REMARKS Of an University-Man UPON A Late BOOK, Falsely called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum. Written by Mr. Hill of Killmington.  
LONDON: Printed for Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCV.   

REMARKS UPON A late Book, falsely called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, etc.  
THE great Satisfaction I had in reading the Lord Bishop of Sarum' s Four Discourses to his Clergy, and that especially, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, (wherein I met with such excellent Arguments, as I had not found in other Authors, for the Confirmation of that great Article of our Faith,) obliged me to think that they could not but be received with as general an Esteem and Approbation, as, in my Judgement, they deserved. And as I was persuaded they would be extremely useful, so I could not but imagine they would remain unexcepted against, by the most Malicious and Illnatured, unless they were such as denied the very Divinity of our Saviour. All which, I was the more fully convinced of, and believed I might rely upon them, as agreeable to the true and orthodox Doctrine of the Church, since they appeared in Public with the Approbation and Licence of the never enough to be admired Late Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Sincerity, Clearness, and Strength of Judgement, I was well assured, would approve of nothing as the Doctrine of the Church, and fit to believed by its Clergy, which deserved the Censure of a Convocation. And though there came out some Exceptions against the Second Discourse, which relates to the Divinity and Death of Christ, as well as against the Archbishop's Sermons, and one of the Bishop of Worcester's, by the Socinian Party; yet they appeared so trifling, (especially since they have been answered by the Bishop of Sarum' s Letter to Dr. Williams, which is annexed to his Learned Vindication of the other Two) that they rather confirmed than lessened my Opinion of it. But I must confess, I was something surprised, and began to distrust my Judgement, when I saw Mr. Hill's Book come forth with such a Title, as I thought was almost enough, had there▪ been nothing more in it, to have made the Bishop's Second▪ Discourse, which is the only one aimed at, be censured as Heretical; and, had it been made good, must have thought it my Duty also, as being a Member of one of those Bodies, to whose Judgement the Book is referred, as well as to the Church Universal, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, and the next Session of Convocation, to assist at the Solemnity of condemning the Bishop himself for an Heretic. But when I considered that it was grown to too general a Custom, for Authors to make large and specious Titles, to make amends for the emptiness of the Book; and that they oftener give a Specimen of their own ill Nature, than of any real Errors they discover; I began to be no more concerned at the Title, than I was at the mighty Quotations which this Author makes use of; when I considered, that by turning to the Indices of the Paris Editions of the Fathers in our Public Library, I could quote as much, and as little to the Purpose as our Author has done.  
I am almost apt to think, it would be labour lost to run through his whole Book, to detect every Absurdity in it; since I believe those who have read the Preface to it, were so sufficiently convinced of the weakness of the Author, that they could not think it worth their while to make any farther search into it. 'Tis a great deal of Pity that the Letter, which he mentions to have sent to his Lordship, did not appear with the Preface; for certainly it must have proved as great a Satire upon himself, as the Preface appears to be. But I am too forward in my Censure; for, if you will believe him, the Bishop is mightily beholding to him for his gentle usage of him, and for not divulging some Private Practice; which upon fitting terms he is contented to hush up at present. And therefore his Lordship had not best provoke him, and think of returning an Answer; for if he doth, he shall then be set free from all Obligations to Secrecy and good Manners; and then Woe betid him. This I take to be the Sense of what follows, viz. But for the Private Practice objected to him, I will at present spare him; and if his Lordship will be so kind to himself, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Matter shall be hushed up. A trifling and Childish Insinuation: For had the Bishop been really guilty of any such Private Practice, as would have been a dishonourable Reflection upon him. I question not, but we should have heard more of it; since so much Malice could never have let slip so fair an Occasion, without making the best Improvements of it, had there been any thing more, that could have advanced the Credit of the other Aspersions, or have been any support to the weakness of the Cause. The rest of the Preface is of the same Piece; and thus he concludes it; But as to his Doctrine, it is gone abroad, and cannot return; and if it be of evil Influence on young Students, or Men prepared to Irreligion, or of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign, or State of Religion; every Man has a just right, fairly and bravely to oppose it, without fear of Men, or respect of Persons: And if it be not so, I promise his Lordship the most public Recantation and Penance. And, supposing he should be obliged to undergo it, with the utmost severity the Law could inflict, he may remain a lasting and sad Example, of the Punishment due to all Libelers, and to all malicious Forgers of Falsehood. For though I have made a very diligent search into the Bishop's Discourse, and into the Objections this Author has made against it; yet I do solemnly protest, that I do not find any one of those Charges made good against it. What he means by these Words of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign, I can't guests; I believe they are not only very rude, but such a malicious Insinuation, as if it can be understood, deserves a more severe Answer, and of a different Nature, than I am able to give him. How fairly and bravely he has opposed any thing that the Bishop has said, or rather, how fairly and openly he has rendered himself contemptible, is now high time to consider.  
