acknowledged by all the Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition It is somewhat strange to see a Protestant use that as a necessary Character to establish Faith which the Papists employ to destroy it The Papist thinks to have driven the Protestant to the impossibility of shewing how Faith is produced in a man who reads the Scripture because such a man can't be sure whether his being persuaded by Revelation of some Fundamental Truth is a ground he may safely rely upon before he has Examined whether all the Churches agree upon that point that seems to be Revealed or not And Mr. Hill it seems being not satisfied with what we answer to this Objection thinks fit to side with the Papist How edifying this proceeding can be let Divines judge Pray Sir tell me what you think of this when you hear it said that Faith has been so intrusted to the Custody of the whole Church by the Apostles that it was preserved by the Successors of the Apostles But what I require says Mr. Hill is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular Mens private Opinions but originally committed to the charge and custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive body p. 6. Does Faith then depend upon the knowledge of the Apostles Successors or their faithfulness or unfaithfulness in keeping this Sacred Depositum This puts me in mind of what Vasquez says that the Faith of a Christian does so absolutely depend upon the Authority of his Leaders that if at this day a Heathen being cast by a storm into England did embrace the Belief of our Church which rejects Transubstantiation he would be in a state of Salvation tho' the Church of Rome which alledges Tradition for this Dogma and has it in her Creed declares that one can't be Saved without professing that monstrous Doctrine I know St. Augustine has said non crederem Evangelio nisi me moveret Ecclesiae Authoritas it seems Mr. Hill was deceived by this Maxim which the Papists have adopted after they had corrupted it For St. Augustine speaks only of the Ministery of the Church in proposing the Gospels as written by Authors Divinely Inspired This was well observed by Melchior Canus lib. 2. c. 8. The same Ministry may be attributed to the Church with relation to the Creeds that it proposes to us as a faithful Abridgment of the Apostles Doctrine but it is ridiculous to imagine that we cannot produce an Act of Christian Faith without knowing the general consent of all the Churches in professing the same Truths It is not the consent of the Church that makes a Doctrine either true or fundamental the Nature of the Doctrine it self makes it so A Divine who has pored long upon Antiquity may by an exact study and meditation have informed himself of that consent but this serves more for his particular Instruction and for the confirmation of his own Theological Notions concerning the distinction of Points fundamental from Points that are not fundamental than to confirm his Faith as he is a Christian Mr. Hill makes a strange use of the Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus c. That Priest was a Semipelagian that is he thought that a Man could believe by his own strength and that afterward God gave him Grace to Execute his Good and Pious Resolutions He introduced this Maxim merely in opposition to St. Augustine who pretended to have found his Doctrine concerning Grace in St. Paul's Epistles so that this Father was obliged either to confute the Fathers or to abandon his Doctrine which he had caused to be Authorised by the Councils of Africa After all he confesses himself that his Method could only be of use against new-born Heresies such as he pretended St. Augustine's Doctrine to be There is nothing more easie says Mr. Hill than for us to be informed of the Belief of Antiquity I confess we have their Symbols and Summaries of Faith but Symbols have no Authority but as they are extracted from Scripture this our Articles expresly tell us And the Apostles Creed as we call it was never known in the East till within these few Centuries What I have before mentioned upon the Article of the Procession ab utroque shews that Mr. Hill has confounded what belongs to a Christian with what belongs only to Divines However Mr. Hill grants that Faith cannot be produced in a Man's Heart but as far as he himself is persuaded of the Truth of what he believes But what he adds is extream rash when he assures us that he who cannot be persuaded to receive the common and established Systems of the Faith of the Universal Church upon the Authority of which it always stood and stands to this day or frames fundamental Principles upon his own private Opinion does not belong to the Communion of Christ's Church tho' he fancies his Notions to be Revealed in Scripture I grant what Mr. Hill lays down as to those who advance fundamental Articles upon their private Opinion he seems thereby to reject the Articles which the Papists have introduced into the Creed framed by Pius the fourth but he can ascribe no other Authority to Confessions of Faith or Symbols but that which they borrow from their Conformity with Revelation the summ of which they contain What he affirms that the Catholick Church has always stood upon the Authority of Symbols is a meer Vision the Church indeed made an Abstract of Faith for the use of Cathecumenes which we call the Creed she taught it to those Cathecumenes as an Abridgment of what 's Revealed the Faith therefore of Cathecumenes has an immediate respect to Revelation it must rely and be founded upon that if it be true In a word Mr. Hill either because he does not understand the matter or out of a desire to censure and contradict the Bishop explains his Opinion after a very odd manner his Expressions do very much favour the Church of Rome and are far from being so exact as a Censor ought to be he shews that he himself stands in need of a great deal of Indulgence and Christian forbearance I wish from my Heart he may come to himself consider his fault and repent If he could but for a minute reflect in cool blood upon his outragious way of writing and upon the Service that he has done to the Enemies of the Trinity by endeavouring to sacrifice to them one of the Defenders of it for whose Talents he cannot but express some esteem how averse soever he may be to his Person I am sure he would be ashamed of his Book For notwithstanding all his Passion I am willing to believe that the Christian Spirit is
