Your Eighth Letter happening to come to my View before it was ⟨p. 129⟩printed off, I have the Opportunity of taking Notice to you that it quite misrepresents the intent of the Letter to you subscribed Anonymous, which it makes to be the defending or excusing some Expressions of Dr. Sherlock's; which indeed was the least considerable thing, if it were any thing at all in the design of that Letter, and not altogether accidental to it. The true design of it was, that there might be a clearer Foundation asserted (as possible at least) to the Doctrine of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of the Son of God. Nor can the fortè quod sic, here be solved by the fortè quod non, the Exigency of the Case being such, as that if more be possible, it will be highly requisite; and that it cannot well be avoided to assert more, unless it can be clearly evinced that more is impossible. Nor yet is it necessary to determine how much more is necessary. But not only the commonly received frame of Christian Doctrine, doth shem to require somewhat beyond what the mere ⟨p. 130⟩civil or respective Notion of the word Person imports; but also the plain Letter of Scripture, which says Heb. 1. 3. that the Son is the express Image of the Fathers hypostasis, which seems to signify there are two Hypostases, and other Scriptures seem to say enough, whence we may with parity of Reason collect a third. Now that Letter intimates, I think, sufficient matter of doubt, whether hypostasis doth not signify much more than Person, in your sense.
YOur Eighth Letter happening to come to my View before it was ⟨p. 129⟩printed off, I have the Opportunity of taking Notice to you that it quite misrepresents the intent of the Letter to you subscribed Anonymous, which it makes to be the defending or excusing some Expressions of Dr. Sherlock's; which indeed was the least considerable thing, if it were any thing at all in the design of that Letter, and not altogether accidental to it. The true design of it was, that there might be a clearer Foundation asserted (as possible at least) to the Doctrine of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of the Son of God. Nor can the fortè quod sic, here be solved by the fortè quod non, the Exigency of the Case being such, as that if more be possible, it will be highly requisite; and that it cannot well be avoided to assert more, unless it can be clearly evinced that more is impossible. Nor yet is it necessary to determine how much more is necessary. But not only the commonly receiv'd frame of Christian Doctrine, doth sem to require somewhat beyond what the meer ⟨p. 130⟩civil or respective Notion of the word Person imports; but also the plain Letter of Scripture, which says Heb. 1. 3. that the Son is the express Image of the Fathers hypostasis, which seems to signifie there are two Hyyostases, and other Scriptures seem to say enough, whence we may with parity of Reason collect a third. Now that Letter intimates, I think, sufficient matter of doubt, whether hypostasis doth not signifie much more than Person, in your sense.
