THE great Satisfaction I had in reading the Lord Bishop of Sarum's Four Discourses to his Clergy, and that especially, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, (wherein I met with such excellent Arguments, as I had not found in other Authors, for the Confirmation of that great Ar­ticle of our Faith,) oblig'd me to think that they could not but be receiv'd with as general an Esteem and Ap­probation, as, in my Judgment, they deserv'd. And as I was persuaded they would be extreamly useful, so I could not but imagine they would remain unexcepted against, by the most Malicious and Ill-natured, unless they were such as denied the very Divinity of our Saviour. All which, I was the more fully convinc'd of, and believ'd I might relie upon them, as agreeable to the true and or­thodox Doctrine of the Church, since they appeared in Publick with the Approbation and Licence of the never enough to be admired Late Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Sincerity, Clearness, and Strength of Judgment, I was well assured, would approve of nothing as the Doctrine of the Church, and fit to believed by its Cler­gy, which deserv'd the Censure of a Convocation. And though there came out some Exceptions against the Se­cond Discourse, which relates to the Divinity and Death [Page 2] of Christ, as well as against the Archbishop's Sermons, and one of the Bishop of Worcester's, by the Socinian Party; yet they appear'd so trifling, (especially since they have been answered by the Bishop of Sarum's Letter to Dr. Wil­liams, which is annex'd to his Learned Vindication of the other Two) that they rather confirm'd than lessen'd my Opinion of it. But I must confess, I was something sur­pris'd, and began to distrust my Judgment, when I saw Mr. Hill's Book come forth with such a Title, as I thought was almost enough, had there▪ been nothing more in it, to have made the Bishop's Second▪ Discourse, which is the only one aim'd at, be censur'd as Heretical; and, had it been made good, must have thought it my Duty also, as being a Member of one of those Bodies, to whose Judgment the Book is referred, as well as to the Church Ʋniversal, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, and the next Session of Convocation, to assist at the Solemnity of condemning the Bishop himself for an Heretick. But when I considered that it was grown to too general a Custom, for Authors to make large and specious Titles, to make amends for the emptiness of the Book; and that they oftner give a Specimen of their own ill Nature, than of any real Er­rors they discover; I began to be no more concern'd at the Title, than I was at the mighty Quotations which this Author makes use of; when I considered, that by turning to the Indexes of the Paris Editions of the Fathers in our Publick Library, I could quote as much, and as lit­tle to the Purpose as our Author has done.

I am almost apt to think, it would be labour lost to run through his whole Book, to detect every Absurdity in it; since I believe those who have read the Preface to it, were so sufficiently convinc'd of the weakness of the Author, that they could not think it worth their while to make any farther search into it. 'Tis a great deal of Pity that the Letter, which he mentions to have sent to his Lordship, did not appear with the Pre­face; for certainly it must have prov'd as great a Satire upon himself, as the Preface appears to be. But I am [Page 3] too forward in my Censure; for, if you will believe him, the Bishop is mightily beholding to him for his gentle usage of him, and for not divulging some Private Practice; which upon fitting terms he is contented to hush up at present. And therefore his Lordship had not best provoke him, and think of returning an Answer; for if he doth, he shall then be set free from all Obligations to Secrecy and good Manners; and then Wo betide him. This I take to be the Sense of what follows, viz. But for the Private Practice objected to him, I will at pre­sent spare him; and if his Lordship will be so kind to him­self, as [...], the Matter shall be hushed up. A trifling and Childish Insinuation: For had the Bishop been really guilty of any such Private Practice, as would have been a dishonourable Reflection upon him. I question not, but we should have heard more of it; since so much Malice could never have let slip so fair an Occasion, without making the best Improvements of it, had there been any thing more, that could have advanc'd the Credit of the other Aspersions, or have been any sup­port to the weakness of the Cause. The rest of the Preface is of the same Piece; and thus he concludes it; But as to his Doctrine, it is gone abroad, and cannot return; and if it be of evil Influence on young Students, or Men prepar'd to Irreligion, or of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign, or State of Religion; every Man has a just right, fairly and bravely to oppose it, without fear of Men, or respect of Persons: And if it be not so, I promise his Lordship the most publick Recantation and Penance. And, supposing he should be oblig'd to undergo it, with the ut­most severity the Law could inflict, he may remain a lasting and sad Example, of the Punishment due to all Libellers, and to all malicious Forgers of Falsehood. For though I have made a very diligent search into the Bishop's Discourse, and into the Objecti­ons this Author has made against it; yet I do solemnly protest, that I do not find any one of those Charges made good against it. What he means by these Words of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign, I can't [Page 4] guess; I believe they are not only very rude, but such a malicious Insinuation, as if it can be understood, de­serves a more severe Answer, and of a different Nature, than I am able to give him. How fairly and bravely he has opposed any thing that the Bishop has said, or rather, how fairly and openly he has rendred himself con­temptible, is now high time to consider.

He begins his Book with a great deal of Confidence, and supercilious Contempt; That he has Two things to urge against the Lord Bishop of Sarum, in his Discourse on the Divinity and Death of Christ. 1. That the Bishop ve­ry defectively (to say no worse) states our Faith and Doctrine in the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation. And 2. That he exposes the Fathers under the same, and worse Imputations; which is the Second thing, that, he says, offends. All that the Bishop says of the Fathers, if I mistake him not, is to this purpose; That though the Fathers might have the same Notions of the Trinity, that we now have, name­ly, That every one of the Blessed Three has a peculiar Distinction in himself, by which he is truly Different from the other Two; yet in their Explanations of this Doctrine, they often went so far, as might give occasion to some to think, that they believ'd an Inequality between the Per­sons, and a Subordination of the Second and Third to the First. And their Explanatory Notions of the Trinity seem sometimes to carry them beyond those Bounds the Holy Scriptures had set them. By all which, his Lordship could design nothing more, than to shew us, That since some, even of the Fathers, were sometimes confounded in their Explanations of that Sacred Incon­ceivable Mystery, it would be great Presumption in us to offer to explain the Modes, or to pretend to have any adequate Conceptions of it. That we may not pre­sume to dive into the Depths of those Mysteries, which the Primitive Ages of the Church could never Fathom. And if they unhappily failed in the Attempt, it will be great Arrogance in us to hope of having any better Suc­cess. Nor do I find the least Shadow of Reason, to thinkPag. 2. that the Bishop in any part of his Discourse, as our Au­thor [Page 5] too falsly and maliciously insinuates, censures the Ca­tholick and Establisht Principles of the Ancients; but only shews us some of their Failures and Imperfections. He denies not, that the Fathers believ'd a Trinity, as the Scriptures had revealed it; but only, that they were at a loss, when they offer'd to make the manner of it intel­ligible, which is to take away the Mysteriousness of it. And I wonder how our Author has the Confidence to say more.

