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
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
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
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 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
Notion and that of many Schoolmen yet St. Augustine in his Tenth Book prefers another before it which seems clearer to him and more proper to explain the Idea's of the Trinity that is Memory Understanding and Will In fine as if these Notions could not satisfie him he borrows Similies from Brutes Plants and Trees from the inward Senses from Learning and Wisdom c. And after all he is forced to confess that all these Representations cannot give us a perfect Idea of the Trinity If we had some portion of Mr. Hill's Criticising Spirit here were a large field to shew many dissimilitudes in those Similies but he who can give himself that trouble must have little to do and had need to have a very patient Reader to bear the tediousness of it We are come at last to Mr. Hill's System which he opposes and prefers to that of the Bishop as having nothing in it but what is drawn both from Scripture and Antiquity And first I must give him his due and acknowledge that he says many good and Orthodox things upon this matter I agree with him when he tells us that he cannot conceive three Minds in God without establishing Treitheism p. 112. But he is absolutely mistaken when he denies that several of the Ancients have acknowledged three Minds in God Mr. Hill may easily be convinced of this he owns p. 113. that to acknowledge three Minds in God is by consequence to acknowledge three Substances but nothing is more evident than that most of the Fathers have acknowledged three Substances This would be soon demonstrated if I would insist upon the Expressions of the Fathers who have followed Plato's Notions for it 's not the Father which the Platonists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Hill does but it 's the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Cudworth p. 591. of his System has given us the reason why the Platonists did so by shewing that they looked upon the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as inconsistent with the most simple Nature of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they conceived as the source of the Deity that was communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This may be seen in Macrobius lib. 1. in Somn. Soip C. 14. From whence it appears that the Platonists as Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Tenison do agree acknowledged three Substances in their Trinity Mr. Huet owns as much in his Origeniana concerning those Divines who did like Origen follow the Notions of Plato to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity But we have yet more evident proofs of this truth 1. It is certain that the Greeks before the Council of Nice have constantly supposed that there were three Hypostases in the Trinity and it 's no less certain than that by three Hypostases the Greeks understood three Substances The thing is so unquestionable that the Council of Nice uses the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one and the same thing I know that St. Basil in his 78 Epistle endeavours to give another sense to these words of the Council but we may justly oppose to him Athanasius who had been at the Council of Nice For he expresly affirms in his fifth Oration against the Arians that the Father and the Son have but one Nature and Hypostasis he says the same in his Epistle to Liberius and in that to the Bishops of Africk where he positively asserts that the Hypostasis is the Nature We may further oppose to St. Basil Alexander Bishop of Alexandria who had been as it were the soul of the Council of Nice for in his Letters the one mentioned by Theodoret and the other by Socrates he takes constantly Hypostasis for Essence This we see likewise in the addition to the Synodical Epistle of the Fathers of Sardica in Theodoret Lib. 2. C. 6. where they charge the Arians with believing three Hypostasis because they believed three different Substances that of the Father that of the Son and that of the Holy Ghost The same may also be observed in the 57. Epistle of St. Jerome which he writes to Pope Damasus where he maintains that to say three Hypostases is the same as to say three Substances and that all men speak so when they will speak Greek That too many of the Greek Fathers who have disputed against the Sabellians have taken these words in this sense is but too evident from the instance of Dionysius of Alexandria Sirnamed the Great This great Man is vindicated by Athanasius as having never entertained any impious opinion about the Trinity But St. Basil rejects him upon many Articles chiefly where he confirms the Arian Heresie if he defends him somewhere it 's only with this Apology that while he too eagerly intends to confute the Sabellians he falls into the contrary opinion and besides he accuses him of having impious Opinions concerning the Holy Ghost Phot. Cod. 232. pag. 902. I have observed this concerning Dionysius of Alexandria 1. Because the Arians boasted that he was of their side 2. Because Alexander of Alexandria follows some of his Expressions in his Synodical Epistle to all the Bishops when he accuses Arius of not believing the Son to be like the Father in respect of his Nature and calls the Father and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as Origen had done 3. Because Mr. Hill has suffered himself to be imposed upon by a spurious piece which he cites under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria as truly his but it 's visibly false since the Doctrine it contains is altogether contrary to what we know to have been the Doctrine of that Ancient Author 2ly It 's certain that most of the Ancient Fathers before the Council of Nice have held a Generation of the Word in tempore before the Creation of the World * Justin M. Ap. 2. p. 66. E. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 285. D. 358. B.C. 359. B. Athenag Legat. pro Christianis p. 10. D. Theophil ad Autol. p. 88. B. p. 100. B. Tatian p. 145. B. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. p. 553. B. 591. B. Strom. 6. p. 644. A. Strom. 7. p. 700. c. Tertull. Apol. c. 21. p. 19. contra Herm. c. 3. c. 18. 20. 45. adv Prax. c. 5. 7. 12. Lact. l. 2. c. 8. p. 177 178. l. 4. c. 6. p. 364 365. 366. The Learned Dr. Bull has given us a long List of them and Mr. Hill owns it calling this a singularly odd notion It was the great Argument of the Arians who concluded from thence that the Fathers had asserted that Jesus Christ was of another Substance with the Father as being made and created which they proved by those passages of the Fathers where they use the words made and created Now its certain that Alexander of Alexandria does not serve himself of the Notion of this Generation in tempore before the Creation to oppose the Arians but urges
