acknowledged by all the Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition It is somewhat strange to see a Protestant use that as a necessary Character to establish Faith which the Papists employ to destroy it The Papist thinks to have driven the Protestant to the impossibility of shewing how Faith is produced in a man who reads the Scripture because such a man can't be sure whether his being persuaded by Revelation of some Fundamental Truth is a ground he may safely rely upon before he has Examined whether all the Churches agree upon that point that seems to be Revealed or not And Mr. Hill it seems being not satisfied with what we answer to this Objection thinks fit to side with the Papist How edifying this proceeding can be let Divines judge Pray Sir tell me what you think of this when you hear it said that Faith has been so intrusted to the Custody of the whole Church by the Apostles that it was preserved by the Successors of the Apostles But what I require says Mr. Hill is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular Mens private Opinions but originally committed to the charge and custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive body p. 6. Does Faith then depend upon the knowledge of the Apostles Successors or their faithfulness or unfaithfulness in keeping this Sacred Depositum This puts me in mind of what Vasquez says that the Faith of a Christian does so absolutely depend upon the Authority of his Leaders that if at this day a Heathen being cast by a storm into England did embrace the Belief of our Church which rejects Transubstantiation he would be in a state of Salvation tho' the Church of Rome which alledges Tradition for this Dogma and has it in her Creed declares that one can't be Saved without professing that monstrous Doctrine I know St. Augustine has said non crederem Evangelio nisi me moveret Ecclesiae Authoritas it seems Mr. Hill was deceived by this Maxim which the Papists have adopted after they had corrupted it For St. Augustine speaks only of the Ministery of the Church in proposing the Gospels as written by Authors Divinely Inspired This was well observed by Melchior Canus lib. 2. c. 8. The same Ministry may be attributed to the Church with relation to the Creeds that it proposes to us as a faithful Abridgment of the Apostles Doctrine but it is ridiculous to imagine that we cannot produce an Act of Christian Faith without knowing the general consent of all the Churches in professing the same Truths It is not the consent of the Church that makes a Doctrine either true or fundamental the Nature of the Doctrine it self makes it so A Divine who has pored long upon Antiquity may by an exact study and meditation have informed himself of that consent but this serves more for his particular Instruction and for the confirmation of his own Theological Notions concerning the distinction of Points fundamental from Points that are not fundamental than to confirm his Faith as he is a Christian Mr. Hill makes a strange use of the Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus c. That Priest was a Semipelagian that is he thought that a Man could believe by his own strength and that afterward God gave him Grace to Execute his Good and Pious Resolutions He introduced this Maxim merely in opposition to St. Augustine who pretended to have found his Doctrine concerning Grace in St. Paul's Epistles so that this Father was obliged either to confute the Fathers or to abandon his Doctrine which he had caused to be Authorised by the Councils of Africa After all he confesses himself that his Method could only be of use against new-born Heresies such as he pretended St. Augustine's Doctrine to be There is nothing more easie says Mr. Hill than for us to be informed of the Belief of Antiquity I confess we have their Symbols and Summaries of Faith but Symbols have no Authority but as they are extracted from Scripture this our Articles expresly tell us And the Apostles Creed as we call it was never known in the East till within these few Centuries What I have before mentioned upon the Article of the Procession ab utroque shews that Mr. Hill has confounded what belongs to a Christian with what belongs only to Divines However Mr. Hill grants that Faith cannot be produced in a Man's Heart but as far as he himself is persuaded of the Truth of what he believes But what he adds is extream rash when he assures us that he who cannot be persuaded to receive the common and established Systems of the Faith of the Universal Church upon the Authority of which it always stood and stands to this day or frames fundamental Principles upon his own private Opinion does not belong to the Communion of Christ's Church tho' he fancies his Notions to be Revealed in Scripture I grant what Mr. Hill lays down as to those who advance fundamental Articles upon their private Opinion he seems thereby to reject the Articles which the Papists have introduced into the Creed framed by Pius the fourth but he can ascribe no other Authority to Confessions of Faith or Symbols but that which they borrow from their Conformity with Revelation the summ of which they contain What he affirms that the Catholick Church has always stood upon the Authority of Symbols is a meer Vision the Church