I will give this parallel Instance, which may serve both to defend and illustrate what the Bishop has said upon this Subject of the Fathers, which our pretended Vindi­cator, where there is the least necessity for it, makes the greatest noise about. We of the Church of England, do certainly believe, and can undeniably prove, that the Primitive Church were of the same Doctrine and Faith with us, concerning the Eucharist, that there was no Corporal, but only a Sacramental Presence of Christ's Bo­dy; yet we also confess, that some of the Fathers have ex­prest themselves in some of their Writings, in such high Strains, and Figurative Raptures, as might give occasion to some to think, that they meant a Corporal Presence by those lofty Expressions, which only their height of Devotion drew from them. After the same manner, we may conclude, that though the Fathers believed the Do­ctrine of the Trinity, as it is revealed in Scripture, yet in their Explanations of the Modes and Manner of it, some of them may have given us Cause to think, that se­veral of those Expressions which they have let fall about it, as well as of the forementioned Doctrine, went far­ther than they were instructed or warranted by God's Word. And this I think may be sufficient to explain the Bishop's Sense about the Fathers, if I understand him aright, and to answer all those ill Natur'd Exceptions, which our Vindicator has very unjustly fram'd against it. But I shall have more to say to him in his due place.

I shall then examine his first Charge against the Bishop,Pag. [...]. viz. That he foully states the Faith of the Divinity and [Page 6] Incarnation of Christ, and therein of the Holy Trinity. Of which, says our Author, The Bishop tells us, there have been three Opinions; the Socinian, Arian, and that which he would have called the Catholick and Christian Faith. Now where is the Fault of all this? and yet, as I per­ceive, this is one of the Chiefest Imputations of Heresie against the Bishop. I never heard any Man yet so much as spoken against, for saying that there are Three Opinions about the Eucharist, the Roman, the Lutheran, and that of the Church of England, with those that believe the same Doctrine. And if any one should ask me, whe­ther these Opinions were within, or without the Church, I should justly brand him with the Character of Impertinent, and think him not worth answering. It is such a common form of expressing our selves, that I wonder how it could come into any Man's thoughts to cavil at it. But he adds, That which is more grievously suspicious, (I wonder how he came to omit Heretical) is, that his Lordship calls the Catholick Faith, but a meer Opinion, and Persuasion of a Party. With what Confidence he asserts this, I can't imagine: He cannot shew me where the Bi­shop says, that the Catholick Faith is but a meer Opinion; for my part, I can see no such thing throughout the whole Discourse, no more than I can find that he says, 'tis the Persuasion of a Party. I suppose he had a mind that the Bishop should have said it, and since he has not, he is so kind as to do it for him: For the Bishop in his Preface calls it, the great Article of Christianity, its most important Head, and rejects the Pacificatory Doctrines of those who think that a diversity of Opinions may be en­dured upon those Heads, without breaking Communion about them. He says, they seem to be the Fundamentals of Chri­stianity. And he thus concludes his Discourse upon this Head: This Doctrine is so plainly set down in the New Testament, that if the Socinians Expositions are to be admitted, it will be hard to preserve any Respect for it, or to believe those Books writ with the common Degrees of Ho­nesty and Discretion, not to speak of Inspiration. And all this is very fully repeated in the Bishop's Letter to [Page 7] Dr. Williams: So that to infer from his stating this matter at first, as a Third Opinion, that he thought it to be no more than an Opinion, is a Strain as unjust, as it is malicious. All that the Bishop says of Opinion, is no more than this; viz. The third Opinion is, that the God­head Pag. 31. by the Eternal Word, &c. And a little after, by those of this Persuasion, &c. And then a little after he adds, That this is the Doctrine I intend now to explain to you. And then, after he has explain'd it according to the Sense of the Church of England, he calls it the received Doctrine; by which he can only mean, (nor can any one else give another Interpretation of it, than) the Article of our Faith, which we profess to believe and defend. I would willingly know where is the hurt of all this, in saying (as I before mentioned) that there are Three Opi­nions concerning Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, one of which is that of our Church, which I am fully per­suaded, is a Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures, and con­firmed by the Authority of the Primitive Fathers. Dares any one, I say, after all this, urge that I assert this only as a new Opinion and Persuasion of a Party? And if the Bishop does not say as much concerning the Trinity, I desire to lie under no better an Imputation, than our Author has very justly deserv'd, of stating other Mens Doctrines falsly and by halves, according as the Byas of his present Inclinations turn'd him. I could not imagine that ever Prejudice or Ill Nature, should so far blind and mislead a Man, as to hurry him into wilful Errors, against the clearest Convictions both of Sense and Reason. Don't we say every Day, that there are so many Opini­ons about the first Origin of Things, the Aristotelick, Epi­curean, Christian, &c. and yet after all, we acknowledge that the Christian is the only true Doctrine. God forbid, that every Man that mentions Opinion after that man­ner, should commit a Sin. For if he does, I know none that can pronounce themselves Guiltless. Our Vindica­tor, after this, spends a Page or two, in shewing the diffe­rence between Faith and Opinion; which Paper I think might have been better spared, since it is nothing to [Page 8] his purpose. For I know no where that the Bishop asserts Opinion to be Faith; and if he had, he might have been better and more clearly convinc'd of his Error, by a few Pages in Bishop Pearson on the Creed, than in a dark obscure Author. But after all, our Vindicator acknow­ledges that his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine; but this term, says he, is Equivocal, and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers. But here I must desire to know of our Critick, whether ever he met with the Word Do­ctrine, when it was applied in a Divinity Discourse to the Tenets of the Church, to be meant of a Philosophical Opinion; or when a Man is talking of the Doctrine of the Trinity, of the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ, he can at the same time refer it to the Opinions of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, or Cartesius. But it is the Fate of some of our over-grown Criticks, to catch at Shadows, when they can't lay hold of the Substance, and to make them­selves appear in their own Colours, rather than say nothing.

In the next Place, our Critick finds fault with the Bi­shop for saying, That we believe Points of Doctrine, because Pag. 6. that we are persuaded they are revealed to us in Scripture; which, he says, is so languid and unsafe a Rule, that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private Fancie and con­tradictory Opinions. Now I had thought hitherto, that the Scripture had been the adequate Measure and Rule of Faith, and that whatsoever we were persuaded was re­ally contain'd in the Scriptures, we were oblig'd to be­lieve it. And though I am beholden to the universal con­sent of the Church for my Belief that those Books are the same that were delivered to us from the Apostles, and In­spired Pen-men, yet I am oblig'd to believe nothing as an Article of Faith, but what I am persuaded is revealed in Scripture. And certainly 'tis much more safe to rely upon the pure Word of God for the Truth of any Do­ctrine, if I am convinc'd that it was Divinely Inspired; than, as our Author would advise us, to depend upon the best Tradition and most unanimous Exposition in the World: Since at length I must recur to the Scriptures [Page 9] to examine that Tradition by, and am no farther con­cern'd to believe this, than I find it agreeable to the other. 'Tis true, that it is every Man's Duty to submit to the unanimous Sense of the Church, rather than to his own private Interpretation; but yet it is no farther, than he can find that Consent agreeable to the revealed Will of God. And if this be not admitted as true Doctrine; I can't imagine how we could ever have arriv'd at this Happy Reformation, which we are now persuaded was ab­solutely necessary; since it could never have been effect­ed, unless every Man has the Liberty of judging the Do­ctrine he professes, by the Testimony of the Scriptures: Nor are we to interpret the Scriptures so much by the Judgment of the Fathers and the Church, as we try these by their Harmony and Consent with the former. And hence it will follow, that as we are not obliged to believe any thing which we think is contrary to Scripture; so whatsoever we do or ought to believe as an Article of Faith, we do it because we are fully and clearly persua­ded, that it is revealed to us in the Scriptures. Else what shall those do, who have no notion of Tradition, and have no other Rule to guide them, but the plain and direct Authority of God's Word? And though every Man is not to be his own Interpreter, yet he is to judge whether the received Interpretation is agreeable to Scrip­ture or not. If Mr. Hill had not here forgot the ex­press Words of the Sixth Article of our Church, which tells us, That the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessa­ry for Salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation, he could not have run out so odly from it, or rather against it; it was the Foundation upon which the whole Reformation was built. If Universal Tradition in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Centuries was a good Argument in it self, then why was not Universal Tradition in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries as good a one? If the Authori­ty of a Doctrine lies in the Tradition of it, then all [Page 10] Ages must be alike as to this. Therefore, tho' it is a noble Confirmation of our Doctrine, that we can appeal to the first Six Ages of the Church; yet if the Corrup­tion that happen'd after the Sixth Century, had begun as early as the Third, this had not at all chang'd the Nature of things. And I believe it will be found a more simple and just way of interpreting Scripture, by other places of it more easily and plainly express'd, than by any other Method that can be found out for that purpose. For if I am to judge of the Sense of Scripture only by Tradition, and the Authority of the Fathers, I shall be often at a loss, and it will be as difficult to me, to find out their Sense and meaning, as it was that of the Text I was to enquire after: But of this enough. When I read this Criticism of our Vindicator's, I was inclin'd to think, he was, though perhaps unwittingly, set a work by the Papists, as I before imagin'd he was by the Socinians, to make Divisions and Schisms in the Church. And this I take to be Mr. Hill's Orthodox Doctrine.

