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
incarnate And what can this Reason be which it merited and which was united to it When the Veil of Allegory is taken off it can be no other than that high Contemplation whereof the Soul of Jesus Christ had by its pre-existent Obedience render'd it self capable or than that degree of Prophecy and that Spirit without measure wherewith God had honoured it and which made it Partaker of the Divine Nature or lastly the very Office of Word or of Interpreter of God whereof God had judged it worthy as the most perfect and noblest of the Spirits which he had decreed to declare his Mind Celsus says he ibid. lib. 7. will not own that he who suffer'd Death can be worthy of the second Honours next to the Supreme God as well because of the Powers he had acquir'd in Heaven as because of those he had acquir'd on Earth Supposing as you see that Jesus Christ had merited in Heaven before he came to merit on our Earth he was very far from believing him to be the most High God Wherefore Origen having said of the Word that it was in God that it came from God that it was made Flesh and affirming the same of the Soul of J. C. this Conformity yields just reason to suspect that the Doctrine of the Word is nothing but the Soul of Jesus Christ theologiz'd whereon they discours'd Allegorically That 's in a manner prov'd by the Hypothesis of the Arians who believ'd that the Word was to Jesus Christ instead of a Soul and consequently by the Word understood only the Soul of Jesus Christ created before all Ages An Hypothesis renew'd in our time by John Turner who has given it a new turn for he maintains That the Word is nothing else but the Soul of Jesus Christ created indeed but eternally united to the Substance of God and by that Union participating all his Perfections A Discourse concerning the Messiah Ep. Dedic p. 154. The same is infer'd from the Use which has been made of some Texts of Scripture as for example these I came from the Father O Father glorify me with the Glory which I had with thee c. Who being in the Form of God c. Our Divines interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Word but Origen and Dr. Rust in his Book intitul'd Origen and his chief Opinions interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Soul of Jesus Christ Whence comes this Confusion of Ideas The reason of it is easily given The former of these Interpretations is mysterious and allegorical and the latter literal So we may conclude that the Fathers allegoriz'd on the pre-existent Soul of Jesus Christ loving our Nature and becoming incarnate for our Salvation which they in their allegorical Stile call'd the Word or the Son of God And consequently those who take this last Allegory in the literal Sense and understand it of a Divine Person united to our Flesh are not less ridioulous than they who stumbling at the Letter of the first Allegory really believ'd that Angels had mix'd themselves with mortal Women The Text for the first Hypothesis that the Sons of God were married to the Daughters of Men serves as well as that for the second I have begotten thee before the Morning This Pre-existence of Souls and particularly of that of Jesus Christ has been very antient in the Church We find it plainly enough express'd in the second letter attributed to Clemens Romanus C. 10. These are his Words As you have been call'd dwelling in the Flesh so you will come in the Flesh Jesus Christ the Lord who sav'd us being the first Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made Flesh and so called us 〈◊〉 likewise we shall receive the Recompence in the Flesh This Passage supposes the Pre-existence of our Souls as well as that of the Soul of Jesus Christ For he compares our Spirits existing in the Flesh to that first Spirit which was made Flesh to call us He calls Jesus Christ the first of all Spirits whether Souls or Angels because God begat him first a little before he undertook the Creation of the World and afterwards imploy'd him to create the other Spirits according to the Doctrine of Lactantius Instit lib. 4. c. 6. who further teaches us ibid. c. 1.2 That this Holy Spirit descending from Heaven chose the Womb of a Virgin to enter into And the better to carry on the Comparison which he makes of that Spirit to all incarnate Spirits he shews that he was rais'd to the Recompence only by his faithful Obedience and Vertue ibid. cap. 14. His Words are remarkable God says he having sent his Son to Men He hath shewn his Faithfulness in teaching that there is but one God and that he only is to be worship'd and he never call'd himself God because he would have violated his Truth if being sent to take away from the World the Plurality of Gods and to establish the Unity of God he had introduc'd more than one God That had not been preaching One God nor working for the Interest of him who sent him but for his own and it would have been dividing himself from the Father whom he came to glorify Then by his having been thus faithful and in the Design of discharging his Commission not attributing any thing to himself he has receiv'd the Dignity of everlasting High Priest the Honour of Supreme King the Power of Judg and the Name of God By the way these Words of this Father are a curious Paraphrase on those of St. Paul Phil. 2.6 c. Who being in the Form of God did not attribute to himself c. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and hath given him a Name which is above every Name c. Let us here remember a distinction of the Fathers which has been mention'd already and wherein the Footsteps of antient Allegory visibly appear The Fathers distinguish'd two kinds of Generation of the Word the one eternal and internal and the other external which began with the World and the only one which they properly call Generation Dr. Bull acknowledgeth this distinction only he pretends but without reason that 〈◊〉 the latter which is metaphorical Granting him his desire 't is the same thing with respect to the Question now treated of For it remains nevertheless true that they allegoriz'd on one of the Generations of the Word be it which it will and that 's all I need Let them as long as they please say that the Fathers spake of a Generation of the Word which was proper and literal I shall answer Yes and that 's what I call gross Platonism which has made them philosophize so absurdly But by their own confession the same Fathers have spoken of another Generation of the Word which is metaphorical and allegorical and that 's what I call their refin'd Platonism the fair Remains of sound Philosophy which betrays them and manifestly discovers the absurdity of the other part of their System whereon they
