disputing's sake Divines of a greater Name than Mr. Hill laugh at those Remarks which he has accumulated Dr. Tenison has proved That the Shekina is celebrated down from Adam to Noah from Noah to Moses from Moses to the Captivity and from the Captivity to the Messias This is in his Book of Idolatry where one would think he intended a Refutation of Mr. Hill After all whatever the meaning of the word Jehovah may have been before the Law it 's certain as I said That under the Law that word denoted the God which the Jews worshipped in the Cloud of Glory and that it is with respect to that Habitation that St. John says speaking of his Incarnation That the Word has dwelt amongst us The Bishop who intends to prove that the Apostles did not propose another Object of Adoration than the Jehovah worshipped under the Law desires no more than this which is sufficient for his purpose But can we rationally infer the Adoration of the Messias from this that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily as St. Paul tells us Col. 2. The Orthodox have believed it to this day and the Bishop with them but out of spight to the Bishop Mr. Hill will not allow this to be a good consequence he does not much concern himself whether the Socinians triumph or not provided he may quarrel with the Bishop by alledging I know not what frivolous Exceptions of which himself would have been ashamed had he not been transported with his Passion To take this passage from the Bishop which seems so full to his purpose Mr. Hill gives it so Chimerical an Interpretation that probably he is the first Inventor of it he pretends that the Apostle speaks there in opposition to the Gnosticks Notions who excluded Jesus Christ from the Supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity but that tho St. Paul had declared Jehovah to be in Jesus Christ yet of what sort of inexistence soever this might be understood it could not be concluded from it that the Messias was to be adored I am not of Mr. Hill's mind concerning the sense he gives to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of St. Paul 'T is not very probable that this Apostle had an eye to the Gnosticks and it is much more natural to understand this fulness in opposition to the Manifestations of the Deity under the Old Testament the Sequel of the Discourse seems to lead us thither since the Apostle declares that it dwelt bodily which is opposed to Figures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word which the Apostle has expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies really and substantially But be this as it will what can Mr. Hill mean when he denies that from such an Habitation as this by which the Flesh is personally united to the Deity the Adoration of the Messias cannot be inferred It 's plain that the Bishop does not pretend that the Flesh ought to be adored in the Person of Jesus Christ but it is yet more certain that no Christrian except those that deny the Hypostatical Union of both Natures denies that the word incarnate is to be adored that is the Messias who is God and Man They all agree That the Principle of Adorability or that for which the Person of the Messias is to be adored is the Divinity of the Word but they don't deny as Mr. Hill seems to do that Jesus Christ is the Object of Adoration because the indwelling of the Word is such that thereby the Human and Divine Natures are united in one Personality Here is another Criticism of Mr. Hill's He owns That the Argument which the Bishop draws from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is constantly given to Jesus Christ in the New and answers to that of Jehovah in the Old Testament is an excellent Argument but he thinks the Bishop had not skill enough to free it from an Objection arising from 1 Cor. 8. The Arians have insisted upon that place Verse 6. Nobis tamen unus Deus pater to prove that the Son was not God They have been answered That when the Father is named here the Son is also evidently supposed as having the Divine Nature if he be truly the Son of God It has been often said to them that by the same reason we might conclude That the Father is not Dominus because the Apostle adds unus Dominus Jesus Christus pèr quem omnia and wherein has the Bishop enervated this Argument Because the Bishop affirms says Mr. Hill that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to that of Jehovah in the Seventy Translation is here appropriated to Jesus Christ which he establishes as a consequence of his Hypothesis that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a federal Title of God with relation to the Jews Now Mr. Hill thinks that 's a false Hypothesis On the other hand he pretends That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Paul which cannot be rendred by Jehovae in the Plural Number from whence he concludes That the Bishop has not taken off the Objection he makes to himself The question started by Mr. Hill whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresses that of Jehovah and whether supposing it expresses the Jehovah of the Old Testament it is a federal word with respect to the Jews this question I say is decided in favour of the Bishop not only by the Moderns but also by the Ancients If Mr. Hill has a mind to be informed of the Opinion of the Ancients in this matmatter let him read Origen upon the 8th of Ezekiel p. 1. and St. Jerom upon the same at the beginning of his 9th Book he may read also the Learned Pearson upon the Creed as to the second thing controverted here between the Bishop and him The foundation