Resemblances tho it continued the same at the bottom But the second Method fix'd on the Number Three which were always reckoned in the same Order and had almost always the same Names given them could not be liable to the same Confusion especially among Christians who applied it constantly to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Besides they could explain themselves clearly in this last Method and speak of it distinctly whereas the other in its very rise was a politick Method prudentially invented and which was understood either ill or not at all because it kept secret and allegorical Furthermore the same distinction of gross and subtil Platonism ought to take place in reference to the other two Systems viz. in relation to the Creator Matter and Form and with respect to the Father the intelligible World and the sensible World If you distinguish not well between the Allegory and the Letter nothing will prove more intricate or unintelligible Lastly the principal Cause of this Confusion is these two Methods being so often intermix'd for if you mind it the Fathers sometime philosophizing according to the spurious Platonism insist rigidly on the sense of the three Hypostases and sometimes treading in the Footsteps of the true and antient Platonism do only allegorize and by their Emanations seem rather to mean the Powers of the supreme Being than Spirits subsisting Sometimes nothing will serve their turn but Subsistences Substances a true Generation and a real Procession At other times 't is a quite different thing they mean only the Powers and different Oeconomies of God manifesting himself in the Creation of the World to which they seem to give improperly the Name of a generated Son and Wisdom brought forth which doubtless is the Cause why so much Sabellianism overspreads their Writings We need not wonder henceâ—â—â—th if their Trinity is sometimes so inconsistent with the Vnity of God this proceeds from their gross Platonism Whereas in other Places their Three Principles suffer the Vnity to remain intire which proceeds from their refin'd Platonism CHAP. XIII The Christians have contriv'd a twofold Word grounded upon the two Words of Plato They meant only by Generation the Prolation of the second Word which happened a little before the Creation of the World SOCRATES reduc'd Philosophy to Morality his Disciple Plato advanced it further even to Theology by making three Persons or three Divine Hypostases of the three Divine Properties by whose concurrence the World was created or rather by conceiving a Creator infinitely Good with an Vnderstanding drawing the Plan of the World and an Energy that performs it These Theologic Philosophers allegorizing after their wonted manner changed the intelligible World into the Word and the sensible World into a Son The one is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers in like manner distinguish'd the two Words whereof the one is internal the other brought forth and consider'd only the second as a Son because properly speaing they called Generation only that which was perform'd at the beginning of the World They say When God wil'ed to create the World he brought forth or generated the Word May you not easily perceive that such Modes of Speech owe their rise to the Mystic Philosophy which consider'd the whole World as the Son of God and as a Son generated by his Word or Command Yes these Turns of Expression owe their birth to some Poetical ones of the Heathens like those of Orpheus related by Justin in Protrep ad Gentil I swear saith the Poet by that Voice which the Heavenly Father uttered when he formed the whole Creation Then it was according to Justin that God generated his Word because he brought it forth in order to create the World All this is well meant and grounded upon the Words of Moses The only difference I remark in the System about these two Words is seeing Allegory is arbitrary some have fix'd it on the sensible World which they made to be the Son of God as many of the Philosophers we quoted have done because they consider'd it as the Production of the Divine Speech or Power but others fixed their Allegory upon the intelligible or Ideal World even on the Speech it self as thrust forth which they considered as a Production of the Divine Vnderstanding This last System was followed by the Christians when they personalized either the Word brought forth as the first Fathers and the Arians or the Internal and Mental Word as the Fathers of the Council of Nice and the Athanasians did Dr. Bull being forc'd to own this Truth pretends to clear the difficulty by distinguishing a twofold Generation of the Word the one Eternal and the other Temporal and maintaining that the Fathers consider'd the first as Real the second as Metaphorical but just the contrary hereof is true Theophilus of Antioch distinguisheth carefully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Thought of God from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Word generated Athenagoras and Tatian tell us of a Son who was in God in Idea and potentially before he actually existed as a Person Tertullian saith There was a time when the Son was not a Son and that the Father was not always a Father that the Word which he distinguisheth from Reason was not from the beginning Novatian declares expresly chap. 31. that the Procession of the Son which was done when the Father willed it that is to say when he resolved to create the World That this Prolation say I made the Son a second Person Origen and Clement make a difference between the Word which was God and the Word which was made Flesh meaning that the former was the internal Word which is the Divine Vnderstanding and God himself and by the latter the Word brought forth which is only an Emanation from the former Prudentius calls J. C. Verbigena begotten of the Word where you may see manifestly the two Words the one generating and the other generated the one being the essential Wisdom of God the other is its Production And the first Word is so far from being the Son that Prudentius considers it as the Father Lastly not to be redicus Marius Victorinus makes to great a difference between the Word speaking and the Word silent that he calls the former the Son and the latter the Father All these Fathers generally tell us that before the Word was generated it was in the Heart of God in the Womb of his Vnderstanding in his Bowels whence it came forth as it were from its Seed and Bud. Either all these Terms mean nothing or they denote that the Son did not then exist otherwise than in the Design and Intent of the Father that he came forth thence when by the virtue of the Divine Prolation he did receive a real Existence Now it is not the first Existence but the second which the Fathers constantly and properly call the Generation of the Son or in other words
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
If it be so his History of a Phaenix ought not to seem so strange to us it is a Fable containing a great Truth in his Opinion he makes use of it as of an ingenious Allegory that seems to have been made expresly to represent to Men the Doctrine of the Resurrection As to the rest whenever Clement doth not allegorize he explains to us simply his Sentiment about the Word and the Trinity As to the former he saith in Chap. 27. of his 1st Ep. to the Corinthians That God founded all things by the Word of his Power and that he can destroy them by the same Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utrobique Whence it is evident that the Word in his sense is only the Power and Efficacy of God by which as he created the World he can also destroy it when he pleaseth This agrees with the Scriptures saying By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth Psal 33.6 and that by the same Breath he destroys the Wicked Isa 11.4 2 Thess 2.8 We cannot find here the Platonic Ideas of a Personalized Word so that Photius had reason to complain Bibl. Cod. 126. that Clement did not speak of J. C. in that sublime Stile which is made use of when God is spoken of His Simplicity has offended those that love only the high-flown Philosophy of Plato For whereas a Platonic Christian would never have omitted on such an occasion to inculcate that God the Father created all things by his Son who is his Word and eternal Wisdom Clement is dumb here and contents himself to attribute the Creation to the Power or the Command of God Elsewhere when he speaks expresly of J. C. he withholds himself from giving him any other Excellencies or Titles than those resulting from the Offices he possesseth by the Gift of God as a Recompence for his Sufferings viz. those of an High-Priest and Lord never quoting any other Passages but those that serve to this purpose As to his Trinity nothing is more simple for being willing to move the Corinthians to Concord and Union he alledgeth this Motive among the rest Have we any other but the same God the same Christ and the same Spirit of Grace shed upon us This is a Trinity of a Man truly Apostolic one God one Messiah and one Spirit shed upon the Faithful CHAP. XVIII Of the Method of the refin'd Platonists and of Allegory in General FROM these Disciples of the Apostles let us come to the Disciples of Plato Peruse the Platonist Writers and you 'll therein find yet some remains of well contrived Platonism They having conceived the Ideas and Archetypes of all Creatures which are in the visible World to be in the intelligible World did easily invent a Spiritual and Intelligible Gospel which is the Substance and First Form of the sensible Gospel a Distinction which Origen did not fail to make as he distinguisht between the exemplary and ideal Word different from the sensible Word and as he expresses it in his second Tom. on John A Word which was in God and which was as different from that which was made Flesh as an Original is from the Copy Substance and Reality from the Shadow They use the Comparison of an Architect who has in his Mind the Idea and Plan of a House he intends to build Whereon they giving themselves liberty find all the Wonders of our Gospel in the Ideas of the Divine Understanding If in the sensible Church there be found an Oracle and Interpreter from God born of the Father by the Holy Ghost making the new Creature by the Power and Wisdom which he has received from the Father To this they make another Answer in the intelligible Church a Word proceeding from the Bosom or Understanding of God begotten of his Substance who is the Eternal Wisdom of God and secondary Cause of all things subsisting in the World Take off the veil of Allegory or rather suppose all that to be Allegory and 't is a rational Philosophy which reduces all to God's eternal Decrees as the prime Cause of all existent Beings but particularly of Christ who being with respect to his Essence the only Son and First born of all Creatures consequently is in God's Vnderstanding the Idea which God immediately begets whereon all others depend He is I say the noblest Idea or as some speak the Idea of Ideas And if they found this Christ in the Ideas and Decrees of God it is not to be wonder'd if they found him also in the antient Dispensation of Angels while 't is not more difficult seeing him in those first Sketches than in the Design and Idea which God had fram'd of him Thus far I perceive right Platonism I see in it the Foot-steps of what it was when in its Purity and I at the same time observe in it fair remains of antient Allegory either of the Jews or of the Chaldaeans who delighted in profound Senses and theological Interpretations But I no sooner cast my eye on those eternal Substances conceiv'd as real Emanations those Emanations as real Generations and those Generations as subsisting Persons than I see only deprav'd Platonism as absurd as the Theology of the Poets and as unpolish'd as the Religion of the most superstitious Vulgar To make this Truth the more evident 't will be necessary to say somewhat of Allegory and of the use which the Antients made of it But we must as I promis'd in Page 64. at the same time shew that Disciples who ofttimes change their Masters Method do nevertheless retain certain Remains of the antient Discipline which betrays them and discovers their Innovations That is we will shew the tracks of the antient manner of allegorizing even in those very men who have abandon'd the Allegory of the three Principles and chosen the literal Sense of three Hypostases I have already given some account of it which ought to be recall'd to mind by the Reader to join to what I have farther to say thereon Allegory is a Figure in Speech whereby one thing is expressed and another intimated by rising from the literal to a nobler and more theological Sense See Grotius on Matth. ch 1.22 I shall not here speak of the Enigmatical Science of the Chaldeans and Egyptians but come directly to the Philosophy which is most known to us But before I come to Particulars I must advertise my Reader that if he would be fully inform'd on this Head he may read all the 5th Book of the Stromates of Clemens Alexandrinus I 'll content my self with quoting thence the following Words which give us a general Idea of the Antients Method in the use they made of Allegory All those says that Father who have treated of Divine Matters as well Greeks as Barbarians concealing the Principles of things wrap'd the Truth in Enigma's Symbols Allegories and Metaphors as intricate as those of the Oracles Even the Poets who
learnt Theology of the Prophets perhaps of the Egyptian Prophets did often philosophize according to the hidden Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having made this general Observation I pass to somewhat more particular A great noise has been made in the World of the Opinion of Pythagoras concerning the Transmigration of Souls The literal Sense which has been given to this Opinion has been almost generally receiv'd and there have been but few Persons who perceiv'd that it only run on a mere Allegory thro want of duly reflecting on the Genius of antient Philosophy Coelius Secundus Curio was one of those who saw thro the Mystery of it Aranei p. 42 c. As to the Opinion of Pythagoras says he I can never persuade my self that that Learned Philosopher ever came to such a degree of Absurdity as to believe that the Souls of Men passed out of one Body into another Let us not doubt but that he thereby intended to signify the Change whereunto Matter is subject making it continually pass from one form to another a Metamorphosis which that Philosopher call'd Regeneration Palingenesiam or a Metempsychosis which according to him is nothing but the Transmigration of the Spirit infus'd in Matter and with it transmitted into all the several Forms which it puts on 'T was the misunderstanding of this Revolution of Souls which made some Hereticks say that Adam's Soul had pass'd into Jesus Christ in misapplying some Texts of Scripture where Christ is called the second Adam and which suppose a kind of Analogy between the one and the other 'T is by a like Mistake that some others held that the Soul of Elias had passed into the Body of John Baptist grounding themselves on these Words that John came in the Spirit and Power of Elias and not comprehending that those Words refer to the Conformity of Zeal and Courage between those two Prophets But when once the right understanding of a mere Figure in Speech comes to be lost and the literal Sense prevails into what Extravagances are we not capable of falling Witness the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation which owes its birth to the Ignorance of an Allegory a little strain'd Again Have not some fallen into a prodigious Error by literally taking that Expression of the Apostle where he says that Melchisedec was without Father without Mother and without Descent Have not Men infer'd from those Words that Melchisedec was not of the Posterity of Adam as other Men are Some having suppos'd him a Celestial Man consubstantial with the eternal Son of God others that he was an Angel others the Holy Ghost others the Son of God himself and lastly others a Power superior to the Son of God from which the Son of God had receiv'd his everlasting High-Priesthood I am asham'd for Christians when I think with what Superstition they consecrate all their Fancies and make as many Mysteries of them In short I might venture to affirm that the Fable of Simon the Magician's flying in the Air carry'd by Devils and struck down by St. Peter is no more than a mere Allegory of St. Peter's Victory over Simon when disputing together concerning the Unity of God the Apostle put that Heretick to silence as the Author of the Constitutions speaks Lib. 6. c. 8. That pompous Description signifying nothing more than that the Evangelical Simplicity concerning the Unity of God prevail'd and triumph'd over the too swelling Philosophy of Simon who held divers Persons in one God But to proceed Another fam'd Doctrine of Antiquity is that of the Pre-existence of Souls Somebody explaining those Words of Moses that the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men turn'd that Text into an Allegory and interpreted it of Souls delighting in being united to Human Bodies But because he expressing himself theologically called the Sons of God Angels that Word deceived many Platonist Fathers who took it literally And thence came that so absurd yet at the same time so generally receiv'd Opinion that the Angels had Commerce with Women and that from those monstrous Copulations proceeded Giants Origen in his 50th Book against Celsus teacheth us the Mystery of that Allegorical Copulation Some body says he meaning Philo de Gigant has apply'd that Text of Moses to incorporeal Souls which he metaphorically calls the Daughters of Men. It may be the other Fathers were nor ignorant of this spiritual Sense but they follow'd their manner of philosophizing which was to speak always in such terms as kept the Allegory conceal'd in order to give the more mysterious Air to what they said They always suppos'd that the Wits of the first rank for whom they wrote knew the Secret of it and as to the Vulgar their aim was to conceal it from them After what has been said how shall we know but that they affected the giving an appearance of a real and literal Doctrine to all they have deliver'd to us concerning the Word And whether they have not designedly conceal'd from us the Secret of the Allegory that they might by that majestick Out side draw the more admiration and respect from the common People who love what 's wondrous The Distinctions which Origen so often makes between intelligible and sensible between Contemplation and Faith between the Word-God which is the Object of seraphick Minds and the incarnate and crucified Word the Object of vulgar Minds I say these Distinctions and some others of like nature scarce leave room to doubt of it And indeed he may be confident of it who considers what the same Origen says ubi supra By the second God says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we mean no other than a Power which comprehends all other Powers a Word or Reason which contains all other Reasons and we say that that Reason is particularly united to the Soul of Jesus Christ because that only is capable of receiving the Word it self Wisdom it self Justice it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And elsewhere he teaches us That the Word was join'd to the Soul of Jesus Christ even before the Incarnation that Soul having merited to be join'd to it ib. l. 4. That so that Soul or that Word for he uses those two Words indifferently did for our sakes descend on Earth there to suffer Death for us Mortals Again Comment in Joan. Tom. 20. That this Soul which was before in God in its Perfection and Fulness was by God sent into the Womb of Mary there to take a Body other less perfect Souls not having had the same Honour If to this be added his affirming in the 1st and 2d Tome on the same Gospel That 't is only the uttered Word which according to him can be no other than the Soul of Jesus Christ That I say only this Word and not the Word-God was incarnate it cannot be doubted but that by this Soul sent descended and incarnate he means the same thing which he and others say when they speak of a Word sent descended and
Principle of his Son whom he has made Lord. But the Son is the God of all the Creatures because God the Father has set him at their Head when he made him Lord. Whence it follows that Jesus Christ may well be called God when you consider him at the head of the New Creation which God has subjected to his Dominion But this Title vanishes when the Apostle St. Paul is speaking of the Father and the Son together then the Son can have no other Character but what is fully signified and explain'd in the Notion of God's Minister and Embassador So true is it that before the only True and Supreme God every other Deity must fall down and disappear So that Bp Pearson had reason to say that Ignatius imitates St. Paul for he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians that Jesus Christ was made God in the Flesh which can signify no more than that a Man was raised to Divine Power or Dignity Moreover Ignatius gives Jesus Christ the Title of God without any of those Additions which the Fathers after him make use of He does not call Christ in the Platonick Stile God the Word a God begotten God of God But if it should be said Ignatius has not used the Restrictions of St. Paul and that he calls Christ God simply and absolutely this is not true for he calls him a God made or our God to shew that he is not so but with regard to the Power he received of his Father and exercises over us CHAP. II. The first Fathers did not theologize Jesus Christ i. e. ascribe Divinity to him in the Sense and Terms of the Platonic Fathers who lived in after Ages but merely on the account of his miraculous Birth and Exaltation THAT the most Primitive Fathers gave the Title of God to J. C. in the sense I am about to explain will appear for three Reasons which amount almost to Demonstration My first Reason is taken from the manner wherein Clem. Rom. and Polycarp speak of J. C. Photius says that Clement has given our Saviour the Stile of High Priest but reproaches him for not giving Christ the Characters of a God Is it possible that Clement has done J. C. so great an Injury as not to give him the Character he merits By no means Photius is mistaken and 't is contrary to all reason to imagine so considerable an Omission can be found in a Letter wherein the Church at Rome as Irenaeus tells us lib. 3. c. 2. delivers to the Church of Corinth the Tradition she had received from the Apostles It must be said therefore that this great Critick Photius did not take notice that in the Apostolic Stile of St. Clement the calling J. C. our High Priest and Pontif is the same thing as to call him our God agreeable to the Doctrine of St. Paul who teaches us that when God rais'd his Messias to the Honour of the High Priesthood 't was then he said unto him Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee So that there 's nothing in my Opinion more reasonable and just than the Remark of Grotius Epist 347. Par. 2. who proves the Antiquity of this Epistle of St. Clement for this very reason because it does not speak of J. C. in the Platonic Way and Manner as was done by others in after Ages but in a Simplicity or Plainness altogether as St. Paul had spoken As to St. Polycarp one finds in his Epistle the same Character of Simplicity and Plainness as in St. Clement aforesaid which Photius takes notice of in the place forecited And St. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. gives Polycarp's Epistle this fair Character That 't is a most compleat and very proper Instruction in the Faith and Doctrine of Truth Yet one meets with no Platonic Titles in this excellent Epistle In vain will you look for these Phrases the Eternal Word the Pre-existence of the Son of God the Generation from the Womb of the Father c. Nay you will not find in this Epistle so much as the Name of God applied to Christ Where then with respect to Christ are Polycarp's Characters of the true Faith and Doctrine Why they are in those Elogies which Polycarp often repeats as that Jesus Christ is the everlasting High Priest that he is the Son of God that the Father hath rais'd him from the Dead and made him to sit at his right Hand For pray observe St. Polycarp's Creed of the Divinity of the Father and the Son To pass over says he the Mistake and Babble of some Persons let us believe in him who rais'd our Lord Jesus Christ from the Dead and hath crowned him with Glory c. Let us keep our selves clear of the vain and false Doctrine of those Persons aforesaid and keep close to the antient Tradition and Word which was left us from the beginning In which Passage this Holy Person being willing to put the Philippians in mind of the vain Discourse of some and to guide 'em to the source of true Tradition which he makes to consist in believing J. C. was deified by his Father he meant no doubt to bring them off from the vain Philosophy of Plato's Second God and to engage them to that Divinity of J. C. which is founded on his Exaltation For 't is clear that Polycarp ealls here by the Name of true and antient Tradition this summary of the Faith expressed in these Terms Believe ye in him who hath raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the Dead c. This Symbol is agreeable to that of the Apostles and is directly opposite to that vain Doctrine he was about to condemn And this Symbol insisting upon nothing but the Glory J. C. acquired by his Sufferings it must necessarily follow that under the Name of Babble or vain Doctrine St. Polycarp censures that vain and false Glory which Platonizing Christians ascribed to Christ by their fancied Pre-existence In short instead of that unintelligible Babble of other Fathers and I know not what Jargon of a Son of God begotten before all Ages and emanated from the Divine Mind which is exactly the reverse of the Gospel Polycarp here speaks of none other Son of God but one who is an everlasting High Priest rais'd to a Sovereign Glory which is the real Gospel the Tradition of the Apostles and the antient Theology My second Proof is drawn from the Consession of the antient Martyrs there can be no doubt but that those faithful Witnesses of J. C. gave his Person the most illustrious and most honourable Testimony that they could and that they heighten'd their Theology as far as they could without the hezard of their Faith Let us hear therefore what as said of 'em in the Acts of those Marty 〈◊〉 St. Polycarp invokes a Trinity but what Trinity three Persons and one God as 't is expressed God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost God forbid He as Euseb tells us Hist lib. 4. c. 16.
