because they have suffer'd themselves to be surpriz'd and their eyes to be dazled with cheir Platonick Philosophy The Wonderful and the Sublime are very tempting Schemes These Platonists are a sort of Philosophers or rather of Divines who have made a Voyage to the World of Ideas and some Christians are so weak as to swallow all their Visions for Mysteries But let us always remember for the honour of the Fathers that how far soever they wander'd in their large Field of Platonick Contemplation they never advanc'd so far as to equal the Divinity of the Word with that of his Father Origen who is one of them that went farthest never carried his Theology to that extreme Whatever lofty Idea he had of the Son he declares however in his 14th Tome on St. John That the Son was so much below the Father as he and the Holy Spirit were above the most noble Creatures Go we now after this and say that the Fathers held the necessity of believing that the Supreme God was incarnate and that Jesus Christ is that Supreme God Monsieur Huet had good reason to acknowledg upon this Passage of Origen that it could not be excus'd and to attempt to find an Orthodox Sense in it could not be consistent with Sincerity or Honesty CHAP. VII The same Proof continued together with an Examination of the Sense of Antient Creeds thereupon WE have no more to do but to consider the antient Creeds and to compare those which were form'd upon the Apostolick Theology with such as were fram'd according to the Platenick Scheme and we shall find in these latter that the Article of the Generation of the Word and of his Incarnation came in the room of that of the Conception of the Son of God which is found in the former Creeds The universal Church says Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 2. hath received this Faith from the Holy Apostles which is to believe in one God the Father c. and in Jesus Christ his only Son incarnate for our Salvation c. There 's nothing in this Confession of the Faith of the Catholick Church which is not in the very Creed of the Apostles excepting the word Incarnate But 't is clear that it stands in the very place of those other words conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary which are wanting in this Creed of Irenaeus He would say that the Spirit of God united it self to real and not to celestial and aerial Flesh as some Hereticks imagin'd The turn is somewhat Platonizing but after all he did not intend to advance any thing but the antient Doctrine since he disputes against those men who held that Jesus Christ was pure Spirit clothed with celestial Flesh and he on the other hand supposed that Jesus Christ was a real Man true Flesh animated with a Divine Spirit a Man born of a Virgin truly born of the Substance of a Woman altho form'd by the Power of a Spirit Tertullian in one of his Tracts de veland Virg. in initio having given us this plain Rule of Faith which he calls the immutable and unchangeable Rule to this purpose That we must believe in one God alone c. and in his Son Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary c. in another Tract de Praescrip adv Haeres presents you with another Rule of the Platonizing Faith which is to believe that the same Word by which God created the World spoke to the Patriarchs and inspir'd the Prophets coming forth from the Spirit and the Power of the Father it lit upon the Virgin and was made Flesh and wrought in J.C. all sorts of Miracles Had he forgot that the Apostolick Faith is not to be changed or reformed No without doubt he does not pretend to change any thing but only gives the antient Opinion of the Conception of J. C. in Platonick Stile in Philosophick Jargon or to speak better he substitutes an Allegory manag'd with force and violence in the room of this Evangelical Expression born of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost which is plain and literal This Spirit as Tertullian says being an Emanation from the Spirit and the Power of the Father may be said in a mystick and sublime Sense to be the same Spirit who created the World and inspir'd the Prophets St. Cyril in his Catecheses explains a Creed purely Arian which Dr. Bull pretends to be the antient Creed of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches I believe it says in One God the Father c. and in One Lord Jesus Christ the only Son of God begotten of the Father before Ages true God by whom all things were made incarnate and made Man c. I said this Creed is Arian for 't is expressed in the same Terms as all the Arian Confessions that are now extant And if the Doctor pretends that 't is Orthodox at the best hand it can pass for no more than the Creed of Constantinople as Monfieur Le Vassor has observed Traité de 〈◊〉 Examen ch 6. p. 226. This Creed of St. Cyril says he is almost the same with that of Constantinople especially in the Article concerning the Holy Spirit If it be true that the Catecheses we have are those which Cyril made in his Youth as St. Jerom reports it this Prelate reviewed and augmented 'em after the Council of Constantinople whose Creed he explains almost word for word In this case it will not be certain that the Article concerning the Church was in the Creed of Jerusalem Cyril might have added it to his Catecheses after the Synod If this Conjecture holds as to the Article of the Church much more will it do so as to the Platonick Word We can but say in this case it will not be certain that the Article concerning a Son begotten before Ages was in the Creed of Jerusalem Cyril might add to his Catecheses after the Synod of Constantinople Let 's join with this Learned Proselyte the famous Mons du Pin who in his second Tom. of his Bibliotheque p. 413. inunuates the Novelty of Cyril's Creed upon this account 1. That it has the Article of Life Everlasting which is not in all the antient Creeds And in his 1 Tom. Paris Edit p. 30. he says that Cyril in his Catecheses makes a particular Creed which the Church of Jerusalem us'd at the time that this Father wrote his Catecheses That those who have made Commentaries upon the Creed have omitted among others these Words Life everlasting And that St. Jerom observes in his Letter to Pammachius that the Creed ended with these Words The Resurrection of the Flesh These Words of du Pin are remarkable He says Cyril made a Creed which was peculiar to him and that it cannot be ascribed to the Church of Jerusalem till the time when this Father wrote For 't is certain that this is the sense of their Words in an Author that professes to believe that the Creed is not antient But however
that be Dr. Bull deceives himself grosly in supposing this Creed of Cyril to be the antient Creed of Jerusalem We can produce another of greater Antiquity which the same Church ascribes to the Apostle St. James Bishop Vsher de Symbol p. 10. presents us with it It must be minded says the Primate that there were two sorts of Creeds us'd by the Easterns one contracted which Ruffinus compares with that of Rome and Aquileia the other fuller and larger Among the first we place the Creed of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I believe in one God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God c. Thus 't is read in the antient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem ascribed to St. James who is held to have been the first Bishop of that Place and with this Creed an Office was read once a year in memory of its Antiquity And since the Articles that follow have which I mightily regret been left out as suppos'd to be generally known I thought it proper to repair this Loss by substituting in the room of what is wanting the entire Confession of the Apostolic Faith that Cyril expounded to the Illuminated at Jerusalem which indeed is somewhat larger as it appears by this addition at the beginning viz. visible and invisible The short Creed which Vsher gives us being made by St. James it follows that of Cyril is an Exposition and Commentary And 't is impossible on the contrary that this should be an Abridgment of Cyril's Creed for nothing can be more antient than the draught of an Apostle Without doubt the shorter Creed is the Original and the larger none other than a Copy stuffed and lengthened with a wretched Platonism and has not Simplicity enough to pass for an Apostle's but it may without wrong be accounted the Work of a Platonizing Faction But let that be as it will there is good ground for believing that Dr. Bull had a mind to deceive us in dissembling his Knowledg of this antient Creed of St. James of which Bishop Vsher makes mention and in palming upon us for the most antient Eastern Creed that of S. Cyril which is so very different For altho we have but two Articles of the Jerusalem Creed which is the same with what we call the Apostles yet these two are sufficient to shew that the Apostles Creed is in effect the most antient of all however Dr. Bull Jud. Eccles p. 128. pretends it to have been of later Date And I say further this may satisfy us that at this time of Cyril the Mother of all Churches had strangely alter'd her Faith Bishop Vsher observed what was added to the first