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
IMPAR CONATUI OR Mr. J.B. the Author of an ANSWER TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the TRINITY Rebuk'd and Prov'd TO BE WHOLLY Vnfit for the Great Work he hath Undertaken WITH Some Account of the Late Scandalous Animadversions on Mr. Hill's BOOK Intituled A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum c. In a Letter to the Reverend Mr. R. E. By THOMAS HOLDSWORTH M.A. Rector of North-Stoneham near Southampton Quare desine jam tibi videri Quod soli tibi Caecili videris Qui Galbam salibus tuis ipsum Possis vincere Sestium Caballum M. Val. Mart. Epig. Lib. 1. Ep. 36. LONDON Printed for William Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCV TO THE READER UPon the Perusal of the following Papers sent to me into the Country to note the Errata of the Press which are many and bad I found one or two of my own The first is in the last Line but two of p. 5. where I speak of an Enthymen as a Syllogism with two Terms and no more Which Mistake I was unwarily betray'd into by considering too slightly and inferring too rashly that because an Enthymem is always under the Defect of a Major or a Minor Proposition therefore it wanted a Major or a Minor Term and consequently had but two Terms But this the Reader if he please to be so candid to me may impute to that Inadvertency and want of critical Care which is usual enough in a private Letter to a Friend as this was only design'd when this Mistake escap'd me or he may pardon it to a Country Retirement from the Vniversity and to a Desuetude of the syllogizing Practice for more than twenty Years The second or rather what may seem to be so without a Caution is in p. 27. at the Bottom of which I say that Mr. J. B. will not find so much as one honest Man that will tell him that the Father here viz. 1 Cor. 8.6 is taken as he takes the Word before hypostatically for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ In which Words I am sensible I express my self somewhat too generally and loosely And therefore I think fit to declare here to prevent Cavil if I can that I know well that many honest Learned Men do take the Word Father here hypostatically as 't is oppos'd to and distinguish'd from the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity the one Lord Jesus Christ in the End of the Verse But as Mr. J.B. urges it Pref. p. 10. as the Word Father relates to the Words immediately precedent to us and to the Words immediately subsequent of whom are All things in this Sense it is as the Word Father in the Text stands thus related that I desire what I say in p. 27. may be understood And in this Sense I thought it to be plain and certain that it is to be taken essentially But if not this I am very sure of that Mr. J. B.'s Argument which I there undertake is never a whit the better for 't Many other Mistakes I am not secure but the Learned and Judicious Reader or Mr. J. B. may find me guilty of Of none I hope that are dangerous or scandalous or in the least prejudicial to the Holy Catholick Faith or to my Holy Mother the Church of England But whatever they may be I resolve by the Grace of God as soon as ever I shall be convinced of them to make what Amends and Satisfaction I can by owning my Offence either by Silence or by a publick Retractation as the Nature of it shall require And I hope Mr. J. B. if he cannot fairly answer and clear himself from what I have objected against him instead of ingaging himself any further in this sublime Controversy for the Management of which I think I have prov'd him to be what God knows I think my self to be Very Vnfit will be so ingenuous and have such a tender Regard for the Honour of our Holy Church and Religion if he be really for it as to do so too ERRATA THE Reader is desired to take Notice of and correct the following Errata some of which quite alter the Sense and some disturb it Page 5 line 18 for Rarety r. Rarity and l. 29 read thus Syllogismus Truncatus Triangulum Truncatum I c. p. 9 l. 21 22. r. J. B. p. 10 l. 3 f. pert r. great and l. 24 f. in r. is p. 13 l. 22 f. other r. their p. 19 l. 25 f. qui r. quae p. 21 l. 11 f. Admirable r. Adorable p. 22 l. 20 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25 l. 26 dele is before to p. 28 l. 16 f. vice r. voce p. 29 l. 26 after Adversary add doth not p. 31 l. 16 r. of a. p. 33 l. 16 f. 't is r. is and l. 22 f. on r. in p. 40 l. 14 f. illo r. ille p. 44 l. 15 r. Solecism p. 49 l. 14 dele or before that p. 52 l. 18 r. tells us and l. 28 r. Father's being p. 60 l. 5 f. quam r. quum p. 72 l. 27 r. a vast Several Mispointings there are which are left to the Judgment of the Reader SIR I Intended you these Papers according to my Promise much sooner But besides the Indisposition I was under to write last Week brought upon me I fear by our willful Journying almost all Night from a good House and the best Company the Answer of Mr. J. B. A. M. to the Animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity is to me such a woful Example of Hasty Births that you will pardon me I hope if the Fear of Abortion of such a dangerous scandalous Miscarriage as Mr. J B's