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
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
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
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
Trinity against the Charge of Novelty which he would have the World believe the Bishop alledges against it and to shew that the Primitive Fathers believed it But since I can find no such thing in all the Bishop's Discourse it will be unnecessary to give answer to it All that I can understand of the Bishop's Words is that the Ancients in their Explanations of the Trinity often differ'd from one another and that those who came after endeavour'd by other Explanations to supply those Defects which some who went before them had been guilty of Not that he means they believed differently concerning the Trinity but only that they made use of different Modes of explaining their Notions concerning it And the while Men go about to explain a thing of which they can frame no distinct Idea it is very natural for them to run out into a vast multiplicity of Words into great length and much Darkness and Confusion Many improper Similies will be urged and often impertinent Reasonings will be made use of All which are the unavoidable Consequences of a Man's going about to explain to others that which he does not distinctly understand himself And what is there in all this that charges the Doctrine of the Trinity with Novelty I can't but observe our Author's Ingenuity in saying that his Lordship in his Letter from Zurich has exposed that Passage in St. John ' s First Epistle for doubted There are Three that bear Witness in Heaven The Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are one Since his Lordship only tells us that in some Manuscripts it is to be found and in others not in most of which he shews plainly that it was the Fault of the Copier that omitted it And also seems sufficiently to prove by the Authority of St. Hierom whose Preface he there makes mention of that it was left out by the Arians But besides if I must be said to expose every part of an Author for doubted by saying that it is not to be found in such a MS. which perhaps has all the rest almost all the Authors in the World must suffer by it since I can shew our Vindicator some thousands of MSS. which have only transmitted to us some small parts of Authors and have omitted those which yet by the help of others we can prove to be genuine I shall make no Observation upon this malicious Remark of our Vindicator's It may serve as a pregnant Instance with the rest of the Vindication of the great Power of Malice and ill Nature of transforming every thing into that peculiar Shape which they are resolved it should appear in and also to convince us how little Credit we are to give to things which our selves are not Witnesses of since there are so many False Prophets gone out into the World I can't but take notice of the Learned and Ingenious Observation of our Vindicator upon his Lordship's Simile which he brought not to explain but only to illustrate in some measure the Doctrine of the Trinity which he has transcribed at length I shall only mention those parts of it which our Author criticises upon He denies Pag. 104. Vnderstanding and Will which the Bishop affirms to be different Modes of Thinking to be such either as they are taken as Principles or as they may be supposed as Acts of the Mind Now here I suppose our Vindicator was lost in his own beloved Notions and I wish he had read over Mr. Lock ' s Essay of Humane Vnderstanding and I believe he would at least might have express'd himself less confusedly For I suppose our Vindicator like some others of his stamp takes Volition to be a distinct Agent in us which can command obey and perform several Actions as a distinct Being And no wonder then if it is no Mode of Thinking But certainly if we would speak properly Intellection and Volition if they are considered as Principles if our Vindicator understands any thing by that Word are only Powers of the Mind But if they are reduced to Acts they are then properly speaking Modes of Thinking and nothing more But our Vindicator is mightily disturb'd at the Bishop's saying That in Acts of Memory Imagination and Discourse there seems to be a mixture of both Principles or a third that results out of them For we feel a Freedom in one respect but as for those Marks that are in our Brain that set things in our Memory or furnish us with Words we are necessary Agents they come in our way but we do not know how We cannot call up a Figure of things or Words at pleasure some Disorder in our Mechanism hides or flattens them which when it goes off they start up and serve us but not by any Act of Vnderstanding and Will Now says our Critick to this As for his Mixtures I leave them purely to himself but for his third resulting Principle I am to seek For it must be such a Principle that is neither free nor necessary and such a one as is hard to be got for Love or Mony Nay not so hard neither For Mr. Lock tells us in his Chapter of the Modes of Thinking that this is what the French call Resvery but our Language has scarce a Name for it Which I take to be a good Authority to use our Author 's own Words in despight of a bad Judgment and defective Libraries Which may teach our Author if ever he writes more which I pray God forbid unless it be a Retractation of this ill-natur'd Book to do it with more Caution and Consideration And amongst the rest this was one Reason why I first undertook this since he tells us of another Treatise which he designs to publish to beg of him for his own sake and for the Churches sake and for the sake of his Brethren the Clergy to conceal it For I think it is enough for any Man semel insanire and to expose himself without any regard to his own or the Churches Honour I shall not search into our Author's Explication as he calls it of the Sacred Mysteries of the Ever-Blessed Trinity because as 't is Foreign to the present purpose so is it confusedly drest up with his affected dark way of Writing that I could hardly read it with Patience much less could I spend much time upon it in considering every Passage of it And now I should have left him but that I still find him spitting his Venome at his Lordship for saying that some have thought that the Term Son did not at all belong to the Blessed Three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias that as he was to be the King of Israel so was he to be the Son of God Now does it appear from hence that the Bishop is a Favourer of this Opinion Or that himself does believe that the Jews expected that their Messias should not be God As to the latter it is