as might justifie that design This is the foundation of all the stir that our Author has made which as I am truly informed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops look upon as a breach not only of Charity but of the Order of the Church For it is far from their thoughts that either a Bishop or even an Archbishop should have a Priviledge to corrupt the Faith and be safe when he has done it As they ought to be the chief Conveyors of this Sacred Depositum so if any of them should so far betray his trust as to offer to corrupt it he must be used with all severity But if such a case should happen the method of proceeding ought to be a denunciation to the Archbishop when it is in the case of a Bishop This ought to be first made to the Archbishop in private and if that will not do then it ought to be made in open Court by Articles If any thing is taught contrary to the Doctrine of the first Four General Councils it is by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. Heresie And if it is contrary to the Creeds then it falls under the Act of Uniformity The Three Creeds being parts of the Book of Common-Prayer And if any Doctrine is contrary to the Thirty nine Articles then the Proceedings are to be founded on the Authority of the Church in a Convocation confirmed by the King This is a Regular Method and if Mr. Hill had took this way he could have met with no sort of obstruction But it is certainly intolerable that a Book writ by a Bishop and Licensed by an Archbishop should be thus attack'd and a Bishop be so openly defam'd I have one thing more to add and that is an account of that private Practice which our Author in his Preface objects against the Bishop as unjust and that is only this When his Lordship came to the See of Sarum he found the Prebends so scatter'd up and down England that there was seldom a Surplice-man to Preach The Cathedral was often very ill served So he resolved to keep the Dignities of the Church of Sarum within the Diocess and to oblige those that left the Diocess to leave the Church likewise according to the Tenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon Which is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beverig Pandect Canon Tom. 1. p. 123. Non liceat Clerico in duarum Civitatum Ecclesiis eodem tempore in Catalogum referri Et in ea qua a principio ordinatus est in ea in quam tanquam ad majorem confugit propter inanis gloriae cupiditatem Eos autem qui hoc faciunt propriae Ecclesiae restitui in qua ab initio ordinati sunt ut illic solum ministrent Sed si jam quispiam ex alia in aliam Ecclesiam translatus est nihil prioris Ecclesiae vel corum quae sub ea sunt Martyriorum vel Phochotrophiorum vel Xenodochiorum rebus communicare And elsewhere as well as in the Scholia upon this Canon they are very express to the same purpose That no Bishop shall receive a Clergyman of another Diocess into his Church under pain of Excommunication to both In order to effect this his Lordship was advised by an Ancient and Venerable Prelate I may add one of the Worthiest and Learnedest now in the World to take Bonds of Resignation of those to whom he gave Prebends in case they should go out of the Diocess There is no General Bond this Condition is named and no other This was also the more necessary because his Lordship hath hitherto generally given the Prebends to the Ministers in Market-Towns where the Labour is great and the Provision mean So unhandsomely does this Man reproach his Lordship for a Method that seems so good and useful to the Church and which could be compassed no other way but that which his Lordship made use of Postscript to the Stationer Sir SInce I sent you these Papers I understand by one on whose Judgment I can well depend that there is another Answer prepared by a very learned Hand who has follow'd Mr. Hill through all his Pretences to Learning and the Study of the Fathers and discovers that he has just as much Knowledge as he has Modesty or good Breeding Ignorance and ill Nature go often together For you know whose Character it is That he rageth and is Confident I should be sorry to have sent this to you when there is another so much perfecter coming to your Hand But my Friend comforts me a little by telling me we write in such different ways that both ma prove acceptable and make one Compleat Answer I confess I was amaz'd to hear there was so much Learning employed to refute so poor a Book but the Answer made me was that though Mr. Hill's Book did not deserve it yet the Bishop's did and the Cause did it much more It seemed necessary to take the Diversion that Mr. Hill's Book has perhaps given to Libertines and Atheists as well as to Socinians and other ill-natur'd Men out of the way and to shew the World that Mr. Hill was all through equally blinded with Ignorance and Malice There is no hopes that any thing can convince so aukward a Man as he seems to be A short piece of Parchment founded on a Certain Statute is perhaps the only Answer that can work on him Unless his Friends can prevent it by shewing he has a better right to a Lodging in Moor-Fields where good Air and Discipline may restore him to himself This may seem too pleasant but it is really the charitablest Thought that can be entertained of him For I am sure if his Head is sound his Heart is naught Such Men as he are born to be the Pests of their Neighbourhood and the Plagues of the Church but I hope he will be so subdued that the World shall be no more troubled with him Only I will conclude with one pleasant thing concerning him which I have from so sure a hand that you may depend upon it and publish it While he was contriving to midwife this Book into the World he apprehended it seems that it might raise a Storm and he hoped to secure himself against that by writing another Book in defence of the present Government and for justifying the filling the Sees of the deprived Bishops as he had writ some Years ago a Pamphlet intituled Solomon and Abiathar upon the same subject In this he attack'd Mr. Dod ll's Principle with great Fury This Book he sent up to a Bishop and it seems he thought it was such a Performance and that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops would have been so sensible of this Service which to be sure he thought a signal one that they must have abandoned the Bishop of Salisbury to the indignation of such a Champion But when he saw that small account was had of that Trifle of his for without seeing it I can easily believe nothing stronger can come from such a Pen and that the Archbishop thought so base a Libel as this was such an Injury to the Church as well as to the Order of Bishops that he required him to come and make all due Submissions and Reparation otherwise he judged the Bishop of Salisbury ought for the Churches sake as well as for his own to prosecute him he then resolved to court his old Friends the Jacobites though I am told he treats them in that Book with the same brutality of Style which he bestows in this on the Bishop And therefore he has very earnestly desired his Book may not be printed but be sent back to him again and then if he had it once in his Hands he would perhaps as impudently deny that ever he wrote any such Book as he begins now to deny that he is the Author of this though if the Bishop wants Proofs of it this place can afford him a great many FINIS
REMARKS Of an University-Man UPON A Late BOOK Falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum Written by Mr. Hill of Killmington LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCXCV REMARKS UPON A late Book falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. 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 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 Vniversal 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 'T is 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 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 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 think Pag. 2. that the Bishop in any part of his Discourse as our Author 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. â— viz. That he foully states the Faith of the Divinity and 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 't is 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 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
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 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 therefore Pag. 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 the Pag. 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 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 calls Pag. 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 they Pag. 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 'T is 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 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 is Pag. 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 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 Words Numb 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 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 his Pag. 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 our Pag. 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 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
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 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 denies Pag. 104. Vnderstanding 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 Vnderstanding 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 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 Vnderstanding 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 't is 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 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