But let us carry him to his next Criticism. His Lord­ship, Pag. 8. says he, is not clear in the point of Incarnation, be­cause he tells us, that by the Union of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity, God and Man truly became One Person. Now here, says our Authour, we are not taught, whether there were three, or any one Person in the Godhead, before the Incarnation. For this account will admit the Perso­nality of Christ, to be founded first in the Humane Nature, according to some of his Lordship's Criticks, (which he dares not contradict) who place the foundation of the Sonship, in the lower Nature. This is strange, when his Lordship says a while after, that Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal▪ Pag. 45. Word; Which makes him as well a Person before the Incarnation, as it does the second Person in the Blessed Trinity; because by the Eternal Word, is always under­stood the second Person. And since his Lordship does allow him to be a Divine Person, as also to be Eternal, I wonder how any Man can imagine, that his Lordship does not teach any distinction in the Godhead before the Incarnation; or that the Personality of Christ, or the [Page 11] foundation of the Sonship, was first placed in the Hu­mane Nature: Since his calling him the Eternal Word, makes him a distinct Person from the Father from all Eternity, as being second of the ever Blessed Trinity; and his styling him a Divine Person, supposes the Personality of Christ to be first founded in the Godhead. For I should have thought (had I not been prejudic'd by a­bundance of ill Nature) that Christ could be called a Divine Person, only upon the account of the Godhead dwelling in Flesh, and not upon any account of his Man­hood: (For else there would be two Persons in Christ.) And therefore I think, that the Bishop can mean nothing else, but that he was a Divine Person, only as he was God; and consequently so, before he was Incarnate, because he was Eternal in the Bishop's own Expression. And therefore I may positively affirm, that our Author's Assertion, that the Bishop's plain intention by these words, was to place Christ's Personality only in his Manhood, to be False and Malicious. Yea, but says our Author, this description of the Bishop's, (viz. That by the Ʋnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity, God and Man truly became one Person) will admit the Patripassian Heresie, of but one Person in the Deity: For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father, the Ʋnion thereof with the Humanity, con­stitutes the Father an Incarnate Person; or otherwise by this state of his Lordship's Doctrine, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, may be conceived as one Incarnate Person. How our Critick came to think of this Remark, I can't appre­hend. For I never yet met with any Man, that thought the Eternal Word meant the whole Trinity; but that when the Eternal Word, or [...], was mentioned, it was always understood of the second Person. And when we use that Expression, we always think we have explain'd our selves, as much as though we had used the Name of tho second Person in the Trinity. And the Bishop does seem so plainly to mean this by it, that I wonder how any Man endued with Reason could force another Inter­pretation of it. Especially, when his Lordship in the very same Page, calls the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Pag. [...]. [Page 12] three Persons by name, and shews how far they are distin­guisht the one from the other: Which Doctrine I pre­sume is impossible ever to admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity, or to make the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be conceived as one Incarnate Per­son; when at the same time the Bishop affirms them to be Three Persons: Which I must leave to our Author to reconcile. Nay in the same Page he has Person three times repeated, (which shews that he was not either afraid or unwilling to use that Expression, as our Author would have us believe) besides that which he applies particu­larly to the Incarnate Word; and in every one of these he refers to the Blessed Three. 1. He tells us of the Name Person being applyed to the Three. 2. He shews what is meant by Person, when it is applyed to the Three. 3. He tells us, that by explaining he does not mean, that be will pre­tend to tell us, how this is to be understood, and in what re­spect these Persons are believed to be One, and in what respect they are Three. Now can any man after all this affirm, that his Lordships words would lead one to a Conclusion, or at least a fair Jealousie, that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, but that the true and real Personality of Christ, is pro­per to the Humane Nature? When he has been all along asserting a Personal Distinction in the Trinity, and made the Second Person in the Trinity (that is, the Incarnate Word) Eternal, as plain as words can make it. I shall add to this, as well as to some other of his bitter and in­decent Reflections: What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee thou false Tongue? Oh deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

I have not time, or if I had, I should not think it well spent, to take notice of every trivial Insinuation of our Author's. I see no cause to believe that his Lordship has used the word Person in any different sense, than what ours and the whole Catholick Church has ever used it; and if at any time he has omitted it, when he names the Blessed Three, yet he means as much by it as the Scrip­ture does, by his endeavouring to follow as much as may [Page 13] be the Scripture phrase, and makes them as much differ­ent as the Church does when she names the Persons. And it is not only some sly Insinuations, and malicious Sup­positions to the contrary, but direct Proofs and down­right Arguments, and solid Reason that can satisfie any Impartial and Inquisitive Mind. I shall here beg leave to use the Bishop's own words, which in his Letter to Dr. Williams, he inserts as a just Reflection upon the odd Comments of the Socinians; Namely, That the Best, (and I am sure the fairest) rule of Criticism, is to consider the whole Thread, Strain, and Phraseology of a Book, and not to descant upon the various significations that the words themselves taken severally may be capable of. Had our Cri­tick observ'd this Rule, he would never have troubled the World with his rude and confused Notions, nor have abused himself, as he hath now too inconsiderately done.