of this Opinion is more solid than Mr. Hill is aware of almost all the Ancients prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ because it was he who appeared under the Old Testament and that he who then appeared is named Jehovah which the Seventy render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the Apostle might say according to this Phraseology that if the Christians did acknowledge but one God they acknowledge likewise but one Lord viz. Jesus Christ giving to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Title of Jehovah which is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament So that it is St. Paul's Doctrine that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Jehovah and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incarnate is no less Jehovah than he was before the Incarnation If it were otherwise St. Paul had argued like a Sophister when he proves by a passage out of Joel that Salvation belongs to Christians because they invoke Jesus Christ who is the Lord spoken of in Joel Rom. 10. I know not why Mr. Hill is not satisfied with this Solution 't is his
Tritheism which is justly look'd upon as the overthrowing of the whole Article of the Trinity The Bishop therefore who himself uses the word Person where he has occasion for it could have no manner of design to condemn that word tho sometimes he abstained from it he only leaves it out of the Dispute that he might not involve himself into an unnecessary Contest with relation to a Socinian He has exactly kept himself to the terms of Scripture which he thinks are precise enough to convince an Arian or a Socinian I am perswaded That if Mr. Hill had been to handle this Subject with the same views he would have done as the Bishop and that no Bishop would have censured him for it But Mr. Hill was resolved right or wrong to appear in Publick against his Lordship Mr. Hill comes on with a new Charge and endeavours to fasten a suspicion upon the Bishop as if he did not believe the personality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Incarnation The Bishop says That the word Person was adopted chiefly in opposito the Patripassians This does not satisfy Mr. Hill he labours to prove that Praxeas was the first Author of that Heresy and he shews by St. Paul's Epistles that the word Person was in use before Praxeas's time 'T is not very material and yet no Digression to shew that Mr. Hill is mistaken about the Antiquity of the Patripassians Simon Magus was the Author of that Sect above 160 before Praxeas At least this is what we are told by Irenaeus St. Augustin and Theodoret. Vid. Cout in lib. Constit p. 285. Neither is it certain that Heb. 1.2 Character Hypostaseos must be rendred by Person the Vulgar has rendred it by Substance as well as Chap. XI And the Fathers of the Council of Nice have taken the word Hypostasis in the Creed for Essence or Substance Those who were at the Council of Alexandria in the year 362. took it in the same sense and St. Jerom understood it so Ep. 57. However says Mr. Hill the Bishop has not given to the Word the true Notion of a Person besides that he has avoided that Expression in speaking of it The Bishop only acknowledges That the Father the Word and the Spirit have a particular distinction from one another by which every one of them differs from another and tho Mr. Hill cites the Bishop's words who affirms That in the Essence of God there are Three which are really different from each other and which differ from one another more than three Names or three Economies ad extra or three Modes yet he is not pleased with the Bishop's Notion but he must needs be a Sabellian This Judgment is made too rashly The Bishop says That the word Person must not be understood in the matter of the Trinity as we ordinarily do in relation to Creatures a compleat Intelligent Being And does this offend Mr. Hill For my part I can see no harm in it The Bishop has of his side all the Sober Divines who have considered the Doctrine of the Trinity with some attention For there is that difference betwixt the Persons of the Trinity and Persons among Creatures to which the Definition of a Person rejected by the Bishop does belong that if that Definition were admitted into the Trinity it would import the Multiplication of the Essence as well as the Multiplication of the Persons which is justly to be abhorred by all Divines After all if the Bishop has not determined the nature and degree of the precise distinction which is betwixt the Three Persons but has adhered in this matter to what the Scripture teaches he ought to be commended for his Modesty instead of being reproached for not having explained that which all prudent Divines own cannot be explained Mr. Hill himself knows well enough that one cannot explain these differences without either falling into difficulties out of which he can't extricate himself or asserting Contradictions which do much more weaken than Illustrate and confirm the belief of this Mystery These are Mr. Hill's chief Accusations upon the Article of the Trinity He has not been willing to consider as any equitable Man would have done that the Bishop did not design to write a Treatise upon the Trinity which would have obliged him to handle this Subject in another manner but that he glances only upon what must be said in general to be understood in order to his treating of the Divinity of Christ which is the only Subject-matter of his Discourse And since he briefly lays down the Article of the Trinity as a foundation to explain that of the Incarnation those who