He gins his Book with a great deal of Confidence, and supercilious Contempt; That he has Two things to urge against the Lord Bishop of Sarum, in his Discourse on the Divinity and Death of Christ. 1. That the Bishop very defectively (to say no worse) states our Faith and Doctrine in the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation. And 2. That he exposes the Fathers under the same, and worse Imputations; which is the Second thing, that, he says, offends. All that the Bishop 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 believed 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 show 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 falsely and maliciously insinuates, censures the Catholic and Established Principles of the Ancients; but only shows us some of their Failures and Imperfections. He denies not, that the Fathers believed a Trinity, as the Scriptures had revealed it; but only, that they were at a loss, when they offered 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 expressed 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 Natured Exceptions, which our Vindicator has very unjustly framed 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. ●.  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 Catholic and Christian Faith. Now where is the Fault of all this? and yet, as I perceive, this is one of the Chiefest Imputations of Heresy 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 ourselves, 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 Catholic Faith, but a mere Opinion, and Persuasion of a Party. With what Confidence he asserts this, I can't imagine: He cannot show me where the Bishop says, that the Catholic Faith is but a mere Opinion; for my part, I can see no such thing throughout the whole Discourse, no more than I can find that he says, 'tis 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, etc. And a little after, by those of this Persuasion, etc. And then a little after he adds, That this is the Doctrine I intent now to explain to you. And then, after he has explained it according to the Sense of the Church of England, he calls it the received Doctrine; by which he can only mean, (nor can any one else give another Interpretation of it, than) the Article of our Faith, which we profess to believe and defend. I would willingly know where is the hurt of all this, in saying (as I before mentioned) that there are Three Opinions concerning Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, one of which is that of our Church, which I am fully persuaded, is a Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures, and confirmed by the Authority of the Primitive Fathers. Dares any one, I say, after all this, urge that I assert this only as a new Opinion and Persuasion of a Party? And if the Bishop does not say as much concerning the Trinity, I desire to lie under no better an Imputation, than our Author has very justly deserved, of stating other men's Doctrines falsely and by halves, according as the Bias of his present Inclinations turned him. I could not imagine that ever Prejudice or Ill Nature, should so far blind and misled 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, etc. and yet after all, we acknowledge that the Christian is the only true Doctrine. God forbidden, 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 showing 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 not where that the Bishop asserts Opinion to be Faith; and if he had, he might have been better and more clearly convinced 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 Critic, 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 overgrown Critics, 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 Critic 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 Fancy 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 contained in the Scriptures, we were obliged 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 Penmen, yet I am obliged to believe nothing as an Article of Faith, but what I am persuaded is revealed in Scripture. And certainly 'tis much more safe to rely upon the pure Word of God for the Truth of any Doctrine, if I am convinced 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 concerned to believe this, than I find it agreeable to the other. 'Tis 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 arrived 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 Judgement 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 aught 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 oddly 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 itself, 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, than 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 happened after the Sixth Century, had begun as early as the Third, this had not at all changed 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 expressed, 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 inquire after: But of this enough. When I read this Criticism of our Vindicator's, I was inclined to think, he was, though perhaps unwittingly, set a work by the Papists, as I before imagined 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 Author, we are not taught, whether there were three, or any one Person in the Godhead, before the 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 Critics, (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 dwelled 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 prejudiced 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 Union of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity, God and Man truly became one Person) will admit the Patripassian Heresy, of but one Person in the Deity: For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father, the Union 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 Critic 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 explained ourselves, as much as though we had used the Name of though 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. ●●.  three Persons by name, and shows how far they are distinguished the one from the other: Which Doctrine I presume is impossible ever to admit the Patripassian Heresy 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 shows 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 applied to the Three. 2. He shows what is meant by Person, when it is applied 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 Lordship's words would lead one to a Conclusion, or at least a fair Jealousy, 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 Catholic 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 satisfy 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 Critic observed 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 Heretics 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 show 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 Heresy arose, that enforced 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 elsewhere to the same purpose; there could be no necessity for using the Word Person to explain it, unless it was to satisfy 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 itself, 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 Heretics 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, 'tis very probable that Term was not, till some Heresies broke out, introduced 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 designed to show 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 Heretics 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 shown 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 excused 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 expressed, and therefore a fit Subject to vent his Passion against.  