whole Book is hath made me go a Fortnight beyond my Reckoning Mr. J. B. begins His Preface to the Reader with a very true and congruous Observation That Hasty Births commonly are imperfect And never I think was it more truly and fully Exemplify'd than by His own Deform'd Creature this His Embryo of a Book And whether He be in earnest or no when He says That He hath reason to fear the Imperfections of it I nothing doubt but Time and the Animadverter if He doth not think so Sorry an Author too much beneath Him Scilicet à magnis ad T E descendere Tauris will quickly make it appear That He hath much more Reason for such a Fear than He is aware of As a Prelibation of what I dare promise you 'll have a full Draught hereafter I shall as I promised you Examine this Doughty Champion's Preface not the former Part of it in which He flourishes with an Account of the rare Exploits and mighty Atchievements of His Book for that will belong to the Examiner of His Book but the latter Part of it in which as Joab did Amasa * 2 Sam. 20. 〈◊〉 10. He takes the Animadverter
a Rod for his own Breech which I have made bold to lash him with before and expose him to the Pity of his Friends the just Censure of every judicious Reader and the just Scorn and Contempt of his Learned Adversary How he will avoid the grievous Difficulties he brings himself under by this Rule let him look to 't But that according to this Rule we may say as he inferrs from what the Animadverter tells us That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only Begotten Son that our Saviour is the Son of Three intelligent Persons Blessed be Three intelligent Persons even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This is such a gross wretched Blunder that as he truly says not considering at all what he says there needs no Words to expose or confute these Expositions No certainly There needs none for any Body but himself And is it not great Pity Sir and a Scandal to our Universities and Church that there should be such an A. M. and Presbyter of the Church of England as J. B. who wants to be told That Three Divine Persons are not One Divine Person and that One Divine Person is not the Three Divine Persons That the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the Person of the Father and that the Person of the Father is not the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost What a strange Stupor is this that this Man labours under And yet must needs be writing of Books and Books of the Blessed Trinity too Is it possible for any Man to be so blind so very hebetious as not to see plainly that the Term God of which the Animadverter says the Term Three intelligent Persons is adequately and convertibly predicated is not taken personally for God the Father It is impossible it should be so taken unless we can suppose that the Animadverter's Assertion is That the Three intelligent Persons are adequately and convertibly predicated of God the Father the First Person of the Blessed Trinity If not if the Term God be not taken by the Animadverter personally for God the Father but Essentially for God as Common to Father Son and Holy Ghost as most evidently it is then allowing this Rule that whatever is adequately and convertibly predicated of any Term may in all Propositions be put in the Place of that Term how could any thing but the most stupid Ignorance inferr from hence that according to this Rule we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. when nothing can be more manifest that Three intelligent Persons are not here in any of the Instances he gives put in the place of that Term God as 't is taken by the Animadverter Essentially and Indefinitely as the Term God that is is common to all the Three Divine Persons and is truly predicated of them simul sumptis But they are put by him in the place of the Term God in a Sence in which it is most certain the Animadverter doth not mean it that is as God is taken definitely and personally for God the Father For God who sent his Son gave his Son and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not God I hope as the Term signifies the whole Trinity all the Three Divine Persons but as it signifies personally the First Person of the Blessed Trinity God the Father distinct from God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And therefore it is most manifest That it can no more follow according to this Rule from what the Animadverter tells us that we may say That Three intelligent Persons sent his Son c. than it can follow that because Father Son and Holy Ghost are God therefore they are God the Father The oftner I read these Words as he expresses himself against the Animadverter Book p. 153. and nothing can be more proper and suitable than to rebuke him with his own uncircumcis'd Lips the more I admire at the presumptuous Confidence of him that wrote them I am sure no Man can give a more convincing Argument of his utter unacquaintance with the Principles of all Philosophy and Divinity This indeed is a Demonstration to me That this Mr. J.B. either wants common Sense or common Honesty or that he is utterly ignorant of the well-known Homonymy of the