indeed made an Abstract of Faith for the use of Cathecumenes which we call the Creed she taught it to those Cathecumenes as an Abridgment of what 's Revealed the Faith therefore of Cathecumenes has an immediate respect to Revelation it must rely and be founded upon that if it be true In a word Mr. Hill either because he does not understand the matter or out of a desire to censure and contradict the Bishop explains his Opinion after a very odd manner his Expressions do very much favour the Church of Rome and are far from being so exact as a Censor ought to be he shews that he himself stands in need of a great deal of Indulgence and Christian forbearance I wish from my Heart he may come to himself consider his fault and repent If he could but for a minute reflect in cool blood upon his outragious way of writing and upon the Service that he has done to the Enemies of the Trinity by endeavouring to sacrifice to them one of the Defenders of it for whose Talents he cannot but express some esteem how averse soever he may be to his Person I am sure he would be ashamed of his Book For notwithstanding all his Passion I am willing to believe that the Christian Spirit is
singularly odd concerning the Production of the Second Person And yet it 's very observable that Tertullian says nothing but what has been advanced by many other Ecclesiastical Writers before the Council of Nice so that notwithstanding all Dr. Bull 's Endeavours to reduce what these Fathers say to an Orthodox sense Mr. Hill must of necessity involve them in the same censure with Tertullian 2ly Mr. Hill affirms concerning the Fathers that in his opinion they generally taught a gracious Adoption and a Metaphorical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Nature in Jesus Christ and of all the Saints by him But to justifie them in this Particular we must say either that Mr. Hill never read them or that if he did he quarrels with them with as little ground as when he censures the Bishop for using the Expression of Divine Person in speaking of the Flesh for both the Bishop and the Fathers who often call Jesus Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have had the same Idea so that they must either stand or fall together But I shall take leave of this unfair Writer when I have performed one thing that I promised I told you that I was very much surprized to find in Mr. Hills Book a most dangerous Principle I must now make you sensible of it These are his words Pag. 6. What I require is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular mens private Opinions but originally committed to the charge and custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive body Whereas his Lordship only lays down this notion or form of Faith That we believe Points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed to us in Scripture which is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every man's private Fancies and Contradictory Opinions Since each man's Faith is his Perswasion that what he believes for a Doctrine is revealed in Scripture Whereas the act of a Christian Faith believes such Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from the certain evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition The deviation from which Rule and Notion to private Opinions and Perswasions is the cause of all Heresies and by its consequent divisions naturally tends to the ruine of the True Christian and Catholick Faith You see that Mr. Hill is angry with the Bishop for saying that we believe Points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed in Scripture he thinks the Bishop should have said that we receive a Doctrine for fundamental from the evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions c. These Expressions are so intricate that it 's hard to guess at Mr. Hill's meaning If these words acknowledged by all Churches relate to the word Scripture which goes immediately before it 's very hard to apply what he says to all the Books of Scripture so as that they may retain their Authority with Christians for it is notorious that divers Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews c. have not that Primitive Universal and unanimous Tradition to establish their Authority This one Clause of Mr. Hill's will deprive us at one dash of all the Books the Authority whereof we are told in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History was for a long time questioned by great Churches But if he refers the words acknowledged by all Churches c. to the evidence of Fundamental Doctrines as the series of his Discourse the Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis which he cites and what he says concerning the Creeds seem to intimate then this Proposition is not less dangerous than the other It is true that a Fundamental Doctrine the Revelation whereof is acknowledged by all the Churches is most evident by that very thing that all the World does acknowledge it But must therefore all the Fundamental Doctrines which have not been acknowledged by all the Churches tho they are clearly revealed in Scripture be thought not fundamental because they want this Evidence I confess Mr. Hill says that he will not examine what Rules private men are to follow but he affirms