But now let us see what our Vindicator has to urge a­gainst the Bishop's saying, That the Term Person came to Pag. 11. be applied to the Three, to discover those, who thought that these Three were different names of the same thing, which were for the most part, and were generally called Patripassians, and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church. Now as to this, he takes up two or three Pages to say nothing, only to yield up the Cause, and yet to censure the Bishop for saying the Truth. He quotes indeed a passage or two from Tertullian and Athanasius; but for any thing that they are to his purpose, he might as well have quoted Aristotle or Seneca: He introduces them, to shew that the Term Person was then used, but not to prove that the occasion of its use, was not upon account of the Pa­tripassiun, or the like Heresies. Now I would desire him to produce any Author that asserts, that the word Per­son was used before some Heresie arose, that enforc'd the necessity of it. For if there is nothing more meant by saying that there are three Different Persons in the God­head, than what the Scripture means by saying, that there are Three that bear Witness in Heaven, and elswhere to the same purpose; there could be no necessity for [Page 14] using the Word Person to explain it, unless it was to satisfie and undeceive those, who either doubted it, or denied the reality of any Personal Distinction. And if all Men had believed exactly, as the Scripture declares it self, I may well suppose that the Term Per­son might not have been made use of, at least there would have been no necessity for it to this very Day. And though those Hereticks that denied any Personal Distinction in the Godhead, denied the received Doctrine of the Church; yet does it not follow, as our Author would persuade us, that the Word Person was before used; since, as was already said, what the Scripture has revealed to us concerning that sacred Mystery, imports as much as what we mean by a Personal Distinction. From whence it follows, that since there was no occasion for the use of it, 'tis very probable that Term was not, till some Heresies broke out, introduc't into the Church; and if so, our Vindicator's, and not his Lordship's Insinu­ation is false and injurious. Tertullian indeed, charges some with denying the Eternal Word to be a Substantial, Real Person: But this is only an interpretation of the Scripture, or seems design'd to shew in what Sense he un­derstands it. And if we should grant that he was not the first that used it, yet it will not follow, but that there were Hereticks before, that denied any distinction in the Godhead which might give occasion for the first use of it. I deny not, that the Word Person was used regularly in the Church, or that it is very expressive of the Sense of the Scripture, and very agreeable to it; but only, that it does not appear that it was made use of, before some Heresies or Disputes arose about the Meaning of those Places of Scripture, which made the use of it seem absolutely necessary. And this, and no other, seems to be his Lord­ship's plain meaning. But had his Lordship shewn any dislike to the use of it, which I don't any where find in his whole Discourse the least reason to suspect; yet I find no less an Author than St. Hierom cited (by a late great Prelate, who always used that Word with a great deal of Approbation and Esteem) as desiring in some [Page 15] of his Writings to be excus'd mentioning it. Though I know this is nothing to the Purpose, yet I wonder our Au­thor would let him escape without some Mark of Defama­tion, as seeming to have a greater dislike to that Term, than the Bishop has any where exprest, and therefore a fitter Subject to vent his Passion against.

But to go on: In his next Paragraph, he comes toPag. 15. shew us, that his Surmises against his Lordship's Integri­ty are well grounded, by his Lordship's Explanation of the Term Person. For by Person, saith his Lordship, is only meant, that every one of the Blessed Three, has a peculiar Distinction in himself, by which he is truly different from the other Two. Here, says our Author, it is plain, That by using the Term Three so often, without adding Person, he shuns the Word as much as he dares at present to do, and assigns a Distinction, which is not any way Personal. Now as to his shunning the Word Person, I think there is no reason to suspect, when he had used it but in the same Sentence, that our Author finds fault with; and I may offer to say, that he could not there have properly used it oftner. But I suppose our Author would have had his Lordship say, that by, there being Three Persons in the Godhead, is to be understood that those Persons are Three: For otherwise, how his Lordship's Explanation is Faulty I can't see. And if his Lordship dares not make it his own, or allow it for proper, as the Vindicator maliciously insinuates, yet there are others that dare. Without doubt, as our Author would have it, 'tis the best Definition in the World of Ens, to say it is Ens, and that an Individuum is an Indi­viduum: How we can otherwise explain, there being Three Persons in the Godhead, I can't imagine, but by saying they are really distinct from each other. And our Author's fine turn of three Tobacco Pipes, may as well refer to the Apostle's saying, there are Three that bear witness in Heaven; as to any thing his Lordship has said; and then he might have added Blasphemy to his Nonsense. Yes, but says our Author, his Lordship should have added in his Definition of the Term Person, the Words of Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now I can tell our Author [Page 16] that this Answer is to be made to those who enquire who are the Three that constitute the Godhead, and not to what we mean by Person, when we apply it to them as such. For when we consider them as Persons, there is no neces­sity, that we should in the same Breath, explain the Re­lation they bear to each other. And though they are Three Persons, as being Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet that would be no direct Answer to the Question, What we mean by Person, when we apply it to the Blessed Three? And if our Vindicator had truly considered this, he might have stopt his Fury for a Page or two together. When I first read this, I thought it might be the slip of an angry hasty Pen; but when I considered it was of the same strain with the rest of the Book, a great deal said upon nothing, I concluded, that it must proceed either from gross Ignorance, or inveterate Malice. I suspect something more than should be. I am sure the whole Foundation is rotten, and more than tacitely imports a Renunciation of all Charity, the greatest Pag. 17. Branch of our Christianity.

In his next Paragraph, he comes to give up the Cause; for he tells us, that by the Bishop's calling them the Blessed Three, he means as much as we do by Persons; because, [...] and [...], when applied to every of the Three, must mean the same as we do by Person; and if so, the only quarrel is about Words, and not the Sense of the thing; and I know no reason why his Lordship should be cen­sured for not mentioning Person in every Line, when every where he means the same as we do by it, and has exprest himself in the same Terms as the Scripture has done. And I much wonder why Mr. Hill did not cate­chize the Apostle for not using the Word Person, (as he very ridiculously exposes himself) since there is as much reason for the one, as the other. But besides, his Lordship has several times mentioned Person in relation to the Trinity, which none of the Apostles or Evange­lists have ever done: But had he not done it, yet the Reason which he gives in answer to his Socinian Adver­sary, may be sufficient to excuse it. And therefore, I shall here beg leave to transcribe those Words. When [Page 17] Christ commanded all to be Baptized, in the Name of the Fa­ther, Pag. 99, 100. Son, and Holy Ghost, he plainly mentioned Three; if therefore I, to adhere to Scripture Terms, had avoided the frequent use of any other Word but the Three, I thought how much soever this might offend others, who might apprehend that I seem'd to avoid mentioning of Trinity or Persons (which yet I shewed flowed from no dislike of those Words, but meerly that I might stick more exactly to Scripture Terms) yet I had no reason to think that Men of the other side would have found such Fault with this: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the Three of whom I discourse; so instead of repeating these Words at every time, I shorten'd it, by say­ing the Blessed Three. Now it is a strain particular to our Author, who I suppose had it from the Socinian Writer to en­large on this.