Divine Persons nor by consequence the Persons themselves Be it as it will the Doctor will find it hard enough to apply his Solution to all the Arguments I am about to mention And if he can do it 't will be no more difficult for him to find the Divinity of J. C. in all the Passages of the Gospel where mention is made of the Holy Ghost I hope also that at last he 'l say that when J. C. promis'd his Holy Spirit to his Apostles he promis'd them his Divine Nature But I must beg my Reader 's Patience a little longer to see what Answer the Doctor will make against the last Authority I am going to alledg And that 's a Letter of the Council of Sardis in the second Book of Theodoret's Hist Eccles The Fathers there drew a Creed in three very distinct Articles the first concerning the Father the second the Son and third Article the Holy Ghost In the last which is so expresly distinguished from that of the Son they speak thus of the Incarnation by the Holy Ghost We believe also there is a Holy Spirit or Paraclet which the Lord promis'd and sent He did not suffer but the Man whom he assumed or took from the Virgin Mary he suffer'd because he was capable of it whereas God is immortal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Is passus non est Where one sees the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Neuter Now of this Spirit the Fathers say he cannot suffer but 't was Man whom he put on and took from the Virgin that did suffer This they speak I say of the Paraclet whom they confess after the Father and the Son and not of the Divine Nature of J. C. A Passage express and formal which clearly proves these Doctors understood nothing else by the Holy Ghost but that Power of God whereof the Word is the Manifestation and the Operation confounding the Spirit with the Word and very distinctly assuring us that the Paraclet was incarnate Is the Paraclet the Divine Nature of J. C. or the second Person of the Trinity Here we 'll wait the Doctor 's Answer Valesius not bearing with this Incongruity in the Council had the Boldness to corrupt this Passage in his Version by foisting in the word Christ for thus he has translated it He did not suffer but the Man whom Christ put on The Word Christ is not in the Text which intirely relates to the Holy Ghost or Paraclet In short that Word ruines the whole sense of the Period and strangely confounds all this third Article which belongs only to the Holy Ghost and is distinct from that concerning J. C. Both Translators and Copists are guilty of Falsification in this particular Give me leave to affirm one thing and that is that the Antients have often distinguished the Holy Spirit from the Power of the Highest whereof he is speaking in the same Text calling the latter the Word of God the Son of God and saying only of the former that he overshadowed the Virgin Now even this shews that by the Word they understood nothing but the Power and the Operation of the Holy Spirit which is the same thing with the Power and Operation of the Highest The Holy Spirit signifying the Substance and the Power of the Highest signifying the Operation it follows that the Word which is the Power of the Highest according to the Fathers is not otherwise distinguished from the Holy Spirit than as the Operation is distinguished from its Subject We may conclude therefore from Proofs so very evident that the Antients who have deified J. C. had no other ground for their Theology but the Birth of J. C. of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost that by the Word and the Son of God they always understood this miraculous Operation and that they never advanced any higher in their Discourses towards that which is called an eternal Generation CHAP. XII An Account of the Foundation of the Allegorical Theology of the Fathers concerning the Word and the Holy Spirit I Dare assure my Reader that I can shew him the very Foundation of this Allegorical Theology 'T is known that the Fathers imitated the Gnosticks in many things and particularly in the way of Allegory and Contemplation But 't was Mark the Valentinian as we are inform'd by Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 12. who was the Author of the Allegorical Exposition on the Birth of J. C. that is the first who elevated it to a sense of Contemplation and Mystery He makes a Quaternity of the Man and the Church which are the first Pair and of the Word and Life which are the second Pair But what sort of Theology does he couch under this Enigma or Allegory Why nothing less than the wonderful Conception of J. C. The Man says he is the Power of the Highest because that acted instead of the Man The Church is the Holy Virgin because she held the place of the Church The Angel Gabriel was instead of the Word and the Holy Spirit instead of Life Nothing can better convince us of the Allegory us'd by the Valentinians than this Passage in which the Angel is the Word and the Spirit is the Life the Power of the Highest is instead of the Man and the Virgin is instead of the Church I might also have produc'd this Passage for a Proof when I was arguing this Point but I have reserv'd it on purpose for this place to shew that the whole Mystery of the Word reduces it self to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour upon which both the Hereticks and the Orthodox have equally allegorized each taking his Flight as his Contemplation led him on And this is that famous Theology so much extolled by the Fathers I know most of them being entangled with their Platonism have mightily embroiled the first and antient Ideas of this matter But I know also that before they came to make two Hypostases of the Word and the Holy Spirit they were terribly perplexed about the latter and could not tell what to do Hence it was without doubt that they so long delayed the deifying of the Holy Ghost The Council of Nice has not at all touched upon its Divinity So far were they from it and the Holy Ghost made so small a Figure at that time that some Fathers of the Council made no difficulty to give its place to the Blessed Virgin by making her the third Person in the Trinity Of which we are informed by Elmacinus and Patricides in Hotting Orient Hist lib. 2. p. 227. The Council of Constantinople durst not speak openly upon the point And in S. Basil's time there was a little Shiness in calling the Holy Ghost directly and formally God 'T is worth our regard what Petavius de Trinit lib. 2. c. 7. § 2. says hereupon The Catholic Church says he accommodating it self for prudential Reasons to human Frailty came not to the full Profession of some
mixing it with the Flesh of Jesus For we cannot think he suppos'd that Jesus the Son of Mary had not Flesh like ours He meant nothing more than that the Word or the Christ as he is pleas'd to call him had not appear'd to Men but with a Body wholly celestial and impassible so separating Jesus from the Christ and making two Natures of them as St. Irenaeus informs us It is with reason wonder'd that so grave Authors have said and so often repeated that Cerinthus's Heresy consisted in denying the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ when he is the first who brings the two Natures of Jesus Christ into the Christian Religion the Divine Nature which he believed to be impassible and which he makes to descend from Heaven and the Humane which he believed to be begotten by Joseph and Mary But there is yet greater reason to wonder that Irenaeus has been quoted for it who says nothing less than what Controvertists make him say All that that Father says concerning the Error which St. John oppos'd in Cerinthus is that the World had been created by an inferiour God or by an Angel but that there was another superiour God who had sent his Word or the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove into the Son of Mary That the inferiour Christ who was called Jesus was indeed the Son of the Creator but that the superiour Christ who descended into the other was the Son of the most high and unknown God who after having render'd Jesus capable of working Miracles and of manifesting the unknown God withdrew himself into his Pleroma when Jesus was to suffer Iren. l. 3. c. 11. This Opinion was not so much Plato's as Philo the Jew 's who believed that God had never done any thing but by Angels Some Hereticks added that besides the God of the Jews who was one of those Angels and Creator of the Universe there was another God who had never manifested himself until he made himself known by the Coming of the Christ Indeed it seems that this is the only Error which St. John opposes in his Gospel First he shews therein following the Psalmist St. Paul and St. Peter that the World was not made by any other than by the Word or by the Power of God that this Word was not an Efficacy or Power distinct or separate from the most High God that is an Angel or self-subsisting Hypostasis but that it was in God the Creator as his Efficacy or to say better that it was the Creator himself Then he shews that the Word the Spirit or the superior Christ who descended into Jesus who dwelt in him and who had wrought so many Miracles was not an Hypostasis or an emanated Efficacy of another God than he who had created the World but the proper Efficacy of God the Creator the same Word which having created the World was united to Jesus Christ and manifested in him The Word by which all things were made says he was made Flesh or manifested in the Flesh Which shews that Christ was the Son of the Creator and not of another God superiour to him and that the World was not made by an Angel but by the most high God Mons le Moyne among others believes that St. John aim'd at opposing this Error St. John assures says he Varia sacra p. 407. that the Word was made Flesh in opposition to the Doctrine of the phantastick Body of Christ He has no other Design in his first Epistle where he teaches that Christ is come in the Flesh and protests that he preaches and insists on no other Word of Life than that which he had seen heard and touched that is according to him that Christ came no otherwise than in a real Body and no way in an etherial one If we inclin'd to believe that St. John aim'd at Cerinthus in writing his Gospel we might add that it is very remarkable that as often as this Evangelish relates Jesus Christ's saying that he descended from Heaven he always makes him speak as if he directly oppos'd that Heretick For whereas Cerinthus said that the Christ or a Spiritual Nature descended from Heaven Jesus Christ assures on the contrary that 't is the Son of Man that 't is his own Flesh which descended from thence Man as you see and not a Nature distinct from Man Flesh and not a Spirit 'T is pity that Heretick did not live in the time of our Lord one might have the Pleasure of forming a curious System on that Subject which would not be less well contrived than that which has been built on the Word of St. John with respect to that Heretick But if we cannot positively assert that Jesus Christ or his Disciple did attack Cerinthus we may at least affirm that 't was against him or his like that St. Irenaeus disputed They hold says that Father l. 3. c. 17 18 19 20. that indeed Jesus is born of Mary but that as to Christ he descended from above so dividing the Lord by saying that he is composed of two Substances c. With their Mouths they confess but one Christ but in reality they have two one passible and the other descending from Heaven invisible and impassible not knowing that the Word which was united to and mix'd with his Work and which was made Flesh is it self that Jesus who suffer'd for us But if one suffer'd while the other remain'd impassible it is not one Christ but two Now every Spirit which divides Jesus Christ qui solvit Jesum Vulg. is not of God What hinder'd the Apostles from saying that Christ descended into Jesus or the Saviour who is above the Oeconomy into him who is of the Oeconomy But the Apostles neither knew nor said any thing like it What there was of it they said to wit that the Spirit descended on him like a Dove It appears by this Passage and by the whole Work of St. Irenaeus that his Opinion was that the Word was made Flesh not only in communicating it self to the Flesh which the Hereticks believ'd but also in mixing it self with the Flesh And therefore in the 21st Chapter of the same Book he twice calls him the Word mix'd and blended commixtum Verbum The same Theology is found in Novatian de Trinitate c. 11 19. In one place he maintains that Jesus is not only a Man but that he is likewise God according to the Scripture because the Divinity of the Word enter'd into the Composition and mix'd it self with the Flesh Divinitate Sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta In another place like unto this he takes upon himself to demonstrate that the Word having by its Vnion and by its Mixture with the Flesh associated to it self the Son of Man made him what he was not to wit the Son of God Origen says as much of it in his third Book against Celsus The Humanity of Christ says he rais'd it self to such a degree of Divinity not only by
created by the Word of God c. by a Comparison taken from the Kings of the Earth whose Word is the only Instrument they imploy to execute their Wills Indeed God has no need of any Instrument whereby to act he does all by the sole Act of his Will And Ibid. c. 65. The Word of God says he signifies no other than his Will But because Men cannot presently apprehend how a thing can be made by the Will only thinking it necessary that he who will make any thing must either do it himself or cause it to be done by others the Scripture says that God commands that a thing be when he will have it to be not only by comparison to our manner of acting but also because those Expressions do also signify the Will So as often as in the Work of the Creation we meet with the words God said it is the same as God willed And these that the Heavens were created by the Word of God is the same thing as by the Spirit of his Mouth For as his Mouth and his Spirit are Metaphorical Expressions so his Speech and his Word are also Metaphorical the meaning whereof is that things exist by his Will only And lastly in Cap. 66. mentioning these Words of Psal 8. The Heavens are the Works of thy Hands or of thy Fingers he says that the Finger of God is the same thing with the Word of God and the Word of God the same thing with the Will of God Grotius makes almost the same Observation on John 1.1 Because says he Moses wrote God said Let there be Light the Hebrews have thence call'd Devar the Word that Power or Divine Emanation by which God brought things out of Nothing and worketh all that is uncommon and extraordinary Psal 33.6 148.8 That which we read of Isaiah My Hand hath laid the Foundations of the Earth is in the Chaldee I have laid the Foundations of the Earth by my Word St. Peter uses the same Expression 2 Ep. 3.5 And that Paraphrast uses it so when treating of Miracles Prophecy or God's extraordinary Assistance and particularly when the Hebrew says the Eyes the Hand or the Face of God Whence it appears that in Scripture saying that the Hands of God laid the Foundations of the Earth or that he laid the Foundations of it by his Word or by his Spirit are equivalent Expressions and consequently that there is no Mystery in this Term Word or Speech Otherwise we must seek it also in Hand Finger Mouth c. and make of 'em so many Persons of the Trinity 'T would be much more proper to say with the Bishop of Meaux as above noted that thereby is signify'd nothing more with respect to God than that the doing great Works costs him but one single Word In truth this literal Sense is much more reasonable than the suppos'd Mystery But I said in the second place that there is another more excellent Communication when God fills with his extraordinary Gifts and if I may so speak overflows with his Favours those of Mankind whom he appoints to execute his Decrees as his Prophets and other Messengers and particularly the Messiah whom he sent into the World with all the Characters of an extraordinary Consecration This latter kind of Communication is called the Holy Ghost And here again we see on the one hand the Word and the Commission of God address'd to his Minister and on the other the Holy Ghost confirming God's Order to the Minister and conferring on him Power to discharge all the Duties of his Office So true it is that the Word and the Spirit are two united Powers which ordinarily work 〈…〉 I say ordinarily because Cases 〈…〉 een seen where the Communication 〈…〉 ut any Manifestation and on 〈…〉 trary others where God manifested himself by meer Apparitions which do not imply any Union of the Godhead with the Person who was honour'd with them But here it must be observ'd with respect to Prophetical Communication that there are two kinds of it whereof each hath its specifick Character The first which was when God spake by the Prophets was only for particular Dispensations for certain Times and Ministrys The other which was demonstrated in Jesus Christ to whom the Divine Nature was communicated in a much more perfect manner was inseparable and perpetual The first is called the Holy Ghost the second is not only called the Holy Ghost but also the Word because Jesus Christ was not only a Prophet by reason of the Gifts received from the Holy Ghost but also because he was begotten a Prophet and born a Prophet a distinction which raises him infinitely above all other Prophets This is the Truth which St. John design'd to teach us in writing the Preface or Prologue to his Evangelical History viz. that the same Jesus who was born of a Woman was born the Christ or is the Christ in right and by the advantage of his Birth And the reason which he gives for it is that the Holy Ghost or the Word for that 's the same thing did not only make his Flesh but also insinuating himself into it as the antient Doctors speak did there sow the Principles of his Prophetical Operations in the same manner as our bodily Fathers do not only give us Birth but often transmit to us the Seeds of their Inclinations and Vertues Now that which had never been seen in any other Prophet obliged the Evangelist to call Jesus Christ the Word to distinguish him from all other Prophets and Interpreters of God and to express himself in so forcible a manner on the Birth of this great Prophet in saying that the Word was made Flesh The old Translation was Verbum Domini factum est ad Prophetam The new has something more emphatical Verbum Domini factum est caro the Word insinuated it self into the Flesh and prepared it for Prophecy Marius Victorinus to give an Idea of this twofold Divine Dispensation Manifestation and Communication says in his 3d Book against Arius That there is a double Energy or Operation of the Word the one in a manifest way Christ in Flesh the other in a secret way the Holy Ghost Whereupon he calls the Father a Voice in silence the Son the Voice and the Holy Ghost the Voice of the Voice Which shews that the Holy Ghost is the Word of the Son as the Son is the Word of the Father And it is in this manner that St. Basil speaks 5 advers Eunom The Son is the Word of the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Word of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now we see by what means Error was introduc'd God having reveal'd himself to his Creature by way of outward Manifestation and by way of inward Communication out of those two Dispensations have been made so many Divine Persons distinct from God the Father that is a second Person was made of the Manifestation and of the Communication was made a third It
Fevers almost as the Superstitious use some Words of the beginning of St. John's Gospel which they hang about the Patient's Neck as I my self have seen Now in as much as the Basilidians pass for the first Authors among Christians of the Discipline of the Secret and of the Platonick Trinity it is very likely that they design'd to hide it under this Allegorical and Symbolical Name But it is also possible that this Name contains only the Gospel-Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost whereon they allegoriz'd extravagantly according to the Custom of that Time By this Essay which we have been making it sufficiently appears that we could give a rational Meaning to the other Orders of the Aeons wherewith the Gnosticks did also enlarge their System With a little labour in taking off the Veil of Allegory which covers the hidden Meaning of this mysterious Theology one might easily enough discover that the true aim of these Christian Philosophers was to set off the lowness of the Gospel by the suppos'd depths of their Mysteries But we 'll go no farther on this Article The Sample given is sufficient But if any one desires proof of this our Explication of Valentin's Aeons that he conceiv'd them only as the several Affections of the Divine Understanding or as so many Dispensations of Providence let him but consult Chap. 12. of Danaeus de Haeresib To be brief we 'll here quote only the famous Pearson Vindic. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 5. Valentin says he made an open Profession of believing but one God and tho Tertullian asserts somewhat Rhetorically that this Heretick believ'd as many Gods as he number'd Aeons that Father himself did nevertheless own that Valentin's Aeons were nothing else but the Divine Propertys and Affections whereof his Disciples afterwards made Personal Substances Gallasius had before Pearson observ'd the same thing in Annotat. in lib. 1. Irenaei for he recites the Words of Tertullian Ptolomy says that Father follow'd Valentin's Doctrine only he made Personal Substances subsisting distinctly from God of what Valentin had consider'd only as Affections and Ideas internal and intimate to the Godhead Irenaeus also informs us that by these Aeons Valentin understood only certain Dispositions and Powers of the most High God Summi Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum quasdam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he clearly explains in his L. 1. c. 6. where he relates the System of the discreet Valentinians When say they the Supreme God would produce any thing he was in that respect call'd Father but because his Productions are true he was at the same time called the Truth and then when he would produce and manifest himself he was called the Mun. The Man by speaking begat the Word which is the first-born Son All which shews that Allegory being undetermin'd every one took it the way which best pleas'd him But however it appears that they all agree that these Aeons are nothing else but God's several Affections or Dispensations What 's peculiar in this last Hypothesis is that Man which signifies God manifesting himself utters the Word his First-born Which yet has a good Sense according to Mark the Valentinian who in Chap. 10. of the same Book says That God to give a visible Form to the invisible Grandures which are in him utter'd his Word like himself Understanding by the Word only the visible Form which God takes to manifest himself in So our Quakers understand no more by the Word than the Goodness of the Supreme God manifesting himself to Men. This was the Opinion of the Sabellians who by the Christ did not any way understand a Man but only Divine Clemency and Heavenly Aid manifesting it self to Men in the Work of Redemption It may perhaps also have been the Opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus who as we have already seen calls the Word the most manifest Goodness of God That of Origen and of many other Allegorists does not at all differ from it since they did not so much believe in the Son of Mary as in their Theologiz'd Son as they speak much slighting Faith and the sensible Gospel as we shall shew hereafter and valuing only Contemplation This Platonick Fanaticism has Cerinthus for its Author who carefully distinguish'd Jesus the Son of Mary from this Christ or this Celestial Aid which came to enlighten and guide Men and it is now adopted by Father Malebranche Dr. More and Mr. Norris This last is a right Platonick Fanatick who has brought disorder and confusion into both the Speculative part of Religion and the Duties of Christian Piety His several Treatises of Doctrine and of Morality shew that the Dreams of a contemplative Man are capable of converting the most sensible Lights of Reason and Revelation into Smoak Can we forbear judging of what he has written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato as we judg of what he has written concerning the Love of God which he makes to consist in such refin'd Contemplations and Enthusiasms as render Gospel-Morality tho of it self so plain and natural wholly impracticable Fanaticism all over And if we see it in the Morality of these Visionaries why do we not perceive that their strain'd Platonism is no less the fruit of Mystical Theology The Fathers were right Quakers in their System of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if we will not be Quakers in point of Morality let us keep close to our Principles and neither be so in the Doctrine of the Word and such other speculative Points as have been render'd incomprehensible by too much refining of them If I may say what I think this Gallimaufry about the Divine Word which is defin'd see the Treatise intitul'd Reason and Religion An intelligible World Archetype and Ideal or even the Essence of God as far as it is variously imitable variously exhibitive and representative of all things which exist This Cant I say is suspected by me and I am tempted to believe that under these specious Names nothing more is given us than a fair System of my Understanding with its Reason and Ideas or to speak better its universal and unchangeable Natures which the Philosophers call'd the Reality and Truth of things and whereof they made even the Essence of God Yea I dare venture to say that 't is Deism or Atheism disguis'd The Accusation is heinous and requires Proofs of the utmost evidence Well and we shall produce them Read and weigh these Words ubi supra p. 209. that Author says The Idea of a Triangle has a determinate and immutable Nature such as it is not in my power to make the least alteration in which is a certain Proof that it is not of my making for then it would be arbitrary and I might change it as I pleas'd but that it is an absolute Nature distinct from and independant of my Understanding And to say the truth it is nothing else than the Essence of God himself modify'd and as it is exhibitive and imitable
