Selected quad for the lemma: diversity_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
diversity_n	father_n	son_n	substance_n	392	5	9.2521	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23822	Animadversions on Mr. Hill's book entituled, A vindication of the primitive fathers, against the imputations of Gilbert, Lord Bishop of Sarum in a letter to a person of quality.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.	1695 (1695)	Wing A1218; ESTC R22827	36,802	72

only the Generation of the Son by the Father ab aeterno to prove that Jesus Christ was not made before the World and that he was Creator and not a Creature In this sense we ought to take the words of the Nicene Creed which may justly be looked upon as the confirmation of Alexander's Synodical Letter to all the Bishops This Remark is the more necessary because most of those who have disputed against the Arians after the Council of Nice have abandoned the System of the Ancients concerning the two Productions of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Alexander had abandon'd it This great man being it seems more used to this Controversie had found that this second production gave mighty advantages to the Arians If the Reader have a mind to know what those advantages were we may easily satisfie him 1. The Fathers following some Texts of Scripture granted that the second Nativity of the Son would make him to be look'd upon as Created it was in opposition to this that the Council defined genitum non factum 2. It gave occasion to believe that the Son was not eternal and that the Father had not been Father ab aeterno which did absolutely destroy the Divinity of the Son 3. It is to be observed that Origen as well as Dionysius of Alexandria having been cited by the Arians as their great Author to prove that the Son was begotten and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was afterward defined that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was not made this is Epiphanius's Observation against the Origenists Parag. 8. where he accuses Origen to have called the Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum factum See Vales ad Theodoret Lib. 2. c. 6. 4. It is evident that tho some believe that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was used in the Council of Nice denotes the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence Yet many of the Fathers have used it only to express the same Specifical Essence Dr. Cudworth has very well observed it Pag. 611. upon a passage of Epiphanius and another or Athanasius Athanasius speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exposit fid p. 241. Epiphanius makes the same remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 H. 76. n. 17. from whence Dr. Cudworth draws this Conclusion It 's plain that the Ancient Orthodox Fathers asserted no such thing as one and the same singular or numerical Essence of the several Persons of the Trinity this according to them being not a real Trinity but a Trinity of meer Names Notions and inadequate Conceptions only 5. You ought to know that the Fathers for the most part have a Notion very frequent in their Writings till St. Augustin's Time who did confute it and obliged those by whom it was received to reject it which is that the Father alone being of his own Nature invisible the Apparitions of God mentioned in the Old Testament could not be ascribed to him Add Theophilus l. 2. ad Autolycum p. 100. Tertul. adv Jud. c. 9. p. 194. adv Marcion l. 2. c. 27. p. 395 396. Synodus Antiochena Concil To. 1. Ed. Lab. To. 1. p. 845 D. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 2. but that they must be referred only to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to him whom the Father has not only employed as a Minister in the Creation but by whom also he always Revealed himself under the Old Testament This may be seen in Justin Martyr Dial. against Tryph. p. 275. A. 283. B. and 357. B. C. in Tertullian against Praxeas p. 648. in Novatian lib. de Trinit Now this Notion supposed that the Father and the Son were not of the same Nature and without doubt this was the reason why St. Augustin did reject and confute it as appears in his Books of the Trinity It were endless to take notice of all those Expressions of the Fathers which import a diversity of Substance it 's enough to have considered the most remarkable out of the chief Authors cited by Mr. Hill to confirm his System such as Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria Sirnamed the Great who is especially famous for having opposed Sabellianism to which I could add some passages out of Clemens Alexandrinus reported by Photius Cod. 106. and out of Theognostus of Alexandria mentioned by Photius Cod. 106. I shall not take notice of those which relate to the Holy Ghost of whom they speak meaner yet than of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Hill may read what Theognostus says of him in Photius Cod. 106. and Lactantius in his Institutions and Eusebius against Marcellus of Ancyra after this let him say if he dare that the Fathers have constantly acknowledged but one Substance of the three Persons and if they have not acknowledged this with what Confidence did he impute to them an Opinion which how true soever is yet quite contrary to their Doctrine The second thing which may be Censured in Mr. Hill's Hypothesis concerning the Trinity is that it accommodates the Scripture to the System of Thomas Aquinas I have observed before that the Scripture speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under another Notion than that of Reason which contains and judges of the Idea's that are in the mind Theophilact is aware of this upon the 1st of St. John where he rejects that famous division of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in disputing against Porphiry and all the more Learned Divines do likewise acknowledge it whereas Thomas Aquinas to give a Reason why there are but three Persons in the Trinity builds upon the two Faculties of Understanding and Will which we conceive in the Humane Soul I confess that St. Augustine may have given some occasion to the Schoolmen to frame that System and to apply it to the Words of Scripture which speak of the Trinity But upon this I have three things to observe against Mr. Hill 1. That tho' the Doctrine of the Trinity is clearly explained in Scripture as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet there are such difficulties about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it were by much the wisest thing to speak of it only in Scripture words This was the Maxim of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Letter to Alexander of Byzantium where he says that St. John has concealed the generation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is incomprehensible to Men and Angels and that one cannot without Impiety dive into this Mystery Ireneus hath a whole Chapter to prove Generationem ejus inenarrabilem esse in which he speaks to the Hereticks in words as put against the Schoolmen vos autem Generationem ejus ex Patre divinantes verbi hominum per linguam factam prolationem transferentes in verbum Dei juste delegimini a nobis Et addimus si quis itaque nobis dixerit quomodo ergo