after this can charge him with not believing the Trinity because he does not treat that matter in its full extent must either be very malicious or very defective in their Judgments Let us come now to the point of the Incarnation After that Mr. Hill has supposed contrary to all truth that the Bishop does not believe Three Persons in the Trinity he downright charges him with denying the Personality of the Word and acknowledging the Personality of the Messias no other way than as the Personality of Jesus Christ did result only from the Union of his Two Natures Then he gives himself a great deal of trouble to confute his own Whimsy But I need only remember him of the forecited words of the Bishop to shew him how unfairly he deals in this matter He does not act more honestly when he wiredraws this Expression of the Bishop That Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Word to prove that he acknowledges no Personality but in the Humane Nature of Christ Especially says he because the Bishop has not exploded the Imagination of those who conceive that the Character of Son of God has its foundation in the Humanity which the Word has assumed The Bishop has rejected this Notion as a false Doctrine tho he has not refuted it ex professo his Subject leading him to something that was more material But might not he speak in the same strain with all those who speak of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ None else but Mr. Hill would have taken it amiss He must be strangely given up to his Suspicions to conceive and publish such as these against the Bishop upon such slight and poor Arguments And does not Mr. Hill deserve to be admired when having criticized upon these words of the Bishop he observes That since the Bishop does not tell us whether the Father and the Spirit did enter into the Personality which resulted from the Union of the Two Natures or not but only that God and Man are become One Person he has left a Door open for many Heresies upon this Mystery One had need have much patience to follow an Author so fruitful in vain Conceits He quotes these words of the Bishop that the Word dwelt in Flesh and yet he is angry because the Bishop says elsewhere that God and Man are become one
and applied by the Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Bishop ought not to have supposed that some of the Ancients did reject them while they were admitted by others This Accusation may be refuted in a word The Bishop himself admits of Emanations as giving us the properest Idea to express what we conceive of the Trinity but he rejects the Platonical Emanations which have no manner of Conformity with the Trinity of Christians although many Ancients and Moderns have adopted them as all the learned do acknowledge I shall make the same Answer concerning Fecundity whereof Mr. Hill thinks the Bishop has avoided the Notion in explaining the Trinity Mr. Hill grows so exceeding warm upon this Point That he pronounces Anathema against the Bishop if he does not acknowledge it But why so much Noise The Bishop employs his Discourse in proving the Divinity of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom the Father has communicated the Divine Nature this is what we call Eternal Generation So that he can't be said absolutely to deny the Fecundity of the Divine Nature which consists in that it is communicated to several persons But he does not believe Fecundity according to the common Notion implied in that word and which seems to import that the Son must beget as well as the Father having the same Nature in himself and if he denys this Fecundity with relation to the Holy Ghost Must he be therefore struck with Anathema This word Fecundity may be used in a good Sense in speaking of the Generation of the Son which is the communication of the Divine Nature by the Father to the Son but I question whether it may be used with respect to the Emanation of the Holy Ghost a Patre a Filio this Emanation is never called Generation in Scripture the Language whereof should be our Rule in speaking of this Mystery and whatever some Divines may have thought it is more prudent to abstain from it The Nominals maintain that it is as true to say Deus non generat which is true in regard of the Son as to say Deus generat which is true of the Father I would fain know Mr. Hill's Opinion about this Proposition Voluntas genuit voluntatem ut sapientia genuit sapientiam I am persuaded he would not like it though it is certainly true that Athanasius and St. Augustin have carried thus far the Notion of Fecundity Mr. Hill fancies to Nonplus the Bishop when he charges him with ascribing to the Fathers such Notions as were altogether Heathenish and even saying that they introduced them into the Nicene Creed which has Lumen de lumine speaking of the Eternal Word These are the Bishop's words p. 61. For we have footsteps of a Tradition as Ancient as any we can trace up which limited the Emanations to Three And 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 It is certain that many of the Fathers fell often into this conceit c. From these words Mr. Hill concludes First That the Fathers according to the Bishop have borrowed their Notion of the Three Emanations from that of the Philosophers touching the Propagation of Souls namely the Notion of the Original of Souls ex traduce Secondly He pretends that the Fathers did never use that simile of two Candles whereof one is lighted by the other Thirdly He charges him with fixing a Platonick i. e. a Pagan Notion upon that Nicene Article Light of Light All this