a Million Dr. Bull himself owns some of them concerning the Holy Ghost how many would there be if we should collect those which they have misapply'd concerning the Word But what do I say That bad Interpreters may nevertheless be good Witnesses of the Faith of their Age Mons le Vassor in his Traité de l'Examen ch 1. p. 10. is not so ready to grant it he denys and I believe he 's in the right That any Advantage can be had from the Testimony of the Antients towards the Decision of the Points now controverted because of the Confusion which arose from their Philosophy Origen and St. Augustin says he have so perplex'd Theology one in the Eastern and the other in the Western Churches where they both had their Disciples and Admirers by endeavouring to adjust Christianity to Philosophy that we meet with a thousand Difficulties in determining what those two Authors and those who have follow'd their Steps really thought on several important points of Religion They give nothing but Allegorical Senses to the Texts of the Holy Scripture their Explications appear so very far distant from what the Sacred Writers meant that one knows not where to begin to disintangle the true Doctrine of the Apostles from the particular Speculations of the greatest part of those to whom we are sent as to irreproachable Witnesses of what was believ'd in their time If it be so I don't see that Justin and Irenaeus can be better Interpreters of the Scripture than Origen and St. Augustin they were not less corrupted by Philosophy nor less confus'd and perplex'd and consequently they cannot be good Witnesses of what was believ'd in their Time For how is it possible to distinguish the sound Doctrine of the Apostles in their Writings from their Platonick Speculations Let us therefore without hesitation rank all these fine contemplative Men as well Antient as Modern in the order of the Gnosticks and return to treat of them Lastly Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 5. p. 587. Edit Lutet 1629. explaining that Text of St. John The only Son who is in the Bosom of the Father gives us plainly to understand what was the Language of the Valentinians St. John says he having called the invisible and unspeakable Excellencies of the Godhead the Bosom of the Father some have thence taken occasion to name him the Profound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as containing all things in his Bosom and being impenetrable and infinite Novatian reciting the same Text de Trinit c. 26. quotes it twice in the same Chapter thus The Son hath revealed the Bosom of the Father to us Tertullian adv Prax. c. 8. did the same that is in the Valentinian manner That the Son hath revealed to us the impenetrable Depths of the Father Read the 51st Heresy of Epiphanius in the 22d and 28th Chapters where may be distinctly seen that Valentin's Fable of the thirty Aeons was allegorically taken from the Scriptures Some may perhaps wonder that they so dispos'd their Deitys by Couples They therein imitated the Heathens who attributed both Sexes to each of their false Gods Rep. des Lett. Tom. 1. p. 84. But however that be it ought not to seem strange to those who know that they allegoriz'd Sinesius tho a Christian and a Bishop made no scruple to call God Male and Female Hymno 2. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tu Mas tu Femina an Opinion so much blam'd by Lactantius in Orpheus l. 4. c. 8. He calls him also That which brings forth and which is brought forth the Father of himself Son of himself and to conclude Father of the Aeons Valentin himself would not have said more His fourth Hymn is diverting He there sets the whole Trinity to work on the Begetting of the Son particularly the Holy Ghost whom he brings in as a mediating Power to be assistant to the Father and the Son For after having said to the latter I praise you with the Father and with you I praise that other Fruit which the Father could not hinder himself from putting forth when he intended to produce you He speaks to the Holy Ghost thus It is of you I speak secund Wisdom mediating Principal holy Respiration Center of the Father and also Center of the Son you may be called altogether Mother Sister and Daughter you came to the assistance of the Father who could not beget his Son without you obstetricata es abditam radicem For the Father designing to pour himself into the Son that pouring was the Bud of a Third who was a Medium between the Father and the Son You see Poets are not very scrupulous neither were their Imitators the Valentinians any more so than they Synesius was not without Company in expressing himself like the Valentinians If his Hymns are full of these Cabalistick Terms the Profound the Silence the Ineffable c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we find also the same Cant in many other Platonick Fathers Do they speak of the incomprehensible Nature of God you presently see the Profundity and the Silence Are they to say how God passed from that State of Silence to a State of Revelation You shall there see every where this inseparable Pair of Aeons the Internal Word and the Vttered-Word Clemens and Origen expresly distinguish the Word-God from another Word which was made Flesh In short nothing so much resembles the Gnoslick Heresy as Tertullian's two Gods the Rationalis and the Sermonalis the Rational God and the senerous and speaking God One may also range in the same Category the Verbum silens and the Verbum sonans of Marius Victorinus And many other chimerical Ideas of the Antients which tho they would be tolerable in a figurative and allegorical Stile yet become insupportable and worse than Valentine's Aeons by being personaliz'd and made Spirits distinct from the supreme God This is the Case Some Philosophers in endeavouring to avoid the Opinions of the Ebionites thereby fell into so ridiculous an extreme as to reject the God and the Messiah of the Jews They spake ill of the God who had given the Law and pretended Irenaeus l. 1. c. 25. that the Christ was the Son of another superiour God and therefore apply'd themselves to sublime Generations of the Substance of the most High God and to other such extravagant Conceits which the Orthodox greedily embracing out of hatred of the Jews and of Judaizing Hereticks at first they were only mystical senses to set off the Glory of Jesus Christ but afterwards these metaphorical Generations degenerated to real Generations and what had at first been conceiv'd only as Operations and Powers was converted into Hypostases and Personal Substances To conclude as I make no difference between the Jewish Cabals and the Valentinian Pleroma these two Systems are either equally ridiculous if examined according to the strict literal sense or equally rational if you seek in them the concealed sense which lies under the Bark of Allegory For 't was indeed
denied when it is only their irresistible Grace that is rejected which they have been pleas'd to conceit as such Sandius who maintain'd a Word brought forth and stood for the Hypostases yet owns Nucl Hist Eccl. lib. 1. that Marcellus Photinus Sabellius Paul of Samosata and even Ebion who believ'd only an Hypostasis of the Father held notwithstanding that in that Hypostasis alone there were two Energies or Divine Operations to wit the Word and the Holy Spirit and that by these two Operations God created the World and manifested himself in J. C. Petavius acknowledges the same De Trinit lib. 1. c. 13. as to Paul of Samosata and Marcellus Dr. Pearson agrees with him That the last Vind. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 3. believ'd an existent Word in the Hypostasis of the Father and which came forth thence as a single Operation to create the Universe Dr. Bull Judic Eccles c. p. 67. recounting the Opinion of Paul of Samosata attributes to him constantly that he believ'd an efficacious Word descended from Heaven on J. C. And by the Word saith he Paul did not intend that Hypostasis which we call the Son of God but a Power and a Divine Virtue which form'd him in the Virgin and which was closely united to him to work the Miracles he did Neither can it be denied that this was the Opinion of Beryllus Those Expressions of Eusebius that have given so much trouble to the Learned are not difficult to be understood provided you supply them with some Particle and add a word or two as you must sometimes in all other Authors In my opinion Eusebius intends nothing else Lib. 6. c. 33. but that this Bishop maintain'd that the Man J. C. did not pre-exist in another Essence or another Nature that was proper to him before he liv'd among Men And consequently that the Deity which dwelt since he liv'd among Men was not an Hypostasis of his own but the Divinity and Virtue of the Father This is a right Notion the Word is nothing else but a Divine Power distinct from the Son and a Heavenly Wisdom descended on J. C. Beryilus Paul and Marcellus had it perhaps from Ignatius who calls J. C. Epist ad Magnes The Eternal Word that came not forth out of silence i. e. that he was not a Word brought forth and be otten with its proper Hypostasis but the Operation and the essential Virtue of God manifesting himself outwardly For I frankly agree that this Passage of Ignatius which hath given so much trouble to the Abettors of his Epistles is not intended against Valentine but I say it attacks those Platonick Doctors who asserted a Generation of the Word a little before the Beginning of the World and who believ'd that it was brought forth and consequently proceeded out of Silence This was the Opinion of Tertullian and many of the Fathers who preceded him that the Word that was brought forth which they believ'd to be the only that was begotten and the only one that might be call'd the Son did come forth in time of another mute Word which they call'd Reason or Wisdom eternal Tertullian teacheth us positively adv Prax. that before the Word that was brought forth came out of the Wisdom or the Divine Reason God had it in himself in his Thought as a silent Word habebat intra semetipsum tacitè cogitando You cannot express more clearly that the Word brought forth came out of Silence This Opinion no doubt began to glide in at the time of Ignatius who laughs at it and refutes it rejecting this Word brought forth and proceeding out of Silence which receiv'd its Hypostasis a little before the Creation as being a Word merely Flatonick and he admits no other Word to be real but that essential Virtue which was eternally in God which is God himself which created the World and was as it were incorporated in J. C. And this Ignatius's way of speaking that J. C. is the eternal Word is grounded on the Words of St. John that the Word was made Flesh that is to say that the same Virtue which created the World is become the proper Virtue of J. C. in such a manner that you may say rightly that J. C. made the Ages by his Power and consequently by himself for that which is done by my Power is done by my self When therefore the Apostles say that all things â—ere made by J. C. or by the Son their meaning is no other but that they were made by the immense Power of the Father which was in J.C. he becoming that Power that Spirit that Wisdom of the Father because all the Miracles effected by that Power are said to be done by J. C. in whom it resided In this sense Simon Magus call'd himself the great Power of God and boasted that he had made the Ages not that he believ'd himself as the Antients would have it to be a Divine Hypostasis sometimes the Father sometimes the Son and sometimes the Holy Ghost He was not so extravagant but only aping J. C design'd to say that the Divine Power which actuated him was the Power of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost the same Power that created the World J. C. is in the same sense call'd the Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 We may enforce the Explication we have given of Ignatius his Words by the manner how Irenaeus disputes against the Valentinians Lib. 2. c. 47. seq It is true saith he that in regard to Man he is sometimes silent sometimes speaks sometimes he takes his rest and sometimes acts But it is not so with God who being all Understanding all Reason all Spirit is not liable to such like Changes Meaning that God is always a Reason an internal Word but never a Word brought faith as he explains himself afterwards saying That God being all Reason thinking in him is speaking and speaking nothing else but thinking For his Thought is his Speech and his Speech is his Vnderstanding and this Vnderstanding which comprehends all things is the Father himself Further to make us the better comprehend that he speaks thus against the Word brought forth or begotten he accosts the Valentinians with this smart Raillery The Valentinians saith he speak of the bringing forth and Generation of the Son as if they had assisted the Father at his Birth I shall leave you to consider whether this Raillery spares our Scholasticks He that would be at the pains about it needs only make a Parallel of their System concerning the Generation of the Son with that of the Valentinians and he might soon see whether those Hereticks only were ridiculous herein CHAP. XII Plato speaks but aenigmatically His Word is not that of St. John Several Systems of the Platonists explain'd I Could produce many more Platonists but to be brief I come now to Plato himself See then what Clement of Alexandria saith of him Strom. lib. 5. p. 592. of the Paris Edition When Plato saith that it
it saith the same in the same words of the New All the Encomiums it gives to the Law are applied more truly to the Gospel and lastly it saith nothing of God the Father which it doth not accommodate to J. C. his Son who is the Vicarius of the Father as Tertullian calls him and who saith he makes us to hear the Father in his Words and makes us see him in his Actions By this Rule you get the Key to all the Passages that seem to give the Son the same Names Prerogatives and the same Properties that God the Father hath it is because J. C. being the Vicarius of God both the Words and Actions of the Father are attributed to him by the virtue and upon the account of the Reprejentation if I may thus express my self For it is not as I judg by a mere Accommodation but by a Subordination Whatever is said of the Father in an exact and rigid Sense may also be said of the Son as of a Minister and Ambassador that represents God or to speak better that executes in a visible manner what the Invisible Father had already promis'd should be done Now lest any one should wrangle about this Title of Ambassador I shall say more namely that there is more than a Subordination because we see in J. C. not only the Character of an Envoy but likewise an Abode and an immediate Presence of the Father's Person He that receives a Prophet receives him who sends the Prophet therefore when J. C. came vested with the Authority of the Father to accomplish what God had promis'd should be perform'd by the hands of the Messiah God himself came in his Person and we have receiv'd him in the Person of Christ Hence it comes to pass that J. C. is adorn'd with all the Characters of Glory and Power which God attributes to himself when he promiseth that signal Deliverance by the Prophets which he design'd to perform one day for the good of his Church For this reason J. C. is call'd Emmanuel God with us which is a Symbolical Name by which the Scripture denotes the extraordinary Presence of God in the Messiah and teaches us that it is not so much the Man but that it is the Sovereign and Inviable God that acts I speak not of my self I speak only the things my Father taught me I do nothing of my self but the Father that dwelleth in me he doth the Works These in one word are the constant Expressions of J. C. he refers all the Authority of his Doctrine and all the Glory of his Miracles to the Father dwelling in him This the Jews call'd Shekinah the Habitation of God Here is more than the Abode of God in the midst of his People of old this is a more sensible and magnificent Presence and to say all 't is God's dwelling in the Messiah for God was with him saith the Apostle You have need only of this Reflection to foil the strongest Objection of the Trinitarians They say that the New Testament attributes constantly the same Properties and the same Perfections to the Son and to the Holy Ghost which the whole Scripture attributes to God the Father Granted What follows then Necessarily one of these two things Either you prove by it that there are three Gods all which have the same Properties and equal Perfections which is contradictory and disown'd even by those that make this Objection or you must acknowledg with us that the Perfections of the Son are nothing else but the Perfections of the Father dwelling in him and communicating himself to him And the Holy Ghost is likewise only the Virtue and Power of God It is objected against this Doctrine I am now establishing that it is not customary to call the Ambassador by the Name of the King that sends him I will not enter now upon the Particulars of this Controversy nor even examine the History of the Centurion related by St. Matthew Chap. 8. and by St. Luke Chap. 7. which alone were sufficient to decide it It will be enough for me to remark at present that tho this Custom were not us'd by Men in their Transactions yet it is incontestably so in God's Method Drusius De Nomin Tetragram in Epist ad Conrad Vorstium grants that it may be said the King doth what the Ambassador transacts in his Name but he denies at the same time that you may give to the Envoy the Name of the King that sends him And thereupon he will not receive without some alloy that Rule of the Hebrews That the Angel bears the Name of God who sends him But with all the respect I owe this Great Man I affirm that this Rule of the Hebrews is well grounded it being taken from the Scripture it self where God declares that he will put his Name on the Angel whom he design'd to send It is no matter then whether this be the Custom of Kings or no seeing it is clear by this Place that it is the Custom of God to give his Name to his Envoys at least on some occasions and in extraordinary Cases And this Name that I may take notice of it by the by doth not denote only that they may call themselves the Lord the Jehova but indeed they have all the Glory the whole Authority and all the Power yet not absolutely but only in reference to that Commission they are then honoured withal that is to say they appear with as much Majesty they act with as much Authority and Power as God would in the like case were he pleas'd to act without a Medium and by himself alone And this is a great reason why God should act thus for seeing he could not manifest himself if the Angels by whom he was manifested had never taken his Name upon them it would have come to pass that the Jews having the knowledg only of Angels would have totally forgotten God whereas the Angels by taking the Name of God upon them on some extraordinary occasions put that People from time to time in mind of him by the Idea of his Presence After all seeing God is invisible by his Nature and cannot manifest himself by himself it follows then that every time he manifests himself by an Angel this Manifestation will not be regarded as an Appearance of an Angel but as that of God himself whom that Angel represents and consequently it is not so much the Angel that bears the Name of Jehova and is ador'd by Men but God himself that Angel being his Person and Presence This will be clear if you regard these three Rules 1. That according to the Oriental Idiom the Envoys make their Masters speak always directly as for example instead of saying The Lord saith he is the Jehova they speak thus The Lord saith I am the Jehova 2. They suppress often these Expressions The Lord saith and speak absolutely without making use of that Preface I am the Jehova 3. That you ought to supply those Words and
Mr. How Amongst the Nominal the Bishop of Salisbury is of one Opinion Dr. Wallis of another Dr. South differs from them both Range them by Hundreds there will not be one that will keep to the precise Point that forms this Chimerical Orthodoxy which is boasted of by every one but attained to by none for they treat one another as Hereticks Here is a large Field for you to scour about and raise a thousand nice Questions in which the most acute can't perceive and to find Heresies in those that have had the Misfortune to displease you Must an overgrown Bishop be depos'd whose See lies convenient for me or a Competitor stopt in his Career I have no more to do but only examine them about these two Points in question if they have not found the indivisible Point precisely and who can do it They are undone I will prove demonstratively that their Opinion is Heretical Impious and Blasphemous I shall call both the East and West to my Aid and what is more I shall have the Pleasure to see three or four hundred Bishops assembled in a General Council who shall unanimously vote for me for the accused is always in the wrong the Thunderbolts and Anathemas shall follow Thus the whole World will be in a Flame for a Trifle Alas the Memory of such a Number of vain Disputes between Nestorius and Eutyches cannot be renewed without making the Christian World to blush But whoever could give us the secret History of all the antient Councils like to that of the Council of Trent would certainly infinitely oblige the Christian World But lastly perhaps the Defender did not perceive my having answer'd his trifling Difficulty before hand let us then make him sensible of it Let us examine the Relish of the Antients and see what Books they have preserved for us what Character they bear and of what Stamp they are I told you already that they have not left us any Father of the Christians of the Circumcision but only some Gentiles brought up in the School of Plato We have indeed a Justin Athenagoras Theophilus Tatian Irenaeus Clement of Alexand Origen Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and some others of the same sort Fathers indeed who breathe nothing but Platonism This is the precious Relick Antiquity has left us It is easy then to draw the consequence What Books hath it destroyed All those that shocked Plato that spake not as Plato We do the Defender Justice if from the Books that Antiquity chose we point out those it rejected He hath then lost his Cause for the Collection we have could not be such by Chance the Caprice of the Times or such like Accidents No it is too uniform Choice presided here at least as to the Character of these Books but Time and the Fate of Libraries may have had a share in the rest I return to my Subject and must observe here that if the Allegories of Barnabas are very evident because they are so frequent and characteriz'd by the Terms of Spirit and Figure which he makes use of to denote them to be so yet this happens not always The Fathers speak them out often so absolutely that it is only the Matter it self that can make us discern them Thus the Allegories of Origen have often deceived his Readers For this Father as Mr. Huet observes it Origen Quaest 14. passing often from the Explication of the Letter to a Spiritual Sense imperceptibly his Readers took his Allegories for Dogmatical Assertions What he hath said of Origen may be applied to all the rest of the Fathers Irenaeus for example Lib. 4. cap. 37. speaks out in downright Terms without any hint of a Figure an Allegory he made upon the Spies sent by Joshua to Jericho Rahab the Harlot saith he in receiving the Spies conceal'd in her House the Father Son and Holy Ghost Who would not believe if you take this literally as the Trinitarians are wont but that these Spies were actually the Father Son and Holy Ghost in a human Shape there being nothing in the Words here to hint the Adaptation and Allegory Really if Irenaeus had said as he might very well at this rate that Abraham receiving the Angels that went to destroy Sodom gave a Dinner to the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Mystery would certainly have been found in these Words pretending that Abraham did entertain these three Persons of the Deity who appeared to him in the Form of three Angels or three Men What difference is there I pray between this way of speaking we now suppose and what Irenaeus really made use of None and you must grant that if you think you have good ground from such like Expressions to make a supreme God in three Persons of the three Angels you may likewise conclude the Spies of Jericho to have been the Father Son and Holy Ghost really and literally so For whatever may be said to the contrary it is as impossible that Angels should be God as for the Spies to be so Surely the Repugnancy in the Nature of the things themselves which Authors compare mutually ought always to determine us to look for a figurative and allegoric sense there especially when it appears to us that these Allegories are agreeable to the Genius and Custom of those Authors or at least of their Predecessors and Masters it being certain that tho the Disciples often alter the Method of their Masters yet there will still remain some Footsteps of the antient Doctrine betraying and discovering their Innovations This is the Lot of the Platonic Fathers as we shall show hereafter For the present the Example of Irenaeus is sufficient to inform us that according to the same way of speaking which calls the Spies the Father Son and Holy Ghost we may also say that J. C. was the Word which created the World and the Angel that appeared to the Patriarchs See what Annotator Feuerdentius saith on this Passage of Irenaeus An old Copy adds the Word Three to the Spies which would agree very well with the three Divine Hypostases had not the Scripture assured us that there were but Two and not Three Justin hath also much the same Allegory in his Dialogue It is likely that Irenaeus carried on his Allegory but to the Father and Son in relation to the two Spies but for fear the Holy Ghost should be thereby excluded some Knave put him in too and then the Word Three must be added to the Spies that so all might be adjusted to the three Divine Persons Thus various Readings proceed from the Boldness of the Orthodox but howeven it be you see the Allegory either reject it in this Place or acknowledg it every where else where there is the like necessity for it As the Father Son and Holy Ghost were allegorically in the Spies of Jericho in like manner J. C. was allegorically in all the Dispensations of old in the Word that created the World in the Angels and the Prophets that spake to
