ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. HILL's BOOK, ENTITLED, A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, etc.   

ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. HILL 's BOOK, ENTITLED, 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 Churchyard. 1695.   

ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. HILL's BOOK, ENTITLED, A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, etc.  
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, though 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 itself 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 show 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 chief 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 S●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, Entitled, The Doctrine of the Trinity set in its True Light, p. 40. etc. 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 surprised 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 shows 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 intent 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 Confession, 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 softened, 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 Tritheism, which is justly looked 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, though 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 persuaded, 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 Public 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, chief, 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 shows by St. Paul's Epistles, that the word Person was in use before Praxeas' time. 'Tis not very material, and yet no Digression, to show 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 rendered by Person; the Vulgar has rendered 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 though Mr. Hill citys 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 Judgement 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 complete 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 Judgements.  
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 Messiah 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 show 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 dwelled 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, though 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 dwelled in Flesh; and yet he is angry because the Bishop says elsewhere, that God and Man are become one 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 Messiah, 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 Union; then he goes on to show 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 rendered 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 dwelled 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 dwelled 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 virtue 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 show 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 shows 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 dwelled 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 itself 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 Messiah 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 though 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 Candour 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 disputing's sake. Divines of a greater Name than Mr. Hill, laugh at those Remarks which he has accumulated. Dr. Tenison has proved, That the Shekina is celebrated down from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Moses, from Moses to the Captivity, and from the Captivity to the Messiah. This is in his Book of Idolatry, where one would think he intended a Refutation of Mr. Hill. After all, whatever the meaning of the word Jehovah may have been before the Law, it's certain, as I said, That under the Law that word denoted the God which the Jews worshipped in the Cloud of Glory, and that it is with respect to that Habitation that St. John says, speaking of his Incarnation, That the Word has dwelled amongst us. The Bishop, who intends to prove that the Apostles did not propose another Object of Adoration, than the Jehovah worshipped under the Law, desires no more than this, which is sufficient for his purpose.  
But can we rationally infer the Adoration of the Messiah from this, that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, as St. Paul tells us? Col. 2. The Orthodox have believed it to this day, and the Bishop with them; but out of spite to the Bishop, Mr. Hill will not allow this to be a good consequence; he does not much concern himself, whether the Socinians triumph or not, provided he may quarrel with the Bishop, by alleging I know not what frivolous Exceptions, of which himself would have been ashamed, had he not been transported with his Passion. To take this passage from the Bishop which seems so full to his purpose, Mr. Hill gives it so Chimerical an Interpretation, that probably he is the first Inventor of it; he pretends that the Apostle speaks there in opposition to the Gnostics Notions, who excluded Jesus Christ from the Supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity; but that though St. Paul had declared Jehovah to be in Jesus Christ, yet of what sort of inexistence soever this might be understood, it could not be concluded from it, that the Messiah was to be adored. I am not of Mr. Hill's mind concerning the sense he gives to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of St. Paul. 'Tis not very probable that this Apostle had an eye to the Gnostics, and it is much more natural to understand this fullness in opposition to the Manifestations of the Deity under the Old Testament; the Sequel of the Discourse seems to lead us thither, since the Apostle declares that it dwelled bodily, which is opposed to Figures. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word which the Apostle has expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies really and substantially. But be this as it will, what can Mr. Hill mean, when he denies that from such an Habitation as this, by which the Flesh is personally united to the Deity, the Adoration of the Messiah cannot be inferred? It's plain, that the Bishop does not pretend that the Flesh ought to be adored in the Person of Jesus Christ; but it is yet more certain, that no Christrian, except those that deny the Hypostatical Union of both Natures, denies that the word incarnate is to be adored, that is, the Messiah, who is God and Man. They all agree, That the Principle of Adorability, or that for which the Person of the Messiah is to be adored, is the Divinity of the Word; but they don't deny, as Mr. Hill seems to do, that Jesus Christ is the Object of Adoration, because the indwelling of the Word is such, that thereby the Human and Divine Natures are united in one Personality.  
