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
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
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
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
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