Men because if I may say so these Dispensations were the Figures of the great Oeconomy of J. C. or rather of God the Father manifesting himself in the Flesh of his Son Therefore Irenaeus calls it the Dispensation which was from the Beginning You may see what Vossius saith in his Notes concerning these Allegories of Barnabas and the other Fathers It is known by all saith he how these first Christians interpreted the Scriptures after a mystic and superstitious manner I was like to say childish and foolish Cotelier saith almost the same and shews their Absurdities But take this along with you that these dull Allegories did not by far so much Mischief as that Christianity in Masquerade which some other Fathers borrowed from Plato It is of these you may more justly say than of the Allegorists according to one of our Criticks that the Day these good Fathers were writing so many philosophic Visions they voided a Purge Purgamentum aliquod cacasse Let us now come to Hermas who is as well stored with Visions and Parables as Barnabas At least his Method is the same In his Parable or Similitude the 9th § 12. he saith That the Rock is the Son of God now the Rock is of old because the Son of God is more antient than any Creature inasmuch as he assisted in the Council of his Father in order to form the Creature All this is said in a mystic and an allegoric sense to explain that the Father did all in regard to his Son and the new Creation The Author having said as much in his first Vision § 4. concerning the Church for asking of the Angel Why the Church of God is an old Woman the Angel answers because she was the first thing that was created and that it was by reason of her the World was made It is likely in the Greek it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translator rendered not per illam but propter illam You see then that this Father saith no more of J. C. than he doth of the Church and that these Words antiquior omni Creatura mean the same thing with anus prima omnium creata which are true only in a mystic sense but false in the Letter Consequently then J. C. is from the Beginning in the same sense that the Church is so I mean in the Decree and Design of God which the Author expresseth by his being in the Council of the Father which he borrowed manifestly from the Author of the Book of Wisdom I shall now produce a remarkable Instance of the Alteration that ensued as to the Tenent it self notwithstanding the Terms remained the same You see that Hermas saith here the Son of God is more antient than any Creature and that he speaks so allegorically Let us get over one Age or two and you shall see Origen making use of the same Expression but in an Arian sense The Holy Scriptures saith he Lib. 5. contra Cels discover the Son of God to us as the most antient of all the Creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means that he was created a little before the World but let us return to our Subject Justin Martyr who first taught the Pre-existence of the Word imitating the Notion of Hermas did teach the Pre-existence of Christians no less than that of Christ himself whilst Apol. 2. he saith That all those who were Partakers of the Word or Reason as well Greeks as Barbarians were Christians and consequently Christians did not commence yesterday or to day but were always and every where a principio saith he from the beginning attributing to them the very Prerogative of the Word it self These good Men turn'd themselves every way to ward off the Reâ—roach of Novelty wherewith Christianity was charged In like manner Eusehius endeavouring to prove that the Christian Religion was not new maintains that the Patriarchs profest it and that it was instituted from the beginning Hist Eccles Lib. c. 4. Thus much he cannot advance but in a mystic sense as he observes it himself because all those who acted justly and served that God who is above all were Christians Consequently then Christ could not converse otherwise with them but in the same manner as they professed Christianity which cannot be true but by way of Analogy and Accommodation Christ then pre-existed as the Christian Religion and Christians did pre-exist Let us return to Hermas It is manifest that he allegoriz'd even by his entituling his third Book where he speaks of the Pre-existence of J. C. Similitudes or Parables which carry on throughout spiritual and mystic senses as is evident by Similitude 5. where he explains the Parable of the Father of a Family in a theological manner in relation to the Father the Holy Ghost and the Son The Father in the Plan of his Allegory is the Landlord the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Houshold and he who out of Allegory is called the Son is but a Servant in the Allegory The Landlord saith he is the same who created all things the Son is the Holy Ghost and the Son of God is the Servant He goes on and adds a little after The Holy Ghost insinuated himself into the Body wherein God was to dwell and this Body whereinto the Holy Ghost did insinuate himself having served the Holy Ghost and having been faithful to him always did obtain the Approbation of God by his Labours and Obedience By the Holy Ghost cannot be meant here the second Person which is called the Divine Nature of J. C. as Dr. Bull pretends for who sees not that Hermas speaks here of that Spirit of Sanctification which prepared the Body of J. C. for Prophecy and consecrated it for a Temple for God to dwell in And seeing this Idea of the Holy Spirit 's being infus'd into the Body of J. C. is so conformable to what the Holy Scriptures deliver concerning it you must be very extravagant if you think that Hermas differed from it Besides what could he mean if his sense were the same with that Dr. Bull attributes to him Would he introduce two Sons of God so opposite one to the other The one who serves and obeys and the other who is served and obeyed and what is yet more strange two Sons of God in the self-same Person of J. C. our Lord. The Son saith Hermas is the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is the Servant Now if the Divine Nature of J. C. be denoted by the Spirit and that the Servant signifies the Human Nature you will have two Sons according to the very Letter Thus the Orthodox embroil all things to fish for Mysteries in Troubled Water whereas nothing is more clear than the meaning of Hermas He allegorizeth and would say By him whom the Parable calls the Son I mean nothing else but the Holy Spirit and by him whom the Parable calls a Servant I mean J. C. our Lord who out of the Parable is the proper Son of
in the 33d and 45th Psalms which they made use of to prove that the term Word had no other Signification than that of Prolation properly so called For he supposes that these Words My Heart hath utter'd a good Word do not signify such a Prolation a proper and literal Generation but a metaphorical Prolation and that from this reason that the word Heart in this Text being figurative the term Word must also be figurative And that we may the better apprehend how far Origen carrys the Figure of this Word the other Text which he quotes from the Psalms so fully clears the matter as to leave no room for cavilling The Valentinians says he believe that these Words The Heavens were created by the Word of God and by the Spirit of his Mouth were said of our Saviour and of the Holy Ghost tho it be certain that one may give them this other Sense That the Heavens were establish'd by Divine Reason and Wisdom ratione Dei as we say that a House was built by that Skill which is the Art of building Houses I leave the Reader to judg whether an Vnitarian could more plainly remove all the Idea of Hypostasis from our Minds Therefore when the same Origen does elsewhere argue concerning the Word as if he himself believ'd it an Hypostasis his so speaking was according to the Principles of the Greek Philosophy For as Porphyry rightly observes Origen having continually apply'd himself to reading the Writings of the Platonists and the Pythagoreans and having therein learnt the allegorical way of those Philosophers expounding the Mysteries of the Greeks made use of it himself in his Interpretation of the Scriptures apud Euseb l. 6. c. 19. See likewise Bibl. univ T. 6. p. 50. That declared Enemy of the Christian Religion is not the only Person who has given that judgment of Origen Mr. Huet does not treat him more favourably in his Origeniana l. 2. c. 2. Origen says he was one of Plato's greatest Admirers insomuch that instead of suting the Platonick Tenents to the Christian Doctrine he regulated the Doctrine of Christianity by the Dogma of the Platonists And a little lower he adds That Origen had been carry'd to those Excesses by the example of his Preceptor Clemens Alexand. who us'd to embelish the Religion of Jesus Christ with the Academick Paint Can any one think that Justin did not discourse by the Principles of this Allegorical Philosophy when in his second Apology he calls the Reason which is in Man a Part and Seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Word The Divine Word is in his sense only that universal Reason that Source and Fulness of Wisdom-which resides in the Divine Understanding whereof ours is a Stream and a part Is our Reason an Hypostasis distinct from Man How shall we then imagine that this Father ever intended to say that Divine Reason is an Hypostasis distinct from God I may very well say that my Reason has taught me such a thing and that I consulted my Reason without supposing my Reason to be any other Person than my self Then why may we not say God made use of his Reason to create this Universe that his Reason was his Counsellor and his Minister without making a second Person of his Reason Certainly my Reason cannot be personalized any otherwise than by the Power of Allegory neither can that of God be any otherwise Nay it may be that Justin strain'd his Allegory yet farther and that he intended to say that Reason or the universal Seed is no other than the Gospel which is not a part of the Seed as the Precepts of Reason which enlighten'd the Philosophers are but the fulness of that incorruptible Seed which regenerates the Heart I will produce another Example of this allegorical way of interpreting the Scripture St. Cyprian explaining that famous Passage of St. John 1 Ep. 5.8 concerning the three Witnesses on Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood has spoken of them as of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which are the three Witnesses in Heaven now found in our Bibles but were not there in the days of that Father Some as Fulgentius having confounded St. Cyprian's Discourse with the Sacred Text did not doubt but that Holy Martyr had spoken literally and as words of the Scripture what he said only in Allegory not observing that what he asserted of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a spiritual Sense which he had drawn from the Three Witnesses on Earth as if the Spirit were the Father the Blood the Son and the Water the Holy Ghost But Facundus did not suffer himself to be at all deceiv'd by it for he informs us Defens Trinit Capit. l. 1. c. 3. That St. Cyprian will have that to be understood of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which St. John said of the Spirit Water and Blood which can be only an allegorical Interpretation And that Allegory was followed by St. Augustin contra Maxim lib. 3. c. 12. where he expresly says That the Spirit the Water and the Blood are the Sacrament of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost What 's the meaning of the Sacrament if it be not the Mystery and Allegory Now I pray who can warrant me that the Fathers who so strained the Allegory on the three Witnesses on Earth to find the Trinity therein have not also strained it on the Word of St. John to find in it their Favourite Doctrine Plato's second God If they misapplyed these Words My Heart hath uttered a Good Word and these I have begotten thee in my Bosom before Aurora how can I be assur'd that they have not deceived me or that their Infatuation for Plato has not deceived themselves when they Platonically interpret those other Places where it is said That the Word was God and that the Word was made Flesh However that be it must be granted me That the Fathers made no difficulty of seeking sublime senses in the Scriptures and of raising themselves up very high above its plain and natural meaning That appears by the use St. Cyprian and St. Augustin made of the Epistle General of St. John Now the same Fathers having expressed their Allegories in too absolute Terms without characterizing them by some Mark whereby they might be distinguished from a proper and literal sense it has in succeeding time happened that the literal sense of what they said has been followed We have seen it in the Example of St. Cyprian that Father expressing himself absolutely It is written says he of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And these three are one Now that was written only of the Spirit the Water and the Blood Then the Allegorical Exposition has been taken for an express Text of Scripture I strongly suspect that the same thing has happen'd to that noted Text of St. Paul 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 16. The Mystery of Godliness is great God manifested in the Flesh
their profound Speculations For to theologize according to them is not only to speak of God and his Attributes but of Angels too of Aeons of Ideas of Emanations and in a word of every thing that belongs to the intelligible World of the Platonists Theology being a Term affected by all the contemplative Gentlemen whether Orthodox or Gnosticks These sort of Folks did not regard the Facts of the Gospel which prove its Divine Authority any otherwise than as grosser Proofs proper for vulgar weaker Minds But for Contemplation the Case was quite otherwise this they thought a noble and powerful Medium by which Souls of the first Rank elevated themselves to the Knowledg of the noblest Truths Yet the Gospel is not founded upon any thing but Facts and the chief Objects of our Faith are certain Facts contained in the Apostles Creed Is it not therefore a putting the Gospel upon another Foot if we carry on our Contemplations to Abstractions and the Ideas of a crude chimerical Metaphysicks 'T is an extravagant System if instead of Facts well proved and rightly circumstanced there be nothing left but a mere Operation of the Understanding and an Ens Rationis which these Gentlemen are pleas'd to call the Word or the Son theologized That great Man Mons Jurieu whom God was pleased to favour with the knowledg of every thing did not fail to set aside this false Theology of the Fathers 7 Ler. Past de la 3. Année Besides the Faith of the Vulgar says he which was immediately founded upon the Sacred Writings the Doctors fram'd a Theology that is they undertook to expound the Mysteries in a sense beyond that wherein the Holy Scriptures themselves have delivered them And 't is in that they have disagreed and one must not wonder at it because the things they went about to explain were profound and it may be inexplicable and because they made use of a false Philosophy which they brought into their Theology And by so doing they have ruined Theology and at last Religion in all Ages The Faith of the Antients therefore must not be condemned as if it were changed altho they disagreed in their Theology And it must be noted that this Theology should not be admitted into the Faith that is Articles of Faith should not be formed out of Theological Expositions Is not this much for the Honour of the Theology of the Antients According to Mons Jurieu these good Doctors could not theologize the Son without hazarding the Faith and consequently one ought not to receive amongst the Articles of Faith their theological Explications concerning a Son begotten and not made an Internal Word and a Word brought forth c. Nevertheless it 's well known that the Fathers consider'd the theological Sense not only as true but as that which the Spirit of God had chiefly in its view So that they who would impose the Faith of the theological Sense of the Word because the Fathers urg'd it are themselves obliged to receive all the other theological Senses which the same Fathers have given to so many other Terms in Scripture and which they believe to be no less the Purport and Design of the Holy Ghost which yet is not done but they are looked upon even as ridiculous Why therefore is it not acknowledged bona Fide also that the Exposition of the Logos or Word is one of those wretched Allegories so much declaimed against at that day and an Article of that false Theology which is incompatible with the Christian Faith But let us pay as much respect to the Fathers as we can let us preserve their Theology be it so provided that the theological Sense be not said to be designed for any other than contemplative and seraphic Minds and that no more than the Faith or Belief of the plain natural sense be requir'd of Men as Men Origen was too fair to desire more than this he acquaints his Readers at the beginning of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Sacred Writers did not concern themselves with abstruse Matters and speculative Subjects which few of them whom they called to the Christian Religion were capable of understanding but confined themselves to those few clear Articles which were necessary for the Reformation of the World to bring them into a State of Righteousness and give them hopes of Immortality Leaving the more refined Contemplations which were not contrary to prime Truths to the commendable Curiosity of those whom Nature and Education had qualify'd for such Enquiries Dr. Rust in his Discourse of Origen and the chief of his Opinions has observed also That there were necessary Truths which the Apostles had clearly taught and the Church received the contrary whereto cannot be received without retrenching an essential part of Religion But that there were besides some Contemplations about which the Scriptures had not determin'd any thing and that the Truth as to these matters was purposely concealed by the Holy Ghost as Origen thought to excite their Study and Industry who were Lovers of the Truth that the Discovery of so great a Treasure might be a Recompence for their pious Enquiries Without doubt all the other Fathers agreed in this very Principle with Origen that the contemplative Subjects were not necessary nor essential to Religion that they did not oblige ordinary Christians and that they were left to the commendable Enquiries of the Curious Servetus who constantly imitates the Fathers agrees in this tho he was in other respects a great Admirer of Platonism and Contemplation The Apostles says he de Trinit lib. 2. p. 50. did not rashly publish this great Mystery of the Incarnation of the Word 't was after several Essays and having fasted and prayed that St. John pronounced these Words In the beginning was the Word c. 'T was sufficient to Salvation to believe that Jesus was the Christ or the Messias the Son of God the Saviour of the World The common People were justified by this Faith alone altho they did not exactly know his Divinity You therefore pious Readers who are not able to comprehend the manner of his Generation nor the whole Fulness of his Divinity always believe that he is the Messias begotten of God and thy Saviour This is the only thing you should believe that you may live by him But let us hear Origen speak for himself 't is in his Preface to St. John that one shall find the famous distinction he makes between the intelligible and the sensible Gospel and how he there divides Christians into two Classes the one of those who are Children in the Faith and are led by the Rudiments of the Gospel and the other of those intelligent and elevated Minds who are capable of understanding the Divinity of the glorified God That Doctor or Teacher says he who is willing to profit all Persons cannot however make the secret and sublime Christianity known to such who can only understand the plain and the revealed Christianity Wherefore