Here is another Criticism of Mr. Hill's. He owns, That the Argument which the Bishop draws from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is constantly given to Jesus Christ in the New, and answers to that of Jehovah in the Old Testament, is an excellent Argument, but he thinks the Bishop had not skill enough to free it from an Objection arising from 1 Cor. 8. The Arians have insisted upon that place, Verse 6. Nobis tamen unus Deus pater, to prove that the Son was not God. They have been answered, That when the Father is named here, the Son is also evidently supposed, as having the Divine Nature, if he be truly the Son of God. It has been often said to them, that by the same reason we might conclude, That the Father is not Dominus, because the Apostle adds, & unus Dominus Jesus Christus pèr quem omnia; and wherein has the Bishop enervated this Argument? Because the Bishop affirms (says Mr. Hill) that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to that of Jehovah in the Seventy Translation, is here appropriated to Jesus Christ, which he establishes as a consequence of his Hypothesis, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a federal Title of God, with relation to the Jews. Now Mr. Hill thinks that's a false Hypothesis: On the other hand he pretends, That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Paul, which cannot be rendered by Jehovae in the Plural Number; from whence he concludes, That the Bishop has not taken off the Objection he makes to himself. The question started by Mr. Hill, whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresses that of Jehovah; and whether supposing it expresses the Jehovah of the Old Testament, it is a federal word with respect to the Jews; this question, I say, is decided in favour of the Bishop, not only by the Moderns, but also by the Ancients. If Mr. Hill has a mind to be informed of the Opinion of the Ancients in this matmatter, let him read Origen upon the 8th of Ezekiel, p. 1. and St. Jerom upon the same at the beginning of his 9th Book; he may read also the Learned Pearson upon the Creed, as to the second thing controverted here between the Bishop and him. The foundation of this Opinion is more solid than Mr. Hill is ware of; almost all the Ancients prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ, because it was he who appeared under the Old Testament; and that he who then appeared is named Jehovah, which the Seventy render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore the Apostle might say, according to this Phraseology, that if the Christians did acknowledge but one God, they acknowledge likewise but one Lord, viz. Jesus Christ; giving to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Title of Jehovah, which is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament. So that it is St. Paul's Doctrine, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Jehovah, and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incarnate is no less Jehovah than he was before the Incarnation. If it were otherwise, St. Paul had argued like a Sophister, when he proves by a passage out of Joel, that Salvation belongs to Christians, because they invoke Jesus Christ, who is the Lord spoken of in Joel, Rom. 10.  
I know not why Mr. Hill is not satisfied with this Solution; 'tis his fault, and not the Bishop's: For whoever asserts that St. Paul finds the Fountain of the Deity in the Father, by reason of which he calls the Father the only God, and whoever maintains that the Son is the second Person, who is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Jews, and by whom God has acted all along during that Oeconomy, leaves no force at all to the Objections of Arians or Socinians.  
Lastly, Mr. Hill rejects the Argument for our Saviour's Divinity, which the Bishop draws from this; that we don't read either in the Acts of the Apostles, or in their Epistles, that ever the Jews did object to Christians that they were guilty of Idolatry; this Argument seems to him false and impertinet. 'Tis strange how men are sometimes blinded by Passion, and carried away with the eagerness of Disputing! The Bishop does not argue here against all sorts of men, but only against the Socinians, who maintain that Jesus Christ was exalted to the Title of God after his Ascension. It's certain, that in this case the silence of the Jews is a very strange thing, for they would not have failed to object against Christians, that their Religion did propose a new Divinity, altogether unkown under the Law. On the other hand, if this objection was ever made against the Christians, 'tis very strange likewise, that the Apostles should no where obviate the Scandal which the Jews might so justly have taken at that new object of Religious Worship, which they proposed. I don't know how Mr. Hill is made, but I am sure that a Socinian could never make use of those Answers which he furnishes him with: At least, if I remember well, the Scocinian who has Answered his Lordship, has thought fit to say nothing upon this Argument of the Bishop, than to have recourse to Mr. Hill's Solutions, which he has not judged to be a solid and sufficient Answer to this Observation of the Bishop.  