Article Who doubts but that like might have been done to others about which there were far greater disputes He might have observed the same and the thing is obvious that the second Article concerning the Person of J. C. being entire as it appears by the Oriental Creed of Ruffinas which goes no further it follows then that all that which is in Cyril upon the same Article has been added since Platonism prevailed Ruffinus says Bishop Vsher has compar'd the shorter of these two Oriental Creeds with the Roman wherefore this shorter Creed was not the same with the Roman let the Doctor say what he will nor are we to be much concern'd as the Primate speaks for the Loss of it◠Ruffinus has preserv'd it Almost all the Eastern Churches says he in Symbol Apost give us their Creed after this manner I believe in one God the Father Almighty and then in the following Article whereas we say and in J. C. his only Son our Lord they say in one Lord J. C. his only Son professing one God and one Lord according to the Doctrine of St. Paul Note here all the difference the Easterns made between their Creed and that we call the Apostles There 's nothing in 'em of the Pre-existence of J. C. and his Generation before Ages as you have it in Cyril's Creed This shews that the Article concerning J. C. goes no farther in this part of the Oriental Creed which Bishop Vsher gives us that the etc. does not retrench any part of it but is plac'd at the end of the Article only to shew that the remaining Articles are omitted We may conclude therefore that all the Jargon of the Platovic Philosophy in Cycil's Greed took place of the antient simple Tradition which was I believe in J. C. the only Son of God who was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary And consequently the antient Opinion of the Filiation and Deification of J. C. ran no higher than his being born of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost this was the true Theology concerning him Ruffinus had reason for calling this plain Confession the Tradition of his Ancestors meaning thereby not the Doctors bigotted with Plato's Enthusiasm but the whole Body of the Church the People as Du Pin observes Tom. 1. p. 30. who doubtless never enter'd into the Speculations of those Doctors Let us see what Marcellus wrote to Pope Julius Epiphan haeres 72. where after he had said what he thought fit concerning the Word which he denies to be an Hypostasis distinct from the Father saying it subsists in the Father and that 't is his very Wisdom and his inseparable Power he confines himself to this Confession of Faith which he says he had received from the Scripture and his Ancestors I believe in God Almighty and in J. C. his only Son our Lord begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried the third day be was raised from the Dead and ascended into Heaven and sat at the right hand of God Whence he shall come to judg the Quick and the Dead And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Holy Church the Remission of Sins the Resurrection of the Flesh the Life everlasting See here in express words the Creed we call the Apostles the antient Theology without Platonism without Speoulation There 's nothing retrench'd from the antient Confessions of Faith yet Retrenchments were not unusual amongst some of them If therefore some Creeds are found to be larger in some of the Antients 't is according to their laudable Practice by an addition of their novel Interpretations This is the more evident because that pretended Interpretations are found to be pure Platonism with which 't is known they were extremely bigotted CHAP. VIII Reflections upon the Apostles Creed with respect to the foregoing Doctrine TO render the Antiquity of the Apostles Creed doubtful 't is said that 't is notorious that the greater part of the Articles have been added from time to time and upon divers occasions What of that if those additional Articles are not in the present Contest Is it not enough that the three Articles concerning the Father the Son and the Holy
Ghost as to their Nature and Person as we speak I say those three Articles whereupon we dispute are very antient 'T is true the antient Formulas of Faith contain'd scarce any thing besides these which are an Exposition of the Form of Baptism but then 't is of these only we are debating Yea the Liturgy ascribed to St. James and the Oriental Creed of Russinus give us these Articles in the proper Words of Scripture clean of all Platonism Is not such a piece of Antiquity more primitive and even antecedent to Cyril and all the Platonic Fathers But this Creed says Dr. Bull whatever Simplicity it has is to be understood in the Extent or Latitude the Platonizing Fathers took it in who made it always supposing as you see that it was not made till since the Church expounded in her larger Creeds her Platonic Faith I will turn this manner of reasoning upon him and say that supposing on the contrary the antient Liturgy had this Creed in the Simplicity wherein we have it at this time it cannot be understood but in the sense of the Nazarene Disciples of St. James who most certainly did not platonize as indeed we have prov'd Platonism owes not its Rise to the Jewish but to the Gentile Converts and such Gentiles too as were Followers of Plato True Orthodoxy at the very beginning of Christianity consisted in believing that J. C. was begotten of the Holy Ghost and consequently was of a celestial Race or Origin That he had a sort of Pre-existence in this H. Spirit of Power which was united to him and that upon these accounts he was really and in the Letter the proper and only Son of God A Doctrine which the Disciples of St. James maintained against the Cerinthians and Ebionites there being no other Controversy than concerning the Generation of the Son of God For which reason the Creed of Marcellus says barely that the only Son of God was begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin and not begotten before Ages which might have been said with as much ease as t'other and must necessarily have been said if the meaning of the Author of the Creed had been that only Son signifies begotten from all Eternity But after all what will the Doctor say with his Interpretations and his Expositions of the antient Creed I have observed in divers Passages of his Writings that he requires too much to be granted him For instance he will have it in his Judic Eccles p. 141. that this Elogy of the Holy Ghost in the Creed of Constantinople The Living Lord proceeding from the Father who is to be worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son That this magnificent Elogy was an Interpretation of the Word Paraclet in the Creed of Cyril Wonderful Paraphrase strange Interpretation that the Paraclet should signify all these fine things The Living Lord proceeding from the Father who is to be worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son Well! after this do we think the Doctor does not desire to be believed when he assures us that the Son begotten before Ages the true God by whom all things were made is the true sense of these Words the only Son of God With the good Leave of this Commentary-Maker 't is more natural to believe in adhering to the Terms of the antient Creed that begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin is the true Sense and the right Exposition In fine this pure simple Creed was not fram'd by a Cabal a Party as the Creeds of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople were c. 'T is not known if I may so speak whence it came 't is as it were fallen down from Heaven 't is the Suffrage of the Universal Church and 't is this Suffrage that has saved the Church from Shipwrack and gain'd her Reverence Ruffinus in his Expos Symb. makes no scruple to say that this Creed was establish'd to be a Mark of Distinction by which they might be known who preach'd J. C. truly according to Apostolic Rules But 't is proper I should here transcribe a fine Passage out of Dr. Hammond upon this Subject in his Discourse of fundamental Points chap. 8. Says he This Creed is the very Badge and Livery of the Apostles the Abridgment of that Faith which was received from the Apostles for altho in their Epistles written to such as were already Christians one finds no one complete Catalogue of these Articles which they taught every where because they suppos'd them sufficiently known yet however the most antient Writers of the Church assure us that in all places where the Apostles went to plant the Faith of Christ they publish'd there distinctly and left there all these Articles which serve for a Foundation to the Christian Life And 't is reasonable to believe that the Apostles Creed was the summary of these fâ—â—â—damental Articles 'T is certain that before the Nicene Creed was made all the Churches in the World us'd this formulary of Faith which they received from their Ancestors and they from the Apostles themselves See Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 2. lib. 3. c. 4. and there is not the least room to doubt but this is the very same with that we at this day call the Apostles Creed Marcellus