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
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
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
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