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
Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature This is strange when his Lordship says a while after that Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Pag. 45. Word Which makes him as well a Person before the Incarnation as it does the second Person in the Blessed Trinity because by the Eternal Word is always understood the second Person And since his Lordship does allow him to be a Divine Person as also to be Eternal I wonder how any Man can imagine that his Lordship does not teach any distinction in the Godhead before the Incarnation or that the Personality of Christ or the foundation of the Sonship was first placed in the Humane Nature Since his calling him the Eternal Word makes him a distinct Person from the Father from all Eternity as being second of the ever Blessed Trinity and his styling him a Divine Person supposes the Personality of Christ to be first founded in the Godhead For I should have thought had I not been prejudic'd by abundance of ill Nature that Christ could be called a Divine Person only upon the account of the Godhead dwelling in Flesh and not upon any account of his Manhood For else there would be two Persons in Christ And therefore I think that the Bishop can mean nothing else but that he was a Divine Person only as he was God and consequently so before he was Incarnate because he was Eternal in the Bishop's own Expression And therefore I may positively affirm that our Author's Assertion that the Bishop's plain intention by these words was to place Christ's Personality only in his Manhood to be False and Malicious Yea but says our Author this description of the Bishop's viz. That by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Vnion thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an Incarnate Person or otherwise by this state of his Lordship's Doctrine the Father Son and the Holy Ghost may be conceived as one Incarnate Person How our Critick came to think of this Remark I can't apprehend For I never yet met with any Man that thought the Eternal Word meant the whole Trinity but that when the Eternal Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was mentioned it was always understood of the second Person And when we use that Expression we always think we have explain'd our selves as much as though we had used the Name of tho second Person in the Trinity And the Bishop does seem so plainly to mean this by it that I wonder how any Man endued with Reason could force another Interpretation of it Especially when his Lordship in the very same Page calls the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pag. â—â— three Persons by name and shews how far they are distinguisht the one from the other Which Doctrine I presume is impossible ever to admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity or to make the Father Son and Holy Ghost be conceived as one Incarnate Person when at the same time the Bishop affirms them to be Three Persons Which I must leave to our Author to reconcile Nay in the same Page he has Person three times repeated which shews that he was not either afraid or unwilling to use that Expression as our Author would have us believe besides that which he applies particularly to the Incarnate Word and in every one of these he refers to the Blessed Three 1. He tells us of the Name Person being applyed to the Three 2. He shews what is meant by Person when it is applyed to the Three 3. He tells us that by explaining he does not mean that be will pretend to tell us how this is to be understood and in what respect these Persons are believed to be One and in what respect they are Three Now can any man after all this affirm that his Lordships words would lead one to a Conclusion or at least a fair Jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature When he has been all along asserting a Personal Distinction in the Trinity and made the Second Person in the Trinity that is the Incarnate Word Eternal as plain as words can make it I shall add to this as well as to some other of his bitter and indecent Reflections What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee thou false Tongue Oh deliver my soul O Lord from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue I have not time or if I had I should not think it well spent to take notice of every trivial Insinuation of our Author's I see no cause to believe that his Lordship has used the word Person in any different sense than what ours and the whole Catholick Church has ever used it and if at any time he has omitted it when he names the Blessed Three yet he means as much by it as the Scripture does by his endeavouring to follow as much as may be the Scripture phrase and makes them as much different as the Church does when she names the Persons And it is not only some sly Insinuations and malicious Suppositions to the contrary but direct Proofs and downright Arguments and solid Reason that can satisfie any Impartial and Inquisitive Mind I shall here beg leave to use the Bishop's own words which in his Letter to Dr. Williams he inserts as a just Reflection upon the odd Comments of the Socinians Namely That the Best and I am sure the fairest rule of Criticism is to consider the whole Thread Strain and Phraseology of a Book and not to descant upon the various significations that the words themselves taken severally may be capable of Had our Critick observ'd this Rule he would never have troubled the World with his rude and confused Notions nor have abused himself as he hath now too inconsiderately done But now let us see what our Vindicator has to urge against the Bishop's saying That the Term Person came to Pag. 11. be applied to the Three to discover those who thought that these Three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now as to this he takes up two or three Pages to say nothing only to yield up the Cause and yet to censure the Bishop for saying the Truth He quotes indeed a passage or two from Tertullian and Athanasius but for any thing that they are to his purpose he might as well have quoted Aristotle or
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
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
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