But now let us look into our Author, and see if he is not guilty of as great Faults or Heresies, as those which he falsly objects against the Bishop. His Lordship'sPag. 22, 23. Words which he censures are these; The Second of this Blessed Three was united to a perfect Man, (that is, accor­ding to our Author's own Interpretation, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, took our Flesh, which di­rectly follows from his Criticism upon [...] and [...] so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united, there did result the Person of the Messias, who was both God and Man. This he condemns as false Doctrine, because it denies the Personality of Christ to be Eternal; but if this be false Doctrine, I deny it too: For I nei­ther acknowledge or believe, that Christ, who was God and Man, was Eternal: but only the Second Person in the Trinity, who in the fulness of time took our Flesh, and by that Union became Christ, our Anointed High Priest, and the Messias that was to come into the World. And I dare positively affirm, that from this Union result­ed the Personality of Christ, that is, the Messias; though our Vindicator of the Doctrine of the Church, and the Ancient Fathers, does positively deny it. His Words are these; That though the Character and Offices of Christ result­ed Pag. 23. from the Incarnation, yet not the Person or Personality. [Page 18] Now I would desire to know whether this is the Doctrine of our Church; if not, 'tis Heresie, and destroys the re­ality of the Incarnation. The Athanasian Creed, which we profess to adhere to, makes Personality to consist in the Ʋnion of God and Man: As thus; Who although he be God and Man, perfect God and perfect Man, God of the Sub­stance of the Father, and Man of the Substance of his Mo­ther, yet he is not two, but one Christ. And thus it is ex­plained; For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh, if separated and taken apart, make two distinct Substances; yet as they are united, are but one Man or Person; so, that is, after the same manner, God and Man, (of a reasonable Soul, and humane Flesh subsisting, which takes in the whole [...] Man) is one Christ. And although he was God, the Second Person from all Eternity; yet, before he took the Manhood into God, he could not be the Person Christ Jesus, or the Messias. Our Author very confidently and erroneously affirms, that the assumption of the Humane Nature to the Divine, contributed nothing of Personality to the Messias: But certainly the Athanasian Creed, if Words were design'd to express the Sense of a thing, teach the directly contrary Doctrine. For why should it say, that God and Man is one Christ, if it did not mean that the compleat Person of Christ resulted from that union? I would ask our Author, whether the Man Christ Jesus be a Person or not? If he be; whether it is only as he is God, or Man, or as he is both? If he is only as he is God, what becomes of the Man, and of the Substance which he had of his Mother? For if it does not enter into the Per­sonality, it is nothing, but an accident that might be de­stroyed at Pleasure; and yet the Messias, that is perfect God, and perfect Man, should remain the same Person still. Now I wonder with what Confidence, a Man that pretends to vindicate the Ancient Doctrine of the Church, to censure others for Heresle, and to refer his Vindications to the Sense and Judgment of the Church Ʋniversal, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, the two fa­mous Ʋniversities, and the next Session of Convocation; should deny an Ancient Doctrine of the Church, the direct [Page 19] Sense of the great and most Orthodox Athanasius (which the Creed, so called, is supposed to be the Summ of) and the present Faith and Persuasion of our own Church of England; which God grant may long stand fixt and im­movable, in the Simplicity and Purity of its Primitive Doctrine, against all false Pretenders to Truth, and all un­charitable Censurers of its Faith.

But we have not yet done with his Errors. In thePag. 23. same Paragraph he tells us, That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted from the Incarnation, yet not the Person or Personality; for to this the Humane Nature was assumed or pre-existent. If the Humane Nature was as­sumed to Christ, then he was Christ, that is, the Messias, before he was Incarnate; which is unintelligible. What he means by the Humane Nature's being pre-existent to the Personality or Person of Christ, I can't find. If he believes that the Humane Nature of Christ did exist be­fore it was united to the Godhead, I presume 'tis down­right Heresie; for that makes them two distinct Persons; at least it makes him the Messias before the union of both Natures. But besides, as soon as Christ was born, he was stiled Christ the Lord, by way of Emi­nence; to shew that he was then truly God; and that he was Christ our Saviour only by that Union of both Natures in him, and not before. And therefore I presume, that the Humane Nature did not pre-exist, before he was one altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. Whatever he means by this Term, I can find nothing but down-right Absurdity and Contradiction in it. Now I was much wondring how our Author came to light upon this Notion; That nothing of the Personality of Christ resulted from the Humane Nature: But finding by the Thread of his Discourse, that he had read somewhere, that when two contrary Qualities meet together, that which is the predominant wholly destroys the other; hereupon he concludes, that in the Union of God and Man, the former, being the more prevalent; destroyed the latter; and consequently, there could result no Personality from that Nature which [Page 20] was destroyed, I was almost brought over to his Opinion; and I found it to be such a pretty Philosophical Con­ceit, that I durst not venture to attack it. I shall con­clude this with this Sentence, which is amongst the Works of Athanasius, though ascribed to another: Siquis confite­tur Filium Dei, quasi Phantasma, sic in Carne visum fuisse, Anathema illi, &c.

But however, we must not yet leave him: Let us there­forePag. 25. see his Remark upon his Lordship's saying, That we believe that Christ was God, by Vertue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word. The Jews could make no Objection to this, who knew that their Fathers had Worshipped the Cloud of Glory, because of God's resting upon it. By which, says our Author, he lays a Foundation on which we may properly Dei­fie Christ's Humane Nature. Here I must inform our Au­thor, that by indwelling, I suppose his Lordship under­stands the Presence of God, and not the Place or Habita­tion where he dwells; and that for this Reason, because his Lordship had before told us, That a constant and immediate visible indwelling of the Jehovah, was according to Scripture Phrase said to be Jehovah, which was applyed to nothing else. By which his Lordship can only mean, that that Appear­ance was always taken to be God, by which he did pre­sentiate himself. And if so, as I believe every rational Man that considers it will imagine, we could have di­spens'd with our Author's omitting his little Criticisms up­on Habitation, Resident, Residence, and the like. For by thePag. 28. Cloud of Glory, his Lordship seems only to mean the Sche­chinah, which the Rabbins, according to our Author's own Confession, interpret that Lucid Glory, by which God presenti­ated himself: And if this Interpretation be allowed, as I know not how it can be denied, I know no reason why Schechinah may not be taken figuratively for Jehovah. And though Schechinah may be sometimes called the Glory of the Jehovah; yet there is no reason why it may not in a different expression signifie Jehovah, as well as Infinite Power, Majesty, and the like, are often us'd to signifie God, though we often call him a God of infinite Power and Majesty. And though it would be very absurd to say, [Page 21] infinite Power of Infinite Power, or O Infinite Majesty, shew me thy Majesty, as our Author plays upon Words, yet it would be Sense to say, O Infinite Majesty, shew me thy self, thy Glory; which I take to be meant of God himself; as seems to be plain in that place where Moses desires to see the Glory of God; which is truly meant of God himself, notwithstanding all our Author says to the contrary; as is plain by God's telling him, that he should see his back parts; but his Face should not be seen; that is, in a direct Answer to part of Moses's Request, that he should see the back Parts of his Glory; so that if this Sense be admitted, as I don't see it can be denied, our Critick's impenetrable Syllogism, as he callsPag. 26 it, will vanish, with all his other sophisticated Shews of Arguments.

But now that we may see what a mighty knack at In­vention our Author has attain'd to; he comes now to make the Bishop speak things, which I believe I may po­sitively affirm were never in his Thoughts, I am sure theyPag. 30. are not in his Book: That is, he has a mind the Bishop should assert such things; and since he does not, he finds he is able to do it for him, and therefore he resolves that the Bishop shall own them. It is a very pretty way of answering an Adversary, to make false Doctrine for him, and then to censure it: For here he brings in the Bishop to affirm, That in Scripture Phrase, Jehovah never imports any thing else, but a constant and visible immediate Inhabi­tation; and when he has made this Speech for his Lord­ship, it is easily imagin'd into what Absurdities he leads him. Now our Author would have done fairly, to have told us where the Bishop says this, and to have quoted the Place from whence he had it: I must confess, I can find no such thing in all the Bishop's Discourse. 'Tis true, his Lordship says, that a constant and immediate vi­sible indwelling of the Jehovah, was according to Scripture Phrase said to be Jehovah, which was applyed to nothing else. But does it hence follow, that where ever the Name Je­hovah is used in Scripture, it is, according to the Bishop, applied to this Indwelling: Our Author might have as [Page 22] well argued, and with as much reason, that because eve­ry Man is an Animal, therefore every Animal is a Man: For to me it seems an exact parallel Case. I dare not do our Author so much Injustice as to call his Logick in questi­on, because he seems to have a particular knack at Syllo­gising; but I must needs tell him, that there is great rea­son for questioning his Integrity.