But to go on: In his next Paragraph, he comes to 
Pag. 15.  show 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 oftener. 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, 'tis 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 inquire 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 stopped 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 tacitly 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 expressed himself in the same Terms as the Scripture has done. And I much wonder why Mr. Hill did not catechise 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 Baptised, 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 seemed to avoid mentioning of Trinity or Persons (which yet I shown flowed from no dislike of those Words, but merely 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 shortened 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 falsely 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 Messiah, 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 fullness of time took our Flesh, and by that Union became Christ, our Anointed High Priest, and the Messiah that was to come into the World. And I dare positively affirm, that from this Union resulted the Personality of Christ, that is, the Messiah; 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, 'tis Heresy, and destroys the reality of the Incarnation. The Athanasian Creed, which we profess to adhere to, makes Personality to consist in the Union 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 Messiah. Our Author very confidently and erroneously affirms, that the assumption of the Humane Nature to the Divine, contributed nothing of Personality to the Messiah: But certainly the Athanasian Creed, if Words were designed 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 complete 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 Messiah, 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 Judgement of the Church Universal, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, the two famous Universities, 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 Sum of) and the present Faith and Persuasion of our own Church of England; which God grant may long stand fixed 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, than he was Christ, that is, the Messiah, 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 'tis downright Heresy; for that makes them two distinct Persons; at least it makes him the Messiah before the union of both Natures. But besides, as soon as Christ was born, he was styled Christ the Lord, by way of Eminence; to show 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 downright Absurdity and Contradiction in it. Now I was much wondering 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 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, etc.  
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 Virtue 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 Deify 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 applied 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 dispensed 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 signify Jehovah, as well as Infinite Power, Majesty, and the like, are often used to signify 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, show me thy Majesty, as our Author plays upon Words, yet it would be Sense to say, O Infinite Majesty, show 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' 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 Critics impenetrable Syllogism, as he calls 
Pag. 26  it, will vanish, with all his other sophisticated Shows of Arguments.  
But now that we may see what a mighty knack at Invention our Author has attained 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 imagined 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. 'Tis 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 applied 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 Logic 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 Virtue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word in him; that the Jehovah dwelled 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 Virtue 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 justify Idolatry, as our Vindicator would insinuate: But if every thing must be Heresy and Idolatry which an angry Man is resolved 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 natured 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 saying, that Jehovah was a foederal Name of God, which being generally translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Septuagint, which Name was applied to our Saviour in the New Testament by way of Eminence, to show that he was the true Jehovah, who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always in the Septuagint Translation. Now though our Author does seem to approve of the Argument drawn from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet he is angry that his Lordship should call Jehovah a federal Name of God. And his Reasons are, because he was called Jehovah by Balaam, and also by Job, who were in no Covenant with him. Now as to Balaam, we may answer, that he speaks of Jehovah as the God of Israel: And his Words 
Numb. 23, 21.  are, Jehovah his God is with him; which seem directly to mean, that their God, who by them is called Jehovah, is with them; and if he did not mean so, why did he say any thing more, than his God is with him? Whence it seems plain, that he means by it, that the God who was more peculiarly styled Jehovah amongst them, was ready to help and defend them: And it is very probable, that the Name was only known amongst the Jews, by the very signification of it, according to Dr. Lightfoot, which was faithful in performing what he had promised; that is, in keeping the Promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob concerning their Seed. And though that Name is also mentioned in Job, yet it is certain, that Job could not come by it, unless he had it from some particular Revelation from God: And therefore in answer to our Author, I will venture to advance this probable Account of it; That though Job, as is now generally believed, lived in the time of the Israelites Bondage in Egypt, and was not in the same Covenant with them, yet the Jews meeting with the History of him, might change the Name of God into that of Jehovah, and probably Moses himself might do it: or if the Author or Translator of that Book was Moses, or one of the Jewish Nation, he to make the whole Old Testament of a Piece, might call God by the Name of Jehovah, tho' neither Job nor his Friends knew any thing of it; as also thereby to show the Israelites and others, that it was the same Jehovah who was their God, and in covenant with them, lest the People, who were very prone to Idolatry, should think it was some other God, who had brought such strange things to pass, and thereupon pay Adoration to him. These are the two chief Arguments our Author insists upon; All the rest are very little, if at all to his purpose. And seeing his 