gives us a Confession of his Faith which he says he received from his Predecessors which is found to be the same with our Apostles Creed See Epiphan Haer. 72. What I am saying may be confirmed by this Observation of St. Austin in his Discourse de Bapt. contr Donat. cap. 24. viz. that 't is reasonable to believe that what has generally been received in the Church and has always been held by it without being instituted by any Council comes to us from Apostolic Tradition also Tertullian de veland Virg. The Rule of Faith says he is one and immutable c. That this Abridgment of our Creed given us by Tertullian is one and immutable can be from no other Cause but from its Apostolic Origin which alone ought to pretend to that Privilege For this reason the same Father says elsewhere contr Prax. cap. 2. This Rule came down to us from the very first preaching of the Gospel 'T is true the Controversy that the Platonizing Christians had at first with the Christians of Judea made the Church when in power despise this Creed which favour'd its Adversaries so that it but rarely appears in its Simplicity but is for the most part clog'd and blended with Platonism But in the fourth Century the Dispute being only between the Athanasians and the Arians both good Platonists holding the Pre-existence this Creed was received for it oppos'd one no more than t'other and neither of these two Parties had then prevailed over one another The Church of Rome made it always her Creed for the Platonic Controversies were not so warm there as in the East But Dr. Bull will return to the Charge and tell us as he has done more than once that to
't is necessary that we should be Ministers of the Gospel as well in the Letter as in the Spirit and that we preach the sensible or corporeal Gospel as he stiles it When we see it proper we tell the Carnal that we aim at nothing else but to know Jesus Christ crucified But when we meet with the elevated Minds that are advanced in the Doctrine of our Saviour and enflamed with the Love of Heavenly Wisdom 't is these we acquaint with the Knowledg of the Word or Logos And in his 7th Book against Celsus There is not one Person says he to whom Jesus Christ does not give a tast of these Mysteries some way or other For he imparts his Theology to the Wise who raise their Minds to contemplate sublime Subjects On the other hand he accommodates himself to the Capacity of the Common People of Idiots of the Weak of Women of Slaves c. He affords them such means of a good Life as they seek after keeping from them such Notions as they cannot comprehend Thanks be to God I can now take Breath The Doctrine of God the Word is no more than secret or mystical Christianity not necessary to the Vulgar and serves only for Contemplation May it continue to be the Study of contemplative Minds who were born for the purpose of knowing Mysteries and have Skill to advance their Knowledg beyond Revelation It 's enough for me that I have their Leave to content my self with plain revealed Christianity which is the Object of Faith and that they allowing me the Rudiments or Lessons of the Gospel for my Guide I may say with their Leave as the Apostle and other plain simple Christians of the same Class I know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified Really one could not but with surprize hear so great a Doctor as Origen treating the Christian Religion and the Theology of St. Paul so unworthily if one did not know at the same time his Fondness for Platonism What! shall this Contemplation be accounted the sublime Christianity because it has found out Objects of it self without the help of Revelation What then is that poor Faith that 's founded upon Objects revealed Can it be any thing more or less than a carnal Christianity 'T is some favour however that it may be Christianity Tho so much as that will hardly be granted at this time of Day They who know nothing but a crucified Christ do not pass even for Christians now a deified Jesus is the only Orthodoxy If you have a mind to observe also what a prodigious difference there is between the Simplicity of the Apostolic Faith and the Mystery of Platonism you need only to consider how little regard it had to the first assoon as any one own'd this Fundamental Article that Jesus was the Messias he was instantly baptized and received as a true Member of the Church But when its Articles of Faith were enlarged and became inexplicable by the profound Speculations with which they were clog'd how cautiously and warily did they initiate Persons in the Theology of the same Church This is plain from the several degrees of the catechized State thro which their Novices passed At first they did not suffer them to come within their Churches then they admitted 'em only to hear Sermons after that they might be present at the Prayers at last after long Instructions they were qualified for Baptism Tantae molis erat Platonis condere gentem So great a Task had they to establish the Platonick Theology Will it not be said that these are the same Formalities that were us'd in admitting the antient Mystae Thro how many degrees must they pass before they were admitted to enter the Sanctuary of the Great Goddess that is before they became Epoprae or Eye-Witnesses of the most private Ceremonies The Pagans lost nothing in the Forms of Initiation by embracing the Christian Religion But this is not all it must be farther consider'd what a Beadroll of Mysteries are taught in their Catechisings Take but that of Cyril of Jerusalem and you will certainly meet with them in him There you have the Trinity the Eternal Generation the Incarnation the sacred and venerable Sacrifice and many other things of that nature that must be known he tells you in order to Baptism If any one of them be neglected there 's no Admission for you All these Mysteries have an essential Band of Union between them so that if any one of them be not understood you are in peril of being ignorant of all the rest And hereupon Cyril recommends to the Catechized before all other things the Knowledg of these Mysteries What a Drudgery is here for the poor Novices Incomprehensible Mystery and a Labyrinth in Theology And besides which is a little wonderful he does not forget that Mystery of Mysteries and sublimer part of Theology I mean the Doctrine of Transubstantiation There is no longer says he to his Novices Bread or Wine let your Senses say what they please you are not to regard them but the Testimony of Faith Since J. C. has said of the Bread This is my Body who dares call it in question And since he has said This is my Blood who dares say it is not He at other times changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed when he says he has changed the Wine into his Blood c. Here he acquits himself like an Orator and a Sophister too Can any body wonder after this if the stew baptized were deluded into the Belief of the Trinity with such Harangues as these The Artifice is the same in both Cases Wherefore the Author of the Book of the Sacraments takes care to compare these two Mysteries and to prove them as I may say by one another shewing that what we receive in the Eucharist is as really the true Flesh of Christ as he is truly the consubstantial Son of God As Jesus Christ says he is the true Son of God and is so not only by Grace as Men are but as he is a Son of the Substance of the Father So it is the Flesh of Christ we receive and the Blood of Christ that we drink One deep calls upon another The Doctrine of the Consubstantiality c. is the Model and Original to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And the first serves for a Guide and a Light to conduct you thro the Perplexitys and Obscurities of the last for they are Twin-Sisters born in Plato's School That which is remarkable is that Justin the first of the Platonizing Fathers made the very same Comparison so natural was it for Platonism to sort these two Mysterys and make 'em Companions We do not says he Apol. 2. receive these things as common Bread or common Wine but just as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Man and took Flesh and Blood to save us so we are taught that the Elements wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by the Alteration