I come now to consider another Criticism of our Au­thor's,Pag. 32. upon these Words of his Lordship's; viz. That Christ was God by Vertue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word in him; that the Jehovah dwelt so immediately and bodily in Christ Jesus, that by that indwelling he was truly Jehovah: And again, as in another Place, that he was the true Jehovah, by a more perfect indwelling of the Deity in him, than that had been which was in the Cloud. Now this, says our Author, must be grounded upon a Principle or Maxim, that whatsoever the Deity immediately Inhabits, that thing becomes God, and the true Jehovah, by Vertue of that Inha­bitation. I answer, that his Lordship needs not ground his Assertion upon any such Principle or Maxim, foras­much as he affirms, that Christ was the True Jehovah by a more perfect indwelling of the Deity in him, than that which was in the Cloud: The latter being temporary, and as it began to be given in the Wilderness, so was to disconti­nue. But the indwelling of the Eternal Word in Christ, isPag. 35. Essential and inseparable, and constitutes with the Manhood one and the same Personality. And I know not how this is Heretical, or can justifie Idolatry, as our Vindicator would insinuate: But if every thing must be Heresie and Idolatry which an angry Man is resolv'd to make so, I know nothing but may be perverted to such a Sense; since the greatest Truths must appear directly contrary, if he may have the Liberty of putting what Glosses he pleases upon it, and if the World will be so good natur'd as to believe that its true and genuine Feature, which he makes it appear in.

And now it is time to see, upon what account our Vin­dicator is moved with Indignation, at his Lordship's say­ing, that Jehovah was a foederal Name of God, which being [Page 23] generally translated by [...], in the Septuagint, which Name was applyed to our Saviour in the New Testament by way of Eminence, to shew that he was the true Jehovah, who was called [...] always in the Septuagint Translation. Now though our Author does seem to approve of the Argu­ment drawn from [...], yet he is angry that his Lord­ship should call Jehovah a federal Name of God. And his Reasons are, because he was called Jehovah by Balaam, and also by Job, who were in no Covenant with him. Now as to Balaam, we may answer, that he speaks of Jehovah as the God of Israel: And his WordsNumb. 23, 21. are, Jehovah his God is with him; which seem directly to mean, that their God, who by them is called Jehovah, is with them; and if he did not mean so, why did he say any thing more, than his God is with him? Whence it seems plain, that he means by it, that the God who was more peculiarly styled Jehovah amongst them, was ready to help and defend them: And it is very probable, that the Name was only known amongst the Jews, by the ve­ry signification of it, according to Dr. Lightfoot, which was faithful in performing what he had promised; that is, in keeping the Promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Ja­cob concerning their Seed. And though that Name is also mentioned in Job, yet it is certain, that Job could not come by it, unless he had it from some particular Reve­lation from God: And therefore in answer to our Au­thor, I will venture to advance this probable Account of it; That though Job, as is now generally believ'd, liv'd in the time of the Israelites Bondage in Egypt, and was not in the same Covenant with them, yet the Jews meeting with the History of him, might change the Name of God into that of Jehovah, and probably Moses himself might do it: or if the Author or Translator of that Book was Moses, or one of the Jewish Nation, he to make the whole Old Testament of a Piece, might call God by the Name of Jehovah, tho' neither Job nor his Friends knew any thing of it; as also thereby to shew the Israelites and others, that it was the same Jehovah who was their God, and in covenant with them, least the People, who were [Page 24] very prone to Idolatry, should think it was some other God, who had brought such strange things to pass, and thereupon pay Adoration to him. These are the two chief Arguments our Author insists upon; All the rest are very little, if at all to his purpose. And seeing hisPag. 90. Lordship in answer to his Socinian Adversary, answer'd this Objection which our Vindicator makes, I shall no longer dwell upon it. And if our Author has no better Objections to urge, I don't see what reason he has to call it a federal Whimsie. Here I can't help observing ourPag. 45. Author's conclusion of this Paragraph; which may serve as a convincing Argument, that all our Author says, is the Result of Malice and ill Nature, which seem to be the only Causes, and not the false Doctrine of his Lordship's Discourse, that first persuaded him to appear in Publick, and to let the World see what manner of Spirit he was of. And therefore, says he, after all his Lordship's critical Tri­fling, he wisely comes to say a great many Good and Orthodox Truths on this Article, so far as that, that Christ was God, who manifested himself in our Flesh, which being so dissonant to all his former Modes of Expressions and avowed Notions (which, what they are, God only knows, I see nothing contrary to the true Doctrine of the Church) seem to have dropt from him, either unawares, or for a Colour of Defence against a foreseen Charge of Heresie (which certainly he had no reason to fear, since it doth not appear, that he hath hitherto said any thing that looks in the least that way) or perhaps the sin­gular Providence of God might so over-rule the Madness of the Prophet, to make him speak that for the Christian Faith, which he had no mind to, that his manifest Inconsistences might render him of no Authority for the use of Hereticks, either in present or future Ages. I think I need make no Answer to this, or bring against this most uncharitable, and undeserved Calumny, any railing Accusation, but on­ly say, the Lord rebuke him.

But now, that we may end the first part of this falsly styled Vindication, let us consider the Answer that he makes to his Lordship's Argument for the Deity of Christ,45, 46. which is, that the Jews and Apostates from Christianity ne­ver [Page 25] charged the Apostles nor Church with Idolatry or Crea­ture Worship, which they would certainly have done, had the Christian Principles been Arian or Socinian. Against this our Vindicator urges, that it was the common Opprobrium both of Jews and Gentiles, and perfect Apostates, that the Christians ador'd a meer Malefactor, which was certainly an imputation of Creature Worship: And that the Jews ever did, Pag. 47. and do at this day, charge us with the Worship of a vile Crea­ture, who really (as they think) had no Deity in him; else, had they also thought him to be God, they had been, ipso fa­cto, converted to us, the want of this Faith, being the only Bar to their Conversion, and the Cause why they execrate both our Lord and us for this very Doctrine. And then he con­cludes very triumphantly; So unlucky is his Lordship, even Pag. 48. in the fairest part of this Discourse, as if God had laid this Curse on him, that he that had sophistically handled the Chri­stian Faith in most part of it, should not have the Glory or Comfort of having serv'd it, in any one Particular. Cer­tainly, any one that reads this, would imagine that the Bi­shop was the most profligate Enemy to the Christian Faith that ever appeared against it. But if we can find no just ground for such opprobrious Speeches, then cer­tainly the Author of them has the greater Sin. Now I will readily grant, with our Author, that the Jews did not believe our Saviour to be God, but only that he was a meer Man; nor do I find that his Lordship denies it: All that I perceive his Lordship intends by it, is, that the Jews expected their Messias should be God; and that upon supposition it was he that was come into the World, they did not urge it as Idolatry to worship him, which certainly they would have done, had they thought he would have been a meer Man, or a God only by Office, as the Socinians would have him, and not from all Eter­nity coessential with the Father. Now I leave any Man to judge, if this does not seem to be a just Account, and a fair Interpretation of his Lordship's Argument. For I suppose, no one can think, that the Bishop design'd by it, to shew that the Jews did really believe our Saviour to be the true Messias, and at the same time to reject [Page 26] him; but only that if they had not expected their Mef­sias should be God, they would have charged the Apo­stles and the Church with Idolatry in worshiping him, whom, though they had granted to be the Messias, yet they own'd to be no more than Man, as they expected their Messias to be. And this seems to be such a convincing Argument for establishing the Deity of Christ, as the Socinian Author durst not venture to attack it; which unquestionably he would have done, could he have forc'd such a Sense on his Lordship's Words, or have under­stood them in the same manner, as our Author has done. And whoever will read the Bishop's Answer to his Soci­nian Adversary in his Letter to Dr. Williams, must, I think, be necessarily convinc'd, that his Lordship meant no otherwise by that Passage, than I have interpreted it.