of them being confecrated by the Power of the Word are the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate The Protestant Writers observe from this Passage as Dr. Stilling-fleet for one in the 35 p. of his first Dialogue of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compar'd That Justin really ascribes to the same Logos or Word of God the Body that was in the Womb of the Virgin and that Body which is upon the Altar and that in like manner the Holy Ghost makes the Elements to become the Body and Blood of Christ not by an Hypostatic Union but by Divine Influence and Operation But I must tell you too that the Fathers understood no more than Operation or Influence by the Word or the Spirit which they say did consecrate the Elements and change them into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ So also they meant no more than Influence and not a Person by the Word or the Holy Ghost which formed and sanctified the Body of Jesus Christ in the Womb of the Virgin whereby he was properly the Son of God For why should an Hypostatic Union be rather infer'd from this Passage The Word was made Flesh than from This Bread is my Body Either there is an Hypostatic Union of the Bread and Flesh of Christ or there 's none at all of the Word and Flesh of Christ By the Power of the Word the Bread becomes the Body of Christ by the same Power the Man or the Son of Mary was the Son of God the Case is the same What then is to be done Why Mysteries must be had at any rate and the Machines of Platonism will bring upon the Stage as many as you please of the grossest and most absurd You must abandon your Reason 't is rashness to be inclined to hearken to Reason Let Reason submit herself to Faith and give her alone leave to speak The Papists require us to abandon our Senses but the Trin ns will have us renounce our Reason I am no Christian in the Judgment of the latter if I am not a Brute a Brute did I say if I am not a Block Error is fruitful and leads us into the grossest Absurdities and 't is the System of these Absurdities that is stiled Theology CHAP. XXII Of the True Oeconomy 'T IS certain then that the Antients were unacquainted with good Divinity and knew less of the true Oeconomy They believ'd their Platonism whereof they were mighty fond gave 'em great advantages over the Pagan Philosophers and they us'd it for Reasons of Prudence And as they were for the most part Gentiles by birth they knew not the antient Jewish Oeconomy which would have put 'em in the right way or it may be they were rather inclin'd to pursue their own Bigotries Their Oeconomy is this As in a Family the Father and the Son are but One Lord when the Son rules in the Name and by the Authority of his Father who has transfer'd the Exercise of that Right to him 't is the same thing say they in the Church which is the Family of God The Father and the Son are but One by virtue of that Oeconomy which lodges a Power in the Son's hands to dispose of the Father's Favours and to exercise all Authority 'T is thus Tertullian explains the Oeconomy in his Discourse against Praxeas He shews him that he does not destroy the Notion of a Monarchy or the Government of One over the Universe because the Father may exercise it by the Ministry of his Son or such as he shall think fit to substitute in his room as the Angels his Officers and Commissioners but chiefly because the Son does nothing but at the Will of his Father and with a Power he has receiv'd Which is evident even from this that he shall one day surrender it to his Father as the Apostle tells us and the Son himself shall be subject to him Lactantius pursues exactly the Steps of Tertullian in lib. 4. c. 29. When a Father says he has a Son whom he dearly loves giving him the Title of Lord with Authority if notwithstanding this Son continues in his Father's House under him it may be said however according to the Civil Law that 't is but one House and one Master or Lord. So this World is but one House or Family and the Father and the Son who governs it with the Father's Consent are but One God since that One is as Two and the Two as One. And 't is not to be wonder'd at seeing that the Son is in the Father because the Father loves the Son And the Father is in the Son because the Son obeys faithfully the Father's Will and does nothing but what the Father wills or commands him God therefore as Tertullian shews may communicate his Right to all intelligent Creatures and use in a way of condescension their Ministry to make himself known to his Children For as he is by his Nature incomprehensible his Supreme Majesty being far above all his Creatures he stoops as it were by this Method to their shallow Capacities 'T is thus at other times that he us'd the Ministry of Angels and at that day the Ministry of a Man whom he made his Son and Heir of his House In short this Dispensation by his Son under the New Testament differs not from that of the Angels in the old Administration only in this that the latter was temporary and provisional but that of Christ is perpetual The Angels exercis'd their Oeconomy as Ministers commission'd and delegated Jesus Christ exercises his in the capacity of a Son and Heir who continnes always in the House or Family They who know the antient Oeconomy to be such as St. Paul and St. Stephen have discover'd it to be who acquaint us that 't was Angels or an Angel which gave the Law and said I am the Lord c. I am the God of Abraham c. They I say were in no danger of believing that 't was the Incomprehensible and Invisible God who appear'd to the Jews They were assur'd that it was none other than his Angel his Word his Face or his Person by which he made himself to be seen and understood accommodating himself by this Dispensation to the Weakness of Men who could not see God and live But they who comprehended not this Oeconomy of Goodness and Condescension grosly fancied this Angel to be an uncreated One as they call'd him or the Supreme God himself As if it were not the grossest absurdity to imagine that the Supreme God had put his Name upon the Supreme God If this Angel was really Jehovah by Nature could he receive this Name from another Has he in his Manifestations occasion for another Name and another Authority besides his own The same Mistake has happen'd with regard to the true Oeconomy by Jesus Christ The Mystery and Secret of the Dispensation being not known that Man has been taken for the Supreme God or an uncreated Angel who was born of a
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
Testimony Every one frames for himself an Idea of sound Doctrine according to his particular Judgment of things Supposing therefore that this antient Author believed as the Orthodox Doctrine of his time was that J. C. was not the Son of Joseph and Mary and supposing on the other side there was none other Theology of his Birth than this that he was the Son of God by the Virgin Mary Hegesippus might very well say the Nazarene Bishops were sound in their Doctrine of the Person of J. C. without any ground for concluding thence that they held the Platonic Faith and were of Eusebius his Judgment 'T is enough that they were not engaged in the Error of the Ebionites because they were Orthodox To explain this by an example let 's suppose that Eusebius had said of some Arian Eishop that his Faith was sound as to the Person of J.C. could the Doctor and his Friends thence conclude that this Bishop believed the Consubstantiality and Equality of the Father and the Son By no means All they could hence infer is that the Bishop believed the Platonic Pre-existence which was the true Faith according to Eusebius who believed neither the Consubstantiality nor the Equality c. We ought to reason in the same manner from the Words of Hegâ—sippus who held that for a sound Faith which Eusebius would have called impious if he had known it as the Doctor would that which Eusebius thought sound Who does not know that those very Persons who held the Orthodox Faith of the first Ages I mean that of the miraculous Birth of our Saviour were accounted impious in the time of Eusebius Because they would not receive the Notion of the Platonic Word and the modish Philosophy of an Eternal Generation that was rashly superinduced or brought in the room of a plain Doctrine of a Generation in time of Mary by the Holy Ghost that is of a Woman by the Power of God But from the beginning it was not so they had another Theology for the better Demonstration of which I shall shew in the following Chapter that CHAP. X. The Word and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost according to the sense of the Antients were but one and the same thing I Shall lastly consider that the Word among the Antients and the Holy Ghost in the Evangelists are but one and the same thing and that the Platonizing Writers themselves led by an antient Tradition the Footsteps whereof remain'd a long time have confounded these two Terms having often used 'em in one and the same Signification An evident Proof that the Philosophy of the Platonic Word owes its Birth to Allegories made upon that Divine Power which overshadowed the Blessed Virgin which Power may be indifferently call'd the Holy Ghost or the Word But as the latter Term is more agreeable to the Doctrine of Plato so 't is more frequently used So that at last this Conformity of Terms brought the Platonic Fathers to a conformity in Doctrine with Plato that is to say they fell into two Errors directly opposite to the Doctrine of the Gospel One in that they have made of a Power or a mere Operation an Hypostasis the other in that they have made two Hypostases of the Word and the Holy Ghost which at the bottom are but two diverse Operations Where therefore they made two Hypostases of these two Operations they follow'd their own Philosophy but when they confounded these Operations they built without question upon this Passage of David which says The Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord and by the Breath of his Mouth where the Word and Breath of the Lord are put together as things inseparable which differ not in effect only in this that the Breath is the Substance of the Word and the Word is the Operation of the Spirit to use the Words of Tertullian adv Prax. I shall pass over Hermas who in his 5th 9th Similitudes says That the Holy Ghost is the Son of God I have already shewn that he speaks thus but in parable for which reason his Testimony would be of no use but to serve for an Illusion And I shall say nothing more of Ignatius who salutes the Church at Smyrna in the Inscription of his Epistle with these Words The Holy Spirit which is the Word of God as if he had said by or thro him who is the Holy Ghost or the Word of God This Passage is not very exact or clear so as to perceive the meaning of the Author and to be able to draw from it a convincing Proof Les us begin therefore with Justin Martyr He in his 2d Apol. p. 74 c. having stil'd Jesus Christ the first and principal Power the Son and the Word who had not his Birth from Man but by the Power of God he comes afterwards to examine the Passage in St. Luke The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall over shadow thee c. By the Holy Ghost or Spirit says he and the Power which came from God we ought to understand nothing but the Word which is the first-born of God And for the better understanding what Word he is speaking of he adds all in one Breath That 't is the Spirit which inspir'd the Prophets and which spake in the Person of a Prophet or in the Person of the Father or in the Person of Christ or in the Person of the People Here 's no difficulty either he has said nothing or he has formally said that the Holy Ghost which inspir'd the Prophets and the Power of the most High of which St. Luke speaks and the Word in St. John are all but one and the same thing After a Testimony so express I have no need to heap up other Passages out of the Writings of this Father wherein we may in part discover the same truth As when in his Dialogue with Trypho P. 327. he makes an Opposition between the Word of the Serpent by which Eve conceived and the Word of God by which the Blessed Virgin did conceive These are rather flights of Fancy and starts of Wit in a Preacher than an Exposition of the Christian Faith Only I would have it observ'd how in his 5th Book P. 284. he collects all the Qualities and all the Names which were usually given to the Word and to the Spirit that he may apply 'em to Jesus Christ First says â—he God â—eâ—â—t before all the Creatures a 〈◊〉 â—â—sonable Power which is sometimes called the Spirit the Glory of the Lord sometimes the Son sometimes the Wisdom sometimes an Angel sometimes God sometimes the Lord and the Word For all these Names are given to him either because he is the Minister of the Designs or Purposes of the Father or because he was begotten by his Will All this has much of the air of a theological Allegory by which one would express that Spirit and that Power of God which he imploy'd to execute his Counsels and
which comes not from his Vnderstanding by a necessary Emanation but by his Will by a free Operation That Power I say which may be called his Word or his Spirit according to the different respects wherein one considers it I will produce another Proof of this important Truth from Theophilus Antiochenus in his 2d Book to Autolycus Who says he speaking of the Word being the Spirit of God the Beginning the Wisdom the Power of the Highest came down into the Prophets by whom he spake What could he say more formal to make us understand that he took for one and the same thing the Spirit of God his Word his Wisdom and his Power His meaning cannot be mistaken when one considers that the Spirit and the Word whereof he speaks is the same that inspir'd the Prophets Words that very well agree with those of Justin which I now come to examine These two Fathers understood by the Word nothing but that prophetick Spirit the fulness whereof dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ and that St. Paul calls the fulness of the Godhead This is in effect the Explication that the Author of the Homilies ascrib'd to Origen has given in Diversos Homil. 2. St. Paul says he calls the fulness of the Godhead those mystick Senses or the truth of those legal Shadows which dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ that is to say truly and really because that he is the Fountain and Fulness of Grace the truth of the antient Symbols and the accomplishment of Prophetick Visions But according to the Fathers Jesus Christ was sill'd with this Prophetick Spirit not only when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a Dove and that God made him a Prophet but especially when he was conceived by the Power of the Highest and he was as I may say begotten a Prophet that is to say when by virtue of his Generation his Body was formed for the Office of a Prophet And 't is chiefly this last Consideration that is urg'd against the Josephites because this Privilege of his Birth makes us to regard him not only as a Man who was a Prophet but as a Prophet who was also the Son of God But to return to the Passage from Theophilus if it be read thruout one shall find a fine Allegory upon the Word and the Holy Spirit which he calls the Wisdom of God Sometimes he considers 'em as two Divine Emanations proceeding from the Bowels of God and which God us'd as his two Hands or two Ministers by whom he created the World And sometimes he makes 'em but one Operation and so both are the Spirit and the Word the Wisdom and the Power of God c. Why so If not because that this Spirit takes divers Names either for the diversity of its Prolation or for its different Operations For the Word is the Spirit or Breath prolated with a Sound and a Voice and the Spirit is a Word brought forth tacitely and in silence the one with the other without sound One acts inwardly in a hidden and secret manner and the other outwardly and openly 'T is thus the Fathers speak In my opinion 't is idle to look for any exactness in these sort of allegorical Discourses which are loose and where the Fancy taking its swing drives on in full Career Irendus one of those Fathers who was obliged to urge the miraculous Conception of our Saviour against the Epionites confounded the Holy Ghost with the Word These Hereticks would not own says Ireraeus lib. 5. cap. 1. the Vnion of God with Man Why Because says he they believed the Lord Jesus to be a mere Man How a mere Man Because they believed him to be the Son of Joseph and Mary like other Men and not of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost What says the Holy Father to this He laments that they would not consider how in the first Creation the Breath of God uniting it self to the Body of Adam animated the Man and made him a reasonable Creature So in the New Creation the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God being united to the old Substance of Adam hath form'd a living and perfect Man who contains in himself the perfect Father Dr. Bull in his Judic Eccles p. 10. having cited this Passage takes no notice of these words who contains in himself the perfect Father it may be because Irenaeus seems to say that 't was the Father who was incarnate or as 't is more probable because these Words expresly demonstrate that by the Word Irenaeus understood nothing but the very Power of God The living Man of whom he speaks containing in himself the perfect Father only because he was filled with God's Spirit and God's Word which were united to the Man But whatever he himself thought this is a truth that one perceives at first in reading the Text of Irenaeus 'T is at least most evident that he confounds the Spirit of God with the Word of the Father as one and the same Power which formed the New Adam and that he opposes it to the Divine Breath and Spirit of God which animated the first Adam His only aim being to oppose the Ebionites who denied that the Spirit of God interven'd in the Conception of Jesus Christ His only concern is also to establish firmly this miraculous Conception and to make 'em regard Jesus Christ as the most perfect Man whom the Father who is perfect had miraculously begotten by his Word and by his Spirit in the same manner as by the means of his Almighty Word he animated the first Man with the Breath of Life To make Irenaeus his Conception of the Word the same with the Moderns is to see and not perceive In short by reading his Text alone one shall be convinced that in his stating the Divinity of Jesus Christ he goes no farther than his miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost He not only confounds the Word with the Spirit but calls the Word the Descent of the Holy Spirit into the Womb of Mary He calls it I say the Union and Mixture of God with Man He says the Father wrought at the Incarnation of his Son or at the new Generation with the same Hands excuse his Phrase as he did at the Generation of the Old Adam If we ask him what he means by Hands in this place he tells you in his 4th Book 37 Chap. that he understands thereby the Word of God his Son his Wisdom and his Spirit He means that powerful Command which God us'd in the Creation of things which is called his Spirit forasmuch as it is in God and is in a manner his Soul and which is also call'd his Word and his Son in regard that it came from his Mouth to form the Creation it was in a manner begotten That is to say by the same manner of speaking that the Wisdom and the Power of God are called his Hands by the same they are called his Son his Word
and his Spirit And further to make it clearer that this Father always confounds the Holy Ghost with the Word I must observe that in the last Passage I am about to cite he applies to the Holy Ghost the same Words of Solomon which are ordinarily applied to the Son The Word says he who is the Son was always with the Father and because the Wisdom which is the Holy Ghost was also with God before the Creation it speaks thus by Solomon God hath founded the Earth by his Wisdom c. and again The Lord created me c. There is therefore but One God who hath made all things by his Wisdom and by his Word CHAP. XI A Continuation of the same Proofs that the Antients understood by the Word and the Holy Ghost one and the same thing BUT after all you will say Irenaeus makes an express distinction between the Word and the Spirit I answer Yes But David makes the same distinction too and from him I believe the Fathers borrowed theirs The Heavens says he were formed by the Word of the Lord and by the Breath of his Mouth By the way who will be so weak as to affirm that he did not mean by these two words the same Power of God as if the Word was not the Breath of his Mouth and the Breath of his Mouth the Word Can one forbear smiling when one sees our Divines put David in the number of the Trinitarians In fine Irenaeus extols the Generation of the son of God by the Operation of the Holy Ghost as infinitely more excellent than the Generation of the first Man which was by breathing Life into him or by the Divine Breath Irenaeus affirms it but Dr. Bull denies it maintaining that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God by virtue of his miraculous Conception in a manner more excellent than Adam was by virtue of his immediate Generation or Formation by God's own hand Let us suppose it as the Doctor would have it yet after all he must agree that this Holy Father carries the Parallel that he makes between the first and second Adam no further than their Generation which was equally extraordinary in both This appears in the 31st Chapter of his 3d Book If the first Adam says he had his Being from a Man it might be said with some shew of reason that 't is the same as to the second Adam and that Joseph was his Father But if it be true on the contrary that the first was form'd out of the Earth by the Word of God must not the same Word acting with the same Power as he did at the Formation of Adam carry a resemblance of the same Generation Let this Comparison be a little minded it contains this clearly that God did no more in the Generation of the second Adam in whom he would dwell than in that of the first Adam that Adam and Jesus Christ are the immediate Production of this Word Consequently there 's no more reason to infer the hypostatick Union of the Word with Jesus Christ than with Adam this Word being as you see nothing but the Power of God which having immediately formed the first Man did also form Jesus Christ after the same primitive manner of Generation All the difference is that God was pleas'd to dwell in the latter after an extraordinary manner Let 's see in the next place what Tertullian has to say He was a great Platonist but that Party does not always strictly observe the Rules of Platonism They have their lucid Intervals wherein some Remains of the antient Tradition drop from their Pens Whenever they philosophize according to the humour of that Faction they are to be suspected 't is the effect of their Prejudices but when they happen to speak to the disadvantage of their own Hypotheses what is it that could oblige them to it but the Power of Truth alone Tertullian therefore at the end of his Discourse against Praxeas sisting this matter of the Nature of the Word and the Holy Ghost to the bottom speaks of 'em as one and the same Power 'T is worth while to read the whole throughout but I shall content my self with this following Passage which is decisive and beyond dispute Contra Prax. cap. 26. The Spirit of God i. e. Holy Ghosi shall come upon thee c. By saying the Spirit of God altho the Spirit of God be God nevertheless he not calling it directly God he would have us understand a Part of the Whole which was to attend the Person of the Son and get him the Name that he has This is that Spirit of God which we call the Word also For as when St. John says the Word was made Flesh by the term Word we understand the Spirit so in this Passage we understand the Word under the Name of the Spirit since the Spirit is the Substance of the Word and the Word the Operation of the Spirit and these two are but one For if the Spirit be not the Word and the Word be not the Spirit 't will follow that he of whom St. John says that he was made Flesh will not be the same with him of whom the Angel says that he shall be made Flesh Let us weigh well all these Words By the Spirit Tertullian understands nothing but a Portion of the whole a Beam of the Substance of God as he expresses himself elsewhere because otherwise it would follow according to Praxeas that the Father himself was incarnate He will have it that this Portion makes the Son what he is that is the Son of God He confounds the Spirit with the Word and will have St. Luke and St. John speak the same Language and that the first might have said the Word shall come upon thee and the latter the Holy Ghost was made Flesh since that by the term Holy Ghost the Word must be understood and by the term Word the Holy Ghost and that 't is not likely St. John would speak of one particular Spirit and the Angel of another And more than this he acquaints us what use we ought to make of these two Words which at the bottom signify but the same thing and that is we ought to call this Power Spirit when we would express its Substance and Word when we would express its Operation In short he decides our Question by saying that these two are but one and the same thing that is to say the same Power For the Word says he in his Rule of Faith de Praescript descended from the Spirit and the Power of God into the Womb of the Virgin What does this import viz. the Word descended from the Spirit and the Power of God if not this that the Word is nothing else but an Emanation a Manifestation of the Power which is internal and essential to God And 't is almost in the same sense that Marius Victorin contra Arium lib. 1. states a twofold Power of the Word that is to say a