Platonism Unveil'd OR AN ESSAY Concerning the Notions and Opinions OF PLATO And some Antient and Modern Divines his Followers In relation to the LOGOS or WORD in particular and the Doctrine of the Trinity in general In TWO PARTS Anno Dom. 1700. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER THE Author of this Piece as I may say was stopped in the very middle of his Course he intended to have added a third Part to the two others which were publish'd and in it to have examin'd what Divinity the Holy Scriptures attribute to Jesus Christ He would have confin'd himself to what the four Evangelists acquaint us concerning it and made it appear to the meanest Capacity that the Ideas those Sacred Writers have given us are very wide from such as the Antients put upon 'em and the Moderns have espoused But Death prevented the Execution of this Design and hindered the Publick from reaping the Benefit of it However if this Essay meet with the Approbation it merits the World may be oblig'd with a Dissertation the Author has left upon the Gospel of St. John It may be said of this excellent Man that he was a Person of very great Penetration as well as Piety and that he made the Study of the Holy Scriptures his greatest Entertainment He had nothing in view but a Search after Truth which when he had found he embrac'd it with all his Heart for he was incapable of betraying or disguising it for any secular Interest whatever This plain dealing drew upon him many Enemies but his Patience in a manner overcame all and the firm hopes he had of a better Life after this did always support him under all the Tryals thro which the Calumnies and Malice of his Enemies had forc'd him His Friends have this Comfort however That those very Persecutors could not refuse him when alive nor since his Death the Elogies that his Vertues drew from 'em and according to the Custom of this present Age they took care in his behalf to distinguish the Morals from the Doctrine The Publick will see by what is bere represented to 'em what Judgment ought to be made of the latter THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER THERE are several Passages in the ensuing Discourse that are very uncommon and extraordinary which if they should happen to be true will be much surprizing to the World And if they are not the Author has to appearance supported them with such Authorities from Antiquity that besides the Importance of the things themselves it will deserve the Pains of some Learned Pen to confute this Discourse to reclaim some who have and others who may imbibe this Author's Opinions ERRATA PAG. 4. Col. 2. Lin. 26. for Love r. Power P. 13. c. 2. l. last save one r. in Isaiah according to the Hebrew P. 21. c. 1. l. 22. r. acquir'd P. 36. c. 1. l. 5. dele of P. 39. c. 1. l. 37. r. dwelt in him P. 42. c. 2. l. 29. r. it was P. 45. c. 1. l. 4. r. World P. 49. c. 2. l. 40. r. contained P. 64. c. 2. l. penult r. however P. 81. c. 1. l. 20. r. herself Platonism Unveil'd c. The FIRST PART CHAP. I. The true Idea of the Logos GOD dwelling in an inaccessible Light where no one can either find or comprehend him was yet willing to reveal himself to his Creatures either by the way of a Manifestation without or by the way of Communication within To manifest himself 1. He environs himself with a supernatural Light whence he causeth his Voice to be heard and declares his Will 'T is thence that he speaks to Angels For being invisible by his Nature even in reference to Angels it is necessary that whenever he is pleas'd to declare his Orders to these Ministring Spirits he should give them some marks of his Presence in some certain Place in the Heavens and make his Will known This Manifestation is so lively and luminous that the Eyes of Men cannot bear the Splendor of it in this mortal Life None but the glorified Spirits may enjoy this Privilege in common with the Angels and which St. Paul calls the seeing of God face to face It is thus without doubt that Jesus Christ beheld him Mr. Le Clerc hath very well observ'd on Exod. 34.18 that Moses who had such frequent Testimonies of the Divine Favour desir'd this as a singular advantage that God who us'd to shew himself in a Cloud would vouchsafe at last to discover to him his Glory in the same manner as he doth in Heaven But this is too much for a Mortal this Glorious Presence is an advantage reserv'd for the Angels as I said before And without doubt it was in such like Splendor that he presented himself before them when he design'd to create the World and pronounc'd these words Let there be Light At least this is the Sentiment of Basil of Seleucia in his first Oration upon these words In the beginning God created c. God said Let there be Light The Voice was heard and the World produc'd But could not he have perform'd what he design'd in silence and without uttering a word Would not the Work have obey'd the least token of his Will Certainly the Heaven and the Earth with the Waters were already produc'd without any preceding Voice But it was not so with the Light the Voice preceded the Production What sort of a Voice is this and what was the cause of it Let us learn to hearken to Scripture even