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
Notion and that of many Schoolmen yet St. Augustine in his Tenth Book prefers another before it which seems clearer to him and more proper to explain the Idea's of the Trinity that is Memory Understanding and Will In fine as if these Notions could not satisfie him he borrows Similies from Brutes Plants and Trees from the inward Senses from Learning and Wisdom c. And after all he is forced to confess that all these Representations cannot give us a perfect Idea of the Trinity If we had some portion of Mr. Hill's Criticising Spirit here were a large field to shew many dissimilitudes in those Similies but he who can give himself that trouble must have little to do and had need to have a very patient Reader to bear the tediousness of it We are come at last to Mr. Hill's System which he opposes and prefers to that of the Bishop as having nothing in it but what is drawn both from Scripture and Antiquity And first I must give him his due and acknowledge that he says many good and Orthodox things upon this matter I agree with him when he tells us that he cannot conceive three Minds in God without establishing Treitheism p. 112. But he is absolutely mistaken when he denies that several of the Ancients have acknowledged three Minds in God Mr. Hill may easily be convinced of this he owns p. 113. that to acknowledge three Minds in God is by consequence to acknowledge three Substances but nothing is more evident than that most of the Fathers have acknowledged three Substances This would be soon demonstrated if I would insist upon the Expressions of the Fathers who have followed Plato's Notions for it 's not the Father which the Platonists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Hill does but it 's the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Cudworth p. 591. of his System has given us the reason why the Platonists did so by shewing that they looked upon the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as inconsistent with the most simple Nature of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they conceived as the source of the Deity that was communicated to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This may be seen in Macrobius lib. 1. in Somn. Soip C. 14. From whence it appears that the Platonists as Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Tenison do agree acknowledged three Substances in their Trinity Mr. Huet owns as much in his Origeniana concerning those Divines who did like Origen follow the Notions of Plato to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity But we have yet more evident proofs of this truth 1. It is certain that the Greeks before the Council of Nice have constantly supposed that there were three Hypostases in the Trinity and it 's no less certain than that by three Hypostases the Greeks understood three Substances The thing is so unquestionable that the Council of Nice uses the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one and the same thing I know that St. Basil in his 78 Epistle endeavours to give another sense to these words of the Council but we may justly oppose to him Athanasius who had been at the Council of Nice For he expresly affirms in his fifth Oration against the Arians that the Father and the Son have but one Nature and Hypostasis he says the same in his Epistle to Liberius and in that to the Bishops of Africk where he positively asserts that the Hypostasis is the Nature We may further oppose to St. Basil Alexander Bishop of Alexandria who had been as it were the soul of the Council of Nice for in his Letters the one mentioned by Theodoret and the other by Socrates he takes constantly Hypostasis for Essence This we see likewise in the addition to the Synodical Epistle of the Fathers of Sardica in Theodoret Lib. 2. C. 6. where they charge the Arians with believing three Hypostasis because they believed three different Substances that of the Father that of the Son and that of the Holy Ghost The same may also be observed in the 57. Epistle of St. Jerome which he writes to Pope Damasus where he maintains that to say three Hypostases is the same as to say three Substances and that all men speak so when they will speak Greek That too many of the Greek Fathers who have disputed against the Sabellians have taken these words in this sense is but too evident from the instance of Dionysius of Alexandria Sirnamed the Great This great Man is vindicated by Athanasius as having never entertained any impious opinion about the Trinity But St. Basil rejects him upon many Articles chiefly where he confirms the Arian Heresie if he defends him somewhere it 's only with this Apology that while he too eagerly intends to confute the Sabellians he falls into the contrary opinion and besides he accuses him of having impious Opinions concerning the Holy Ghost Phot. Cod. 232. pag. 902. I have observed this concerning Dionysius of Alexandria 1. Because the Arians boasted that he was of their side 2. Because Alexander of Alexandria follows some of his Expressions in his Synodical Epistle to all the Bishops when he accuses Arius of not believing the Son to be like the Father in respect of his Nature and calls the Father and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as Origen had done 3. Because Mr. Hill has suffered himself to be imposed upon by a spurious piece which he cites under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria as truly his but it 's visibly false since the Doctrine it contains is altogether contrary to what we know to have been the Doctrine of that Ancient Author 2ly It 's certain that most of the Ancient Fathers before the Council of Nice have held a Generation of the Word in tempore before the Creation of the World * Justin M. Ap. 2. p. 66. E. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 285. D. 358. B.C. 359. B. Athenag Legat. pro Christianis p. 10. D. Theophil ad Autol. p. 88. B. p. 100. B. Tatian p. 145. B. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. p. 553. B. 591. B. Strom. 6. p. 644. A. Strom. 7. p. 700. c. Tertull. Apol. c. 21. p. 19. contra Herm. c. 3. c. 18. 20. 45. adv Prax. c. 5. 7. 12. Lact. l. 2. c. 8. p. 177 178. l. 4. c. 6. p. 364 365. 366. The Learned Dr. Bull has given us a long List of them and Mr. Hill owns it calling this a singularly odd notion It was the great Argument of the Arians who concluded from thence that the Fathers had asserted that Jesus Christ was of another Substance with the Father as being made and created which they proved by those passages of the Fathers where they use the words made and created Now its certain that Alexander of Alexandria does not serve himself of the Notion of this Generation in tempore before the Creation to oppose the Arians but urges
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