Mr. Hill having thus censured what the Bishop says concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, one would have thought that he was going to enter upon the Examination of those Censures which the Bishop has made of the Fathers in general; but he returns to the Doctrine of the Trinity, and accuses the Bishop of having suppressed the Notions which distinguish the Persons; viz. Generation and Procession.  
This Accusation is as unjust and as ill grounded as all the rest; for the Bishop says enough of that Matter, p. 132, 133, and 134. He should have considered, that since the Bishop did not undertake a Treatise concerning the Trinity, he was not bound to examine the whole Dogma; it was enough for his purpose to mention only what he thought most fit to establish the Divinity of Christ, that he intended to prove against the Socinians. Besides, Mr. Hill ought to have done the Bishop the Justice to believe, that he does no less include in the Mystery (which he does not pretend to explain for fear of destroying the nature of it) those Notions which distinguish the Persons, than the Dogma itself. And indeed, though these Notions which the Bishop owns to be so real, as to produce a real and numerical distinction betwixt the Persons, are used by us in speaking of the Trinity, Mr. Hill cannot be ignorant that they are no less Mysterious and Difficult to be explained than the Dogma itself. We understand what made Mr. Hill return to this Subject; he had a mind to bring in question the Bishop's believing of the Trinity, because he says in a Letter to Mr. boil, that in many ancient Manuscripts he has not found that celebrated place of St. John, There are three, etc. Here he opposes to the Bishop an Author who takes this place for Genuine; this is no great piece of Cunning. For neither the Bishop, nor the other learned men, who compare the Manuscripts upon controverted places, do thereby give the Heretics any advantage. Dr. Fell, the late Bishop of Oxford, who took so much pains in this kind of Literature, would have thanked the Bishop of Salisbury for his Discovery: For that great Man judged of things otherways, and by more elevated Principles than Mr. Hill. I am sure Dr. Mills will make use of the Bishop's Observation, and do him that Justice which the Bishop of Oxford would have done, if he had executed his Design. But this keeps me from the main Subject.  
Let us see at last what Mr. Hill censures in the Bishop, concerning his pretended ill usage of the Fathers, p. 51. He taxes the Fathers, says Mr. Hill, for no real Obliquities, but their Catholic Principles; fixes on them such Theories as they never dreamt of, and such as are destructive of their own avowed Faith; and this without quoting so much as one passage out of them; he gives them not so much as one good word, but finally presents them to us as a parcel of impertinent and self-contradictory Babblers. Here is the Charge, and the Proof follows, p. 54. In this, says the Bishop, i. e. in their teaching the Respects and Modes of this Unity and Distinction, too many both Ancients and Moderns have, perhaps, gone beyond bounds, while some were pleased with the Platonical Notions of Emanations, and Fecundity in the Divine Essence. The Bishop, you see, uses the words perhaps and too many, he does not say all; which does mightily mitigate his Assertion. And yet Mr. Hill is pleased to say, That he reflects upon the whole Ancient Church before and after the Council of Nice: This is not very sincere. But granting the Bishop had spoken so generally as Mr. Hill imputes it to him, yet he had said nothing upon this Matter, but what many learned men of both Communions have advanced. Mr. Hill says, That we may very well ascribe Platonical Notions to Arius, since Petavius avers that Arius was a Platonist; but not to the Fathers who have disputed against Arius. This matter of Fact is not so certain as Mr. Hill thinks. Doctor Cudworth pretends that Petavius is mistaken, and that Athanasius and the Fathers of Nice were much greater Platonists than Arius. But without entering upon that Question, it's undeniably true that the Fathers have made use of Plato's Authority to explain the Mystery of the Trinity. 
Justin. M. Ap. 2. p. 93. B. C.  Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius Caesariensis, have done it before the Council of Nice; and St. Cyril does the same after them against Julian. And yet Mr. Hill comes and tells us positively, that the Fathers were not Platonists, because Petavius says that Arius was a Platonist. Petavius acknowledges that Plato's Trinity does very widely differ from the Christian Trinity. Doctor Tenison says the same, and proves it with great Exactness and Learning (of Idolatry, p. 77, 78, and p. 139.) And after this, Is it a Crime for the Bishop of Salisbury to reject those Platonical Notions of the Trinity?  
