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
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
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
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
really believe our Saviour to be the true Messias and at the same time to reject 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 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 for Pag. 54. saying That too many both Ancients and Moderns have perhaps gone beyond due Bounds while some were pleased 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 to Pag. 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 confesses Pag. 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 't is 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 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
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