Pag. 90.  Lordship in answer to his Socinian Adversary, answered this Objection which our Vindicator makes, I shall no longer dwell upon it. And if our Author has no better Objections to urge, I don't see what reason he has to call it a federal Whimsy. Here I can't help observing our 
Pag. 45.  Author's conclusion of this Paragraph; which may serve as a convincing Argument, that all our Author says, is the Result of Malice and ill Nature, which seem to be the only Causes, and not the false Doctrine of his Lordship's Discourse, that first persuaded him to appear in Public, and to let the World see what manner of Spirit he was of. And therefore, says he, after all his Lordship's critical Trifling, he wisely comes to say a great many Good and Orthodox Truths on this Article, so far as that, that Christ was God, who manifested himself in our Flesh, which being so dissonant to all his former Modes of Expressions and avowed Notions (which, what they are, God only knows, I see nothing contrary to the true Doctrine of the Church) seem to have dropped from him, either unawares, or for a Colour of Defence against a foreseen Charge of Heresy (which certainly he had no reason to fear, since it doth not appear, that he hath hitherto said any thing that looks in the least that way) or perhaps the singular Providence of God might so overrule the Madness of the Prophet, to make him speak that for the Christian Faith, which he had no mind to, that his manifest Inconsistences might render him of no Authority for the use of Heretics, either in present or future Ages. I think I need make no Answer to this, or bring against this most uncharitable, and undeserved Calumny, any railing Accusation, but only say, the Lord rebuke him.  
But now, that we may end the first part of this falsely styled Vindication, let us consider the Answer that he makes to his Lordship's Argument for the Deity of Christ, 
45, 46.  which is, that the Jews and Apostates from Christianity never charged the Apostles nor Church with Idolatry or Creature Worship, which they would certainly have done, had the Christian Principles been Arian or Socinian. Against this our Vindicator urges, that it was the common Opprobrium both of Jews and Gentiles, and perfect Apostates, that the Christians adored a mere Malefactor, which was certainly an imputation of Creature Worship: And that the Jews ever did, 
Pag. 47.  and do at this day, charge us with the Worship of a vile Creature, who really (as they think) had no Deity in him; else, had they also thought him to be God, they had been, ipso facto, converted to us, the want of this Faith, being the only Bar to their Conversion, and the Cause why they execrate both our Lord and us for this very Doctrine. And then he concludes very triumphantly; So unlucky is his Lordship, even 
Pag. 48.  in the fairest part of this Discourse, as if God had laid this Curse on him, that he that had sophistically handled the Christian Faith in most part of it, should not have the Glory or Comfort of having served it, in any one Particular. Certainly, any one that reads this, would imagine that the Bishop was the most profligate Enemy to the Christian Faith that ever appeared against it. But if we can find no just ground for such opprobrious Speeches, then certainly the Author of them has the greater Sin. Now I will readily grant, with our Author, that the Jews did not believe our Saviour to be God, but only that he was a mere Man; nor do I find that his Lordship denies it: All that I perceive his Lordship intends by it, is, that the Jews expected their Messiah should be God; and that upon supposition it was he that was come into the World, they did not urge it as Idolatry to worship him, which certainly they would have done, had they thought he would have been a mere Man, or a God only by Office, as the Socinians would have him, and not from all Eternity coessential with the Father. Now I leave any Man to judge, if this does not seem to be a just Account, and a fair Interpretation of his Lordship's Argument. For I suppose, no one can think, that the Bishop designed by it, to show that the Jews did really believe our Saviour to be the true Messiah, 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 worshipping him, whom, though they had granted to be the Messiah, yet they owned to be no more than Man, as they expected their Messiah 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 forced 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 convinced, 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 falsely and by halves, as he has in several Places, very apparently, and too maliciously served 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 bias my Judgement on either side. And now I hope I may leave it to all unprejudiced Enquirers after Truth, to judge, whether all those hard Say, 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 looked upon as a Shuffage of scurrilous Expressions, that it would seem superfluous to answer an Author that I found generally condemned: But when I considered, there be some who are ill natured enough to believe any Scandal that is cast upon those, whom they are prejudiced against, without considering the Causes of it; I thought I might do some Service, by endeavouring to undeceive those who had been either wilfully prejudiced, or inconsiderately surprised, into a belief of such ill natured 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 inquire 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 resolved 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 show 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 showing 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 itself, is offered to be made intelligible. I should have wondered how our Author could have forced 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 citys 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 