Points but by little and little and by degrees For it did not define nor pronounce any thing in express Terms about the Deity of the Holy Ghost during the four first Ages very near 'T is certain Gregory Naz. Orat. 20. Ep. 26. excuses the Conduct of St. Basil who tho he was right in his Opinion of the Deity of the Holy Ghost would not however for Peace-sake call it God openly and expresly because he knew there were many otherwise good Catholicks who would be offended if that Name should be given to the Holy Ghost that being not ordinarily and publickly done among the Catholicks till after the second General Council held in 381. Which is as much as to say that at last Time and Custom had placed the Holy Ghost in the Number of the Gods Good God! almost four intire Centuries of the Church which were the brightest and the purest did determine nothing about the Deity of the Holy Ghost just before the end of the 4th they durst not speak of it but shily for fear of offending the very Orthodox themselves Where was then the Trinity Was the Tradition then lost What that of the Orthodox and the Catholicks who rejected or at least were offended at an Article so fundamental What greater Crime could Hereticks have been guilty of Whence came it that the third Person was admitted so very late Prudence they tell us would have the Notion conceal'd for a time But why was not that of the second Person concealed too Are there not the same prudential Reasons for that too I think I perceive the difference of the case The third was not known to the Platonizing Fathers themselves but in a very confused manner and was not by the greatest part of them held for any other than a Creature The Second was in high esteem with all the Platonic Party deifyed by the whole Sect the Favourite Notion and principal Machine of the System 'T was easy to introduce this among the Gods of their Christian Religion which at that time was modell'd according to Plato's Notions But for the third which was not so much in favour 't was difficult to admit it into that Rank without great Address and Precaution In the mean time their over-cautiousness has prov'd a Disadvantage to both the third interferes with the second who should have been produced at the same time with his Brother or both eternally concealed For it the third cannot defend it self what will become of the second which is his elder Brother He is not of better Blood nor of a nobler Stock Can we doubt after such convincing Proofs of the antient Tradition but by the Virgin Church whereof Hegesippus speaks in Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 32. this antient Nazarene meant the Church of the Circumcision which had not yet imbibed Platonism as by the Seducement of Error and Science falsly so called that had its Birth under Adrian's Reign he meant the Platonizing Doctrine of the Gnostics which was then brought into the Church 'T was Philosophy that intirely ruin'd the true Religion as the Apostles had foretold In short Valesius observes upon the Passage I shall by and by cite out of Eusebius that this Historian too much extends the words of Hegesippus ascribing thro Mistake to the Universal Church what Hegesippus spoke only of the Church of Jerusalem or Judea But Hegesippus his being so particular is remarkable He would have us observe by it that fatal Epocha when the Nazarene Christian Bishops were succeeded by the Gentiles and by that means Platonism came in the room of that pure and unmixt Truth which St. James his Successors had preached which happened exactly in the Reign of Adrian that is when the Jews were driven out of Judea and the Christians of the Circumcision with them Sulpitius Severus in his Hist l. 2. c. 45. had reason to say the Christian Faith which according to him is the Platonizing Doctrine drew great advantages from this Dispersion He would have said that the Nazarenes then ceasing the Observation of the legal Ceremonies made no further scruple to unite with the Gentile Church But this is not all the greatest advantage that accrued to the Gentile Church was that Platonism meeting no longer with any Opposition from the Primitive Faith which the Nazarenes had inviolably preserv'd it spread far and wide and like an Inundation overspread the whole Church not excepting that of Jerusalem that antient Repository of the Apostolick Tradition which then lost its Simplicity and Virginity as Hegesippus expresses it 'T was at this time the Gentiles in the Person of Pope Victor rose up against the Christians of the Circumcision and oppress'd 'em by taking from 'em an Apostolick Tradition touching the Day when the Passover was to be celebrated And if they could wrest from 'em this Tradition in a point of mere Practice it was more easy to strip 'em of a Tradition in a point of Doctrine concerning the Nature and Person of Jesus Christ the former being much more easily retained than the latter There must have been a great noise and hurly-burly to alter the former whereas for the latter 't was enough if they took the method of explaining and illustrating or pretended an accommodation to a Sense more noble and profound 'T is of this Innovation attended with Tyranny that the Artemonites complain as Euseb tells us Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 28. Their Complaint was that their Doctrine which was the same Truth that the Antients and Apostles had taught and which had been preserved intire till the time of Pope Victor was corrupted under Zephirin his Successor The Anonymous who relates this endeavours to confute 'em by alledging Authors who liv'd before Victor and had ascrib'd Divinity to Jesus Christ or had called him God But I have demonstrated that this Theology of the Antients is grounded only upon the Birth of our Saviour of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost and does by no means go so far as the Platonick Notion of his Generation The first of these the Artemonites did not disown for they believ'd Jesus Christ to be the Son of God by Mary If the Anonymous would prove from the Antients against the Artemonites that Jesus Christ was God's Son begotten before all Ages how comes it to pass that he finds no antienter a Patron of his Platonizing Opinion than Justin Martyr who wrote after the fatal Epicha when the Succession of the Nazarene Bishops ended and after the rise of the first Gnosticism Basilides and Valentinus c. that is after the Church had lost its Virgin Purity and the Gnostick Opinions had corrupted the antient Theology The Authorities of his date are to be suspected Why does he not ascend as high as Barnabas Hermas Clemens Romanus and Polycarp Would he have wanted the Honour of having these Apostolick Men for his Vouchers if he had thought 'em opposite to Artemon He does not go so far back as Ignatius which makes it to be suspected either
by his Word that is to say by the Command and Order of God See Grotius on Joh. 10 3◠What is become now of the Mystery Whence comes such a gross Mistake The Learned Hammond quoting this Paraphrase in Luke 1.2 doth read it indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his Word which is just what these Gentlemen would be at but if I am not mistaken 't is without any Authority nor do I think that if such a Reading were sound in any Copy either in Manuscript or printed it ought to be prefer'd to the common Reading which is grounded as we have shewn on the Custom of the Hebrews Besides we may assert without any fear of being in the wrong that if there be any alteration in the original Term it was not done to favour the Hereticks we may presume the contrary It is true indeed that Dr. Bull in his Defence of the Council of Nice quotes a Paraphrase we have not to prove the false Reading But it is likely that those who say they have seen it saw but a Latin Translation which hath it Verbo suo in the Ablative as the Grammarians term it by his Word and it is the ambiguity of the Latin Construction that impos'd on those who saw not the Original So true it is that Error always begets a Mystery and that even a Grammatical Ambiguity is capable to furnish us with high-flown and gorgeous ones What makes me think so is this that I have observ'd the like ambiguity in the Author of the imperfect Work on St. Matthew in Mat. 8.8 This Evangelist brings in the Centurion speaking Lord speak the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Author allegorizing no doubt on the Term Word makes him deliver himself thus Lord you have need only to command one of your Messengers and Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and my Servant shall be healed whereas he meant only that our Saviour should speak the Word altho I would not condemn absolutely the Explication of this Author because it is somewhat plausible if we regard how the Centurion goes on For I am saith he a Man under Authority having Soldiers under me and I say unto this Man Go and he goeth and to another Come and he cometh and to my Servant Do this and he doth it These Expressions seem to insinuate indeed that he intended J. C. should command some one of his Servants as he commanded his own Speak to an Angel or to any one of your Disciples to go and heal my Servant and my Servant shall be healed And in this sense an Angel or an Apostle would have been the Word of J. C. even as J. C. himself was the Word of the Father If you take it thus I shall grant with all my heart that the Paraphrast in this place means the Messiah by that Term Word The Judgment of Father Simon upon these Paraphrases deserves your notice Hist critic du V. T. lib. 2. ch 18. It is true saith he that Galatine and many other Divines after him made use of these Paraphrases to establish some Articles of our Faith in opposition to the Jews principally those relating to the Messiah But altho these Proofs seem conclusive as to the Jews because they are taken out of their Books yet I do not think it advantageous to the Christian Religion to have recourse to Books stuff'd with Fables Besides the Passages we believe to favour our Religion