But after all, says Mr. Hill, The Doctrine of Emanations is derived from the School of the Jews before Jesus Christ, 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, etc. 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 Platonic, 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, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 145. B. and this Similitude they seem to have borrowed from Philo, 
Lib. the 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. 'Tis 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, though 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. 'Tis 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 the Article, Light of Light, from the Platonists Notion, and that the Bishop of Salisbury does affirm it; pray where is the Crime of that? Was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 borrowed from the Heathens? If this Notion which was common to Scripture, with the wisest Philosophy, could be usefully employed to denote that the Divine Essence is in the Father, and in the Son, as Light is of the same Nature in two Candles, one of which is lighted by the other; why should not they have made use of it? This is Tatian's Notion, and the learned Dr. Bull believes that the Fathers of Nice have followed the same, p. 60. Eusebius Caesariensis drew the Scheme of the Nicene Creed; and it appears by his Book, De Praeparatione Evangelica, how much stress he laid upon Plato's Authority to establish the Dogma of the Trinity. The Fathers of the Council added only to it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which at first seemed hard to Eusebius, but he admitted it afterwards. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been disgraced by the abuse that Paulus Samosathenus made of it, having employed it to denote that Jesus Christ was only of the same Nature with us: But the Fathers of Nice have used it to signify, that he was of the same Nature with the eternal Father. After this the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon have made use of it, in the first Sense, to express the Faith of the Church against the Apollinarians and Eutichians, who denied that Jesus Christ had a Soul. No man has found fault with him for making that use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If Eusebius Caesariensis had not been the first Author of this Creed, Mr. Hill's Objection would be of some force. But as it is certain, that the Nicene Fathers have used the Creed, drawn up by Eusebius Caesariensis, without adding any thing else to it, but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the Condemnation of Arius' Propositions confirming the Condemnation pronounced before by Alexander; so it is visible that they have made use of a Notion in it, which was received by those Fathers that were Platonists: It seemed to them consonant to the Christian Faith; and we receive it at this Day, taking it in a commodious Sense; I say we take it in a large Sense; for it is certain that this Expression Deus de Deo, being as strictly taken as Mr. Hill usually takes words in Disputing against the Bishop, does rather denote the Substance than the Personality, as that of Lumen de Lumine; and when in pronouncing these words we refer them to the Personality, we have more regard to the Sense of the Church, than to the natural Import and Signification of the Expression; for we only mean that the Son is derived from the Father, who communicates the Divine Essence to him, and not that the Essence of the Father's Divinity produces such another Essence in the Son.  
Mr. Hill might very well have forborn his Censuring the Bishop upon this Article of the Creed; for whatever pains he takes to deliver his Readers from this thought, that the Fathers of the Council of Nice have referred the Expression Deus de Deo, & Lumen de Lumine, to the second Generation, yet he himself furnishes us with a sufficient Argument to confute him, in the passages which he quotes in the Margin out of Tertullian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Justin and Tatian. For the Fathers have used these Expressions with Tertullian against Praxeas, to denote the second, but not the eternal Generation of the Word. Tertullian particularly called the second Generation the true Nativity of the Word. What can a Reader conclude from thence, but that the Notion Deus de Deo, & Lumen de Lumine, in the Council of Nice, relates to this second Generation? Which Mr. Hill himself calls an odd Conceit, p. 12. though he affirms, p. 75. that the Church never condemned it: So that upon the whole Matter, it is very natural to believe that the Fathers of Nice took these words in the same Sense in which they were taken by the Ancients.  
Mr. Hill may see now of what use the Platonic Notions have been to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity. The learned confess that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato, and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have nothing common with the two last Persons of the Trinity. This is not only acknowledged, but proved by the learned Dr. Tenison, in the Book before cited. On the other hand, it's no less certain that the Ancients have made use of the Platonic Notions, upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to show that Plato owned the two last Persons of the Trinity. What follows from all this, but that Mr. Hill might have spared his Censures against the Bishop? And that notwithstanding all his endeavours, all what he has said to justify the Ancients, is useless and insignificant.  