Term God that in its proper Acceptation it is sometimes taken absolutely indefinitely or as some express it simply and as the School men generally express it essentially In this Sense it is taken for the Divine Essence which is Father Son and Holy Ghost or as Zanchius expresses it De tribus Elohim Par. 1. Lib. 6. cap. 1. p. 259. Pro toto ut it a loquar Deo proque Divina Essentia seu pro Deitate quae nihil est aliud quam Deus ipse totus Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus And in this Sense it is manifest the Animadverter takes the Term God in what he tells us Sometimes again the Term God is taken definitely distinctly or as some express it Secundum Quid or as the School-men generally speak personally In which Sense it is taken when it is predicated only of some certain Person of the Trinity sometimes of the Person of the Father only sometimes of the Son only and sometimes of the Holy Ghost only in which distinct personal Sense it is manifest that God is to be taken in the Expressions of Scripture which he here alledges when it is said God sent his Son gave his only begotten Son c. that is God the Father as he himself before determines And in this Sense it is as manifest that the Animadverter doth not take it in what he here tells us So that this Man must say either that he well knew in his Conscience that this which he urges here against the Animadverter is a Non sequitur a mere Sophismo Homenymiae and that he intended only in Imitation of his Father Petau * Book p. 108. to sham his Reader to put a pitiful little Trick upon him which is not well consistent with common Honesty or else I must say that he is scandalously ignorant And so like those conceited Gnosticks St. Paul speaks of who prided themselves in their great Knowledge above that of other Men and suppos'd all other ignorant but themselves If this Man vainly thinketh he knoweth any thing I have too much reason to tell him he knoweth nothing yet as he aught to know Vid. Dr. Hammond's Paraph. in Loc. 1 Cor. 8.2 And yet the Homony my of the Term God which there is hardly I think any little Novice in Divinity that is not less than himself but knows is to use his own Words Pref. p. 3. a very necessary Matter to be known by all who pretend to give us an Hypothesis to solve the sacred Mystery of the Trinity to do otherwise is if any thing be to make a Key for a Lock by the Key-hole only Such a Key is a mere Shew 't
80.12 13. And I am clearly instead of trusting them and letting them in by any false treacherous Comprehension for taking the Foxes the little Foxes that spoil the Vines * Cant. 2.15 And I heartily thank God for 't there is yet a great Body of honest learned good Men who value the Honour and Good of the Church of England above all politick worldly Considerations whatsoever of my Opinion But to return to this Comprehension-Man's Comprehensive Creed which will give as great a Liberty of Conscience if not a greater as ever the late King James aim'd at in his Declaration whereby to do HIS Business in one Sense and OVRS in another and will comprehend as many as the licentious Author of a late Letter for Toleration can possibly desire though he doth Believe that the God whom the Heathen Philosophers by the Light of Nature worshipped was One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that the same One Divine Person spake of himself that is I suppose you will allow me he means of himself as One Divine Person And though he doth Believe that this One Divine Person was the Father c. yet he tells you there he doth most firmly believe that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God As it was Believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who Believ'd God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent Nor does this contradict that common Article of the Christian Faith viz. That God is Three Persons as the Socinians vainly pretend and some others unwarily grant them Good God! What strange Delusions are some Men given over unto 2 Thes 2.11 that they should believe a Lye 'T is very true what Mr. J. B. says Book p. 158. That some Persons take a Privilege to speak and write what they please And certainly never any Man made more Use of this Privilege than himself Do the Socinians vainly pretend that it is a Contradiction for One and the same God to be but One Person and yet to be Three Persons If it be not a Contradiction I do averr that nothing can be so Some he says do unwarily grant the Socinian that it is a Contradiction as if some others or rather the most do not What a vile Reflection is this upon the Orthodox nay upon Mankind Let him name me a Christian or a Man besides himself that will say that One Person is Three Persons is no Contradiction We have been ever able and ever shall to defend the Catholick Faith That One and the same God is Three Persons from being a Contradiction and therefore though it be a great and incomprehensible Mystery yet we most firmly believe it as clearly revealed to us in Scripture according to the constant Interpretation given of it by the Holy Catholick Church down to these Days But to say that One and the same Person is Three