consisting chiefly but in Allegories it will be easy for the Jews to evade them for we cannot prove the Truth of our Mysteries invincibly by Allegories But if notwithstanding all these Discoveries the Trinitarians will still insist upon these Paraphrasts to authorise their pretended Mystery we shall be alarm'd so little at the advantage they pretend to get by them that we shall over and above lend them this Passage of the Targum of Jerusalem extremely fit to prove the Pre-existence of their Word Glassius relates it Philol. p. 22. The Paraphrast expounding these Words Behold Adam is become as one of us brings in the Word speaking to his Father Papa behold Adam whom you have created who is your only Son on Earth as I am your only Son in Heaven It seems as if the Word was pleas'd that he had a Brother and a Compare on Shall we never be asham'd of these Rabbinick Frenzies or rather of these Platonick Impostures CHAP. XVII Concerning the Method of the Sacred Writers and some of their Disciples viz. Hermas Barnabas c. in the Interpretation of the Scriptures THE Writers of the New Testament being Jews by Birth did affect according to the Genius of that People an analogick Sense and Accommodations finding every where Relations between the Old and the New Testament Every body knows how they have adapted one History to another one Event to another Event and of what nature are their frequent Allusions and Allegories On this wise to omit other Examples what Moses saith of the Word of God producing the Creature out of nothing St. John accommodates to that Word of J. C. which forms Men anew and manifests the Power of God demonstrating by Miracles that all Creatures obey him J. C. being not so much the Interpreter of the Will of God as the Instrument of his Power You will find this Analogick Sense may be observ'd in most of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Apostles have applied to the New Beza on 2 Cor. 4.6 calls this Sense Anagogical that is to say Spiritual Sublime Mystical and exalted above the pitch of the Letter See Scult Exerc. Evangel lib. 1. cap. 62. where he speaks at large of the manner how the Sayings of the Prophets are accomplish'd analogically under the New Testament The Testimonies of the Old Testament saith he are not always alledg'd to confirm a thing but to illustrate it by an ingenious and well-contriv'd Accommodation which is very familiar to the Holy Ghost The Therapeutes or Jewish Philosophers of Alexandria retain'd this way of interpreting the more willingly because it was altogether conformable to the Method of the Platonists among whom they liv'd Eusebius relates Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 16. that they had the merely Allegorical Commentaries of the Antients and that in expounding the Scriptures they philosophiz'd after the manner of their Predecessors that is to say by the way of Figures and Allegories pretending that the Letter is but a Shell wherein many Mysteries are inclos'd The most antient Fathers of the Church viz. Hermas and Barnabas did follow this Method of the Jews searching for a Spiritual Meaning in the Facts and Rites of the Old Testament in order to adapt them to the New but yet not so as to bring in such Platonick Ideas as obtain'd some time after in the Christian Religion The following Fathers having not only carry'd their Allegories too far and exceeded the antient manner of affecting mystical Senses but also spoil'd this Method by joining gross Platonism with it which personaliz'd every thing
God And behold here the ground of my Allegory viz. that the Holy Spirit who insinuated himself into J. C. becoming his Director and Master may justly be compar'd to the Son of the Family but J. C. himself having always obeyed the Holy Spirit must be compared to a Servant It is therefore in Allegory that J. C. is the Servant and so likewise in Allegory that the Holy Spirit is the Son of God It is in Allegory that the Church is the first of all the Creatures and consequently in Allegory that the Son of God is more antient than all the Creatures and that he assisted at the Council of God The whole is Allegory in Hermas the whole is Vision Similitude and Parable there The Faith in his Writings Simil. 9. § 13 and 15. and all the other Vertues are called Holy Spirits he ushers them in like Virgins well apparel'd kissing the Son of God who also lie with Hermas himself as with a Brother The Fiction of Persons is so familiar to this Author that if you would find a Person of the Trinity there you shall but catch at a shadow Let it then be acknowledged by all that we ought not to look for any thing but Allegories and Similitudes in this Book of his bearing the same Title Whereas in the second Book entituled the Commandments where the Doctrines are set forth more simply he speaks not from the very first Commandment but of one God the Creator which is the whole Idea he gives us of this supreme Being without any mention of three Persons of an eternal Generation or Incarnation Which demonstrates that he had a different Idea from that of a Consubstantial Trinity or of three equal Hypostases whatever he said elsewhere of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But as this Allegory of Hermas touching Christ misled the Platonic Fathers who took it literally being prejudiced by the Philosophy they were brought up in There is another in the sixth Commandment by which they were no less impos'd on There is saith he two Genius's in Man the one of Justice the other of Iniquity The Greek had it no doubt two Angels and so this Passage is read in the Translator of Origen Hom. 35. in Luc. duos Angelos Hereupon the Fathers have gravely handed down to us that there are two Angels the one of Good the other of Evil that attend a Man from his Birth Just as they have told us that the Angels fell in Love with the Daughters of Men having mistaken the Allegory of the Souls that delight to abide in our Bodies But let the Fathers talk on This being taken in a literal sense is ridiculous and contrary to Scripture especially the evil Angel Can it be doubted here that Hermas intended only to allegorize upon the twofold Inclination in Men towards Good and Evil It is certain that the Chaldeans Jews and Mahometans as also some Pagan Philosophers did affect such like Allegories and personalized these two Inclinations Every thing was an Angel to the Jews especially with the Pharisees when they disputed against the Sadduces who denied their Existence As to the Heathens we have shewn before that the Wisdom of Socrates was his Demon and Genius We have stumbled at this Oriental Philosophy which allegorized upon every thing spiritualized and personalized all It is by the like Mistake that gross Platonism took literally what the subtil Platonism said only in Allegory and made three Hypostases of the three Divine Powers concurring in the Creation of the World Now these Divines who turn'd these two Inclinations in Man into two Angelical Persons are the same that metamorphosed the Power of God which created the World into a Divine Person a Son begotten of God and consubstantial with his Father Will you trust 'em still and boast notwithstanding of the Acuteness and Penetration of our Age yet foolish enough to be besotted with all these Chimeras Shall we never comprehend that what Moses said in a literal sense that by the Word of God or his Command all things were created in the beginning the Apostles spake it in a mystic sense of J. C. who is the Word of the Father which created all things to wit in the new Creation having put all things into a new Form and Order as well the Angels in Heaven as the Men here on Earth It is evident by Clemens Romanus that the Antients made use of continual allusions to the first Creation wherein they sought for a mystic sense in reference to the second performed by J. C. In his second Ep. c. 1. he speaks thus of our Redemption When we were without Understanding and worshipped Stone and Wood God had pity on us for he call'd us when we were not in being and would have us to pass from no Being into a Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without doubt he speaks of the New Creation and that in Terms as strong as were used in reference to the First causing us to pass from no Being into a Being as if we were form'd out of nothing when we were reformed by the Gospel These Terms seem to be absolute but we ought not to be deceived by them and will do well if we seek here for a comparative sense considering that Authors neglect very often to use the Particles denoting this Figure which soften the Expression as for example As it were That we may say so If I may speak thus All may perceive that if Clement had said of J. C. as he might have done That he called us when we were not in Being and made us to exist out of Nothing these Words would have been stretched as if they attributed our Creation out of Nothing to J. C. It would have been said Behold here J. C. particularly described to be him that calls Things not in being as if they were Now by a stronger Inference this sense ought to be given them seeing they were spoken of the Father who is the Creator of Heaven and Earth yet we must agree however herein for the Scope of the Subject requires it that they intend only the New Creation and consequently must own that when the Sacred Authors and their Disciples seem to attribute the Creation of all Things to J. C. we have the same Reason to look on such like Expressions as Allegories which set before our Eyes the forming of the New Creature by Representations drawn from the old Creation The same Clement Ep. 1. c. 12. allegorizeth upon the Scarlet Rope of Rahab Good Criticks do not question this tho he speaks as if his Allegoric Sense were the only true one for he praiseth not only the Faith but also the Prophecy of this Woman declaring by it the future Redemption by the Blood of J. C. This Allegory of Clemens saith Cotelier in his Notes is approved of by many of great Note quoting the Fathers that followed him therein Note he calls it an Allegory altho in Clement it hath all the Air of a simple and natural Sense