that those who desire to arrive at a ripeness of Judgment and Knowledge ought to take the Rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis p. 7. which the Bishop has rejected But this I say first of all is a Notion that has no solid ground in Divinity 'T is granted that Certainty of Revelation in respect to those who live now I depends upon the Certainty of Revelation which the Apostolical and after it the Christian Church has had down to this time But it is not a wild imagination to oppose hâ—r Certainty which the Apostolical Church in a Body has bad to the perswasion of each Member of the Apostolical Church What Certainty could the Body of the Apostolical Church have but the Certainty which each single member of which it was composed had Who ever heard among Protestants but that the Faith of each private man resolves it self into the Certainty of Revelation which way soever he may come by that Certainty of Revelation Is it not rank Popery to assert that our Faith is not immediately resolved into the Authority of God who proposes a Doctrine to us in Scripture Pray where shall we find Christians if to be so it is not enough to believe a Doctrine because Christ has revealed it but one must believe besides such a Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from its certain evidence in Scripture acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition One might perhaps think at first that this addition to the definition of Faith were no great matter but I assure you Sir it destroys entirely the nature of Faith and contains the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this Point it imports that the Gospel has no Authority quo ad nos till it is vouched by the Authority of the Church The Church has been believed hitherto to be the Depositary of Scripture But it was never believed that her Authority went so far as that we ought not to receive a truth evident in Revelation but as it is acknowledged by all the Churches not led by casual perswasions but by a Primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition Indeed Sir if what Mr. Hill lays down be true it 's hard to tell who has Faith now I desire Mr. Hill to reflect upon that Article of the Creed which establishes the Procession ab utroque and to tell me whether he does not think himself bound to believe it till he has examined whether this is
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
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
more he has insinuated by his method that he believes a Tetras in God namely the Essence in abstracto and the three Persons I say this is a very groundless Accusation for it 's true that there are but too many of the Ancients who have gone upon this Hypothesis the Bishop speaks of in explaining the Dogma of the Trinity Mr. Hill may be informed of it by reading amongst others Father Petav. de S. Trinit l. 6. c. 9. The Learned Dr. Cudworth has said as much as the Bishop these are his words Intellect Syst p. 604. However it is evident from hence that these reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence they supposing 'em to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be one God than three individual men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all one Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for Tritheism so in the room thereof started thereup that other Trinity of Persons numerically the same or having all one and the same singular existent Essence a Doctrine which seeemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only I know there are some learned men who as Dr. Bull have endeavoured to give a good Sense to their Expressions and by a long compass of Consequences reduce them to the ordinary Notions We cannot but commend their Zeal for Antiquity but after all it were expedient that those who have the Opinions of the Fathers but at the second hand should not be so positive in justifying all their Sentiments Those who are troubled it those failings with which the Fathers may be charged ought to consider First That without examining Questions with great care it is not possible to foresee all the Consequences that may be drawn from them Secondly That these Questions have risen one after another in process of time and of many Disputes Thirdly That it easily happens even to those who handle Matters with the greatest caution to fall into Expressions which being strictly taken have a harsh Sense Fourthly That the Authority of some great men has often gained to them great numbers of Followers concerning things which Posterity has justly condemned Fifthly That almost all the strayings of the Fathers do rise from thence that in combating the Hereticks they departed from the simplicity of Scripture Expressions and undertook to explain this Mystery by human Ideas very remote from the Truth But Mr. Hill tells us The Bishop of Salisbury who imputes to the Fathers a sort of Tritheism by his Explanation falls himself into the same Absurdity nay he establishes a kind of Tetras in the Godhead which is worse than Tritheism This is a great Charge In the Divine Essence says the Bishop there may be Three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as oeconomies Here is the heresy of these words according to Mr. Hill