twofold Operation the one manifest which is Jesus Christ in the Flesh the other secret or hidden which is the Holy Spirit the one by way of Manifestation the other by way of Communication But after all 't is but a twofold Operation of one and the same Power I forbear to take notice of divers other Testimonies of Tertullian of the like kind as for instance at the beginning of his Book concerning Prayer in his Dispute against Marcion lib. 3. cap. 6 16. and in his Discourse of the Flesh of Jesus Christ cap. 19. the Reader may consult 'em if he pleases To the foremention'd Authoritys from Tertullian I will subjoin that of Novatian de Trinitate cap. 19. That which chiefly constituted the Son of God says he was the Incarnation of the Word of God which was formed by means of that Spirit of whom the Angel said the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. For this is the true Son of God who is of God who uniting himself to the Son of Man makes him by that Union the Son of God which he was not before So that the main reason of this Title the Son of God arises from that Spirit of the Lord which descended How the Word of God incarnate by means of that Spirit which descended on Mary Is the second Person incarnate by means of the third Very good Divinity Is it not rather this Divine Operation that bears the Name of the Word which manifested it self in the Flesh of Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit which insinuated it self into that Flesh That is to say that which is called the Spirit on account of its Substance is at the same time called the Word on account of its Manifestation and its Operation For this reason Novatian places not the chief ground of the Filiation of Jesus Christ in a Word which was a different Hypostasis from the Spirit but in the Word which is the Operation of that Spirit of whom the Scripture speaks saying the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. And it would not be understood what the Fathers mean when they confound the Word with the Spirit that over-shadowed the Virgin or when they distinguish these two Powers if it be not laid down for a Rule that by the Spirit they understand the very Nature of the Spirit the Principle or Source whence Prophecy comes and by the Word a certain and particular Operation of that Spirit as for instance the miraculous Conception of our Saviour I have yet an antient Doctor to alledg and he not of the meanest Rank I mean St. Cyprian who does not make any distinction between the Word the Spirit the Son of God the Wisdom c. This Father having cited the second Psalm de Mont. Sina Zion adv Jud. cap. 2. where he speaks of the King whom God had anointed on Mount Sion 'T is upon this Mountain says he that the Holy Spirit the Son of God was establish'd King to proclaim the Will and the Empire of God his Father and in the fourth Chapter of the same Discourse the Flesh of Adam says he which J. C. bore in a Figure that Term has a Tang of Marcion's Heresy this Flesh was call'd by his Father the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven the Christ the anointed of the Living God a Spirit united to Flesh The same Father elsewhere in his Discourse de Idolor vanit cap. 6. expresses himself thus The Word and the Son of God is sent whom the Prophets had forespoken of as the Instructor of Mankind He is the Power of God his Reason his Wisdom and his Glory the Holy Spirit hath put on Flesh God is mingled or united with Man The Holy Spirit is the Son of God and at the same time the Word is the Son of God and which is more the Flesh of J.C. is called the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven which could not be true but of its Celestial Origin and as it was formed by the Holy Spirit So that Cyprian seems to intimate thereby that 't is because of this Celestial Origin that the Scriptures say the Flesh of J. C. came down from Heaven that the Son of Man came down from Heaven for it may be very well said that J.C. came down from Heaven since his Origin was from Heaven in his Birth by the Holy Ghost And what is the Holy Spirit but the Word according to this Father The Word is the Holy Spirit which united it self to Man the Word is the Holy Spirit which put on Flesh In short 't is the Holy Spirit which is the Christ of God You 'll say what hinders but the second Person in the Trinity may have also the Name of the third That 's pure Fancy Why should one shut ones eyes when one sees as clear as the day that St. Cyprian alludes to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour and that these sublime Expressions of that Father have no other Foundation but that Mystery As for what Lactantius affords us I hope his Authority will not be contested with me in the decision of a Point wherein he does no more than confirm a Tradition elsewhere well supported and followed This pious Person having said in his Institutions lib. 4. c. 6. That God begat a Holy Spirit which he call'd his Son he resumes this Discourse in the 12th chap. of the same Book thus This Spirit of God says he coming down from Heaven made choice of a pure and holy Virgin into whose Womb he insinuated himself and this Virgin conceived being full of the Holy Spirit which embrac'd her That which Lactantius expresses by these Words descended on a Virgin can it be any other than that which St. Luke expresses in these The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee But the Holy Ghost of whom the Angel speaks is the same according to Lactantius with that Holy Ghost which God begat and which he called his Son Dr. Bull tells us the Fathers understood by the Holy Ghost the Divine Nature of J. C. Very well but why so If not for this Cause that J. C. had no other Divinity than that Spirit of Power and Holiness which form'd his Body in the Womb of a Virgin For in short the Fathers speak after this manner when they explain these words The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. or allude to them and always with regard to his Birth of a Virgin But the Holy Spirit in this Passage Luke 1. 35. signifies most certainly that Power which we Trinitarians call the third Person And if the Fathers had a mind to find the second there as is said there 's no knowing what the Words signify for it must be affirmed that they have strangely mistaken the Scriptures and in so unaccountable manner as I may say that there is no longer any certainty to be met with in their Writinâ—â—â—â—ll's in Confusion as in the antient Chaos There 's nothing whereby to discover the Names of the
Ghost and in this Sense they called him the Son of God and not only so but they confess'd this Son of God to be the Christ For 't is thus the Words of St. Austin must be understood de Haeres c. 9. and not as Dr. Bull expounds 'em Judic Eccles p. 47. by a Hysteron Proteron in this manner that the Christ was the Son of God that is according to him a Son begotten before all Ages Danaus a better Critick than he made no blunder in his Exposition of St. Austin's Words The Nazarens says he believ'd that Jesus the Son of Mary was the Christ and 't is certain the Words ought to be taken in this Sense Dei filium consitentur Nazaraei esse Christum says the Father In short they did not oblige the Gentiles to observe the Law which they thought themselves ought to keep as being Jews by birth but they afterward abandon'd it too as an Obligation that ceas'd as soon as they were driven out of Judea by the Emperor Adrian There is a great confusion among Ecclesiastical Writers in their Judgment of these Nazarens Some look upon 'em as Hereticks with others they pass for Orthodox The latter Fathers as Epiphaenius St. Austin and Theodoret place 'em in their Lists of Hereticks but the more antient Fathers as Irenaeus and Tertullian have not set 'em down in that Catalogue 'T is easy to conjecture whence this Disagreement comes Sometimes they pass'd for Orthodox 1st Because their Opinion that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost c. being originally the Orthodox Faith some Remains of that Tradition maintain'd their Honour for a time 2ly Because Eusebius after Hegesippus had given 'em this Testimony that their Faith was sound as we have before shewn Now this Historian who gave his Opinion of 'em according to his own Prejudices mistaking their true Sentiments has drawn other Platonizing Christians after him into the same Mistake 3ly The Nazarens believ'd that by virtue of the miraculous Conception of our Saviour God was truly his Father and for this reason they give him the Title of the Son of God and it may be of God too sometimes The Platonizing Christians suffered themselves to be amused with big Words having their Minds pre-ingaged in Ideas they had put upon 'em beforehand so that they were so far from treating the Nazarens as Hereticks that they have often made 'em speak in the Platonick manner always supposing thro prejudice that whoever said these Words Son of God meant by 'em a Son begotten before all Ages But sometimes also they reckened 'em Hereticks either because they confounded 'em with the Ebionites or because their Opinion rightly understood was look'd upon as Heretical after Platonism prevail'd When all those in short who went for the Divinity of Christ no farther than his Generation from God and the Virgin Mary and who refus'd to subscribe or assent to the Platonick Generation before all Ages all such I say were no better treated than the Ebionites who believed Christ to be the Son of Joseph they were all anathematiz'd without hopes of absolution 'T is from this confusion of Ideas that we meet with so much obscurity in the History of the Nazarens Dr. Bull who knew not how to clear up this Perplexity runs himself into greater Difficulties He teazes and fatigues himself to maintain his own Sentiments under the Expressions of the Nazarens and to reconcile the irreconcilable Censures of the Platonizing Fathers about ' em But what signifies all this ado The truth is nothing of his Platonism was in the least known to the Nazarens All his Citations are grounded upon the equivocal Sense of these Words the Son of God True it is they went beyond the Ebionites and believ'd Jesus Christ was more than a mere Man because they believ'd him to be born of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost Yet the Nazarens must be Hereticks say the Doctor what he will if they are to be try'd by his Platonick Faith But they are also Orthodox say others what they please if they are examin'd by the Rule of Orthodoxy that prevail'd in the first Age of the Church the Footsteps whereof have been preserv'd by some Writers in succeeding Ages as I have already proved FINIS
most commonly in the Shape and Figure of a Man Some of the Antients were bold enough to say that this Word shew'd himself to the Patriarchs in the same shape of Face with which Jesus Christ should one day appear and they suppos'd as Servetus has well explain'd it lib. 3. p. 108 seq That the Word was no other than God's Person that is to say the Image whereby God manifested himself and that that Image was the very shape of Jesus Christ Man there being according to them but one only Divine Person one only Face one only Representation which has always been the same whether in God's immediately shewing himself in created Light or in Angels or in the Messiah who spake to us in his Name And 't is in this sense that we may say that the Person of the Son is Eternal 'T is easy to apprehend the Mind of the Fathers They meant that the Word was no other than the Idea of Jesus Christ Man who being in God's Understanding from all Eternity was put forth in a visible Form God who designed to manifest himself in time by his Messiah having from the beginning even in the Creation of the Universe given Preludes of his great Design in shewing himself to either Angels or Men only under the visible Form which his Son was in time to have which he describ'd in the Symbol of the Manifestation and of his Presence whether by an Angel by Light or by a Cloud So that to speak properly the Word was made Flesh because the same Power which made the World became the Power of Jesus Christ and the same shape of Face which appear'd to the Patriarchs was made the shape of his Face and the Figure of his Flesh I do not defend this Opinion of the Fathers I only shew what it was without obliging my self to maintain it and this ought likewise to be understood of all their other Hypotheses Be that as it will the Patriarchs being by those kind of Apparitions accustom'd to represent God to themselves in humane Shape God was also pleas'd to speak to them of his Perfections in a manner suted to the Idea of his Person which they had fram'd to themselves Whereon Maimonides observ'd that the Chaldean Paraphrast to rectify that Idea of the Deity uses the Term Word to signify in a less familiar manner the several Dispensations of Providence which the Scripture calls the Eyes Hands and Affections of God It is true that the Paraphrast intending to soften all those Expressions which seem to attribute to God corporeal Parts and human Passions unworthy of his Majesty did in their stead use this Term The Word of God which seems to bring into our Minds more Spiritual Ideas of the supreme Deity But he did not consider that if 't is unworthy of God to have Eyes Hands and Ears attributed to him it will not be less so to give him a Mouth Breath a Voice and Speech So that it must be granted that if by a kind of Figure the Scripture mentions the Eyes of God the Hands of God c. it is by the same Figure that we say the Breath of God and the Word of God Whereby all the Mystery pretended to be found in this latter Expression must vanish and we learn not to philosophize so nicely on the Oeconemies wherein God takes various Forms to make himself the better known to us or on manners of speaking which he has suted to our weak Conceptions CHAP. V. How the Philosophers and particularly Plato attain'd the Knowledg of the three Principles A right understanding of the three Principles IT has been said of the most famous Philosophers Pythagoras Socrates and Plato that they heard the Voice of God Which rightly understood signifies no more than that they had heard that silent Language of the Heavens which publish the Glory of God and declare the Works of his Hands Clemens Alexandr Strom. l. 5. p. 547. who so explains it say further That those Philosophers considering the Structure of the Universe heard Moses himself saying God spake and things were made and teaching them that the Word was the Work of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in truth after throughly philosophizing on the Principles of the World they always came thence to conclude and say that it was the Production of an Universal Reason and of an infus'd Spirit which animated it And they held these first Causes to be the Properties of one only Maker I mean the most perfect Being in philosophizing it was natural first to consider whether the World had always existed or whether it had been made 'T is a Question which Clem. Rom. makes to himself Recognit l. 1. c. 27. Some chose to believe the World's Eternity but they were but few and they follow'd the System of Ocellus Lucanus Other who were wiser and more enlighten'd apprehended that it must have had a beginning and these last philosophiz'd according to the Principles of Time is Lacrus The Question was farther to know how and by whom the World had been made The whole System of the antientest Philosophy run upon this Question The Philosophers made their Enquiries on it and after Attention and Study the most knowing among them heard the Voice of God or the Voice of Nature which taught them that the World was the Workmanship of an infinitely good all-wise and omnipotent God Plato was the first who brought this System to Perfection Thales Hermotimus and Anaxagorus discover'd a Spirit which dispos'd Matter and cloth'd it with its several Forms Socrates added that this Spirit which govern'd the World was the Son of the most high God and then Plato philosophizing yet farther fram'd a kind of Trinity 〈◊〉 Pâ—tav l. 1. c. 1. For he conceiv'd a most good God whom he call'd the Father or the Good most wise whom he call'd the Reason or the Word most powerful whom he call'd the Spirit or Soul of the World But then after all as they are three Perfections which are inseparable from the Idea of the Creator he often confounded their Operations As then these three Properties Goodness Wisdom and Power make up the whole Idea which we have of God with respect to the Creation It 's not to be wonder'd that the soundest Philosophy fix'd on these three first Causes when 't was seeking the Origin of the World by studying and contemplating on the World it self The invisible Grandeurs of God says St. Paul Rom. 1.20 as well his Eternal Power as the other Attributes of his Godhead become as 't were visible in being clearly understood by his Works from the Creation of the World 'T is therefore certain that 't was by beholding these Works that the Author of them was found out and that it was discover'd that they were the effect of Infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power And they went no farther because the System of good Philosophy with respect to the Creation proves compleat with these three Principles as has been already
but that Demon was nothing else but his Attention on the Present Reflection on the Past and Penetration into the Future grounded on Conjectures which the Study of the World furnish'd him with The same Author quotes pag. 215. this good Saying of Diogenes Those who have Vnderstanding need not trouble the Oracles And indeed those Men of Parts like Socrates have a living Oracle and familiar Demon. Thus the Antients lov'd to theologize the commonest things and to find Gods every where CHAP. VII A Continuation of the Doctrine of the Three Principles AFter this Digression concerning the Demon of Socrates we 'll return to Plato That Philosopher had attained to a perfect Knowledg of these three Principles Goodness Wisdom and Power and understood thereby 1. That the World was not Eternal and Vnbegotren but that the supreme Father thereto inclined by a Disposition of Goodness had begotten it by his Wisdom and filled it with his Power three Principles which he call'd the Good the Reason and the Soul of the World 2. That the Production of the World was not an effect of Chance or of any blind Principle but of a most good and most wise Cause of an intelligent and rational Power The Author of the Recognitions l. 8. c. 19. informs us that this was Plato's meaning For arguing against those who attributed the World's Origin to the fortuitous jumbling together of Atoms he applies himself to prove that 't is the effect of profound Wisdom and not forgetting one rational Property comes thence to say that 't is the Work of Reason which Reason says he I call the Word and God It is apparent that Plato had no other thought than that of this Author Nevertheless fearing Socrates's Fate he veil'd these great Truths under a Cloud of Fictions and Enigma's which prov'd a Snare to his Disciples and not having Courage enough to oppose common Error made of these three Properties of the Creator so many Gods or Divine Persons complying with the Theology of that Age wherein Powers Passions Properties c. Fortune Fate Justice Love Vertue Honour Safety Concord c. were not otherwise conceiv'd than under the Idea of so many Deitys so much was the Plurality of Gods the Philosophy a la mode even among the Wisest It is difficult said Plato apud Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 5. to find the Father of this Universe and when you have found him 't is not permitted to speak of him to the People Meaning that it was dangerous to declare a Truth which gave offence to the received Opinion of the Plurality of Gods and which consequently could not be declared otherwise than under the Veil of Allegory and under the Fiction of many Hypostases So he explains himself in his second Letter to Dionysius I will speak to you says he by Enigma that if by accident this Letter happen to fall into other hands he may not in reading understand it Minutius Felix made the same Observation after Clemens Plato says he spake more clearly of God than any other Philosopher and his Doctrine would be perfectly Divine if he had not spoil'd it by a mixture of the Religion establish'd by the Laws of his Country For according to Plato in Timaeus God is the Father of the World even by his being God He is Creator of the Soul and of all things as well Celestial as Terrestrial But that Philosopher does previously advertise that 't is difficult to find him because of his infinite Power and that when he is found it is impossible to explain one's self concerning him to the common People Why impossible Because dangerous These few Words contain an Abridgment of our whole System That Plato spake of God only with respect to the Creation That he believ'd him to be the Father of the World and consequently that the World is his Son That he knew him better than other Philosophers and that nevertheless he has spoil'd that Knowledg by mixing with it the Errors of his Country because he thought it too dangerous to speak his thoughts of it openly That is he had not liberty to speak his Mind and to please a superstitious Populacy he was forc'd to make as many Hypostases and Gods as he had discover'd Perfections in the World's Creator In a word to philosophize on the Origin of the World securely he was oblig'd subtilly to feign a Genealogy of Gods a Father a Begotten Son a third proceeding from those two and to turn the whole Cosmogony into a mere Theogony We know Proclus one of Plato's Disciples maintain'd that his Master plac'd a Supreme God above this Trinity of Principles whereof we have been now speaking which plainly enough shews that under these three feign'd Essences or Persons he design'd to hide the several Perfections of the most High God whom he believ'd to be but one Essence and one Person but he multiply'd him after the manner of the Heathens to shelter himself from the Rigour of the Laws It is not to be doubted but all the Philosophers had the same aim of preserving the Vnity of God under a multitude of feign'd Personalities without any danger to themselves Unless any will suppose it to have been a witty Invention which they fram'd for the better instructing and fixing the Minds of the common People who are pleas'd with Wonders and Mysteries One may indeed believe that they did it with a good intention designing to place instead of gross Polytheism the several Properties of the True and most High God that the People might insensibly receive an exchange which was so advantageous to them And so much the worse for Christians who have been bubl'd by this Eastern Philosophy in taking literally a Method which was merely Allegorical I will conclude this Reflection on the three Platonick Principles with this Observation of Origen agreeing with the Doctrine of St. Paul Lib. 6. contra Cels That Philosophers having in the Creation of the World beheld what is invisible in God which this Father calls the Divine Ideas and being rais'd from sensible to Spiritual things did plainly enough perceive his Eternal Power and Godhead But what are these invisible Excellencies which appear in the Creation They are the three Principles whereof Plato was pleas'd to make three Hypostases or Persons Dr. Cudworth saw the Contrivance of this Mystery Pag. 590. of his Intellectual System The three Hypostases of the Platonists says he do not seem to be really any thing else than Infinite Goodness infinite Wisdom and infinite Power and Love Irenaeus l. 3. c. 46. owns the same Truth Vlato says he having given the Name of Good to the Supreme Maker of all things hath herein laid down the Goodness of God as the Principle and Cause of the Creation of the World This Reflection of Irenaeus takes place with respect to the other two Divine Propertys which Plato ranks among the Causes of the World So that we may say that Plato having call'd the first Author of all things the Good