Criticism which takes up about thirty Pages may be reduced to nothing in a few words And First nothing is more certain than that Tatian Justin Martyr's Disciple has the Similitude of a Torch or Candle lighting another Cum voluit Deus says he p. 145. verbum ex ejus simplicitate prosilicit verbum non inaniter prolatum primogenitum opus fit ipsius spiritus Hoc scimus autem esse principium Mundi Natum est autem non per divisionem non peravulsionem quemadmodum enim ab una face permultae accenduntur nec tamen primae facis lux minuitur c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 145. B. and this Similitude they seem to have borrowed from Philo Lib. de signal p. 223. F. who speaking of the Spirit imparted from Moses to the Seventy Elders saith this was not done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Abscission but as Fire is lighted from Fire or one Taper from another without Diminution of its light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 358. B. C. D. or at least from his Master Justin who saith that in Explication of this matter he used this Example rather than that of the Light of the Sun 'T is plain That the Fathers have built on this bottom when they made use of the Similitude of the Sun Athenagoras Theophilus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Lactantius and its Beams Secondly The Bishop might have proved very well by the Testimonies of Justin and Tatian that the Ancients had not a very just Idea of the Doctrine of the Trinity when they conceived two Generations of the Word the one ab aeterno the other before the Creation of the World the one by which the Word is only as in potentia in the Father the other by which he is actually produced by the Will of the Father cum voluit Deus says Tatian p. 145. This System was also followed by Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras This is but a light Error in those Ancients if we believe Mr. Hill who says That this System was never condemned in the Church tho it was never made or esteemed a necessary Point of Faith or Doctrine p. 75. What a bustle would Mr. Hill have kept if the Bishop had advanced the like Proposition I 'm afraid a Judicious Reader will be tempted to think when he sees this severity of Mr. Hill towards the Bishop and his great Indulgence to the Ancients that he has two Weights and two Measures For after all the Bishop's reasons to reject the System of the Ancients are much more solid than those by which Mr. Hill endavours to soften and excuse it 'T is in vain for Mr. Hill to assert that this System is not Platonical because Justin had renounced Plato's Philosophy I can tell him that that System is much more conform to that of Plato than to Scripture and in fact it was laid aside in the Controversy with the Arians who drew great advantages from it Thus some other Hypotheses of the Ancients were rejected as that of the Invisibility of the Father and the Visibility of the Son In fine let it be granted to Mr. Hill that the Fathers of Nice have borrowed
the Oeconomy of the Three Persons But doubtless he makes a very ill use of this Maxim which may hold with relation to the Acts that constitute the Three Persons and are proper to every one for instance the Act of Generation which is proper to the Father exclusively of the Son and Holy Ghost but this maxim does not hinder us from being firmly persuaded that it was the Son only who took upon him the form of a Servant in the singularity of his Person and not in the Unity of the Divine Nature in what was proper to the Son and not in that which was common to the whole Trinity This is distinctly expressed by the forged Dyonisius de div Nom. c. 2. c. and approved in the sixth General Council Act 8. where his Authority is made use of and it is also acknowledged by Damasc lib. 3. de fide c. 3. by Elias Cretensis upon the fifth Oration of St. Gregory and by Nicetas de fid Orthod c. 34. M. Hill should have known besides that in the mission of the Persons ad extra the action by which they act upon a particular Subject is proper to them and is common to the three Persons only in respect to the Will the acts of which are common to the three Persons You see Sir how the Bishop has fallen into the hands of a Man who understands things only by halves Mr. Hill is not pleased with the Bishop's way of treating the Fathers but he is yet more offended at the Explication and Notion which the Bishop advances of the Doctrine of the Trinity This is what the Bishop says p. 104. We do plainly perceive in our selves two if not three Principles of Operation that do not only differ as Understanding and Will which are only different modes of Thinking but differ in their Character and way of Operation All our Cogitations and Reasonings are a sort of Acts in which we can reflect on the way how we operate We perceive that we Act freely in them and that we turn our Minds to such Objects and Thoughts as we please But by another Principle of which we perceive nothing and can reflect upon no part of it we live in our bodies we animate and actuate them we receive sensations from them and give motions to them we live and dye and do not know how all this is done It seems to be from some emanation from our Souls in which we do not feel that we have any liberty and so we must conclude that this Principle in us is Natural and Necessary 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 our Understanding and Will Thus we see that in this single undivided Essence of ours there are different Principles of Operation so different as Liberty and Necessity are