the apostles. CHAP.V. be fit to expound the Scripture, we will let pass: but this is certain, that one that does not believe the divinity of our Saviour Christ, is not fit to write harmonies, annotations, or paraphrases on it, nor translations of it. And all that abhor that heresy will be careful how they read them. He proceeds (p. 410.) to say, without any proof there given, that St. Austin, as well as the other Fathers, has followed the doctrine of that time, 'which established a specific unity between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a distinction of the numerical essence: so that. speaking pro'perly, they believed three essences perfectly equal, and strictly united in will:' (which very mention of three essences is what St. Austin spoke of with abhorrence in the words I quoted just now.) Then having mentioned a book written against himself by the abbot Faydit, intitled; A Defence of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity, against the Tropolatres and Socinians; or the two 'new Heresies of Steven Nye and John Le Clerc, 'Protestants:' he answers that he holds no heresy: he does not approve of the tritheism of the Fathers,' &c. And if it be said that the 'Fathers were not tritheists,' then he refers to the authors he uses to do; Petavius, Curcellæus, Cudworth, (as if they had not been answered,) and to the piece that I mentioned, [the Life of Gregory [See Apologie du système des SS. Pères sur la Trinité, contre les Tropolatres et les Sociniens, ou les deux nouvelles hérésies d'Etienne Nye et Jean le Clerc, Protestans, réfutées dans la response de l'abbé Faydit au livre du R. P. Hugo,' &c. 12mo. à Nancy, 1702. S. Nye's work is entitled, The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,' &c. 8vo. London, 1701.] Nazianzen,] written by himself. Where does this CHAP. V. man think the catholic church was at that time? Year after For he not only makes the Fathers to be heretics, the apo (and tritheists, which is indeed to be pagans,) but calls it also the doctrine of that time.' But to shew us from how envenomed a spirit all this rises; and how he employs himself: he tells us, (p. 409,) that he has found a way to make a co medy of five acts, out of the stories of certain 'miracles done at Hippo, of which St. Austin speaks in his 322d sermon, and the following.' Now the things there related by St. Austin are (if not proper miracles in the modern sense of the word, yet) wonderful and gracious providences of God; which the word miracula well enough signifies, and which all pious men think themselves bound to lay to heart, and commemorate, though this man makes a mock of them. This advertisement he gives, to see, I suppose, whether this copy too will yield any money; and whether, as he has found booksellers n that would stand out at nothing, so he can find any players profane enough to act this his comedy. And if they be so inclined, it is pity but they should do it: that they may fill up the measure of their impiety; and that all Christian princes and states may follow the good examples of the French king in exterminating them, and of the king of Prussia in prohibiting his books. XVI. Since the first edition of this book, Mr. Le Clerc does, in an encomium which he writes on Mr. Locke, own, that he has seen bishop Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Trinity. And after having n [See above, vol. i. p. 351.] • Biblioth. Choisie, tom. vi. [p. 393.] stles. stles. CHAP.V. passed a very slighting and contemptuous censure Year after on what the bishop has there, and in some othe the apo- pieces, written against Mr. Locke's notions, and on the other side, as much magnified his hero, (the solidity of his doctrine, the exactness of his thought, &c. whereas bishop Stillingfleet understood neither his adversary's meaning, nor the matter itself, and was never used either to think or to speak with any great exactness. See the saucy arrogance of this critic :) he pretends at last to be surprised to find there a confutation of Curcellæus' proofs of the tritheism of the ancients. He had reason to be surprised, if he had not seen it before; because he had since the publication of it cast vile reproaches on all the ancient Christians on the credit of those proofs, which he might see here all overthrown. What does he do upon this surprise? Does he pretend to shew by any particulars, that Curcellæus had not mistaken the sense of his own quotations, as the bishop pretended to shew that he had? Or, if he cannot do this, does he acknowledge his own slanders? Neither of these. But instead of vindicating those quotations from being wrested, he throws in one more of his own to them, which is more apparently wrested than any of them. It is out of St. Hilary de Synodis: Which book,' he says, Mr. Stillingfleet had not read very carefully, ' or else did not remember distinctly. For there is hardly any book from which one may more plainly 6 the sort or kind of Is not this horrid? ever any Christian prove that the orthodox of that time believed one God in species, [i. e. as to Gods,] but three in number.' Three Gods in number? Did own this? Then he produces the passage. stles. It must be noted that St. Hilary there, in dis- CHAP.V. puting against the Arians, does labour to shew that year after the term ouooiios, of one substance,' is the most the apoclear and the most significative of the catholics' meaning; but yet that the term ouoioioios, of like 'substance,' as also the term of equal substance,' may be borne with and admitted, as being capable of being explained in an orthodox sense, and as being so explained and used by many catholic writers: viz. that in divinis, likeness or equality, are all one with identity or sameness. Speaking thus, Si ergo pater naturam neque aliam neque dissimilem ei quem invisibiliter P [7. indivisibiliter] generabat, dedit; non potest aliam dedisse nisi propriam. Ita similitudo proprietas est, proprietas æqualitas ests,' &c. If then he [God the Father] gave (or communicated] to him whom he without any division begot, a nature which is not another nor • unlike; it must be so, that he gave him no other than his own. So likeness, and sameness, [or *ownness,] and equality, are all one.' And then, a few words after, comes the passage at which Mr. Le Clerc carps; Caret igitur, fratres, similitudo naturæ contumelia suspicione; nec potest videri Filius ideirco in proprietate paternæ naturæ non esse, quia similis est: cum similitudo nulla sit, nisi ex æqualitate naturæ; æqualitas autem naturæ non potest esse, nisi una sit; una vero non * personæ unitate, sed GENERIS? So that there is no need, brethren, that you should suspect this [The Benedictine edition reads here impassibiliter.] 4 [S. Hilarius de Synodis, prope finem. [sect. 74. p. 1191. edit. Benedict.] r [Sect. 76.] WALL, VOL. II. CHAP.V. ' phrase, the apo stles. "likeness of nature," of any reproachful Year after' meaning: nor will the Son seem not to have the Father's own nature for that reason, because he is 'said to be like him. Whereas there is no likeness 'but by equality of nature, and equality of nature 'cannot [in this case, speaking of divine nature] be, unless it be One. One, not by unity of person, but ' of GENUS.' Whereas Mr. Le Clerc observes here, that supposing the numerical unity of the divine essence, it is not proper to say, the nature of the Son is like or equal to that of the Father; it is true, if St. Hilary had not explained himself so, as by equality to mean identity. And whereas he observes that by the word genus St. Hilary shews his meaning to be of a generical or specifical unity only; this also would have some sense according to the ordinary use of the word genus. But St. Hilary had declared in that very book in what sense he took the word: as at the beginning of the book, in these words; but seeing I must often use the words essence and substance, we must know 'what essence signifies: lest we should use words, ' and not know the meaning. Essence is that which a thing is,' &c. And it may be called the essence, 'or nature, or genus, or substance of any thing.". And a little after, whereas therefore we say, that 'essence does signify the nature, or genus, or substance,' &c. And constantly afterward he uses those words as synonymous. And accordingly Erasmus, in the dedication of his edition of St. Hilary's works, had said; of the same essence, or, as St. Hilary often 'speaks, of the same genus or nature with the Father, ' which the Greeks express ouoovσiov.' So that to say, Unitate, non persona, sed generis, is to say, 'not one 6 |