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
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 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's Pag. 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 Now I would desire to know whether this is the Doctrine of our Church if not 't is Heresie and destroys the reality of the Incarnation The Athanasian Creed which we profess to adhere to makes Personality to consist in the Vnion 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 Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England the two famous Vniversities and the next Session of Convocation should deny an Ancient Doctrine of the Church the direct 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 the Pag. 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 't is 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
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 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 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 POSTSCRIPT AFter I had sent this up to London I received a particular or two from a Gentleman who assured me he had it from the Bishops own mouth relating to the present Dispute which I thought might be proper to insert One is that the true reason why he avoided repeating of the word Person is this that he was to instruct his Clergy how to deal with Socinians who acknowledging no Authority but Scripture they must be only dealt with according to that Concession Therefore every thing was to be avoided that was not in terminis in Scripture Now when this Article is once proved then the use of the Terms Essence Persons Hypostasis and Consubstantial are to be justified both by shewing that they are not contrary to the Scripture but agreeing with it and also by shewing that it is in the power of the Church when no new Doctrine is pretended to be added to the Christian Faith to make use of such terms as may be thought fit to prevent and discover all Equivocations And since even the Name Persona in Latin may signifie a Vizar or Representation if Hereticks had owned a fraudulent meaning in receiving this it was in the power of the Church to have chosen another So that tho' the Church can add no new Doctrine to that which is revealed yet she may use stricter terms when she finds an abuse in the use of larger ones As for the reason that led him to give an account of the different ways used by the Ancients in explaining this Mystery it was only this that the answer to the Dean of St. Paul's was writ in so particular a Style that it was much read He feared this might be carried far to raise a fire in the Church and to give the Enemies of the Faith a pleasant Entertainment So tho his Lordship was not of the Dean of St. Paul's Opinion yet he thought it was fit as well as just to shew that great Authorities from the Ancients might be brought for it His chief intent being to lay that heat and to shew the inconvenience of going too far or too positively in Explanations So he mention'd only so much
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
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 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 't is 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 to examine that Tradition by and am no farther concern'd to believe this than I find it agreeable to the other 'T is 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 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
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