incarnate And what can this Reason be which it merited and which was united to it When the Veil of Allegory is taken off it can be no other than that high Contemplation whereof the Soul of Jesus Christ had by its pre-existent Obedience render'd it self capable or than that degree of Prophecy and that Spirit without measure wherewith God had honoured it and which made it Partaker of the Divine Nature or lastly the very Office of Word or of Interpreter of God whereof God had judged it worthy as the most perfect and noblest of the Spirits which he had decreed to declare his Mind Celsus says he ibid. lib. 7. will not own that he who suffer'd Death can be worthy of the second Honours next to the Supreme God as well because of the Powers he had acquir'd in Heaven as because of those he had acquir'd on Earth Supposing as you see that Jesus Christ had merited in Heaven before he came to merit on our Earth he was very far from believing him to be the most High God Wherefore Origen having said of the Word that it was in God that it came from God that it was made Flesh and affirming the same of the Soul of J. C. this Conformity yields just reason to suspect that the Doctrine of the Word is nothing but the Soul of Jesus Christ theologiz'd whereon they discours'd Allegorically That 's in a manner prov'd by the Hypothesis of the Arians who believ'd that the Word was to Jesus Christ instead of a Soul and consequently by the Word understood only the Soul of Jesus Christ created before all Ages An Hypothesis renew'd in our time by John Turner who has given it a new turn for he maintains That the Word is nothing else but the Soul of Jesus Christ created indeed but eternally united to the Substance of God and by that Union participating all his Perfections A Discourse concerning the Messiah Ep. Dedic p. 154. The same is infer'd from the Use which has been made of some Texts of Scripture as for example these I came from the Father O Father glorify me with the Glory which I had with thee c. Who being in the Form of God c. Our Divines interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Word but Origen and Dr. Rust in his Book intitul'd Origen and his chief Opinions interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Soul of Jesus Christ Whence comes this Confusion of Ideas The reason of it is easily given The former of these Interpretations is mysterious and allegorical and the latter literal So we may conclude that the Fathers allegoriz'd on the pre-existent Soul of Jesus Christ loving our Nature and becoming incarnate for our Salvation which they in their allegorical Stile call'd the Word or the Son of God And consequently those who take this last Allegory in the literal Sense and understand it of a Divine Person united to our Flesh are not less ridioulous than they who stumbling at the Letter of the first Allegory really believ'd that Angels had mix'd themselves with mortal Women The Text for the first Hypothesis that the Sons of God were married to the Daughters of Men serves as well as that for the second I have begotten thee before the Morning This Pre-existence of Souls and particularly of that of Jesus Christ has been very antient in the Church We find it plainly enough express'd in the second letter attributed to Clemens Romanus C. 10. These are his Words As you have been call'd dwelling in the Flesh so you will come in the Flesh Jesus Christ the Lord who sav'd us being the first Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made Flesh and so called us 〈◊〉 likewise we shall receive the Recompence in the Flesh This Passage supposes the Pre-existence of our Souls as well as that of the Soul of Jesus Christ For he compares our Spirits existing in the Flesh to that first Spirit which was made Flesh to call us He calls Jesus Christ the first of all Spirits whether Souls or Angels because God begat him first a little before he undertook the Creation of the World and afterwards imploy'd him to create the other Spirits according to the Doctrine of Lactantius Instit lib. 4. c. 6. who further teaches us ibid. c. 1.2 That this Holy Spirit descending from Heaven chose the Womb of a Virgin to enter into And the better to carry on the Comparison which he makes of that Spirit to all incarnate Spirits he shews that he was rais'd to the Recompence only by his faithful Obedience and Vertue ibid. cap. 14. His Words are remarkable God says he having sent his Son to Men He hath shewn his Faithfulness in teaching that there is but one God and that he only is to be worship'd and he never call'd himself God because he would have violated his Truth if being sent to take away from the World the Plurality of Gods and to establish the Unity of God he had introduc'd more than one God That had not been preaching One God nor working for the Interest of him who sent him but for his own and it would have been dividing himself from the Father whom he came to glorify Then by his having been thus faithful and in the Design of discharging his Commission not attributing any thing to himself he has receiv'd the Dignity of everlasting High Priest the Honour of Supreme King the Power of Judg and the Name of God By the way these Words of this Father are a curious Paraphrase on those of St. Paul Phil. 2.6 c. Who being in the Form of God did not attribute to himself c. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and hath given him a Name which is above every Name c. Let us here remember a distinction of the Fathers which has been mention'd already and wherein the Footsteps of antient Allegory visibly appear The Fathers distinguish'd two kinds of Generation of the Word the one eternal and internal and the other external which began with the World and the only one which they properly call Generation Dr. Bull acknowledgeth this distinction only he pretends but without reason that 〈◊〉 the latter which is metaphorical Granting him his desire 't is the same thing with respect to the Question now treated of For it remains nevertheless true that they allegoriz'd on one of the Generations of the Word be it which it will and that 's all I need Let them as long as they please say that the Fathers spake of a Generation of the Word which was proper and literal I shall answer Yes and that 's what I call gross Platonism which has made them philosophize so absurdly But by their own confession the same Fathers have spoken of another Generation of the Word which is metaphorical and allegorical and that 's what I call their refin'd Platonism the fair Remains of sound Philosophy which betrays them and manifestly discovers the absurdity of the other part of their System whereon they
Constitutions I place Ignatius who in his Epistle to those of Tarsus calls those Hereticks Ministers of Satan who held these two extremes the one that J. C. is God over all the other that he was but a mere Man In his Epistle to the Philippians he explains wherein Orthodoxy truly consists viz. in believing Christ born of God by a Virgin for not only they who believed him a mere Man denied this Truth but Ignatius farther insinuates that this Truth was denied no less even by such who believed him to be God over all How says he to them do you not believe that J. C. was born of a Virgin but that he is God over all I would say him who can do all things Tell me then I pray who is he that sent him To whose Will is he subject And whose Law did he fulfil How dare you maintain that the Christ was by no means generated that the Lawgiver is unbegotten and that he who is without beginning was nail'd to a Cross This Passage is the clearest Proof The Generation of J. C. by the Power of the Holy Ghost was the true Theology concerning his Person and those who held him to be the Supreme God contested this miraculous Generation pretending that he was unbegotten For this reason Ignatius adds a little after This is not he who is God over all but the Son meaning thereby one who was begotten Daille exclaims upon the Passage aforesaid saying Ignatius distinguishes the Son from that God who is over all which is Blasphemy And he has reason to speak in the Orthodox way because the Character of a God over all is