Persons is to say that One and the same is not One and the same and that Three Persons are not Three Persons but One Person and is therefore such a Contradiction as is impossible to be reveal'd by God that cannot lye and impossible to be defended Let Mr. J. B. if he pleases try what he can do Now if One and the same God who was and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the same One God whom the Heathen Philosophers and the Jews worshipped as no doubt he is and if this One God was One Divine Person which no doubt he was not though believed and worshipped by them but as One Person and that without Heresie God having not made so full a Revelation of himself under that Oeconomy as under the Christian and if Mr. J. B. doth most firmly believe as he saith he doth that the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Unity of God AS it was believ'd by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church who believ'd the One God to be but One Divine Person are by no means inconsistent then either he must say that the same God who was but One Divine Person is now since Christianity become Three Divine Persons which is utterly inconsistent with his immutable Nature or that the same One Divine Person was and is Three Divine Persons which is a Contradiction or lastly that that one Divine Person whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped was and is the One only true God And as for the other Two Divine Persons the Son and the Holy Ghost which with that One Divine Person which the Heathens and Jews worshipped and who is the One only true God make up a Trinity of Divine Persons the Term God may indeed be predicated of them but not strictly properly and truly as it is of God the Father For though there be a Trinity of Persons call'd Divine yet 't is God the Father whom the Heathens and Jews worshipped is the One only True God and SO the Faith of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Article of the Vnity of God as it was believed by the wisest of the Heathens and the Jewish Church are by no means inconsistent And so perhaps honest Genebrard's Three Gods and the Quasi-Specifical Unity is made out in to the Bargain For tho' as Mr. J. B. saith ch 4. n. 19. p. 85. The Reverend Dean never asserted that the Son or Holy Ghost could not be properly call'd the One God or only True God yet he his noble Defender dares to do what the Dean durst not he can and will assert it I saith he p. 86. do assure him the Animadverter that I am neither afraid of him nor the Socinians I crave no Favour at either of their Hands for This Profession of my Faith that the Title of One God only True God is a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone Now 't is out Now you see clearly why he will have the Term God in the Preface to be adequately and convertibly predicated of the Father and will not allow it the Scriptures he saith confute it to be adequately and convertibly predicated of Father Son and Holy Ghost Certainly whatever Occasion this Man may have to be Afraid of the Animadverter he can have none at all to be Afraid of the Socinians unless it be as the Psalmist says That they should laugh him to Scorn * Psalm 80.6 for pretending to be their Adversary For such a Trinity as this is it is certain the Socinians who are the Followers of Bidle do believe and contend for If the Title of One God only True God be appropriated and peculiar only to the Person of the Father a proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone then let any Man prove if he can That the Son or the Holy Ghost is properly God unless he can prove that there be more Gods than one Let Mr. J.B. with all his Logicks and vast Stock of Reason prove if he can That this Profession of his
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
instead of arguing with the Animadverter from Scripture and how like an unlearned Divine and unstable Christian he wrests St. Paul's Words where they are not hard to be understood by every little Novice in Divinity Let us next consider what Reason he hath to swagger and triumph at the rate he doth with his Logicks as he calls it very often in his Book and so 't is more than probable the Critick writ it in his Copy sent to the Press For we may not well suppose that it should be so very often Printed Logicks if he had not very often writ it so in his Copy and therefore I little doubt but that it was at last put amongst the Errata and alter'd in his Preface by the Advice of some wiser Friend Secondly This terrible Man of Logicks then goes on and tells us That had the Animadverter that Skill in Logick he so often upbraids others with the want of he would have understood that if this Proposition be true The Father is God it is by the Rules of Logick capable of a Conversion of putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject and the Subject in the place of the Predicate without any Alteration of the Signa Logica omnis nullus aliquis c. where the Subject and the Predicate are both singular as says he I believe them in this Proposition the Father is God and I have the Consent of the Schools on my Side That is If the Animadverter had