from one another I am far from thinking that this is a proper Explanation or Resemblance of this Mystery yet it may be called in some sort an Illustration of it since it shews us from our own Composition that in one Essence there may be such different Principles which in their proper Character may be brought to the terms of a contradiction of being free and not free So in the Divine Essence which is the simplest and perfectest Unity there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations c. Mr. Hill thinks that this Notion is not less impertinent to explain the Trinity than that of the Fathers Thus he speaks p. 106. This is a worthy Simile indeed to supplant that scouted one of the Ancients in which is no representation of the Logos and its Parent Principle nor of the Spirit of Holiness that is in the Father and the Son nor one of their Co-essentiality Co-eterternity or Order all which are resembled in that Simile which this undermines Then he Examins it particularly and endeavours to shew many absurdities in it One may easily judge that it is not hard for him to do this If all the Similies given of the Trinity ought to express all that we conceive of it what Simile can we use At this rate how can we justifie that resemblance used by Athanasius of the Root and the Branches to give us an Idea of the Co-equality And that other of a Fountain a River and a Vapour That which makes Mr. Hill to be so unfair a Critick is that he does not consider that Similies are used generally for one particular design When a Divine would express the Consubstantiality he brings Resemblances that serve only for his purpose and he does not matter whether they explain the whole Dogma of the Trinity or not The Bishop therefore was in the right to use a Simile which served to prove what he designed to establish namely that in a most simple Substance there may be various Principles of Operations A Man must have but little judgment to think that he was bound to seek for some of another nature It 's very observable that St. Augustine who has advanced more Similies than any of the Ancients as you may see in his Books of the Trinity from the sixth to the fifteenth which is the last declares himself in the 15th Book Chap. 7. that they are very imperfect and unlike and that it 's vain for us to seek in Created things representations of an incomprehensible Mystery If the Bishop has not made use of that Notion of the Logos which signifies the Reason upon which Basil and Gregory of Nazianze have insisted it is because he thinks that that Name is not so much given to the Second Person because he is the Reason of the Father as because according to those Divines who have more accurately Examin'd the Stile of Scripture St. John has respect in that word to the description of the Creation and to the Ministery of the Messias by which God did always express himself according to the Hypothesis of the Ancients But what would Mr. Hill say if by ill luck it appeared that what the Bishop has alledged to illustrate the Trinity were the Notion of St. Augustine himself in his Books of the Trinity And yet this might be easily proved if it were worth our while I confess Mr. Hill will find in the Ninth Book that there for a resemblance of the Trinity he gives us Man Created after God's Image in whom he finds a sort of Trinity namely a Mind a Knowledge of himself and a Love by which Man loves himself But tho' this be Mr. Hill's favourite
ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. HILL's BOOK ENTITULED A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. 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 LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul 's Church-Yard 1695. ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. HILL's BOOK ENTITULED A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. SIR IN obedience to your Commands I here send you my Thoughts upon Mr. Hill's Book the whole of which consists of Four Heads The First contains a Censure of what the Bishop compendiously supposes concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity The Second Criticises upon what he says about the Mystery of the Incarnation The Third is a Vindication of the Fathers whom he thinks the Bishop has treated very ill as to the Explication they have given of these Two Mysteries The Fourth and last is an Explanation of the Mystery of the Trinity which he advances as much more agreeable to the System of Scripture and of the Ancients than the Bishop's As to the first Mr. Hill picks a Quarrel with the Bishop because in speaking of the Persuasions of Socinians Arians and Orthodox concerning the Nature of Christ he calls them three different Opinions He would not have had the Bishop use the word Opinion in speaking of that which we look upon as founded on Divine Revelation and receive as the Object of our Faith This doubtless is a most heinous Crime which deserved all Mr. Hill's Exaggerations tho Gregory of Nazianzen has used the same word Orat. 35. Certainly when an Author undertakes to consider the principal Tenets touching the Nature of Jesus Christ namely that of Artemas that of Arius and that of the Church he may I think without a Crime call them three Opinions especially as the Bishop has done before he had proved any thing by Revelation Every body knows that strong Expressions are not to be used in the stating of a question but only after the matter has been well proved So that a Criticism of this Nature gives us no great Character of the Author With as much sincerity does Mr. Hill endeavour to bring