more he has insinuated by his method that he believes a Tetras in God namely the Essence in abstracto and the three Persons I say this is a very groundless Accusation for it 's true that there are but too many of the Ancients who have gone upon this Hypothesis the Bishop speaks of in explaining the Dogma of the Trinity Mr. Hill may be informed of it by reading amongst others Father Petav. de S. Trinit l. 6. c. 9. The Learned Dr. Cudworth has said as much as the Bishop these are his words Intellect Syst p. 604. However it is evident from hence that these reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence they supposing 'em to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be one God than three individual men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all one Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for Tritheism so in the room thereof started thereup that other Trinity of Persons numerically the same or having all one and the same singular existent Essence a Doctrine which seeemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only I know there are some learned men who as Dr. Bull have endeavoured to give a good Sense to their Expressions and by a long compass of Consequences reduce them to the ordinary Notions We cannot but commend their Zeal for Antiquity but after all it were expedient that those who have the Opinions of the Fathers but at the second hand should not be so positive in justifying all their Sentiments Those who are troubled it those failings with which the Fathers may be charged ought to consider First That without examining Questions with great care it is not possible to foresee all the Consequences that may be drawn from them Secondly That these Questions have risen one after another in process of time and of many Disputes Thirdly That it easily happens even to those who handle Matters with the greatest caution to fall into Expressions which being strictly taken have a harsh Sense Fourthly That the Authority of some great men has often gained to them great numbers of Followers concerning things which Posterity has justly condemned Fifthly That almost all the strayings of the Fathers do rise from thence that in combating the Hereticks they departed from the simplicity of Scripture Expressions and undertook to explain this Mystery by human Ideas very remote from the Truth But Mr. Hill tells us The Bishop of Salisbury who imputes to the Fathers a sort of Tritheism by his Explanation falls himself into the same Absurdity nay he establishes a kind of Tetras in the Godhead which is worse than Tritheism This is a great Charge In the Divine Essence says the Bishop there may be Three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as oeconomies Here is the heresy of these words according to Mr. Hill p. 98. Now whatsoever acts by another is distinct from that other by which it acts if prior in the Agency by the order of reason Here we have indeed a special Hunter of Hereticks I shall not answer him that there have been divers Schoolmen who believed an absolute Subsistence of the Divine Essence besides the three Subsistences which make the Personalities without acknowledging that Tetras that Mr. Hill speaks of the Bishop I am sure would not use this Apology But I answer That he offers a manifest violence to the Bishop's words that contains nothing but what is agreeable to the constant way of speaking which Divines use concerning the Operations appropriated to each Person without confounding them with the notional Expressions that serve to distinguish them The Name of God sometimes signifies his Essence sometimes the Three Persons and sometimes it imports but One Person of the Trinity do we therefore acknowledge a Quaternity To draw such consequences as these in order to ascribe Heresies to those who sometimes use the Word GOD in one of these significations and sometimes in another is meer Sophistry We say That the Father is God to denote his Divine Essence We say That God has created the World to express the common Work of the Trinity We say That God is incarnate to signify the Union of the Word with Humanity How many Heresies might be imputed to Writers if one would make such Objections against them and urge upon the word GOD Notions altogether foreign to the Subject in hand But God be thanked that all those who write are not of Mr. Hill's temper Mr. Hill follows his blow after he has reproached the Bishop for representing the Ancients as Tritheists he accuses him of maintaining that those who succeeded them have used Notions that were little better when they made use of that Notion of the Sun with its Light and Heat and of that of the Soul from whence flows the Understanding and the Will to express the Processions of the Trinity Nay he objects to him that those who have supposed different Operations in the Two Persons are according to this System as much Tritheists as the first Mr. Hill affirms on the contrary That these Notions of the Fathers which the Bishop rejects have been used from the beginning so that the Bishop ought not to have said that the using of these Notions was only that the Fathers might get out of Tritheism This is a very pitiful Accusation It seems Mr. Hill did not understand the Bishop's meaning when he says that the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost were expressed by the acts of Understanding and Will he does not intend to deny that this Notion was used in ancient Times but only to condemn the boldness of the Schoolmen who would almost make this way of explaining the Procession of the Persons pass for an Article of Faith namely that the Son proceeds by the Understanding and the Holy Ghost by the Will tho very Eminent Divines have rejected these Definitions as Zanchius lib. 5. C. ultimo and Durandus refutes them in 1. Dist 6. q. 2. As to what Mr. Hill fancies that the Bishop is guilty of Tritheism because he ascribes different Operations to the Two Persons the poor man is visibly mistaken Does not all Divines acknowledge different Operations of the Two Persons Are they thereby infected with Tritheism Or was St. Paul infected with Heresy when he said There are diversities of gifts but the same spirit there are differences of administrations but the same Lord there are diversities of operations but it is the same God who worketh all in all 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. I see what led Mr. Hill into this Error He did imagine that because it is a Maxim in Divinity that the Actions of the Trinity ad extra are common to the Three Persons there are no Actions particularly belonging to One Person according to