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
fault and not the Bishop's For whoever asserts that St. Paul finds the Fountain of the Diety in the Father by reason of which he calls the Father the only God and whoever maintains that the Son is the second Person who is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Jews and by whom God has acted all along during that Oeconomy leaves no force at all to the Objections of Arians or Socinians Lastly Mr. Hill rejects the Argument for our Saviour's Divinity which the Bishop draws from this that we don't read either in the Acts of the Apostles or in their Epistles that ever the Jews did object to Christians that they were guilty of Idolatry this Argument seems to him false and impertinet 'T is strange how men are sometimes blinded by Passion and carried away with the eagerness of Disputing The Bishop does not argue here against all sorts of men but only against the Socinians who maintain that Jesus Christ was exalted to the Title of God after his Ascension It 's certain that in this case the silence of the Jews is a very strange thing for they would not have failed to object against Christians that their Religion did propose a new Divinity altogether unkown under the Law On the other hand if this objection was ever made against the Christians 't is very strange likewise that the Apostles should no where obviate the Scandal which the Jews might so justly have taken at that new object of Religious Worship which they proposed I don't know how Mr. Hill is made but I am sure that a Socinian could never make use of those Answers which he furnishes him with At least if I remember well the Scocinian who has Answered his Lordship has thought fitter to say nothing upon this Argument of the Bishop than to have recourse to Mr. Hill's Solutions which he has not judged to be a solid and sufficient Answer to this Observation of the Bishop Mr. Hill having thus censured what the Bishop says concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation one would have thought that he was going to enter upon the Examination of those Censures which the Bishop has made of the Fathers in general but he returns to the Doctrine of the Trinity and accuses the Bishop of having suppressed the Notions which distinguish the Persons viz. Generation and Procession This Accusation is as unjust and as ill grounded as all the rest for the Bishop says enough of that Matter p. 132 133 and 134. He should have considered that since the Bishop did not undertake a Treatise concerning the Trinity he was not bound to examine the whole Dogma it was enough for his purpose to mention only what he thought most fit to establish the Divinity of Christ that he intended to prove against the Socinians Besides Mr. Hill ought to have done the Bishop the Justice to believe that he does no less include in the Mystery which he does not pretend to explain for fear of destroying the nature of it those Notions which distinguish the Persons than the Dogma it self And indeed though these Notions which the Bishop owns to be so real as to produce a real and numerical distinction betwixt the Persons are used by us in speaking of the Trinity Mr. Hill cannot be ignorant that they are no less Mysterious and Difficult to be explained than the Dogma it self We understand what made Mr. Hill return to this Subject he had a mind to bring in question the Bishop's believing of the Trinity because he says in a Letter to Mr. Boyle that in many ancient Manuscripts he has not found that celebrated place of St. John There are three c. Here he opposes to the Bishop an Author who takes this place for Genuine this is no great piece of Cunning. For neither the Bishop nor the other learned men who compare the Manuscripts upon controverted places do thereby give the Hereticks any advantage Dr. Fell the late Bishop of Oxford who took so much pains in this kind of Literature would have thanked the Bishop of Salisbury for his Discovery For that great Man judged of things otherways and by more elevated Principles than Mr. Hill I am sure Dr. Mills will make use of the Bishop's Observation and do him that Justice which the Bishop of Oxford would have done if he had executed his Design But this keeps me from the main Subject Let us see at last what Mr. Hill censures in the Bishop concerning his pretended ill usage of the Fathers p. 51. He taxes the Fathers says Mr. Hill for no real Obliquities but their Catholick Principles fixes on them such Theories as they never dreamed of and such as are destructive of their own avowed Faith and this without quoting so much as one passage out of them he gives them not so much as one good word but finally presents them to us as a parcel of impertinent and self-contradictory Bablers Here is the Charge and the Proof follows p. 54. In this says the Bishop i. e. in their teaching the Respects and Modes of this Unity and Distinction too many both Ancients and Moderns have perhaps gone beyond bounds while some were pleased with the Platonical Notions of Emanations and Fecundity in the Divine Essence The Bishop you see uses the words perhaps and too many he does not say all which does mightily mitigate his Assertion And yet Mr. Hill is pleased to say That he reflects upon the whole Ancient Church before and after the Council of Nice This is not very sincere But granting the Bishop had spoken so generally as Mr. Hill imputes it to him yet he had said nothing upon this Matter but what many learned men of both Communions have advanced Mr. Hill says That we may very well ascribe Platonical Notions to Arius since Petavius avers that Arius was a Platonist but not to the Fathers who have disputed against Arius This matter of Fact is not so certain as Mr. Hill thinks Doctor Cudworth pretends that Petavius is mistaken and that Athanasius and the Fathers of Nice were much greater Platonists than Arius But without entring upon that Question it 's undeniably true that the Fathers have made use of Plato's Authority to explain the Mystery of the Trinity Justin M. Ap. 2. p. 93. B. C. Clemens Alexandrinus Origen and Eusebius Caesariensis have done it before the Council of Nice and St. Cyril does the same after them against Julian And yet Mr. Hill comes and tells us positively that the Fathers were not Platonists because Petavius says that Arius was a Platonist Petavius acknowledges that Plato's Trinity does very widely differ from the Christian Trinity Doctor Tenison says the same and proves it with great Exactness and Learning of Idolatry p. 77 78 and p. 139. And after this Is it a Crime for the Bishop of Salisbury to reject those Platonical Notions of the Trinity But after all says Mr. Hill The Doctrine of Emanations is derived from the School of the Jews before Jesus Christ
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