the perfect Generation i. e. the real and actual Generation Mons Du Pin Bibl. Tom. 1. at the Word Theophilus saith That the Fathers affirm the Logos to be Eternal and that it was in God from all Eternity as his Counsel his Wisdom and his Word But they say the same Word which was in God did after some manner come out of God when God resolved to ereate the World because he then began to make use of that Word in order to act outwardly This is what they term to be the Procession Prolation and even the Generation of the Word This hinders not indeed the Word 's having been from all Eternity nor its eternal Generation of the Father as we conceive the manner thereof but this is not what they call Generation The same Author owns in his Notes upon the Article of Tertullian that this Father means not Generation to be the eternal Procession of the Son but only a certain Prolation or outward Emission conceiv'd by him to have been at the Creation of the World because God both created and governs it by the Word He saith further we need not wonder that he should tell us in his Book against Hermogenes that there was a time when the Father was not Father and that the Son began to be Son because he believ'd that the Son had neither that Quality nor Name but only when the Word was created Mons Jurieu expresseth himself as fully in his sixth Pastoral Letter of the third Year attributing this Sentiment to all the Antenicene Fathers viz. that the Word had not its perfect Birth before the World's beginning i.e. according to Mr. Jurieu the Word is not eternal as it is a Son but only was hid in the Bosom of his Word as Wisdom and that he was as it were produc'd and became a distinct Person from that of the Father a little before the Creation You must be wilfully blind if you perceive not from what source this Theology of the Word doth spring As it is certain that the Heathens ever philosophiz'd of their Gods but relatively to the Origin of this Universe and have always join'd Theogony with their Cosmogony So likewise these Platonizing Christians followed the Steps of this Pagan Philosophy their Creation of the World always accompanying the Prolation of the Word or the Generation of the Son This is noted by the same Mons Jurieu in the aforemention'd Passage when he speaks of Athenagoras and Tertullian They believed saith he that the Wisdom which was not the Son of God at first but only in a Bud or Seed having spread it self over the Chaos did not only generate the Creatures but did also as it were by the same Effusion give a perfect existence to the Word or to the second Person of the Deity This indeed may be said to philosophize like Heathens May it not be said that the Wisdom and the Chaos were the Father and Mother whose Children are the Word and the Creatures But this is not all they bring them in by Couples like the Aeons of Valentine so true it is that the Christians would not divide what the Philosophers and Poets had united so closely viz. Theogony and Cosmogony I return to Dr. Bull praying him to consider whether a real Generation and properly so called can be expressed better than by saying that it is perfect that it is in Act that it gave a perfect Existence to the Word that it made the Word a Person distinct from the Father and in short that it render'd the Father to be properly a Father and the Son properly a Son This the Fathers say of the second Generation which they consider as the only Generation and Birth of the Son On the contrary can an improper and Metaphoric Generation be expressed berter than by saying that the Son existed only in Idea potentrally in a Bud in its Seed in the Heart in the Womb and the Bowels of God For thus the Fathers talk of the first Generation or to express it better of the first Existence of the Son of God which they scarce reckon to be a Generation For can you for example-sake call the Metaphoric Existence of Levi in the Loins of his Father when he was decimated in Abraham a Generation But the Fathers think thus of the first Existence whilst they say that the Son existed then only in a Bud or Seed and not as Mons Jurieu pretends Tabl. du Socin Let. 6. Art 3. that he was contain'd in the Bosom of the Father as a Child is in its Mother's Womb as if the Word had need to form it self by degrees in the Bowels of the Father and wait its time to wit that of the Creation of the World which should likewise happen to be that of its Delivery If Mr. Jurieu had understood the Platonic Philosophy he had taken care to avoid such a ridiculens Thought CHAP. XIV The immediate Generation of the Word THE antient Doctors followed Plato and their meaning was that the Divine Understanding is the Principle and Bud where the Son existed from Eternity as to his Essence all Essences being eternal in this respect according to the Platonists because they are the Emanations of the Substance of God but particularly all generated Spirits hence Homousianism takes its rise The Son came forth out of this first source of all Essences being the chiefest of them in God's Design He came forth in Time as to his Person to be the first Minister of the Father in the Creation of this Universe This distinguisheth him from all the Creatures the Birth of which is less noble as not being immediate Hereupon if you had asked them the reason why the Word alone amongst all the generated Spirits should be called the Son or the only Son they could not have alledged any other than the Privilege of being generated immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father whereas the other Spirits were so by the means of a second God and Minister The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions speaks thus Lib. 8. cap. 12. The Father who alone is above all Generation and Beginning having created all things by his only Son has immediately generated without any Intermedium that his only Son by his Will by his Power and Goodness He generated him before all the Aeons making use of him afterwards to create even the Aeons the Cherubims and Seraphims c. According to him the Angels were form'd by the Son but the Son was generated only by the Will and the immediate Power of God which is his Prerogative You need not doubt that Eusebius intended the same thing when he calls J. C. de Laud. Constan cap. 1. the most antient of all the Aeons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Fathers thought the same whenever they made use of these Words of St. John In the beginning was the Word for they did not mean that by the Beginning Eternity ought to be understood which this Word cannot denote as Maldonat confesseth
ingenuously in Joan. 1.1 they only meant that the Word was not created in the beginning of all things when God created the Heavens and the Earth after the manner of other Creatures or that of the other generated Spirits because it had a Being then already the Father having begotten it before by an immediate Generation For this Reason the Author of the Recognitions lib. 3. cap. 11. denies formally that the Holy Spirit may be called Son because there is saith he but one ungenerated and but one generated it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit is a Son having been made by another who was likewise made Eusebius delivers this Doctrine as a * Such is the Argument of that Chapter Tradition of the Church De Eccles Theol. lib. 3. cap. 6. The Spirit the Paraclet saith he is neither God nor Son because he took not his Origin from the Father after the same manner as the Son did being of the Number of those things that were made by the Son for whom all things were made All things saith the Evangelist consequently then the Holy Spirit also Origen's Doctrine is the source of all this who maintains in his 1 Tom. upon St. John that the Holy Spirit is a Creature of the Son relying with Eusebius upon this Expression that all 〈◊〉 not excepting the Holy Spirit were made by the Son This Theology of the Antients â—â—â—hing the immediate Generation of the Word at the time of the World's Creation was follow'd by many other Doctors even after the Council of Nice Marius Victorinus is of this Number who would have it in his first Book that the Generation of the Word is only an Effusion and Manifestation of that Power which created the World and which was hid in God before You may join Zeno of Verona with him de aeterna Filii Generatione Serm. 3. who moreover explains this Generation by referring it to the Creation of the World For as he saith it was then that the Word which was as it were buried in the Abyss of the Divine Understanding in profundo sacrae Mentis Serm. 1. was thrust forth and begotten Would Valentine have expressed himself otherwise about his Word which came forth out of the Understanding than this Man doth of his come out of the Deep and Silence But we ought not to forget Rupert who unfolds admirably this Philosophic Cabala saying That the Father actually begot the Word which contain'd potentially all things when he created the Heavens and the Earth Yes he goes on the Father thrust forth this good Word out of his Heart and before the Morning-Star begot him out of his Bosom viz. out of the Bottom of his Substance when he said Let there be Light Nothing can be more like to Origen's Expression That the Generation of the Light is the Generation of the Son Mr. Huel excuseth Origen alledging that he spoke allegorically we do not doubt it all this Theology is Allegorick The Word or Command which God utter'd to the Creature is the Son of God but improperly so and in the same sense that my Thought or my Speech are the Sons of my Understanding which both conceives and brings them forth This is too evident and for this Cause Dr. Ball had reason to retrench out of his Quotation Desen Fidei Nic. p. 395. these last Words of Rupert's Passage That the Father beget the Son when he â—â—id Let there be Light But Lactartius goes beyond all these Doctors I quoted for he allows not to the Word so much as the Advantage of an immediate Generation above the other generated Spirits He finds no difference between them but only in the different manner of their Prolation and in the different Design God had in the begetting of them The Holy Scriptures teach us saith he Lib. 4. c. 8. that the Son of God is the Word of God even as also the other Angels are the Spirits of God For the Word is a Spirit which was brought forth with a significative Voice But because the Spirit Breath and Speech are thrust forth by different Organs the Spirit proceeding out of the Nostrils and the Speech out of the Mouth consequently there is a great difference between this Son of God and the other Angels caeteros Angelos these being come forth out of God as silent and mute Spirits because they were not created to preach the Doctrine of God but only for the executing of his Orders But the Son notwithstanding he is a Spirit yet he came forth of the Mouth of God with a Sound and a Voice like unto Speech because God was to make use of his Voice to instruct the People c. You see manifestly how he confounds the Angel who is called the Word with the other Angels that he makes them all to proceed out of God equally by an immediate Prolation and that the only difference he makes here consists in this that the common Angels proceeded out of the Nostrils of God as mute Spirits design'd only to execute his Orders by Deeds whereas this chief Angel whom he calls the Son doth proceed out of the Mouth of God as a vocal and sounding Speech design'd to deliver his Oracles and to reveal his Will Lastly Origen or some body else under his Name goes beyond even Lactantius himself in that he confounds the Generation of the Word with that of common Creatures Homil. 2. in diversos For tho on the one hand he seems to say That the Word was born before all things and that all things were made by him yet he advanceth at the same time that these Words all things were made by him signify only that at his being born of the Father all things were likewise born together with him the Generation of the Word-God being the same with the Creation of all things And tho he saith That the Son is of a different Substance from the Creature that he hath the same Nature with the Father and that he had a beginning before Time was He seems to destroy all this by adding That the Substance of the Father is the Cause of the Son's Substance and that Jesus Christ intended so much when he said that his Father was greater than he which asserts evidently that the Substance of the Father is greater than that of the Son As also when he goes on To exist before Time is to exist not in Time but with Time His Conclusion will tell us his Meaning We ought then saith he to believe three things the Father bringing forth the Son begotten and the things that were made by the Word the Father speaks the Word is begotten and all things are made Conformably to what he was saying viz. that the Father bringeth forth the Word that is to say begetting his Wisdom all things were then made It is not difficult to sound the Depth of this Philosophy The Word is of the same Substance with the Father because it is the proper Power of the Father but it is less than
the Father because it is only a Breath an Emanation and a Ray. The Word is before all things because it was necessary that God should command before the Creature obeyed But all things are born together with it because God created the World by bringing forth and begetting the Word We should open our Eyes and see the Cabala of the Creation of the World through all these mysterious Generations So as Clement of Alexandria expounds it in brief Strom. lib. 5. The Word saith he coming out of God did cause the Creation that is to speak plainly God created the World by one single Word and seeing this great Maker made no use of any other Instrument hence it came to pass no doubt that this Word of his was called his Minister But let us return to immediate Generation As the Philosophers understood by Wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing else but the Universal Idea of the World which they called the first-born Son of God because it is the Plan of this sensible World So the Fathers being enur'd to this way of philosophizing conceiv'd also the Idea of the Messiah to be the first Idea in the Spiritual World and an Universal One and to be the Source and Seed of all the other Ideas In this sense Tertullian against Hermogenes makes Wisdom to be more antient than the Word meaning that this Wisdom did thrust the Word it self out of the Heart of God and together all the various Forms of existing things Which is a mere Allegory the meaning of which is that the Word brought forth and all other things were made according to the Plan and Idea of the internal Word which is the immediate Production of the Divine Understanding Hence it comes that Justin in his second Apology distinguisheth the Universal Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Primitive Seed which is nothing else but the Wisdom of God from Reason which is in every Man and which is only a Portion and Emanation of the Divine Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Philosophers consider'd these Seeds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. In God and then they differ not from Platonic Ideas which are not only the Forms of Creatures trac'd in the Divine Understanding but also are the Causes and the Origin of all Productions Marcus Antoninus made use of this Word in that sense lib. 4. § 10. 2. They considered these Seeds in things created designing to denote by them their Essences and Forms but especially that of Man who is as it were a Portion of the Wisdom of God This last is the sense of Justin But they distinguish'd among these Primitive Seeds the Idea of the Messiah as an immediate one and the first in the Divine Understanding for the sake of which God trac'd and form'd all the rest Hence arose that common Opinion that God created the World for the Messiah This Opinion whether true or false gave occasion to Mahomet to apply to himself this Prerogative of the Messiah that God would not have created the Heaven and the Earth had it not been for the Love he bare him apud Barthol Edessen in confut Agaren Furthermore if any will demand how it happened that so many of the Disciples of Plato both Christians and Pagans did so grosly follow the Letter of his three Principles made three Hypostases of them and changed his Cosmogony into a mere Theogony I answer as Mons Le Clerc doth concerning Idolatry on Exod. 20.4 It proceeded saith he from the Craft of Priests who in order to make Religion more August talk'd but very obscurely of its Mysteries whatever was clear was not convenient for them but every thing must be concealed under Symbols and Riddles and seeing that Symbolical Religion was purely arbitrary it came to pass that the true sense of those Symbols was effaced out of the Minds of Men nothing remaining for the Vulgar except what made an Impression upon their senses So that they believed at last that the Deity it self dwelt under those Figures At first they design'd to represent under the Symbolical Figure of an Ox only a King devoted to Husbandry but at last they came to believe that the Soul it self of that King deified did inhabit that Ox. No doubt but the Philosophers themselves were a part of the People The shrewder of them having found the Truth had some Reasons to cover it under Fictions thereby to disguise it to others Plato had his as we have seen already He having found the Father of the World to be the most good wise and powerful God and having found it dangerous to speak of him according to Truth he made three Hypostases and three Gods of the three Attributes which he conceived were in the Creator and spake of them Majestically under the Names of Good Reason and the Soul of the World or under some other Fictions that vary the Terms yet without altering the secret Doctrine contained in those Symbols This Symbolic Theology being arbitrary or rather a mere Fiction the Sense â—â—â—tained under that Shell dwindled away by little and little The Letter remaining alone they philosophized only on the indeterminate System of three Hypostases viz. of a First Second and Third God The Christians especially were not wanting to make a noise about this Mystery to render their Religion the more pompous But after all it was the gross Platonism that turned the Christian Doctrines into a mere Pag 〈…〉 Turns the best things degenerate but it was not so from the beginning CHAP XV. The Sentiment of the Moralists among the Jews concerning the Wisdom or the Word St. John hath imitated them I Know it is pretended that the Jews were not ignorant of the Mystery of the Platonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in truth there is too much Weakness in what is alledged from the 8th of Proverbs and some other Places in their moral Books I am amazed to think that any body should not see this Chapter to be figurative and that Solomon speaks there of Wisdom in general such as it is in God or as he hath communicated it to Man but especially of that which shines forth and is to be admired in the Creation of the World as some of the Orthodox understood it in St. Jerom's time Hieron in cap. 2. Ephes Dr. Patrick now Bishop of Ely doth freely own in his Paraphrase on this Chapter that Solomon speaks here of nothing else but the wise Laws which God had given to the Israelites Arg. ver 21 22 c. This is expressed in such magnificent Language that tho Solomon I suppose thought of nothing but the wise Directions God had given them in his Word revealed to them by his Servant Moses and the Prophets yet the antient Christians thought his Words might be better applied to the Wisdom revealed unto us in the Gospel by the Son of God himself the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father Could he have expressed himself more clearly to give
us to understand that when the Platonic Fathers applied these losty Expressions of Solomon to their Eternal Word they did not or could not do it but by the way of an Accommodation or Allusion The same Bishop having related the Opinion of some Fathers a little lower who apply the same Expressions of Solomon to the Man Jesus Christ afterwards goes on thus pag. 63. But this saith he not being the sense of the Words which Solomon first intended I shall not build my Paraphrase upon it but take Wisdom here as it signifies in other Places of this Book and hath been hitherto described whom Solomon now celebrates for her most venerable Antiquity and introduces like a most beautiful Person no less than a Queen or rather some Divine Being infinitely to be preferred before that base Strumpet spoken of in the foregoing Chapter Indeed Solomon hath made her speak by introducing her as a Person and exborts young People to give ear to her She speaks of herself that God created her or that she comes to us from God that she was before the World was made because God who is the source of her and communicates her to Men did make use of her in framing this Universe Also that Kings reign by her because Prudence and good Counsels are the Soul of a good Government Notwithstanding this clear and natural sense Prejudice hath abused these Words to apply them to Jesus Christ but there are many other that cannot at all agree to him 'T is true that the Platonick Fathers are alledg'd here who understood this Chapter literally of a Personal Wisdom I own it but the same Fathers have also and that with no less Pomp quoted that Passage of the 45th Psalm My Heart is inditing a good Matter Word to prove the Eternal Generation of J. C. We justly laugh now adays at so ridiculous an Interpretation as well as of that Psal 110. From the Womb of the Morning thou hast the Dew of thy Youth Which the antient Interpreters did endeavour to make subservient to the same purpose Let us then I pray mistrust them as to this Text in the Proverbs they having so grosly deceiv'd us in those two of the Psalms which they made use of for the same ends as frequently and with as much Confidence But after all tho their Testimonies should be produc'd in shoals we can produce better Interpreters of Prov. 8. I mean the Books of the Old Testament it self the Wisdom and Ecclesisticus which tho they are Apocryphal yet are of greater Authority than the Writings of the Fathers who were the Disciples of Plato the Authors of these two having probably known better the Mind of Solomon and the Sentiments of the Jews The Author of the Wisdom having made use of the same Prosopopeia with him in the Proverbs calls Wisdom The Breath Spirit of the Power of God a pure Stream flowing from the Glory of the Almighty the Brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted Mirrour of the Power of God the Image of his Goodness and that she sits on the Throne of God He goes on like the Author of the Proverbs that when God created the World Wisdom was with him knew his Works was present then knoweth and understandeth all things But to let you see that he speaks only of a Quality or Virtue he adds That he loved her sought her out from his Youth desired to have her for a Spouse was a Lover of her Beauty He desires of God in his ardent Prayers to give her to him to send her out of the Heavens to assist him to teach him that his Works might be acceptable For saith he we hardly guess aright at things that are upon the Earth but the things that are in Heaven who can search out unless God gives Wisdom and send his Holy Spirit from above See Chap. 7 8 9. The same Author speaking further of this Divine Perfection saith That God made all things by his Word form'd Man by his Wisdom Chap. 9. 1 2. taking the Word and Wisdom for one and the same thing viz. for that Power which created the World and whereof Wisdom is but an Emanation Can you imagine now this Author meant that God did create the World by his Son the second Person of the Trinity Can such a Thought enter into a rational Creature Let us come now to the Author of the Ecclesiasticus who expresseth better the Sense we ought to give to the Words of Solomon He introduceth Wisdom speaking thus of her self I came out of the Mouth of the most High he created me from the beginning before the World Hitherto he seems to speak of a Person but explains himself clearly Ch. 24. Ver. 23. where he declares that he meant by this nothing else but the Law of Moses which the Jews name Wisdom by way of Excellency For having spoken of Wisdom under other Figures than that of a Person I mean under the Figure of a Palm-tree an Olive-tree a Vine c he sums up what he had said in these words All these things are the Book of the Covenant of the most High even the Law which Moses gave Can the Law given by Moses be call'd more expresly not only an Olive-tree or a Vine but also the Word which came out of the Mouth of the most High and Wisdom which God created before the World Which are Expressions visibly figurative the which under the Fiction of a Person or the Figure of a Vine represent the Wisdom of God to us sometimes as revealing it self in the Creation of the World and again as replenishing Men with the Fruits of its Knowledg in the Dispensation of the Law This kind of Fictions was familiar to the Moralist Jews and to all the Oriental Philosophers You must be purblind if you discern not immediately the Genius of that People accustom'd to a figurative and parabolick Stile St. John imitates the Moralist Jews and according to the same Ideas hath at one view represented to us the Word or Wisdom of God manifesting himself to Men in two of the greatest of his Dispensations viz. in the Old and the New Creation The Method is the same absolutely you need only put the Gospel or the Author of the Gospel instead of Moses and the Law You may really see him join these two things together viz. The Wisdom of God residing in God himself and presiding at the Creation of the World and the same Wisdom descending upon J. C. in whom it was as it were incarnated and ordering the New World For if according to the Hebrews the Law was the Wisdom or the Word or Precept by way of Excellency much more doth this great Elogium belong to the Gospel namely to be the Word the Wisdom the Truth the Light and the Life by way of excellency An Elogium consequently belonging to J. C. who brought the Word and the Life and was the great Teacher of Truth Whatever the Scripture saith of the First Creation