I shall add but one word more upon this Head; viz. That it does not become Mr. Hill to find fault with the Bishop for having asserted that the Fathers before the Council of Nice did conceive in the Trinity a Subordination, importing an inequality of the two last Persons with the first: He will give himself a very needless trouble if he undertake to clear them from that. The Bishop has but too many Proofs upon this Article; and none but those who never read the Ancients, or read them without attention, can disown it. This is acknowledged by Petavius, Dr. Cudworth, and Hevetius, Origen, lib. 2. q. 2. By this kind of injudicious Accusations Mr. Hill would almost tempt a man to draw such a Picture of Antiquity, as would not be much to its advantage. We may say in a word, That if there have been some among the Ancients who have recommended the study of Pagan Authors, because of the use that a Christian might make of them, to render the Doctrines of his Religion more probable to the Heathens, there have been others who have almost absolutely condemned that study, seeing what impression Platonism had made in the Minds of the Primitive Christians; so that Pope Gelasius was in the right, in the Roman Council, when he ranked with prohibited Books the greatest part of those Authors who have spoken so crudely upon the point of the Trinity.  
Mr. Hill proceeds to another Accusation, which is as ill grounded: He pretends that the Bishop has unjustly charged the Fathers with believing a specific Unity of the Divine Essence, and with having understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Sense, p. 91. and seq. Mr. Hill thinks this is to charge the Fathers with Tritheism, which he may with so much the more reason impute to the Bishop; that the Bishop supposing that the Fathers have attributed to the Persons Operations ad extra, different from each other; he is not only fallen himself into the same Notion, but which is more, he has insinuated, by his method, that he believes a Tetras in God, namely the Essence in abstracto, and the three Persons. I say this is a very groundless Accusation; for it's true that there are but too many of the Ancients who have gone upon this Hypothesis the Bishop speaks of, in explaining the Dogma of the Trinity. Mr. Hill may be informed of it by reading amongst others Father Petau. de S. Trinit. l. 6. c. 9 The Learned Dr. Cudworth has said as much as the Bishop; these are his words, Intellect. Syst. p. 604. However it is evident from hence, that these reputed Orthodox Fathers, who were not a few, were far from thinking the three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence; they supposing 'em to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them, nor to be one God, than three individual men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them, and are all one Man. But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for Tritheism; so in the room thereof started thereup that other Trinity of Persons numerically the same, or having all one and the same singular existent Essence; a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any public Authority in the Christian Church, save that of the Lateran Council only.  
I know there are some learned men, who, as Dr. Bull, have endeavoured to give a good Sense to their Expressions, and by a long compass of Consequences reduce them to the ordinary Notions. We cannot but commend their Zeal for Antiquity; but after all, it were expedient that those who have the Opinions of the Fathers but at the second hand, should not be so positive in justifying all their Sentiments. Those who are troubled it those failings with which the Fathers may be charged, aught to consider; First, That without examining Questions with great care, it is not possible to foresee all the Consequences that may be drawn from them. Secondly, That these Questions have risen one after another in process of time, and of many Disputes. Thirdly, That it easily happens, even to those who handle Matters with the greatest caution, to fall into Expressions, which being strictly taken, have a harsh Sense. Fourthly, That the Authority of some great men has often gained to them great numbers of Followers, concerning things which Posterity has justly condemned. Fifthly, That almost all the strayings of the Fathers do rise from thence; that in combating the Heretics they departed from the simplicity of Scripture Expressions, and undertook to explain this Mystery by human Ideas very remote from the Truth.  