singularly odd concerning the Production of the Second Person And yet it 's very observable that Tertullian says nothing but what has been advanced by many other Ecclesiastical Writers before the Council of Nice so that notwithstanding all Dr. Bull 's Endeavours to reduce what these Fathers say to an Orthodox sense Mr. Hill must of necessity involve them in the same censure with Tertullian 2ly Mr. Hill affirms concerning the Fathers that in his opinion they generally taught a gracious Adoption and a Metaphorical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Nature in Jesus Christ and of all the Saints by him But to justifie them in this Particular we must say either that Mr. Hill never read them or that if he did he quarrels with them with as little ground as when he censures the Bishop for using the Expression of Divine Person in speaking of the Flesh for both the Bishop and the Fathers who often call Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have had the same Idea so that they must either stand or fall together But I shall take leave of this unfair Writer when I have performed one thing that I promised I told you that I was very much surprized to find in Mr. Hills Book a most dangerous Principle I must now make you sensible of it These are his words Pag. 6. What I require is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular mens private Opinions but originally committed to the charge and custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive body Whereas his Lordship only lays down this notion or form of Faith That we believe Points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed to us in Scripture which is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every man's private Fancies and Contradictory Opinions Since each man's Faith is his Perswasion that what he believes for a Doctrine is revealed in Scripture Whereas the act of a Christian Faith believes such Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from the certain evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition The deviation from which Rule and Notion to private Opinions and Perswasions is the cause of all Heresies and by its consequent divisions naturally tends to the ruine of the True Christian and Catholick Faith You see that Mr. Hill is angry with the Bishop for saying that we believe Points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed in Scripture he thinks the Bishop should have said that we receive a Doctrine for fundamental from the evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions c. These Expressions are so intricate that it 's hard to guess at Mr. Hill's meaning If these words acknowledged by all Churches relate to the word Scripture which goes immediately before it 's very hard to apply what he says to all the Books of Scripture so as that they may retain their Authority with Christians for it is notorious that divers Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews c. have not that Primitive Universal and unanimous Tradition to establish their Authority This one Clause of Mr. Hill's will deprive us at one dash of all the Books the Authority whereof we are told in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History was for a long time questioned by great Churches But if he refers the words acknowledged by all Churches c. to the evidence of Fundamental Doctrines as the series of his Discourse the Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis which he cites and what he says concerning the Creeds seem to intimate then this Proposition is not less dangerous than the other It is true that a Fundamental Doctrine the Revelation whereof is acknowledged by all the Churches is most evident by that very thing that all the World does acknowledge it But must therefore all the Fundamental Doctrines which have not been acknowledged by all the Churches tho they are clearly revealed in Scripture be thought not fundamental because they want this Evidence I confess Mr. Hill says that he will not examine what Rules private men are to follow but he affirms that those who desire to arrive at a ripeness of Judgment and Knowledge ought to take the Rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis p. 7. which the Bishop has rejected But this I say first of all is a Notion that has no solid ground in Divinity 'T is granted that Certainty of Revelation in respect to those who live now I depends upon the Certainty of Revelation which the Apostolical and after it the Christian Church has had down to this time But it is not a wild imagination to oppose hâ—r Certainty which the Apostolical Church in a Body has bad to the perswasion of each Member of the Apostolical Church What Certainty could the Body of the Apostolical Church have but the Certainty which each single member of which it was composed had Who ever heard among Protestants but that the Faith of each private man resolves it self into the Certainty of Revelation which way soever he may come by that Certainty of Revelation Is it not rank Popery to assert that our Faith is not immediately resolved into the Authority of God who proposes a Doctrine to us in Scripture Pray where shall we find Christians if to be so it is not enough to believe a Doctrine because Christ has revealed it but one must believe besides such a Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from its certain evidence in Scripture acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition One might perhaps think at first that this addition to the definition of Faith were no great matter but I assure you Sir it destroys entirely the nature of Faith and contains the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this Point it imports that the Gospel has no Authority quo ad nos till it is vouched by the Authority of the Church The Church has been believed hitherto to be the Depositary of Scripture But it was never believed that her Authority went so far as that we ought not to receive a truth evident in Revelation but as it is acknowledged by all the Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition Indeed Sir if what Mr. Hill lays down be true it 's hard to tell who has Faith now I desire Mr. Hill to reflect upon that Article of the Creed which establishes the Procession ab utroque and to tell me whether he does not think himself bound to believe it till he has examined whether this is