And thus have I done with the first part of our Au­thor's pretended Vindication: I have considered every Objection that he has made, have given it its full force and weight, that he may not complain of any injustice done him, or that his Sense has been confounded, or his Meaning represented falsly and by halves, as he has in several Places, very apparently, and too maliciously serv'd his Lordship's Discourse. For, as I have no other Aim or Design in this, but the plain Discovery of Truth, so have I nothing beside that to byass my Judgment on either side. And now I hope I may leave it to all unpre­judic'd Enquirers after Truth, to judge, whether all those hard Sayings, with which he has so rudely, and unlike a Christian, especially one of his Profession, every where treated his Lordship, may be applauded as just, or cen­sured both as uncivil and unchristian. I must confess, that after I had made some progress in this Answer to his Vin­dication, I had some Thoughts of laying it aside; for I found it was so generally lookt upon as a Shuffage of scurrilous Expressions, that it would seem superfluous to answer an Author that I found generally condemn'd: But when I considered, there be some who are ill natur'd enough to believe any Scandal that is cast upon those, [Page 27] whom they are prejudic'd against, without considering the Causes of it; I thought I might do some Service, by endeavouring to undeceive those who had been either wilfully prejudic'd, or inconsiderately surpriz'd, into a belief of such ill natur'd Aspersions.

I come now to consider our Vindicator's Second Part▪ wherein he talks and quotes much, and yet, as I can find, nothing to the purpose. I shall pass over all his unjust and uncharitable Reflections, and only enquire into the Causes which he grounds them upon. The first thing he carps at, is, his Lordship's saying, That he will not pretend to inform them, how that Mystery is to be understood, and in what respect these Persons are said to be One, and in what respect they are Three. Now what does this intimate, Pag. 51, 52. says our Author, but that it is not laid down in Scripture, in what respect the Persons are One, and in what respect they are Three? If our Author is resolv'd that every thing shall be meant according to his Interpretation of it, I have no­thing more to say to him: But it seems obvious enough to me, that his Lordship only means by it, that he will not pretend to shew the Modes of their Existence, and make the Mystery comprehensible to our Reason; which seems the direct Sense of those Words of the Bishop's, That he will not pretend to inform them, how this Mystery is to be understood; and which is also plain enough, by his Lordship's Words that immediately follow the other be­fore mentioned; viz. By explaining a Mystery, can only be meant the shewing how it is laid down and revealed in Scripture; for to pretend to give any other Account of it, is to take away its Mysteriousness, when the manner how it is in it self, is offer'd to be made intelligible. I should have wonder'd how our Author could have forc'd any ill Sense from these Words, had I not considered, that what was at first his Design, at last became his Interest, to make his Writings all of a Piece, and to discover the same evil Spirit throughout the whole.

The next thing he censures his Lordship for, is, forPag. 54. saying, That too many, both Ancients and Moderns, have perhaps gone beyond due Bounds, while some were pleased [Page 28] with the Platonical Notions of Emanations, and a Fecun­dity in the Divine Essence. Now what Error his Lordship has fallen into by this, I don't yet apprehend: He does not positively express any dislike to those Notions, or that they are otherwise than innocent, if they are made use of by Men of sound and orthodox minds, but only that they may have given Occasion to some, who are less cautious than others, to form too gross Conceptions of those things, of which they can never have any adequate Idea. And, certainly some of the Fathers in this way of explaining this Matter, have said many things which inti­mate that they believed an inequality between the Persons and a subordination of the Second and Third to the First. And this our Author does dot deny, but cites Dr. Bull toPag. 89. confirm the Assertion of the Fathers, teaching a Perso­nal Gradation and Subordination in the Deity; which probably these Notions might give the first rise and oc­casion to. And if this be so, our Author has only spent his time to give up a Cause, which he endeavours to de­fend. I suppose I need give no Answer to our Author's Reflection, upon what his Lordship says, viz. [That these thought there was a Production, or rather an Eduction of Two out of the First, in the same manner that some Philoso­phers thought that Souls were propagated from Souls; and the fi­gure by which this was explain'd, being that of one Candle being lighted at another, this seems to have given the rise to those Words, Light of Light.] Since our Author brings in Ter­tullian, Justin Martyr, and Tatian, with the same Similies, which I suppose is enough to his Lordship's purpose, and is an exact Confirmation of what his Lordship has said. And I wonder, why our Vindicator should find fault with his Lordship for calling them Conceits, when himself con­fessesPag. 86. with Dr. Bull, that those Similies are Lame, and such as he will not make out. I shall not enquire into the Origi­nal of that Expression, Light of Light, in our Nicene Crede; for whatsoever it was that first occasion'd it, 'tis nothing at all to our present purpose. Yet this is cer­tain, that such like Similies as the Bishop mentions, were used by the Fathers in their Writings to explain their No­tions [Page 29] of that Mystery by, as well before as after the Nicene Council, which makes his Lordship's Conjecture very probable.

A great part of what remains of our Author, is spent in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity, against the Charge of Novelty, which he would have the World be­lieve, the Bishop alledges against it, and to shew that the Primitive Fathers believed it. But since I can find no such thing in all the Bishop's Discourse, it will be unnecessary to give answer to it. All that I can understand of the Bishop's Words, is, that the Ancients in their Explanati­ons of the Trinity, often differ'd from one another, and that those who came after, endeavour'd by other Ex­planations to supply those Defects, which some who went before them had been guilty of: Not that he means they believed differently concerning the Trinity; but only that they made use of different Modes of explaining their Notions concerning it. And the while Men go about to ex­plain a thing, of which they can frame no distinct Idea, it is very natural for them to run out into a vast multiplicity of Words, into great length, and much Darkness and Confusion: Many improper Similies will be urged, 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, that which he does not distinctly understand himself. And what is there in all this, that charges the Doctrine of the Trinity with Novelty?

I can't but observe our Author's Ingenuity, in saying, that his Lordship, in his Letter from Zurich, has exposed that Passage in St. John's First Epistle, for doubted: There are Three that bear Witness in Heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these Three are one. Since his Lordship only tells us, that in some Manuscripts it is to be found, and in others not; in most of which, he shews plainly that it was the Fault of the Copier that omitted it: And also seems sufficiently to prove by the Authority of St. Hierom, whose Preface he there makes mention of, that it was left out by the Arians. But besides, if I must be said to expose every part of an Author for [Page 30] doubted, by saying, that it is not to be found in such a MS. which perhaps has all the rest, almost all the Authors in the World must suffer by it; since I can shew our Vin­dicator some thousands of MSS. which have only trans­mitted to us some small parts of Authors, and have omit­ted those, which yet by the help of others we can prove to be genuine.