But Mr. Hill tells us, The Bishop of Salisbury, who imputes to the Fathers a sort of Tritheism by his Explanation, falls himself into the same Absurdity; nay, he establishes a kind of Tetras in the Godhead, which is worse than Tritheism. This is a great Charge. In the Divine Essence, says the Bishop, there may be Three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as oeconomies. Here is the heresy of these words, according to Mr. Hill, p. 98. Now, whatsoever acts by another, is distinct from that other by which it acts, if prior in the Agency, by the order of reason. Here we have indeed a special Hunter of Heretics: I shall not answer him, that there have been divers Schoolmen who believed an absolute Subsistence of the Divine Essence, besides the three Subsistences, which make the Personalities, without acknowledging that Tetras that Mr. Hill speaks of; the Bishop, I am sure, would not use this Apology; But I answer, That he offers a manifest violence to the Bishop's words, that contains nothing but what is agreeable to the constant way of speaking which Divines use concerning the Operations appropriated to each Person, without confounding them with the notional Expressions that serve to distinguish them. The Name of God sometimes signifies his Essence, sometimes the Three Persons; and sometimes it imports but One Person of the Trinity; do we therefore acknowledge a Quaternity? To draw such consequences as these in order to ascribe Heresies to those who sometimes use the Word GOD in one of these significations, and sometimes in another, is mere Sophistry. We say, That the Father is God, to denote his Divine Essence: We say, That God has created the World, to express the common Work of the Trinity: We say, That God is incarnate, to signify the Union of the Word with Humanity. How many Heresies might be imputed to Writers, if one would make such Objections against them, and urge upon the word GOD Notions altogether foreign to the Subject in hand? But God be thanked, that all those who writ, are not of Mr. Hill's temper.  
Mr. Hill follows his blow; after he has reproached the Bishop for representing the Ancients as Tritheists, he accuses him of maintaining that those who succeeded them, have used Notions that were little better, when they made use of that Notion of the Sun, with its Light and Heat; and of that of the Soul, from whence flows the Understanding and the Will, to express the Processions of the Trinity. Nay, he objects to him, that those who have supposed different Operations in the Two Persons, are, according to this System, as much Tritheists as the first. Mr. Hill affirms on the contrary, That these Notions of the Fathers which the Bishop rejects, have been used from the beginning; so that the Bishop ought not to have said, that the using of these Notions was only that the Fathers might get out of Tritheism. This is a very pitiful Accusation. It seems Mr. Hill did not understand the Bishop's meaning, when he says that the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost were expressed by the acts of Understanding and Will; he does not intent to deny, that this Notion was used in ancient Times, but only to condemn the boldness of the Schoolmen, who would almost make this way of explaining the Procession of the Persons, pass for an Article of Faith, namely, that the Son proceeds by the Understanding, and the Holy Ghost by the Will; though very Eminent Divines have rejected these Definitions, as Zanchius lib. 5. C. ultimo, and Durandus refutes them in 1. Dist. 6. q. 2. As to what Mr. Hill fancies, that the Bishop is guilty of Tritheism, because he ascribes different Operations to the Two Persons; the poor man is visibly mistaken. Does not all Divines acknowledge different Operations of the Two Persons? Are they thereby infected with Tritheism? Or was St. Paul infected with Heresy, when he said, There are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit; there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, who worketh all in all, 1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. I see what led Mr. Hill into this Error. He did imagine that, because it is a Maxim in Divinity, that the Actions of the Trinity ad extra, are common to the Three Persons, there are no Actions particularly belonging to One Person, according to 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. etc. 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 ourselves 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 die, 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 shows 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, etc.  
