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
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
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
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