p. 98. Now whatsoever acts by another is distinct from that other by which it acts if prior in the Agency by the order of reason Here we have indeed a special Hunter of Hereticks I shall not answer him that there have been divers Schoolmen who believed an absolute Subsistence of the Divine Essence besides the three Subsistences which make the Personalities without acknowledging that Tetras that Mr. Hill speaks of the Bishop I am sure would not use this Apology But I answer That he offers a manifest violence to the Bishop's words that contains nothing but what is agreeable to the constant way of speaking which Divines use concerning the Operations appropriated to each Person without confounding them with the notional Expressions that serve to distinguish them The Name of God sometimes signifies his Essence sometimes the Three Persons and sometimes it imports but One Person of the Trinity do we therefore acknowledge a Quaternity To draw such consequences as these in order to ascribe Heresies to those who sometimes use the Word GOD in one of these significations and sometimes in another is meer Sophistry We say That the Father is God to denote his Divine Essence We say That God has created the World to express the common Work of the Trinity We say That God is incarnate to signify the Union of the Word with Humanity How many Heresies might be imputed to Writers if one would make such Objections against them and urge upon the word GOD Notions altogether foreign to the Subject in hand But God be thanked that all those who write are not of Mr. Hill's temper Mr. Hill follows his blow after he has reproached the Bishop for representing the Ancients as Tritheists he accuses him of maintaining that those who succeeded them have used Notions that were little better when they made use of that Notion of the Sun with its Light and Heat and of that of the Soul from whence flows the Understanding and the Will to express the Processions of the Trinity Nay he objects to him that those who have supposed different Operations in the Two Persons are according to this System as much Tritheists as the first Mr. Hill affirms on the contrary That these Notions of the Fathers which the Bishop rejects have been used from the beginning so that the Bishop ought not to have said that the using of these Notions was only that the Fathers might get out of Tritheism This is a very pitiful Accusation It seems Mr. Hill did not understand the Bishop's meaning when he says that the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost were expressed by the acts of Understanding and Will he does not intend to deny that this Notion was used in ancient Times but only to condemn the boldness of the Schoolmen who would almost make this way of explaining the Procession of the Persons pass for an Article of Faith namely that the Son proceeds by the Understanding and the Holy Ghost by the Will tho very Eminent Divines have rejected these Definitions as Zanchius lib. 5. C. ultimo and Durandus refutes them in 1. Dist 6. q. 2. As to what Mr. Hill fancies that the Bishop is guilty of Tritheism because he ascribes different Operations to the Two Persons the poor man is visibly mistaken Does not all Divines acknowledge different Operations of the Two Persons Are they thereby infected with Tritheism Or was St. Paul infected with Heresy when he said There are diversities of gifts but the same spirit there are differences of administrations but the same Lord there are diversities of operations but it is the same God who worketh all in all 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. I see what led Mr. Hill into this Error He did imagine that because it is a Maxim in Divinity that the Actions of the Trinity ad extra are common to the Three Persons there are no Actions particularly belonging to One Person according to
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
filius prolatus a Patre esse dicimus ei quia prolationem istam sive Generationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem aut quomodolibet quis nomine vocaverit Generationem ejus inenarrabilem existentem nemo novit nisi solus qui generavit Pater qui natus est Filius c. This was also the Maxim of St. Basil in his second Book against Eunomius p. 44. where he affirms that we ought not to ascribe any thing to the Son but what is expresly attributed to him in Scripture and that we ought not to speak of God but in Scripture Terms this is repeated in his Book de vera fide p. 250. It was also the Notion of Gregory of Nazianze Orat. 12. p. 204. Where he says that the Trinity alone comprehends quo ordine erga se sit In his thirteenth Oration p. 211. and in 23. he declares that if he were asked the Modus of the Eternal Generation and Procession he would leave it to them who alone know themselves according to the Testimony of Scripture In divinis scientia suae ignorantiae maxima scientia The second thing is that since the Fathers acknowledge that the Mystery of the Trinity is unknown to us and even to the Angelical Beings it were very prudently done never to engage our selves into those Explanations much less to deliver them with an Authority almost equal to that of Scripture This is the Judgment of St. Gregory Sirnamed the Divine in his 12th