understood Logick he would have understood by the Rules of Logick what by the Rules of Logick he cannot and should not understand and what is directly contrary to the Rules of Logick Had this Logical Braggadochio but a little common Sense as well as so much Logicks he would have understood that in this very place Tritheism p. 230 where he says the Animadverter is guilty of downright Blasphemy in noting this for an absurd and illogical Proposition to say that God is the Father the Animadverter immediately subjoins his Reason why according to the Rules of Logick it must be so because says he The Predicate in this Proposition viz. God is the Father is of less Compass than the Subject which where it is not larger ought to be commensurate to it at least Had Mr. J. B. I say but common Sense or had he not scandalously wanted that Skill in Logick which 'tis generally believ'd the Animadverter hath and which I doubt not Mr. J. B. in a short time will feel that he hath he could not but have seen this to be the Animadverter's Reason why he could not understand that this Proposition the Father is God is by the Rules of Logick convertible by a simple Conversion For the Learned Animadverter understands well if Mr. J. B. does not that a good and true Conversion must contain a good Consequence of the Proposition converting to the Proposition converted And that it may do so as the Conimbricenses have stated it according to the Sence of all Logicians it is necessary as they express it Vt Termini non sumantur in unâ latiùs angustiùsve quam in alterâ Logicians are universally agreed that the Subject of a Proposition is always without any Exception that I know of a narrower Compass than the Predicate or at least of an equal but never of a larger And is not the Predicate in this Proposition God is the Father of less Compass than the Subject God is unquestionably predicated of Father Son and Holy Ghost but not so the Father Father Son and Holy Ghost are God is indisputably a true Catholick Proposition but I hope Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Father is not so 'T is the Catholick Faith that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and each Proposition is infallibly Logical and true But the Father is not predicated of the Father but identically and to predicate him of the Son and of the Holy Ghost as unquestionably we may God that is to say the Son is the Father as we may say the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is the Father as we may say the Holy Ghost is God is horridly false and damnably Heretical And can any thing then be plainer than that the Term God is of a larger Compass than the Term the Father And if so nothing can be plainer than that this Proposition the Father is God cannot by the Rules of Logick be capable of a simple Conversion of the Transposition of the Predicate into the place of the Subject Salvâ veritate Well but doth the Animadverter understand what Mr. J. B. believes That in this Proposition the Father is God the Subject and Predicate are both singular and that he hath the Consent of the Schools on his Side Yes yes The Animadverter no doubt understands it very well He understands that God is one or singular as well as that the Father is one or singular And therefore he cannot understand three distinct infinite Minds or the Orthodoxy of the admirable Genebrard's Three Gods no more than he can understand that there are three distinct Fathers And the Animadverter understands too That as Mr. J. B. hath the Consent of the Schools on his Side that the Father and God are both singular so the Animadverter hath the same Consent of the Schools on his Side that as the Father is singular Incommunicably so God is singular Communicably The Father is so Singular as to be Incommunicable to the Son and the Holy Ghost and can therefore be predicated of neither God is so Singular as to be Communicable notwithstanding to Father Son and Holy Ghost and can therefore be predicated of all Three Conjunctly and of each of the Three Distinctly Indeed this is a Communication of one singular undivided Essence to Three distinct Persons which is most mysterious peculiar only to the incomprehensible God cannot be adequately exemplify'd in any thing else and can never be fully comprehended But yet so by divine Revelation infallibly it is And if God be not a Terminus Communis to the Three Divine Persons I would fain know how the Term God can be predicated of the Son and the Holy Ghost as well as of the Father I would fain know how this Man denying it can reconcile his Faith with the Athanasian Creed the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God Whether by it he doth not bring himself under a more unavoidable Dilemma of denying the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God than the Animadverter doth by denying that God is the Father of denying the Divinity of the Father that the Father is God And whether lastly it be not an Argument of a very Peculiar Forehead or of some very great Defect within it for a Man to deny as this Man does what is so very plain and obvious that every Body of common Sense who believes the Trinity must needs