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 Examines it particularly, and endeavours to show many absurdities in it. One may easily judge, that it is not hard for him to do this. If all the Similes given of the Trinity, aught to express all that we conceive of it, what Simile can we use? At this rate, how can we justify 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 Critic, is, that he does not consider, that Similes 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 judgement, to think that he was bound to seek for some of another nature. It's very observable, that St. Augustine, who has advanced more Similes 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 Examined the Style of Scripture.) St. John has respect in that word to the description of the Creation, and to the Ministry of the Messiah, 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 alleged 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 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 Ideas of the Trinity, that is Memory, Understanding, and Will. In fine, as if these Notions could not satisfy him, he borrows Similes from Brutes, Plants and Trees, from the inward Senses, from Learning and Wisdom, etc. 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 show many dissimilitudes in those Similes, but he who can give himself that trouble, must have little to do, and had need to have a very patiented 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 showing, 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 expressly 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 afric, 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, Surnamed 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, chief where he confirms the Arian Heresy; 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 citys 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 abandoned it: This great man being it seems more used to this Controversy, 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 satisfy him. 1. The Father's following some Texts of Scripture, granted that the second Nativity of the Son, would make him to be looked 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' 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 though 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 mere 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. Martion. 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, Surnamed 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 Ideas that are in the mind. Theophilact is ware 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 Heretics 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, etc. 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 expressly 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 Being's, it were very prudently done, never to engage ourselves into those Explanations, much less to deliver them with an Authority almost equal to that of Scripture. This is the Judgement of St. Gregory, Surnamed the Divine, in his 12th Orat. For after all, to what purpose are all those Similes 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 satisfy 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 somewhere 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 judgement, and cited only those that made for him; for that way of quoting Authors in a lump, is easy 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 surprised to see that Mr. Hill citys 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 persuade us he is, than 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 though 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, (o 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 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 justify 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 surprised 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 Catholic 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 men's 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 persuaded 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 Persuasion, 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 persuasions, but by a Primitive, perpetual, universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition. The deviation from which Rule and Notion, to private Opinions and Persuasions, is the cause of all Heresies, and, by its consequent divisions, naturally tends to the ruin of the True Christian and Catholic Faith.  
You see that Mr. Hill is angry with the Bishop, for saying that we believe Points of Doctrine, because we are persuaded 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 persuasions, etc. These Expressions are so intricate, that it's hard to guests 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, etc. 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' Ecclesiastical History, was for a long time questioned by great Churches. But if he refers the words, acknowledged by all Churches, etc. to the evidence of Fundamental Doctrines, as the series of his Discourse, the Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis, which he citys, and what he says concerning the Creeds, seem to intimate, than 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, though 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 Judgement and Knowledge, aught 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: 'Tis 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 h●r Certainty which the Apostolical Church in a Body has bad, to the persuasion 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 itself 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 persuasions, 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 persuasions, 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 acknowledged by all the Churches not led by casual persuasions, 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 showing 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 entrusted 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 Catholic 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 men's 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 alleges 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 Ministry 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 Abridgement 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 itself 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, etc. 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 newborn Heresies, such as he pretended St. Augustine's Doctrine to be. There is nothing more easy, 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 expressly 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, shows 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 extreme 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 sum of which they contain. What he affirms, that the Catholic Church has always stood upon the Authority of Symbols, is a mere 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 Abridgement 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 shows 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 outrageous 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 not altogether extinguished in him. I would have him consider, that in the sight of God, 'tis not he that receives, but he that does the Injury, that is Unhappy.  
If I have chanced in this Paper, to say any thing that seems too severe against him, and that approaches too near to his Angry Strain, I humbly desire, that without more ado, you would strike it out, as being writ against my intention. I would by no means be myself guilty of a fault, which I sincerely lament when I find it in others, and which would but cover me with the more confusion, if I should be found to practise that which I condemn in another.  
April 12. 1695. I am, Sir, etc.  
FINIS.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
A Discourse of the Pastoral Care. By the Right Reverend GILBERT Lord Bishop of Sarum.  
— His Four Discourses delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum: Concerning, I. The Truth of the Christian Religion. II. The Divinity and Death of Christ. III. The Infallibility and Authority of the Church. iv The Obligations to continue in the Communion of the Church. 8vo.  
Memoirs of the most Reverend THOMAS CRANMER, Archbishop of Canterbury: Wherein the History of the Church, and the Reformation of it, during the Primacy of the said Archbishop, are greatly illustrated, and many singular Matters relating thereunto, now first published. In Three Books. Collected chief from Records, Registers, Authentic Letters, and other Original Manuscripts. By John Stripe, M. A. Fol.  
Origo Leguin: Or, A Treatise of the Origine of Laws, and their Obliging Power; as also of their great Variety; and why some Laws are immutable, and some not, but may suffer change, or cease to be, or be suspended, or abrogated. In Seven Books. By George Dawson. Fol. 1694.  
A brief Discourse concerning the Lawfulness of Worshipping God by the Common-Prayer; in Answer to a Book, entitled, [A Brief Discourse of the unlawfulness of Common-Prayer-Worship.] By John Williams, D. D. 4 to. 1694.  