not properly of the Person but an Attribute of the Substance So that it cannot be taken from J. C. without robbing him of the Divine Nature and Substance It will be said perhaps that the Constitutions are not Clement's and that the two Epistles under the Name of Ignatius are falsly ascribed to him But this is trifling as to our Question for be it as it will my Citations are from Authors of great Antiquity and who pass for Trinitarians they are Witnesses of the Faith in that Age wherein they lived and whose Testimony consequently ought not to be suspected by us Moderns So much the rather because the same is confirmed by a Doctor of great Name and Reputation For is it not well known that Origen attacked the same Error in his 32 Tom. on St. John and in his eighth Book against Celsus Mons Huet in his Quaestiones Origen 2. is much scandalized that Origen should say Some maintained that Christ was God over all This Proposition saith Huet is true and Orthodox with respect to the Divine not the Human Nature Origen on the contrary denies our Saviour to be God over all and proves him to be inferiour to the Father by this Reason because the Father is God over all He takes away then from the Divine Nature of J. C. the Character of supreme Divinity and ascribes it to the Father But let us hear Origen himself I mean says he that there are some among the great Number of Believers who widely differing from the Opinion of others rashly maintain that our Saviour is God over all for our parts we have no regard for that Opinion believing these Words of our Saviour himself viz. The Father why sent me is greater than I. 'T is trifling to answer here that Origen meant some Hereticks who held that J. C. was the Father This takes not off from the Force of the Argument for Origen maintains that the Son is not the Father for this reason because he is not as the Father God over all and because Christ himself confesses that the Father is greater than himself supposing that it was the Father alone who had this supreme Prerogative To conclude Dr. Bull in his Judicium Eccles Cath. and his Defender in his Fathers vindicated citing the famous Passage of Justin when that Father consents to a Toleration of the Josephites who believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph yet nevertheless believed him to be Christ These Authors I say insist much upon the opposition which Justin Martyr makes between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the small number of Josephites and the many who oppos'd ' em Now we have our Turn to boast in this Passage of Origen and may take the same Advantage they who believed J. C. to be God over all were but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some Persons and by consequence they were the Hereticks because the few are always such But for those who opposed this Error they beyond contradictions were the Orthodox because they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Multitude CHAP IV. General Remarks upon the forecited Authorities of the Fathers IT remains that I make two Remarks upon these Passages in general one is that since 't was Heresy in these first times of Christianity to affirm that J. C. is the supreme God it follows that Orthodoxy was either the Opinion of Arius which will not be granted or that of the Socinians which ought to be admitted since 't is taken from the Scriptures by the Confession of the Trinitarians The other Remark is since such Fathers condemn this Expression as heretical viz. that the Lord Jesus is God over all without taking any notice of the Objection now drawn from that Passage in Rom. 9.5 which one wou'd think was very natural for them to have solv'd it follows that in their time either they gave those Words another sense or that they read it otherwise than we do at this day Supposing then as I am about to demonstrate that to ascribe to J. C. the Prerogative of the Father viz. of being God over all was Heresy in the first Ages of the Church One sees clearly in what sense a Remark of Sulpitius Severus may be true which was this that almost all Christians in Palestine in the time of Adrian believed Jesus Christ to be a God Not the supreme God as Sulpitius pretends nor a God begotten a little before the Creation as Eusebius would have us believe by perverting some Passages of the Antients and by making them to serve his own Prejudices Not I say once more the supreme God this would have been a damnable Error What then Why a God because he was received or owned not only as a Just Man and a Prophet but as the Christ of God whom he made Lord giving him a Name above every Name the Name of God Note here the manner of Christ's Deification In short one cannot believe without Heresy according to these Primitive Doctors that he was a mere Man having no more Authority than other Holy Persons One cannot therefore better state the Orthodoxy of those venerable Doctors than in avoiding these two Extremes And we find it to be so in the most famous and most antient Monument of the Christian Church I mean the Apostles Creed which says I believe in
at last was changed into that of a Generation of Plato's Word or Logos To pass for the present the consideration of those Objections pretended to have great weight which are taken from the suppos'd Impossibility of a change in the Tradition of the Church as the Author of the Fathers vindicated argues I must tell him 't is in vain for him to attack us with those very Weapons with which he has already been beaten in France We will make our Defence at the same rate he has done his on another occasion Justin Martyr if you please shall not be the very Innovator who changed the Tradition of the Church all at once 't is not in that manner Error is equally introduc'd that 's agreed But you must own whether you will or not that Justin was the first who brought in the new Mode of expressing himself in matters of Faith the first who made use of a Stile that was strange and unknown to his Predecessors Clemens Barnabas Hermas and Polycarp and who spoke a philosophic Jargon wherein appears throout the swelling Notions and Expressions of Plato and nothing of the Simplicity of J. C. But to what purpose was this new Language unless it was to begin the Innovation under colour of Embeilishing of Accommodation and more ample Explication and that this was for prudential Reasons and for the purpose of the Divine Oeconomy This is the very way that Error has always taken The Doctrine of Mahomet which establish'd it self by force was indeed made and introduced all at once by one Man alone But the Doctrine of Antichrist took time and came in by degrees it began with the Imposture and Finenesses of Philosophy and us'd no Force nor Violence till by its Seducements it had gain'd the upper hand Justin Martyr at first imploy'd his Philosophy in the Cause and Pope Victor afterwards his Tyranny and thus you see how the Innovation was compleated it came in as the Proverb has it like a Fox and reign'd like a Lion CHAP. V. Further Reflections upon the forementioned Passage in Bp Pearson's Vindication of Ignatius Part 2 c. 1. HItherto I have considered this remarkable Passage in Bp. Pearson only with regard to this particular design which was to shew in what sense Jesus Christ was deify'd or spoken of as a God among the first Christians I have yet three further Reflections which have a more general aspect upon the whole extent of this Controversy 1st Remark My 1st Remark is upon the Passage in Pliny concerning the Worship of the antient Christians who as he relates it sang Hymns to Jesus Christ as to a God Now here I say that Pliny speaks of the Christians in his Pagan Stile that 't is the Language of an Idolater so that the least consequence cannot be drawn for the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the modern Sense of it for he speaks after the same manner of Christ as if he had been to speak of his Deify'd Heroes See Biblioth Vniv Tom. 10. p. 346 347. Mons Le Clerc has well observ'd in his Rules of Criticism that all sorts of Authors are wont to express the Sentiments and Behaviour of the Persons whose History they write in terms current and received at the time of their writing and in the Country where they liv'd And that if this be not well minded one may easily mistake the Phrase of one Country for another and confound their Meaning 2d Remark Bp Pearson pretends it was customary in the first Age to call Jesus Christ God Monsieur Valois maintains on the contrary that the Antients did not usually ascribe that Name but to the Father only 'T is not difficult to determine which of these two Criticks was in the right Pearson's Remark has no other ground but the Stile of Ignatius alone which is the very thing in question Whereas Valesius his Observation is founded upon the constant Usage of the Fathers in the first Century viz. Clemens Barnabas Hermas and Polycarp who most certainly have never given the Name of God to Jesus Christ in the Writings which are incontestably theirs So that since Ignatius has done otherwise supposing the Epistles are truly his it must be said according to Valesius his Observation that