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
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
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
Seneca He introduces them to shew that the Term Person was then used but not to prove that the occasion of its use was not upon account of the Patripassiun or the like Heresies Now I would desire him to produce any Author that asserts that the word Person was used before some Heresie arose that enforc'd the necessity of it For if there is nothing more meant by saying that there are three Different Persons in the Godhead than what the Scripture means by saying that there are Three that bear Witness in Heaven and elswhere to the same purpose there could be no necessity for using the Word Person to explain it unless it was to satisfie and undeceive those who either doubted it or denied the reality of any Personal Distinction And if all Men had believed exactly as the Scripture declares it self I may well suppose that the Term Person might not have been made use of at least there would have been no necessity for it to this very Day And though those Hereticks that denied any Personal Distinction in the Godhead denied the received Doctrine of the Church yet does it not follow as our Author would persuade us that the Word Person was before used since as was already said what the Scripture has revealed to us concerning that sacred Mystery imports as much as what we mean by a Personal Distinction From whence it follows that since there was no occasion for the use of it 't is very probable that Term was not till some Heresies broke out introduc't into the Church and if so our Vindicator's and not his Lordship's Insinuation is false and injurious Tertullian indeed charges some with denying the Eternal Word to be a Substantial Real Person But this is only an interpretation of the Scripture or seems design'd to shew in what Sense he understands it And if we should grant that he was not the first that used it yet it will not follow but that there were Hereticks before that denied any distinction in the Godhead which might give occasion for the first use of it I deny not that the Word Person was used regularly in the Church or that it is very expressive of the Sense of the Scripture and very agreeable to it but only that it does not appear that it was made use of before some Heresies or Disputes arose about the Meaning of those Places of Scripture which made the use of it seem absolutely necessary And this and no other seems to be his Lordship's plain meaning But had his Lordship shewn any dislike to the use of it which I don't any where find in his whole Discourse the least reason to suspect yet I find no less an Author than St. Hierom cited by a late great Prelate who always used that Word with a great deal of Approbation and Esteem as desiring in some of his Writings to be excus'd mentioning it Though I know this is nothing to the Purpose yet I wonder our Author would let him escape without some Mark of Defamation as seeming to have a greater dislike to that Term than the Bishop has any where exprest and therefore a fitter Subject to vent his Passion against But to go on In his next Paragraph he comes to Pag. 15. shew us that his Surmises against his Lordship's Integrity are well grounded by his Lordship's Explanation of the Term Person For by Person saith his Lordship is only meant that every one of the Blessed Three has a peculiar Distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other Two Here says our Author it is plain That by using the Term Three so often without adding Person he shuns the Word as much as he dares at present to do and assigns a Distinction which is not any way Personal Now as to his shunning the Word Person I think there is no reason to suspect when he had used it but in the same Sentence that our Author finds fault with and I may offer to say that he could not there have properly used it oftner But I suppose our Author would have had his Lordship say that by there being Three Persons in the Godhead is to be understood that those Persons are Three For otherwise how his Lordship's Explanation is Faulty I can't see And if his Lordship dares not make it his own or allow it for proper as the Vindicator maliciously insinuates yet there are others that dare Without doubt as our Author would have it 't is the best Definition in the World of Ens to say it is Ens and that an Individuum is an Individuum How we can otherwise explain there being Three Persons in the Godhead I can't imagine but by saying they are really distinct from each other And our Author 's fine turn of three Tobacco Pipes may as well refer to the Apostle's saying there are Three that bear witness in Heaven as to any thing his Lordship has said and then he might have added Blasphemy to his Nonsense Yes but says our Author his Lordship should have added in his Definition of the Term Person the Words of Father Son and Holy Ghost Now I can tell our Author that this Answer is to be made to those who enquire who are the Three that constitute the Godhead and not to what we mean by Person when we apply it to them as such For when we consider them as Persons there is no necessity that we should in the same Breath explain the Relation they bear to each other And though they are Three Persons as being Father Son and Holy Ghost yet that would be no direct Answer to the Question What we mean by Person when we apply it to the Blessed Three And if our Vindicator had truly considered this he might have stopt his Fury for a Page or two together When I first read this I thought it might be the slip of an angry hasty Pen but when I considered it was of the same strain with the rest of the Book a great deal said upon nothing I concluded that it must proceed either from gross Ignorance or inveterate Malice I suspect something more than should be I am sure the whole Foundation is rotten and more than tacitely imports a Renunciation of all Charity the greatest Pag. 17. Branch of our Christianity In his next Paragraph he comes to give up the Cause for he tells us that by the Bishop's calling them the Blessed Three he means as much as we do by Persons because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to every of the Three must mean the same as we do by Person and if so the only quarrel is about Words and not the Sense of the thing and I know no reason why his Lordship should be censured for not mentioning Person in every Line when every where he means the same as we do by it and has exprest himself in the same Terms as the Scripture has done And I much wonder why Mr. Hill did not
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