the Article Light of Light from the Platonists Notion and that the Bishop of Salisbury does affirm it pray where is the Crime of that Was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 borrowed from the Heathens If this Notion which was common to Scripture with the wisest Philosophy could be usefully employed to denote that the Divine Essence is in the Father and in the Son as Light is of the same Nature in two Candles one of which is lighted by the other why should not they have made use of it This is Tatian's Notion and the learned Dr. Bull believes that the Fathers of Nice have followed the same p. 60. Eusebius Caesariensis drew the Scheme of the Nicene Creed and it appears by his Book De Praeparatione Evangelica how much stress he laid upon Plato's Authority to establish the Dogma of the Trinity The Fathers of the Council added only to it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at first seemed hard to Eusebius but he admitted it afterwards This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been disgraced by the abuse that Paulus Samosathenus made of it having employed it to denote that Jesus Christ was only of the same Nature with us But the Fathers of Nice have used it to signify that he was of the same Nature with the eternal Father After this the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon have made use of it in the first Sense to express the Faith of the Church against the Apollinarians and Eutichians who denied that Jesus Christ had a Soul No man has found fault with him for making that use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Eusebius Caesariensis had not been the first Author of this Creed Mr. Hill's Objection would be of some force But as it is certain that the Nicene Fathers have used the Creed drawn up by Eusebius Caesariensis without adding any thing else to it but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Condemnation of Arius's Propositions confirming the Condemnation pronounced before by Alexander so it is visible that they have made use of a Notion in it which was received by those Fathers that were Platonists It seemed to them consonant to the Christian Faith and we receive it at this Day taking it in a commodious Sense I say we take it in a large Sense for it is certain that this Expression Deus de Deo being as strictly taken as Mr. Hill usually takes words in Disputing against the Bishop does rather denote the Substance than the Personality as that of Lumen de Lumine and when in pronouncing these words we refer them to the Personality we have more regard to the Sense of the Church than to the natural Import and Signification of the Expression for we only mean that the Son is derived from the Father who communicates the Divine Essence to him and not that the Essence of the Father's Divinity produces such another Essence in the Son Mr. Hill might very well have forborn his Censuring the Bishop upon this Article of the Creed for whatever pains he takes to deliver his Readers from this thought that the Fathers of the Council of Nice have referred the Expression Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine to the second Generation yet he himself furnishes us with a sufficient Argument to confute him in the passages which he quotes in the Margin out of Tertullian Theophilus Athenagoras Justin and Tatian For the Fathers have used these Expressions with Tertullian against Praxeas to denote the second but not the eternal Generation of the Word Tertullian particularly called the second Generation the true Nativity of the Word What can a Reader conclude from thence but that the Notion Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine in the Council of Nice relates to this second Generation Which Mr. Hill himself calls an odd Conceit p. 12. though he affirms p. 75. that the Church never condemned it So that upon the whole Matter it is very natural to believe that the Fathers of Nice took these words in the same Sense in which they were taken by the Ancients Mr. Hill may see now of what use the Platonick Notions have been to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity The learned confess that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have nothing common with the two last Persons of the Trinity This is not only acknowledged but proved by the learned Dr. Tenison in the Book before cited On the other hand it 's no less certain that the Ancients have made use of the Platonick Notions upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that Plato owned the two last Persons of the Trinity What follows from all this but that Mr. Hill might have spared his Censures against the Bishop And that notwithstanding all his endeavours all what he has said to justify the Ancients is useless and insignificant I shall add but one word more upon this Head viz. That it does not become Mr. Hill to find fault with the Bishop for having asserted that the Fathers before the Council of Nice did conceive in the Trinity a Subordination importing an inequality of the two last Persons with the first He will give himself a very needless trouble if he undertake to clear them from that The Bishop has but too many Proofs upon this Article and none but those who never read the Ancients or read them without attention can disown it This is acknowledged by Petavius Dr. Cudworth and Heuetius Origen lib. 2. q. 2. By this kind of injudicious Accusations Mr. Hill would almost tempt a man to draw such a Picture of Antiquity as would not be much to its advantage We may say in a word That if there have been some among the Ancients who have recommended the study of Pagan Authors because of the use that a Christian might make of them to render the Doctrines of his Religion more probable to the Heathens there have been others who have almost absolutely condemned that study seeing what impression Platonism had made in the Minds of the Primitive Christians so that Pope Gelasius was in the right in the Roman Council when he ranked with prohibited Books the greatest part of those Authors who have spoken so crudely upon the point of the Trinity Mr. Hill proceeds to another Accusation which is as ill grounded He pretends that the Bishop has unjustly charged the Fathers with believing a specifick Unity of the Divine Essence and with having understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Sense p. 91. and seq Mr. Hill thinks this is to charge the Fathers with Tritheism which he may with so much the more reason impute to the Bishop that the Bishop supposing that the Fathers have attributed to the Persons Operations ad extra different from each other he is not only fallen himself into the same Notion but which is