Ignatius did vary from the Practice in his time or that the word God has been foisted in by the Copists as the History of Thaddeus 3d Remark My last Remark is of much greater importance than the two former and intirely decisive in this Controversy For in this Passage of Bp Pearson you may take notice that what he affirms will effectually and at once defend all kinds of Unitarian Hereticks from the formidable Authority of the Platonizing Fathers with which they are always baited The Fathers who wrote after Ignatius says Pearson the Doctors of the 2d and 3d Century are used to borrow their thoughts from the Pagans and sometimes to blend 'em with the Christian Religion Take notice that al this is said with regard to Jesus Christ and remember too that the second Century is the fatal Epocha wherein the Church lost the Purity and Simplicity of her Principles which happened as Hegesippus observes soon after the Death of the Apostles when Platonism prevail'd To come to matter of Fact the Fathers of the first and second Century namely the Justins the Athenagorasses the Theophilusses the Irenaeusses the Clemens Alexandrinusses the Tertullians the Origens c. these Fathers who wrote after Ignatius have mingled Pagan Notions with the Christian Religion therefore those Fathers ought not to be heard in this Controversy as good Witnesses of the Christian Faith and as to the point of Christ's Divinity ought to be regarded as Demi-Pagans The Vnitarian Hereticks likewise ought not in reason to be attack'd with their Authority and consequently the Notion of Christ's Divinity ought to be reduc'd to the state and account given of it by the Writers of the first Century who were not form'd in the Schools nor bred up in Libraries who were not imbu'd with the Sentiments of the Academy or the Portico In fine every Sentence and Expression in their Writings that regards Christ's Divinity and has not the Purity and Simplicity of the first Century cannot be look'd upon as any other but as a smatch of Paganism CHAP. VI. The Theology concerning the Word or Logos is nothing else but a Philosophick Speculation partly grounded upon the Divine Power that entred and dwelt in the Messiah at the moment of his Conception TO prove this that the Theology concerning the Word or Logos is nothing else but a philosophick Notion partly grounded upon the Divine Power that enter'd and dwelt in the Messiah at the moment of his Conception there 's nothing more to be considered than 1st That the most antient Authors go no further in search after Christ's Divinity than his Birth of a Virgin Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians satisfies us of this Truth There is says he but one Physician who is of Flesh
be begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin is no such glorious Privilege for the Messias that it does not give him any Preheminence above some other Men who have been miraculously begotten and by the immediate Power of God That in a word it answers not that great Idea which those Words the only Son of God naturally raise in our Minds I have already answered this Objection with a Passage of Bartholomew of Edessa I could further say that according to this way of reasoning of the Doctor 's J.C. is no longer by his Hypothesis the only Son of God if we take those Words as he does in their strictest sense because he has a Brother begotten of God as well as himself I mean the Holy Ghost He will clear himself of this when he can shew me what the difference is between Generation and Procession that is to say between Emanation and Emanation I mean such a difference that makes the one a Son and the other not this is what we expect from him He knows very well that this knotty difficulty put St. Austin hard to it This Father in his 5th Book 9. ch de Trin. puts this Question Whence is it that the third Person is not the Image of God as well as the second Why not his Word Why not his begotten Son He protests that 't is hard to give a reason why the Father did not beget one as well as t'other since as the Intellect begat its Wisdom by knowing it self it seems likely it should beget its Love by loving it self And at last finding himself too weak to master this difficulty he betakes himself to his usual Sophistry and makes you a rare Medley of Discourse wherein he understands not what he says himself After so great a Master what may we expect from Dr. Bull or rather who will not be surprized to hear his Objections 'T is not enough says he that God begets a Son of the Substance of a Woman by his own Power without the Intervention of a Man 'T is not enough that this Generation is without Example This extraordinary Son if he be not the Supreme God he is not therefore the Son of God 'T is not enough that God has given us an extraordinary Man for the Messias If he be not the Supreme God he cannot be the Messias Wonderful What! if God had thought fit to send none other than such a Man a second Adam not a jot more the Son of God than the first Adam was shall this be no Messias And would this be done upon a Principle of Religion Should this Messias be thought unworthy of us because he does not answer the Idea and the Expectation of the Doctor I am astonish'd when I consider the extravagant Hypothesis of our Trinitarians God in their opinion will not make good his illustrious Promises his Word given to Abraham and his Seed and his Oath sworn to David that he would raise him up a Son to reign upon his Throne God I say will do nothing that will answer the Greatness of his Promise and the Expectation of the Patriarchs if the Blessed Seed if the King so often promis'd and so long expected if the Messias who is so glorious be not the supreme God himself Nothing is magnificent according to these Gentlemen if it be not extravagant God may do well in raising a miraculous Seed to Abraham from the Womb of a Virgin And he may do well in raising up to David a King and a Prophet drench'd with the Fulness of his Spirit and reigning at the Right Hand of his Majesty All this has nothing great in it this will not come up to their System of the Messias nor deserve place in their sublime Theology if the supreme God himself be not incarnate and suffers not himself to be crucified to merit by his Sufferings the same Glory he voluntarily abandon'd This is what they call a glorious Gospel not that plain simple Religion which presents you with a Man ascending into Heaven but that which without Machines or Hocus Pocus brings the supreme God down from Heaven Good God! What vain Imaginations are in the Heart of Man CHAP. IX The Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias c. IT is time to consider in the third place that the Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias Which appears from this that the Expression mere Man which she condemned as heretical was not oppos'd to an Eternal Generation but to Christ's being begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin So that the Platonizing Christians themselves who have us'd it in this last sense have been as it were forced to do it thro Custom What remains of the antient Tradition obliging them to speak in that manner Yea the Force of the antient Tradition has made them to betray themselves as we are about to shew The Terms mere Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear at this day in our Minds a different Idea from that which was in the first Ages of the Church With us now it is supposed to exclude I know not what sort of a Generation of the Substance of God But with the Antients it was purely oppos'd to the miraculous Generation of the Substance of a Virgin We find at this day some Footsteps of the antient usage of these Words The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions lib. 6. c. 26. giving an account of the Opinion of the Ebionites says They hold J. C. to have been a mere Man by maintaining that he was not begotten any other way but by the conjugal Intercourse of Joseph and Mary There cannot be a better account than this of what the Antients meant by a mere Man A Man begotten by Joseph and not a Man who is not the supreme God Justin or the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox Quaest 66. expresses himself thus Who says he speaking of J. C. was begotten or conceived by the Holy Ghost the Son of God but being born of the Wife of Joseph was the Son of Joseph The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. Wherefore c. shall be called the Son of God It must be observed here 1. That Son of Joseph and Son of God are two Terms oppos'd J.C. is called the Son of Joseph as he was born of the Wife of Joseph and the Son of God as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost 2. That J. C. is called Son of God on the account of his being begotten by the Holy Ghost in a sense directly opposed to Son of Man that is to say in a sense of excellence which Dr. Bull is so bold as to deny 3. That the Text of St. Luke which Justin cites as a Proof demonstrates in some sort that the Antients did not at first ascribe any other Divinity to J. C. but that which was grounded upon his being conceived and born of a Virgin by the