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
Person as if under the general name of God the Bishop would leave his Reader to think that he understands the Father and the Spirit as well as the Word At this rate when we say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God we leave the Hearer in suspense whether we mean that he is only the Son of the Father or likewise the Son of the Holy Ghost When a Man reasons thus in a matter of so great moment one would think he designs nothing else but to be laughed at or to be read with indignation He goes on to the Divinity of the Messias upon which he raises new Accusations against the Bishop though he confesses p. 45. That the Bishop has advanced many Good and Orthodox Truths upon this Article This being the main thing intended by the Bishop it will not be improper to give you a short account of it that you may judge the better of the Justice of Mr. Hill's Accusations First of all the Bishop gives an Idea of the dwelling of the Word in Flesh and he explains in a very intelligible manner what 's called in School-terms the Hypostatical Vnion then he goes on to shew whence this Phrase of Inhabitation or Shekina is borrowed namely from the Divine Presence granted to the Jews in the Cloud of Glory which was over the Tabernacle He very exactly observes That the God of the Jews is called Jehovah a word which the Seventy have rendred constantly by that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Evangelists and Apostles ascribe constantly that word to Jesus Christ because of the indwelling of the Word so that when the Apostles have proposed Jesus Christ as the true Object of the Adoration of Christians they did not change the Object of Adoration received among the Jews since it was the same Jehovah who inhabited before the Cloud of Glory that now dwelt in Flesh in an inseparable manner which is to continue for ever This is a short abstract of what the Bishop explains at large and with several reflections upon divers Texts of Scripture p. 120. His words are In opposition to all which we Christians own but one supreme God and we do also believe that this great God is also our federal God or Jehovah by his dwelling in the Human Nature of Jesus Christ so that he is our Lord not by an assumption into high Dignity or the communicating divine Honour to him but as the Eternal Word dwelt bodily in him And thus he is our Lord not as a Being distinct from or deputed by the great God but as the great God manifesting himself in his Flesh or human Nature which is the great Mystery of Godliness or of true Religion And this will give a clear account of all those other passages of the New Testament in which the Lord Jesus is mentioned as distinct from and subordinate to God and his Father The one is the more extended Notion of God as the Maker and Preserver of all things and the other is the more special Notion as appropriated to Christians by which God is federally their God Lord or Jehovah Certainly a Man must have a small stock of Modesty or Sincerity who having read this Explication can charge a Prelate with Socinianism or Nestorianism And thus he goes about to prove his accusation He takes notice of an Expression of the Bishop's p. 25. We believe says the Bishop That Christ was God by vertue of the indwelling of the eternal Word in him the Jews could make no Objection to this who knew that their Fathers had worshipped the Cloud of Glory because of God's resting upon it It is a fine thing to see how gravely Mr. Hill snaps up this Expression of the Jews worshipping the Shekina Here he makes a pompous shew of needless Remarks to convince the Bishop that God and the Cloud were two different things and that the Jews never worshipped the Cloud of Glory because otherwise they had been Idolaters And all this because the Bishop has taken the Shekina for God dwelling in the Cloud I confess that Expression is not altogether exact but a candid Reader would easily have understood it by so many other Expressions which the Bishop employs in speaking upon this Subject where he shews the difference which he makes between God and the Cloud of Glory No body has found fault with Dr. Tenison for taking the Shekina for the second Person of Idolatry p. 319. these are his words Accordingly when God is said in the Old Testament to have appeared they seem to mistake who ascribe it to an Angel personating God and not to the second Person as the Shekina or as Tertullian calleth him the representator of the Father The same Expression occurs p. 380. of the same Book And yet Dr. Tenison has not been accused hitherto of confounding the Habitation with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that dwelt in the Cloud Dr. Whitby says as much as Dr. Tenison and Mr. Hill does not take it ill He has read Tertullian's Book against Praxeas but he seems not to have understood that Maxim in it Malo te ad sensum rei quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas at least he does not practise it much in respect to the Bishop especially since he owns p. 27. that the Bishop has corrected that Expression But Mr. Hill does not only attack this Expression which though in it self it may be somewhat improper is yet usual enough but he falls upon the whole Argument of the Bishop and to overthrow it he denies in the first place what the Bishop advances That the word Jehovah has been always applied to the Divinity dwelling in the Cloud of Glory Secondly Though this were granted he denies That the Divinity of the Messias can be inferred from Jehovah's dwelling bodily in him as the Bishop would have it And he does not believe that St. Paul Col. 2. has furnished the Bishop with a notion of the Divinity 's dwelling in Jesus Christ sufficient to ground Adoration upon Lastly He accuses the Bishop of not having fully answered a difficulty which he proposes to himself from 1 Cor. 8. which seems to appropriate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jehovah to the Son exclusively of the Father and he gives us another Solution which he thinks is better We shall resume every one of these Heads in their order And I. Mr. Hill denies that the word Jehovah is always ascribed to God with relation to this Habitation in the Cloud What tho the Bishop had been somewhat too positive concerning the word Jehovah in asserting that it always refers to the Habitation in the Cloud Here were after all no great harm since Mr. Hill himself owns that he is called so where spoken of as in Covenant with the Jews A little Candor and Common Sense would have prompted an Ingenuous Reader to make that Restriction of the Bishop's words but in vain should the Bishop look for so much Equity from Mr. Hill who disputes for
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