Orat. For after all to what purpose are all those Similies used in this case Since the same Gregory owns that after having searched curiously for some resemblance of the Trinity he could never meet with any that was able to satisfie him so that he frankly declares that that of the Eye that of a Fountain and a River that of the Sun the Beams and the Light or any other whatsoever were not proper Images of the Mystery of the Trinity Orat. 37. p. 611. The third thing which may be blamed in Mr. Hill's Hypothesis wherein he has blended the Notions of the Thomists with those of Scripture is that it is not liked even by a great part of those of the Church of Rome For the Scotists make great Exceptions against it and the difficulties which they urge against the Thomists serve at best to render this matter more obscure and intricate All their working to prove that there cannot be more than three Persons in the Divine Essence seems to me as solid as what Ireneus says that there could not have been more than four Gospels Lib. 3. Cap. 11. Grotius does some-where very much commend the way of the Patriarch Gennadius in explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity in his Confession of Faith which he presented to the Emperor Mahomet II. And indeed it is very commendable and it were to be wished that those many Divines who are so positive would imitate the modesty of it in explaining those great Truths which the Scripture proposes to us that we may receive them with submission of Faith and not pry into them and give Systems of 'em in which upon examination it appears that Humane Reason has a greater share than Divine Revelation It is not my design at present to examine more particularly Mr. Hill's Hypothesis concerning the Trinity A Learned Reader can easily see that he has compiled Dr. Bull. But it were to be wished 1. That he had quoted the Fathers with a little more judgment and cited only those that made for him for that way of quoting Authors in a lump is easie enough and may impose upon those who never conversed with Antiquity but it does very little honour to a Writer among those who are true Judges I am sure that if a man who is not a Scholar would compare Mr. Hill's Citations with what he reads in English of the Doctrine of those Fathers in the Ecclesiastical Bibliotheque of Mr. Dupin a Doctor of Sorbonne he would be strangely surprized to see that Mr. Hill cites for his Opinion a great number of Authors who are Diametrically opposite to him But if Mr. Hill was to undergo the Censure of the Learned who have studied these matters in the Originals he has laid himself open to a very heavy one The 2d thing to be wished is that Mr. Hill had not inspired his Readers with so profound a Veneration for Antiquity It seems he has had the ordinary fate of those who dispute with too much heat thinking that the Bishop rejected Antiquity with too great a contempt he seems on the contrary to acknowledge the Authority of the Ancients as a Tradition almost infallible If he is read in Antiquity as he would fain perswade us he is then he must be given over as a man past Cure since his own reading could not bring him to have true and right notions concerning the Authority of the Ancients but if he never read the Fathers but relies upon the Extracts of others I desire him to be a little better acquainted with the Ancient Doctors before he presume to impose upon his Readers that blind Veneration for Antiquity which he prescribes to them Tho most of the Fathers from the middle of the second Century to the Council of Nice had been engaged in Opinions contrary to the right notion we have of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Petavius confesses it this would make no impression upon me since those Fathers did acknowledge the Authority of Scripture from whence I may immediately derive the Doctrine of the Trinity I say this would not make me doubt of the revealed Doctrine Nay more than that I say that tho the whole Council of Nice had followed the opinion of those Fathers it would not much move me they were men and liable to be mistaken and those who can deny this truth had as good renounce their Reformation all at once Mr. Hill must remember what St. Hierom saith upon this very Question in his Apology against Rufinus Et quomodo ô Rufine inquies in libris ecclesiasticorum scriptorum vitia nonnulla sunt Si Causas vitiorum nescire respondero non statim illos haereticos indicabo fieri enim potest ut vel simpliciter erraverint vel alio sensu scripserint vel a librariis imperitis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sint vel certè antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium Meridianum Arius nasceretur innocentes quaedam minus cautè locuti sint quae non possint perversorum hominum calumniam declinare This is what I had to say upon the Vindication of the Fathers undertaken by Mr. Hill and upon the System which he opposes to the false Notions he ascribes to the Bishop of Salisbury You see that the Fathers had need of another Apologist especially since by the way he was pleased 1. To give a wipe to Tertullian the first in his opinion who defended the Doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas he says that his words and his sense are sometimes very