under suspicion the Bishop's Expressions because he does not distinctly say whether the Socinian or Arian Opinions have been within or without the Church For says he page 2. if the Bishop supposes that these Opinions have been within the Church Then indeed here is an Insinuation laid for the Communion with Socinians which is a blessed comprehension This he repeats or insinuates again somewhere else If a Pagan had made this Reflection against a Bishop he might have been charged with want of Candour But what can we say when these words come from the Mouth of a Priest against a Bishop of the Church of England And what means Mr. Hill when he finds fault with the Notion of Faith given by the Bishop to wit that we believe Points of Doctrine because we are persuaded that they are revealed in Scripture Does it follow from thence as Mr. Hill supposes p. 6. That Faith resolves it self into each private Man's Opinion Which indeed has occasioned all the Heresies and Divisions that have been in the Church This Censure has somewhat so singular in it that it well deserves to be taken notice of and I promise you to remember it and to shew you that the Author espouses a Principle as dangerous as any in Point of Religion But I must not do this at present for it would lead us out of our way and bring us off from the Article of the Trinity which we have now chiefly in view Mr. Hill pretends that the Bishop does not explain himself clearly upon this Mystery These are his surmises The Bishop has not distinctly set down that there are Three Persons and every Bishop who does not express himself by the word Person which is received in this matter gives a right to any one to say that he denies the Trinity whereas this at most were but Sâ—bellianism Upon this unjust foundation he takes occasion to divert his Reader borrowing for that purpose the witty Conceit of the Socinian Author of a little Book Entituled The Doctrine of the Trinity set in its True Light p. 40. c. For p. 19. he brings in a Catechumen who desires to know of the Bishop what he understands by the Three of the Trinity and seeing that the Bishop avoids the word Person he laughs at the Instruction which the Bishop gives him and leaves him to seek some comfort in the Doctrine of the Philosophers I am surprized that Mr. Hill gives himself so much trouble to prove that the word Person occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in Tertullian since he shews himself that the Bishop believes as much as he does upon this Article p. 17. The Bishop had expressed himself very clearly upon the matter p. 97. These are his words This is the Doctrine that I intend now to explain to you I do not mean that I will pretend to tell you how this is to be understood and in what respect these Persons are believed to be One and in what respects they are Three But Mr. Hill was resolved to give his Suspicions a full scope and he would rather rob the Bishop of this Consession than do him Justice by acknowledging the truth All this savours very much of a Spirit of Disputation and argues but little sincerity But after all it may be asked why has not the Bishop made use every where of the word Person which is consecrated by so long a Custom in the Church and why does he more frequently say the Blessed Three Any body else but Mr. Hill would easily have apprehended the reason of it The nature of the dispute with Arians and Socinians who will have us stick to the words of Scripture requires that we should express the truths of Christianity in Scripture words if we would have them to be received If we at first dash mingle with them words which they look upon as foreign and which need to be softned to give them a sense free from absurdity in the matter of the Trinity this serves only to render the Dispute intricate whereas we should aim at the convincing of them by that principle which they acknowledge namely the Authority of the Scripture But there is something more to be said for the Bishop In all likelihood he would not engage himself in the Method of those who to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the Socinians seem to have given them great Advantages by laying down Principles from which it 's to be feared occasion may be taken to impute Tritheism to the Defenders of the Trinity This inconveniency may be avoided by reducing the dispute to the terms of Scripture which cannot so easily be done when we employ such words as are made use of by the Socinians against the Orthodox to prove them guilty of
Person as if under the general name of God the Bishop would leave his Reader to think that he understands the Father and the Spirit as well as the Word At this rate when we say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God we leave the Hearer in suspense whether we mean that he is only the Son of the Father or likewise the Son of the Holy Ghost When a Man reasons thus in a matter of so great moment one would think he designs nothing else but to be laughed at or to be read with indignation He goes on to the Divinity of the Messias upon which he raises new Accusations against the Bishop though he confesses p. 45. That the Bishop has advanced many Good and Orthodox Truths upon this Article This being the main thing intended by the Bishop it will not be improper to give you a short account of it that you may judge the better of the Justice of Mr. Hill's Accusations First of all the Bishop gives an Idea of the dwelling of the Word in Flesh and he explains in a very intelligible manner what 's called in School-terms the Hypostatical Vnion then