and upon the Cross of J.C. whereof he hath found a thousand Figures in the History of the People of old which he brings to his bent by Violence and Artifice he seeks particularly for a sublime Sense in the Name of Joshua or Jesus the Son of Nun. He saith That the Father hath shew'd us in Joshua every thing that may be said of his Son Jesus insomuch that it may be said according to him that J. C. brought the People of the Jews into the Land of Canaan because he had done it in Joshua his Figure or rather because he did the same in a spiritual Sense So that J. C. was Joshua by whom so many Miracles were wrought in the Land of Canaan and for the same reason J. C. was the Word by which all things were made I say the Word for altho Barnabas makes no mention of it in all his Epistle yet he makes an allusion thereto in these Words Let Vs make Man which he applies to J. C. Lastly Barnabas adds Behold here Jesus again not the Son of Man but the Son of God who appear'd in Flesh in his Figure Who sees not here that Jesus the Son not of a Man as Joshua was but the Son of God being born of a Virgin did manifest himself in Flesh in a typical and figurative manner in the Person of Joshua We may say likewise according to this way of interpreting the Scriptures that the same Jesus created the World in the Person of that Spirit or of that Word which spake and the Creature appear'd because that first Word was the Type of that other Word which insinuated it self into J. C. and which said for example Lazarus come forth and Lazarus came forth immediately out of his Tomb and from the Dead That gave Life and so did this You may in the same sense as most of the Fathers did say that J. C. appear'd to the Patriarchs because the appearing of the Angels in a Human Shape was the Type of his Manifestation in Flesh Hence comes it that Clement of Alexandria calls him the mystical Angel the Angel being J. C. in a Type and J. C. being the Angel in a Mystery Moreover Barnabas continuing his Allegory upon the Sabbath and the Temple whence he is continually drawing forth mystical Interpretations and having run over all the Figures of the Old Testament in the spiritual Application he makes of them to J. C. and his Church he calls this Parables and concludes You have here saith he all that regards the Glory of J. C. viz. how all things were made for him and by him Where by all things without doubt all those Dispensations of the old Oeconomy are to be understood which have any relation to him to his Birth Death or Resurrection the which he may be said to have done not literally but spiritually in the Person of the Prophets who were his Figures This is so clear by the sequel and coherence of his Discourse that I have been amaz'd at the Confidence of Dr. Bull who in his Defence of the Council of Nice p. 67. dares to quote these Words as if Barnabas had said them of the first Creation For it is so far from these Expressions being serviceable to his Hypothesis that they demonstrate on the contrary how these Words that all things were made by J. C. are to be understood that is because either he did them in his Types as Barnabas teaches us here or because he meant that the same Power or one like to that which created the old World and inspired the Prophets did dwell in J. C. Whoever knows the Character of Barnabas but a little must be very conceited if he gives any other Sense to his Words See here the Judgment of Mr. Du Pin concerning him Biblioth Tom. 1. at the Word Barnabas The Epistle of this Father saith he is full of forc'd Allegories on the Holy Scriptures and with extraordinary Explications deviating from good Sense But these Allegories these mystical Explications and Fables hinder not this Epistle from being his whose Name it bears You must have but a small insight into the Genius of the Jews and the first Christians brought up in the Synagogue if you believe that such kind of Thoughts could not be theirs On the contrary this was their very Character they learn'd of the Jews to turn the Scriptures into an Allegory We ought not then to wonder that St. Barnabas a Jew by Birth and writing to the Jews should explain allegorically many of the Passages of the Old Testament and apply them to the New Every body knows that the Books of the first Christians are full of this sort of Fables and Allegories Mr. Le Moine is of the same Judgment in his Notes on Barnabas To conclude the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very familiar to this Author he means by it a sublime and profound Sense This appears by his infinitely extolling this Knowledg which he also names Science and Wisdom above the Vertues which accompany Faith This way of distinguishing Science from Faith was follow'd by Origen it seems that Gnosticism was brought in by this Allegorick Science of the Scriptures and afterwards degenerated into Poetical Speculations and an Heathenish Philosophy The first Method was Jewish the second Platonic All which seems to prove that the Author of this Epistle was a true Gnostic I mean one of the first of them who imitated the Jewish Cabala in their mystical Interpretations of the Old Testament which was accounted a sublime Science but not one of those Gnosticks who were afterwards decried for converting that Allegoric Science into a Philosophy merely Pagan For these last who were Gentile Proselytes imagining they had the same right with the Proselyte Jews to the use of these Allegoric Interpretations adapted presently the Theogony of their Poets and the Ideas of Plato to the Evangelical Truths The former sought for a mystical sense of the Law but the latter the sublime sense of Philosophy both of them in relation to Jesus Christ and his Holy Doctrine Those of the latter sort who passed the Bounds in this Method and made so wide a Pleroma were called Hereticks but those that used it with a greater Caution and Modesty and who carried the Pleroma no further than the three Aeons which seemed to have some ground in the Scriptures and kept a Decorum better in their Resemblances had the good fortune to pass for Orthodox even to Posterity I think it is better to argue thus about the Author of this Epistle than to say with Dr. Hammond that he opposeth Cabala to Cabala and that by the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he attacks the false Science of the Gnosticks For it doth not appear that he disputes with any body unless it be only against the Jews who would not receive his Allegories However it doth not appear that Gnosticism such as it was at that time confined to mere Allegory on the Scripture was then decried On the contrary
and Oeconomical Mystery of the antient Fathers The Reason of Prudence ceasing since we have now no more Platonists to gain nor Gnosticks to outbrave the Oeconomy of the Logos ought to cease at the same time Yet we do in this as in every thing else we never reform and it often happens that the Religion of Posterity is nothing else but the mere Policy or Oeconomy of their Ancestors I have but one Reflection more to shew the Source of this Allegory Cerinthus was the Man who first brought in this usage of Platonizing As he is the first Author of a Logos or an invisible Christ he is also the first who began to make use of the Oeconomy in the Christian Religion 'T is he who turns the Resurrection into Allegory explaining it by the Evangelical Regeneration or rather by the State of Quietude wherein the Contemplative are when they quit this World to raise themselves to the Speculation of Mysteries and the Knowledg of Ideas The Quietists have not fail'd to frame an Ideal and Allegorical Word or Logos even as they have also taught an Allegorical and Ideal Resurrection Without question they allegoriz'd when they said Christ descended into Jesus meaning that Jesus was anointed and made the Christ when the Holy Ghost descended upon him at his Baptism See Grotius on 1 Cor. 15.1 They did no less allegorize when upon the same ground they added that the Christ which descended on Jesus ascended into Heaven and left him at the moment of his Passion By which they meant as St. Paul says that Jesus humbl'd himself that he laid by the Power and the Spirit with which he was endu'd and left himself to be crucified as a Man feeble and without Power or rather as a Slave Tertul. contra Prax. cap. 30. St. Hilary and St. Ambrose did not understand so much fineness since they made bold to say bluntly and without figure that the Word was divorc'd from the Flesh that the God was separated from the Man and left him to himself In short that which I am saying of the use of this Allegory amounts to this 'T is well known that the Pagans invented three sorts of Allegory the Physical the Moral and the Theological which never fail'd 'em at a pinch to cover the absurdity of their Fables and of the History of their Gods 'T is after this way they defended themselves as we see in St. Clemens his Recognitions lib. 10. cap. 30. saying that the literal Sense of their Fables was contriv'd in condescension to the Vulgar but that they had besides an allegorical and elevated Sense for the Learned That in this last Sense they said for example that Jupiter from his own Brain begat the Goddess Minerva that is Wisdom to shew that 't is by his Wisdom that the Father of all things created the World One may truly say the Christians have in a manner follow'd the same Method For not to mention their many Moral Allegories which they invented to conceal that which seemed to 'em too low and mean for the Majesty of the H. Scriptures 't is sufficient to observe here that all they have told us of an eternal and invisible Son of his incomprehensible Generation and other Speculations of the like nature is nothing else but a theological Allegory by which they varnish'd whatever appear'd too mean in the eyes of Philosophers in the History of Jesus Christ The Pagans and the Christians have hereby equally quitted themselves of a difficulty that expos'd 'em to mutual Reproaches The Pagans were asham'd of their ridiculous Fables and the Christians were of the Cross of Christ and both of 'em surmounted those Inconveniences by a dextrous use of what we call the Wonderful which is to be met with in their Allegory CHAP. XXI An Account of what the Father 's called Theology WHAT the Father 's called Theology is another sort of Machine they acted withal to represent to us a contemplative Gospel formed after the Ideas of Plato which theologizes that is speaks of any Person in the same Stile as one usually speaks of God as if the Person had a miraculous Birth to say he came down from Heaven if he reform'd Mankind to say he created the World if God rais'd him to any extraordinary Dignity to say that he was begotten of God All this so far agrees with the Scriptures but especially with the Stile of St. John who affects throughout his Writings to theologize all the Subjects he treats on I will give you but this one Instance John 3.13 No Man says he has ascended into Heaven c. The foregoing Words do shew that he theologized in this Passage he had said to the Jews How will you believe if I tell you of Heavenly things For no Man has ascended into Heaven c. that is to say plainly that no Man can acquaint you with Heavenly Things but he who came down from Heaven or who drew his Origin from Heaven The sense therefore is this The Son of Man who was born from Heaven by the Holy Ghost and on this account may be said in the theological way to have come down from Heaven The same Son of Man was raised to the Knowledg of all the Secrets of Heaven by the Gifts he received from the same Spirit and on that account it may be further said in the theological Stile That be ascended into Heaven No Man then was rais'd to the Knowledg of the Secrets of Heaven but he who was originally from Heaven that is the Son of Man who was wholly from Heaven After this manner the Jews did theologize when they said that their Law was before the Creation of the World The Mahometans do the same when they speak so magnificently of the Gospel as to say it fell down from Heaven sometimes speaking the same thing of the Alcoran which they call the Word of God which was not made but came down from Heaven Barthol Edessen Confut. Agar They give also the same Honour to Jesus Christ who because he was born without a human Father after an extraordinary manner is in their oriental and theological Stile the Eternal Word the Word of God by way of Excellence that is he is the Word 1. Because he had no other Father than that Word and that Commandment had which made the World from nothing 2. Because he with the assistance of that very Word has distinguish'd himself by a great number of Miracles Hortinger Hist Orient lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 105. Simon Voyage du Mont. Liban p. 262. Again nothing is more reasonable than that manner of Theologizing things great and extraordinary provided all these pompous Expressions be taken in a metaphorical sense But the Misfortune is that the grosser Platonism has impos'd upon the Fathers who have spoken in this manner of J.C. in the very Letter So that to theologize with them is to ascribe to Jesus Christ the Divine Nature and Substance with all its Attributes or at least
invoked God the Father thro his Everlasting High Priest Jesus Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit Who sees not that he gave Glory to J. C. and that he deified him by stiling him the everlasting High Priest If he could have said any thing greater he would have said it Rusticus Praefect of Rome demanded of Justin Martyr what was the Christian Religion This Confessor answered we believe one only God who is the Creator of all things visible and invisible and we confess that J. C. our Lord is the Son of God foretold by the Prophets and who shall come one day to judg the World Observe here such a Son of God whose whole Pre-existence consists in his being foretold by the Prophets and whose real Greatness is not his having created but because he will judg the World This Creed is Apostolic and has the Air and Simplicity of the first Ages One may dextrously philosophize upon the Christian Religion and speak in the Platonic way in ones Closet as Justin has often done but when he was to make a sincere Consession before the Magistrate and to seal it with his own Blood Plato has nothing to do with it the Confession is made with Simplicity and in conformity to the Holy Scriptures then 't is no longer Justin the Philosopher but Justin the Confessor and the Martyr Lastly Hegesippus acquaints us in Euseb-Eccles Hist lib. 2. c. 23. that James the Just being conjur'd by the Jews to declare to them what he thought of Jesus Why says he do you put this Qacst'en to me concerning Jesus the Since Mâ—n He sits in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Power of God and he must come again in the Clouds of Heaven This Holy Man says the Historian was a Witness very credible both with Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was really the Christ His Confession is not long however it comprehends that which may be said to be the most august and considerable and confirms all the Theology which concerns the Persons of Christ To these Testimonies of antient Martyrs give me leave to add another Instance which is not much from the purpose Eusebius tells us in his Eccles Hist lib. 1. c. 13. That Thaddeus going to see King Agbarus he preached to the King J. C. our Lord and our God the Messias or the Sent of God Valesius remarks in his Notes that the Word God is wanting in good Copies which are in other Passages confirmed by Nicephorus and Ruffinus And I don't think says Mons Valois any one dares deny but that the Reading wherein the Word God is wanting is more agreeable to the Text For 1st the Antients us'd not that Word but of the Father only 2ly If Thaddeus speaking to a King who was a new Convert to and weak in the Faith had call'd J. C. God this might have perplexed him and made him to think that two Gods were preached to him 'T is plain and fair dealing to affirm the Antients by no means gave the Name of God to J. C. but 't is mincing to say that they did it not in the case of weak Christians this is a mere Evasion For why was not the like Tenderness us'd towards others in the following Ages Is it because there was less danger of spreading Polytheism Were not the Catechumens both weak and Novices too whom the Pantaenusses the Clements Alexandrinusses the Origens and the Cyrils taught the second God of Plato with all the Niceties of the mystic Theology Be that as it will it appears from this Passage and many others that one has not good ground to trust much to the Testimonies of the Antients where the Name of God is given to J. C. The Word God has been inserted in such Places by Trinitarian Copists and without doubt many other Terms have been retrench'd as they thought fit What an Abyss of Uncertainty is here then Besides Mons Du Pin believes this History of Thaddeus to be fabulous See his Biblioth Tom. 1. p. 1. Eusebius has amassed all sorts of Memoirs without much Judgment He often misunderstands the Authors he cites sometimes he corrupts them to reconcile them to the Arian Scheme What endless Uncertainties must this occasion Mons Valois himself falls under the same Guilt he taxes in others and we must not only be upon our Guard against the Fraud of Copists but of Translators too Observe how he reads the Text in the eleventh Chapter of the eighth Book of Euseb Eecles Hist The Martyrs of Phrygia as he makes the Historian word it called upon Jesus Christ who is God over all Now these Words God over all are not found in the Greek of Christopherson nor in the Latin Version of Ruffinus nor in Cousin's French Version And Valois takes no notice whence he had this Reading which in other Places is so contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius himself and to other Invocations to be met with in great Numbers in his History the ordinary Form thereof is to invoke him who is God over all by or through J. C. our Lord and in short is contrary to the Usage and constant Practice of the Primitive Church as we are going to shew in our third Proof CHAP. III. A Continuation of the Proofs that the first Fathers did not deify Christ upon any other account but that of his miraculous Birth and Exaltation I Affirm in the third Place that the Antients grounded their Deification of J. C. upon nothing beyond his being born of a Virgin and his Exaltation in the highest Heavens and that for this decisive Reason because they held all those were Hereticks who gave J. C. the Title of God over all To this purpose speaks the Author of the Apostolic Constitutions lib. 6. c. 26. There are some says he who have the Impiety or are so impious as to say that J. C. is God over all fancying that he is the Father himself and at the same time both Son and Paraclet Can any thing be conceived more execrable Upon this Passage Mons Daille in his Pseudepigr Apost blesses himself and says Then was St. Paul an Heretick and the whole Church is heretical which constantly maintain'd against the Arians that J. C. was God over all So that heretofore 't was Heresy to affirm J. C. to be God over all tho now-a-days 't is Orthodoxy But that Christ was the Father himself and the Son and Paraclet too is a consequence drawn from their Doctrine which they rejected without doubt as 't is disavowed by others in these days The distinction of Persons was not then in fashion which is nothing but three different Names for the same thing as that word is now understood For it must signify with some nothing but a Mode a Relation a nescio qâ—â—d which are words that signify nothing less than what we commonly call a Person Wherefore If the consequence above be good against the antient Hereticks 't is e'en as good against the modern Sabellians After the Author of the
and of Spirit begotten and unbegotten made a God in the Flesh the true Life in Death born of Mary and of God This Father arguing against the Josephites does not oppose to their Error the eternal Generation of the Son of God but his Birth of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit I would say he does not speak of a God incarnate but of a Man who was made God in the Flesh that is to say who was born a God or made a God by his Birth because he was born of God and of the Virgin Mary In this Sense Ignatius assures us that our Physician is partly Flesh and partly Spirit since by his wonderful Conception he partook equally of the fleshly or Human and of the Spiritual and Divine Nature He adds this Physician is begotten and unbegotten since he was begotten of a Woman like other Men and at the same time unbegotten having no Man for his Father Lastly he says that this Physician was born of the Virgin Mary and of God which explains all the rest for 't is as much as to say that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the Power of the Spirit of God and not by her Intercourse with Joseph This word God as you may see being there manifestly oppos'd to Man or to Joseph Jesus Christ our God as Ignatius further says in the same Epistle was conceived of the Virgin Mary according to the Divine Dispensation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in truth of the Seed of David but by the intervention of the Holy Spirit Where one sees the same Antithesis continued which we observ'd in the foregoing Passage that is between God and Mary and between the Seed of David and the Power of the Spirit The true Oeconomy according to Ignatius is not the Incarnation of the Supreme God but the miraculous Conception of the Messiah who is both God and Man by his Birth of a Woman by the Power of God This is a Physician who was made God in the Flesh being born of the Virgin Mary and of God of David and of the Holy Spirit This is the true Divine Dispensation this is the great Mystery of the Christians The same Author in his Epistle to the Church of Smirna presents us with another Passage sutable to this occasion For thus he speaks of Jesus Christ That he was truly of the Race of David or the Son of David according to the Flesh but the Son of God according to the Will and Power of God in that he was truly born of a Virgin Monsieur Daillé having mark'd out this Passage of Ignatius as Heretical since he makes the Generation of the Son to depend on the Will and Power of the Father Bp Pearson gives this account of it in his Vindic. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 9. That 't is clear this Father does not speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son but of his Incarnation which as the World owns was by the Will and Power of God For which reason adds Pearson the Interpolator having a mind to pervert these Words by applying 'em to the Divine Nature he was forc'd to change their Order 'T is sufficient that this Learned Person affirms that in this Passage there 's nothing of an eternal Generation and that Ignatius speaks not but of Jesus Christ in allusion to the Words of the Angel The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee c. Wherefore that which c. shall be called the Son of God 'T is enough that he owns this Conception was so wonderful as to intitle Jesus Christ to the Name and Dignity of the Son of God As for the word Incarnation which Ignatius does not use we 'll excuse it in Pearson 't is a Term of art unknown to the good Father and signifies in the Platonizing Divinity that the Supreme God was made Man And if it be certain that Ignatius did not speak in this Passage but of the miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ can it be doubted whether he discours'd upon that same Subject and by no means on the eternal Generation in the two other Passages I am about to cite and which are very like to this here In the mean time Dr. Bull has the rashness to produce them for a Proof of that which he calls the two Natures of our Saviour that is that of a Supreme God and that of a Man like one of us in his Judic Eccles p. 5 seq Who would not wonder at the Artifice of Divines who have the Skill to pervert these Passages to serve their Notion of the Eternal-Generation We can furthermore shew you the Footsteps of this plain antient Divinity in other of the Fathers who Platonize more than Ignatius as in Justin and Irenaeus But we shall have another opportunity of examining the Theology of those two Fathers at present the Passage in Ignatius will suffice whereby to judg of the rest The only Reflection that remains is that Ignatius having so often distinguish'd between the Son born of God and of Mary and the Son born of David and the Holy Spirit 't is upon this Foundation that the distinction of the two Natures in Christ is founded in the true sense of it or if you please his twofold Filiation the one Divine the other Human. He is the Son of God says the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox Quest 66. in that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Son of Joseph in that he was born of Joseph's Wife 'T is in this the Mystery consists He was born of Joseph's Wife this is but a legal Filiation with regard to Joseph and he was born of the Spirit of God this is a proper and natural Filiation with respect to God So that in this last respect it may be said that he is truly Light of Light and God of God I have already said it and I 'll repeat it again The Fathers thought that the Holy Spirit which overshadowed the Virgin Mary in some sort united it self to the Flesh of Jesus Christ so as never to be separated from it and 't is upon this perpetual Inhabitation that they have philosophized in their manner upon the two Natures of our Saviour Grotius aim'd at this Theology in one of his Notes upon Colos 1.19 The Plenitude of Divine Vertues says he dwelt in Jesus Christ that is to say 't was perpetually and inseparably united and not by intervals as in the Prophets This is what 's called the Hypostatick Vnion This in effect is the personal Union of the Divine with the Human Nature even this Shekinah or this perpetual Inhabitation of the Spirit of God in Jesus Christ To go farther in quest of other Mysteries betrays a Vanity of Mind The Fathers compriz'd all in what I have said and upon it they built those profound Speculations with which their Books are fill'd If at some times they went farther and spoke of the Word in a manner not agreeable with the ground I have laid down 't is
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
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