explained, 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 Similes, 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 Similes are Lame, and such as he will not make out. I shall not inquire into the Original of that Expression, Light of Light, in our Nicene Crede; for whatsoever it was that first occasioned it, 'tis nothing at all to our present purpose. Yet this is certain, that such like Similes 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 Trinity, against the Charge of Novelty, which he would have the World believe, the Bishop alleges against it, and to show 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 differed from one another, and that those who came after, endeavoured 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 Similes 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 shows 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 show 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 ourselves 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.  Understanding 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 Understanding, and I believe he would, at least might, have expressed 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 disturbed 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 Understanding and Will. Now says our Critic 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 despite of a bad Judgement and defective Libraries. Which may teach our Author, if ever he writes more (which I pray God forbidden, unless it be a Retractation of this ill-natured 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 Church's 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 Church's 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 'tis Foreign to the present purpose, so is it confusedly dressed 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 Venom 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 Messiah, the Jews having had this Notion of the Messiah, 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 Messiah should not be God? As to the latter, it is 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 Messiah 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 Subtleties as Dregs, either of Aeones, of the Valentinians, or of the Platonic 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 differed from one another, but even from themselves in speaking upon this Argument. To this, says our Critic, 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 received; 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 evinced. 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 Catholic 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 Ideas 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 shown 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 Clergyman, 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 Judgement, than offend in the Breach of so great a Duty; which is so expressly laid down in Scripture; and which ought to be one of the greatest Characteristics 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 Error in our Judgement, 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 horror and just detestation of which I leave him to the Great Judge of all the Earth, who will recompense 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 Church's sake, as well as for the sake of that right Reverend and Learned Person whom our Author designed 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 public 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, than the use of the Terms, Essence, Persons, Hypostasis, and Consubstantial are to be justified, both by showing that they are not contrary to the Scripture, but agreeing with it, and also by showing 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 signify a Vizard or Representation; if Heretics 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 though his Lordship was not of the Dean of St. Paul's Opinion, yet he thought it was fit as well as just, to show that great Authorities from the Ancients might be brought for it. His chief intent being to lay that heat, and to show the inconvenience of going too far, or too positively in Explanations. So he mentioned only so much as might justify that design. This is the foundation of all the stir that our Author has made, which as I am truly informed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops look upon as a breach not only of Charity, but of the Order of the Church. For it is far from their thoughts that either a Bishop, or even an Archbishop should have a Privilege to corrupt the Faith, and be safe when he has done it. As they ought to be the chief Conveyors of this Sacred Depositum, so if any of them should so far betray his trust, as to offer to corrupt it, he must be used with all severity. But if such a case should happen, the method of proceeding aught to be a denunciation to the Archbishop, when it is in the case of a Bishop. This aught to be first made to the Archbishop in private, and if that will not do, than it ought to be made in open Court by Articles. If any thing is taught contrary to the Doctrine of the first Four General Councils, it is by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. Heresy. And if it is contrary to the Creeds, than it falls under the Act of Uniformity. The Three Creeds being parts of the Book of Common-Prayer. And if any Doctrine is contrary to the Thirty nine Articles, than the Proceed are to be founded on the Authority of the Church in a Convocation confirmed by the King. This is a Regular Method, and if Mr. Hill had took this way, he could have met with no sort of obstruction. But it is certainly intolerable that a Book writ by a Bishop, and Licenced by an Archbishop, should be thus attacked, and a Bishop be so openly defamed.  
I have one thing more to add, and that is an account of that private Practice which our Author in his Preface objects against the Bishop as unjust, and that is only this: When his Lordship came to the See of Sarum, he found the prebend's so scattered up and down England, that there was seldom a Surplice-man to Preach. The Cathedral was often very ill served. So he resolved to keep the Dignities of the Church of Sarum within the Diocese, and to oblige those that left the Diocese to leave the Church likewise, according to the Tenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Which is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Beverig. Pandect. Canon. Tom. 1. p. 123.   
