawning Creature very devoutly Sacrifices the Primitive Fathers to his Maker the Bishop and very impiously gives them up to the Hereticks Dr. Bull he says Animadvers p. 32. and some Learned Men indeed have endeavour'd to give a good Sense to their Expressions and by a long Compass of Consequences to reduce them to the Ordinary Notions But it will not do Notwithstanding all Dr. Bull 's Endeavours to reduce what the Fathers say concerning the Trinity to an Orthodox Sense p. 52. They were certainly Hereticks as bad Hereticks as those they oppos'd for all that For says this prophane Patrum-Mastix p. 51. Most of the Fathers from the middle