Dr. John Conaut's Sermons, Published by Dr. Williams, 1693. 8vo.  
Rushworth's Historical Collections. The Third Part, in Two Volumes. Containing the Principal Matters which happened from the meeting of the Parliament, Nou. 3. 1640. to the end of the Year 1644. Wherein is a particular Account of the Rise and Progress of the Civil War, to that Period. Fol. 1692.  
The History of the Troubles and Trial of the Most Reverend Father in God WILLIAM LAUD, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; Wrote by himself, during his Imprisonment in the Tower. To which is prefixed the Diary of his own Life, faithfully and entirely published from the Original Copy. And subjoined a Supplement to the preceding History; the Archbishop's Last Will: His Large Answer to the Lord Says Speech concerning Liturgies: His Annual Accounts of his Province delivered to the King, and some other Things relaying to the History. subsizar by Henry Wharton, Chaplain to Archbishop Sa●●●st. And by his Grace's Command. Fol.  
A Commentary on the First Book of Moses, called Genesis. By the Right Reverend Father in God, Simon Lord Bishop of Ely. 4 to. 1695.  
The Hearts-Ease; or, a Remedy against all Troubles: With a Consolatory Discourse, particularly directed to those who have lost their Friends and Relations. To which is added two Papers, printed in the time of the late Plague. By the same Author 12 more. (Reprinted.)  
A Discourse Of the Government of the Thoughts. By ●eo. Tully, Subdean of York. The Second Edition. 8vo.  
The Bishop of Sarum's Sermon at the Funeral of Archbishop Tillotson, Who died at Lambeth, Nou. 20. 1694.  
A Sermon concerning Holy Resolution, Preached before the King at Kensington: Decemb. 30. 1694. By his Grace Dr. Thomas Tenison, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.  
— His Sermon at the Funeral of the Queen, in the Abby-Church in Westminster: March 5. 1694/ 5.  
Historia de Episcopis & Decanis Londinensibus necnon de Episcopis & Decanis Assavensibus à prima Sedis utriusque fundatione ad Annum MDXL. Accessit. Appendiae instrumentorum quorundam insignium duplex. Autore Henrico Whartono, A. M. 8vo. 1695.  
The Possibility and Expediency and Necessity of Divine Revelation. A Sermon preached at St. Martin's in the Fields, January 7. 1694/ 5. at the beginning of the Lecture for the ensuing Year, Founded by the Honourable Rob. boil Esq; by John Williams, D. D.  
— The Certainty of Divine Revelation, being his Second Sermon preached at the said Lecture, Feb. 4. 1695.  
— His Vindication of the Sermons of his Grace John Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour, and of the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon on the Mysteries of the Christian Faith, from the Exceptions of a late Socinian Book, Entitled, [Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity.] To which is annexed a Letter from the Lord Bishop of Sarum, to the Author of the said Vindication, on the same Subject. 1695. 4 to.  
An Essay on the Memory of the late QUEEN. By Gilbert Bishop of Sarum: 8vo.  
Remarks of an University Man upon a late Book, falsely called, [A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, Written by Mr. Hill of Kilmington.] 4 to. 1695.  
The Characters of Divine Revelation. A Sermon Preached at St. Martin's in the Fields, March 4. 1694/ 5. Being the Third of the Lecture for the ensuing Year, founded by the Honourable Robert boil, Esquire. By John Williams, D. D.  
Of Sincerity and constancy in the Faith and Profession of the True Religion, in several Sermons. By the most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Published from the Originals, by Ralph Barker. D. D. Chaplain to his Grace. 8vo. 1695.   

Advertisement.  
THere will be published several other Sermons and Discourses of the most Reverend Dr. JOHN TILLOTSON, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, by order of his Administratrix, faithfully transcribed from his own Papers, by Dr. Ralph Barker Chaplain to his Grace. Which are disposed of to Richard Chiswell and his Assigns If any Person Print any others (except those published in the Author's Life-time) they are to be looked upon as Spurious and False: And the Publishers will be proceeded against according to Law.