I shall make no Observation upon this malicious Re­mark of our Vindicator's. It may serve as a pregnant In­stance with the rest of the Vindication, of the great Pow­er of Malice and ill Nature of transforming every thing into that peculiar Shape which they are resolved it should appear in; and also to convince us, how little Credit we are to give to things, which our selves are not Witnesses of, since there are so many False Prophets gone out into the World.

I can't but take notice of the Learned and Ingenious Observation of our Vindicator upon his Lordship's Si­mile, which he brought not to explain, but only to illu­strate in some measure the Doctrine of the Trinity, which he has transcribed at length. I shall only mention those parts of it which our Author criticises upon. He deniesPag. 104. Ʋnderstanding and Will, which the Bishop affirms to be different Modes of Thinking, to be such, either as they are taken as Principles, or as they may be supposed as Acts of the Mind. Now here I suppose our Vindicator was lost in his own beloved Notions; and I wish he had read over Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Ʋnderstanding, and I believe he would, at least might, have express'd himself less con­fusedly. For I suppose our Vindicator, like some others of his stamp, takes Volition to be a distinct Agent in us, which can command, obey, and perform several Actions as a distinct Being. And no wonder then if it is no Mode of Thinking. But certainly if we would speak properly, Intellection and Volition, if they are considered as Princi­ples, if our Vindicator understands any thing by that Word, are only Powers of the Mind. But if they are reduced to Acts, they are then properly speaking Modes of Thinking, and nothing more. But our Vindicator is mightily disturb'd at the Bishop's saying, That in Acts of [Page 31] Memory, Imagination and Discourse, there seems to be a mixture of both Principles, or a third that results out of them. For we feel a Freedom in one respect; but as for those Marks that are in our Brain, that set things in our Memory, or fur­nish us with Words, we are necessary Agents, they come in our way, but we do not know how. We cannot call up a Fi­gure of things or Words at pleasure; some Disorder in our Mechanism hides or flattens them, which when it goes off, they start up and serve us, but not by any Act of Ʋnderstand­ing and Will. Now says our Critick to this, As for his Mixtures, I leave them purely to himself; but for his third resulting Principle I am to seek. For it must be such a Prin­ciple that is neither free nor necessary, and such a one as is hard to be got for Love or Mony. Nay, not so hard nei­ther: For Mr. Lock tells us, in his Chapter of the Modes of Thinking, that this is what the French call Resvery, but our Language has scarce a Name for it. Which I take to be a good Authority (to use our Author's own Words) in despight of a bad Judgment and defective Libraries. Which may teach our Author, if ever he writes more (which I pray God forbid, unless it be a Retractation of this ill-na­tur'd Book) to do it with more Caution and Considerati­on. And amongst the rest, this was one Reason why I first undertook this, since he tells us of another Treatise which he designs to publish, to beg of him for his own sake, and for the Churches sake, and for the sake of his Brethren the Clergy, to conceal it: For I think it is enough for any Man semel insanire, and to expose himself, with­out any regard to his own, or the Churches Honour.

I shall not search into our Author's Explication, as he calls it, of the Sacred Mysteries of the Ever-Blessed Tri­nity; because, as 'tis Foreign to the present purpose, so is it confusedly drest up with his affected dark way of Wri­ting, that I could hardly read it with Patience; much less could I spend much time upon it, in considering every Passage of it.

And now I should have left him, but that I still find him spitting his Venome at his Lordship, for saying, that some have thought that the Term Son did not at all be­long to the Blessed Three, but only to our Saviour, as he [Page 32] was the Messias, the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias, that as he was to be the King of Israel, so was he to be the Son of God. Now does it appear from hence, that the Bishop is a Favourer of this Opinion? Or that him­self does believe, that the Jews expected that their Messi­as should not be God? As to the latter, it is plain that his Lordship believes the contrary, by what he has urged in Defence of our Lord's Divinity, that the Jews never objected Idolatry to the Christians; which certainly they would have done, had they not expected their Messias should be God. Nor does his Lordship assert the for­mer, as is plain by what he adds, That if this be true, all the Speculations concerning an Eternal Generation (which is a Doctrine he seems every where to maintain) are cut off in the strict Sense of the Words. And therefore our Vindicator has no reason to say, That his Lordship has left this Doctrine in suspense, whether it be true or no.

His last Criticism is upon his Lordship's Saying, That it may be justly questioned, whether by these they have made it better to be understood, or more firmly believed; 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. To this, says our Critick, after he has emptied himself of his foul Language, which he every where abounds with, That all these traduced Theories of Faith are universally professed, and received in the whole Church of God, and have but a ve­ry few Adversaries. To this it may be answered, that the Doctrine of the Trinity has been, and is, universally receiv'd; nor does the Bishop deny it; but that all those Theories about the Modes and the Explanations of it, which some of the Fathers have left us, are not, may be very easily evinc'd. Nor do I think it is any great Blemish to the Fathers, or any Scandal cast upon their Authority, which may be of dangerous Consequence to the Searchers into Antiquity, as our Vindicator would insinuate, to say, that the Fathers could not search into the depth of that [Page 33] Mystery, and that they were often at a loss in their Explana­tions of it, though they might believe it as firmly, and af­ter the same manner, as the Church Catholick now does. For though perhaps most of us believe that great Article according to the true Sense of the Church, yet probably if we went to explain it, we should all follow different Methods, and have far different Idea's from each other. Which may serve to convince us, how insufficient the most Rational and Thinking of us are, to form any di­stinct Notions of those things, which are so far above our Comprehensions.

I shall say nothing upon his Reflection upon Dr. Burnet's Remarks upon the Strong-Box Papers; for, as I have them not by me, so I find a great deal of Reason to mistrust our Author's Integrity in every one of his Quotations, which I have shewn have been very foul and unjust, often took by halves, and as often perverted to a wrong Sense, directly contrary to the Author's meaning.

And now it may be asked, Why one that has no Knowledge of the Bishop (no more than from his Works) or of Mr. Hill, should engage himself in a Dispute, in which he is no way concerned? To this I can only an­swer, That I had no other Inducement to it, than the In­dignation I had against such an indecent and unchristian way of Writing, and such false Reasoning as the pretend­ed Vindication is made up of. I could scarce believe that a Clergy-man, had he not told us he was one in the Title Page, could have been guilty of so much Uncharitable­ness, as I every where find in his Book. And I must con­fess, that I had much rather be guilty of an Error in my Judgment, than offend in the Breach of so great a Duty; which is so expresly laid down in Scripture; and which ought to be one of the greatest Characteristicks of a Chri­stian, especially of those who are to instruct others in such Fundamental Duties both by Doctrine and Practice. Because those who can't find out an Errour in our Judg­ment, can easily discover those in our Practice; which every one that can read, may see too openly prostituted in our Author's Vindication. At the horrour and just dete­station of which I leave him to the Great Judge of all the [Page 34] Earth, who will recompence every Man according to his Works; and to the Censures of those who have the pow­er here committed to them to punish the wrong-doers. Who I hope for the Churches sake, as well as for the sake of that right Reverend and Learned Person whom our Author design'd to cast a Blot upon, will never suffer so much breach of Charity, so much malice and ill nature, such groundless Falsities, and such Unchristian Temper to escape unpunished, unless prevented by as full and pub­lick a Recantation, as his Offence hath been notorious.