Non liceat Clerico in duarum Civitatum Ecclesiis eodem tempore in Catalogum referri: Et in ea qua a principio ordinatus est, & in ea in quam tanquam ad majorem confugit, propter inanis gloriae cupiditatem. Eos autem qui hoc faciunt propriae Ecclesiae restitui, in qua ab initio ordinati sunt, ut illic solum ministrent. Sed si jam quispiam ex alia in aliam Ecclesiam translatus est, nihil prioris Ecclesiae, vel corum quae sub ea sunt Martyriorum vel Phochotrophiorum vel Xenodochiorum rebus communicare. And elsewhere as well as in the Scholia upon this Canon they are very express to the same purpose, That no Bishop shall receive a Clergyman of another Diocese into his Church, under pain of Excommunication to both. In order to effect this, his Lordship was advised by an Ancient and Venerable Prelate, I may add, one of the Worthiest and Learnedest now in the World, to take Bonds of Resignation of those to whom he gave prebend's, in case they should go out of the Diocese. There is no General Bond, this Condition is named and no other. This was also the more necessary, because his Lordship hath hitherto generally given the prebend's to the Ministers in Market-Towns, where the Labour is great, and the Provision mean. So unhandsomely does this Man reproach his Lordship, for a Method that seems so good and useful to the Church, and which could be compassed no other way but that which his Lordship made use of.   

Postscript to the Stationer.  
Sir,  
SInce I sent you these Papers, I understand by one, on whose Judgement I can well depend, that there is another Answer prepared by a very learned Hand; who has followed Mr. Hill, through all his Pretences to Learning and the Study of the Fathers; and discovers that he has just as much Knowledge as he has Modesty, or good Breeding: Ignorance and ill Nature go often together: For you know whose Character it is, That he rageth and is Confident. I should be sorry to have sent this to you, when there is another so much perfecter coming to your Hand. But my Friend comforts me a little, by telling me, we writ in such different ways, that both ma prove acceptable, and make one Complete Answer.  
I confess, I was amazed to hear there was so much Learning employed to refute so poor a Book; but the Answer made me was, that though Mr. Hill's Book did not deserve it, yet the Bishop's did, and the Cause did it much more. It seemed necessary to take the Diversion that Mr. Hill's Book has perhaps given to Libertines and Atheists, (as well as to Socinians, and other ill-natured Men) out of the way, and to show the World that Mr. Hill was all through, equally blinded with Ignorance and Malice. There is no hopes that any thing can convince so awkward a Man, as he seems to be. A short piece of Parchment, founded on a Certain Statute, is perhaps, the only Answer that can work on him: Unless his Friends can prevent it, by showing he has a better right to a Lodging in Moorfields, where good Air and Discipline may restore him to himself. This may seem too pleasant; but it is really the charitablest▪ Thought that can be entertained of him: For I am sure if his Head is sound, his Heart is naught. Such Men as he, are born to be the Pests of their Neighbourhood, and the Plagues of the Church; but I hope he will be so subdued, that the World shall be no more troubled with him.  
Only I will conclude with one pleasant thing concerning him, which I have from so sure a hand, that you may depend upon it, and publish it: While he was contriving to midwife this Book into the World, he apprehended, it seems, that it might raise a Storm; and he hoped to secure himself against that, by writing another Book in defence of the present Government, and for justifying the filling the Sees of the deprived Bishops (as he had writ some Years ago, a Pamphlet, entitled Solomon and Abiathar, upon the same subject) In this, he attacked Mr. Dod— ll's Principle with great Fury: This Book he sent up to a Bishop; and it seems he thought it was such a Performance, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops would have been so sensible of this Service, (which to be sure he thought a signal one) that they must have abandoned the Bishop of Salisbury to the indignation of such a Champion. But when he saw that small account was had of that Trifle of his, (for without seeing it, I can easily believe nothing stronger can come from such a Pen) and that the Archbishop thought so base a Libel as this, was such an Injury to the Church, as well as to the Order of Bishops, that he required him to come and make all due Submissions and Reparation, otherwise he judged the Bishop of Salisbury ought for the Church's sake, as well as for his own, to prosecute him; he then resolved to court his old Friends the Jacobites; (though, I am told, he treats them in that Book with the same brutality of Style, which he bestows in this on the Bishop.) And therefore he has very earnestly desired his Book may not be printed, but be sent back to him again: and then if he had it once in his Hands, he would perhaps as impudently deny that ever he wrote any such Book, as he gins now to deny that he is the Author of this; though if the Bishop wants Proofs of it, this place can afford him a great many.   
FINIS.