he goes on to shew whence this Phrase of Inhabitation or Shekina is borrowed namely from the Divine Presence granted to the Jews in the Cloud of Glory which was over the Tabernacle He very exactly observes That the God of the Jews is called Jehovah a word which the Seventy have rendred constantly by that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Evangelists and Apostles ascribe constantly that word to Jesus Christ because of the indwelling of the Word so that when the Apostles have proposed Jesus Christ as the true Object of the Adoration of Christians they did not change the Object of Adoration received among the Jews since it was the same Jehovah who inhabited before the Cloud of Glory that now dwelt in Flesh in an inseparable manner which is to continue for ever This is a short abstract of what the Bishop explains at large and with several reflections upon divers Texts of Scripture p. 120. His words are In opposition to all which we Christians own but one supreme God and we do also believe that this great God is also our federal God or Jehovah by his dwelling in the Human Nature of Jesus Christ so that he is our Lord not by an assumption into high Dignity or the communicating divine Honour to him but as the Eternal Word dwelt bodily in him And thus he is our Lord not as a Being distinct from or deputed by the great God but as the great God manifesting himself in his Flesh or human Nature which is the great Mystery of Godliness or of true Religion And this will give a clear account of all those other passages of the New Testament in which the Lord Jesus is mentioned as distinct from and subordinate to God and his Father The one is the more extended Notion of God as the Maker and Preserver of all things and the other is the more special Notion as appropriated to Christians by which God is federally their God Lord or Jehovah Certainly a Man must have a small stock of Modesty or Sincerity who having read this Explication can charge a Prelate with Socinianism or Nestorianism And thus he goes about to prove his accusation He takes notice of an Expression of the Bishop's p. 25. We believe says the Bishop That Christ was God by vertue of the indwelling of the eternal Word in him 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 It is a fine thing to see how gravely Mr. Hill snaps up this Expression of the Jews worshipping the Shekina Here he makes a pompous shew of needless Remarks to convince the Bishop that God and the Cloud were two different things and that the Jews never worshipped the Cloud of Glory because otherwise they had been Idolaters And all this because the Bishop has taken the Shekina for God dwelling in the Cloud I confess that Expression is not altogether exact but a candid Reader would easily have understood it by so many other Expressions which the Bishop employs in speaking upon this Subject where he shews the difference which he makes between God and the Cloud of Glory No body has found fault with Dr. Tenison for taking the Shekina for the second Person of Idolatry p. 319. these are his words Accordingly when God is said in the Old Testament to have appeared they seem to mistake who ascribe it to an Angel personating God and not to the second Person as the Shekina or as Tertullian calleth him the representator of the Father The same Expression occurs p. 380. of the same Book And yet Dr. Tenison has not been accused hitherto of confounding the Habitation with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that dwelt in the Cloud Dr. Whitby says as much as Dr. Tenison and Mr. Hill does not take it ill He has read Tertullian's Book against Praxeas but he seems not to have understood that Maxim in it Malo te ad sensum rei quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas at least he does not practise it much in respect to the Bishop especially since he owns p. 27. that the Bishop has corrected that Expression But Mr. Hill does not only attack this Expression which though in it self it may be somewhat improper is yet usual enough but he falls upon the whole Argument of the Bishop and to overthrow it he denies in the first place what the Bishop advances That the word Jehovah has been always applied to the Divinity dwelling in the Cloud of Glory Secondly Though this were granted he denies That the Divinity of the Messias can be inferred from Jehovah's dwelling bodily in him as the Bishop would have it And he does not believe that St. Paul Col. 2. has furnished the Bishop with a notion of the Divinity 's dwelling in Jesus Christ sufficient to ground Adoration upon Lastly He accuses the Bishop of not having fully answered a difficulty which he proposes to himself from 1 Cor. 8. which seems to appropriate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah to the Son exclusively of the Father and he gives us another Solution which he thinks is better We shall resume every one of these Heads in their order And I. Mr. Hill denies that the word Jehovah is always ascribed to God with relation to this Habitation in the Cloud What tho the Bishop had been somewhat too positive concerning the word Jehovah in asserting that it always refers to the Habitation in the Cloud Here were after all no great harm since Mr. Hill himself owns that he is called so where spoken of as in Covenant with the Jews A little Candor and Common Sense would have prompted an Ingenuous Reader to make that Restriction of the Bishop's words but in vain should the Bishop look for so much Equity from Mr. Hill who disputes for
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