when it is silent and instruct our selves when it speaks Behold here you have it The infinite Companies of Angels that were created saw indeed the things that were a doing but could not perceive their Author nor discover the Cause for the Divine Essence is really even above the Contemplation of Angels 'T is not then without reason that God usher'd in his Voice to make himself sensible to those Celestial Spirits and to stir up their admiration that seeing the Effect follow'd immediately the Word and Command they being astonish'd at the Prodigy should turn themselves wholly to the knowledg of their Creator and celebrate his Praises saying Is there any greater than this God himself teacheth us this Truth in his Discourse with his Servant Job Job 28.7 apud LXX When I made the Stars all the Angels prais'd me with a loud Voice For by reason of their astonishment proceeding from the Greatness of that Spectacle they repeated their Acclamations and redoubled their Applauses at every Work that God was a doing 2. God makes use of the Person of an Angel that bears his Name and speaks by his Authority 'T is thus that he appear'd and spoke to the Patriarchs and this is the reason why Philo calls Angels Words so often The Author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox speaks thus of this Manifestation All the Angels saith he which appeared unto Men instead and in the Person of God have born the Name of God Men likewise have been call'd
whether it be by an Angel or by an immediate Virtue is the Holy Spirit And all this is call'd the Oeconomy or as Irenaeus saith they are mysterious and extraordinary Dispensations of the Divinity which environ his Majesty to temper its great Splendor and adapt it to our Curiosity For to imagine that this is a second Person of this Divinity as invisible and as infinite as the first would make all the Reasonings of the antient Fathers not only useless but also absurd for they all unanimously declare not only that the Father never makes himself visible but also that he cannot do so It is impossible saith Eusebius Demonstr Evang. lib. 5. cap. 20. That the Eyes of Mortals should ever see the Supreme God to wit him who is above all things and whose Essence is unbegotten and immutable It is absurd and against all reason saith the same Author Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 2. that the unbegotten and immutable Nature of Almighty God should take the Form of a Man and that the Scripture should forge such like Falsities God forbid saith Novatian de Trinit cap. 26. that we should say that God the Father is an Angel lest he should be subjected to him whose Angel he were Et ibid. cap. 31. If the Son saith he were as incomprehensible as the Father the Objection of the Hereticks would have some ground that then there are two Gods It is an Impiety say the Fathers of the Council of Antioch Epist adv Paulum Samosat to fancy that that God who is above all things can be called an Angel Lastly otherwise I must transcribe all the Fathers Justin Martyr explains himself on this wise in his Dialogue with Tryphon No body saith he unless he be out of his Wits will dare to advance that the Father and Author of all things did quit the Heavens to cause himself to be seen in a small part of the Earth I thought to have finished but that I can by no means pass by that excellent Passage of Tertullian against Praxeas cap. 16. That he would not believe that the Sovereign God descended into the Womb of a Woman tho even the Scripture it self should say it This Father being persuaded by Reason and Philosophy that the supreme God is immense immutable and invisible demands how it could come to pass that the Almighty God whose Throne is the Heaven and the Earth his Footstool that this most high God should walk in the terrestrial Paradise should converse with Abraham should call to Moses out of a Bush c. and what is yet worse that he should descend according to Praxeas into the Womb of Mary that he should be impeached before Pilate and be shut up in the Sepulcher of Joseph He goes on Really one would not believe this concerning the Son if the Scripture did not speak it and perhaps would not believe it of the Father tho even the Scripture should say it How so would he mistrust the Scripture No he means only that he should mistrust the literal sense and search there for an Allegory Consequently then all these Fathers own that the Word by which the Father makes himself visible is not of a Nature incapable of causing it self to be seen but something sensible which represents God to us It matters not whether they conceive by it an Hypostasis a Spirit an intelligent Being or any other kind of Representation in a bright Cloud animated with a Voice This will always remain true that they did not understand the Word to be a Spirit equal to the Father as invisible by its Nature as the Father but only a certain Emanation where God produceth himself outwardly and discovers himself in a sensible manner And tho they might have sometimes spoken of the Word as of something invisible they meant not by this that it was invisible by its Nature but only that it was not visible to Men out of the time of its Oeconomy retiring it self from their Presence and becoming as it were hid in God Sometimes they would denote by it even the Energy and the Power of God wherewith his Manifestation is always accompanied but never a second Hypostasis in the Divine Nature For we must observe here sincerely once for all that the Word if you consider it only in its Energy is no other thing but God himself but when it is consider'd as it is a Mark of the Divine Presence then it is something sensible a Voice a Light or some external Form such like as was seen in Angels or in the Man J. C. our Lord. CHAP. II. The Antients believed that the Word was Corporeal WHerefore the Antients attributed a Body to the Word as Servetus very well observed Apolog. ad Philip Melanct. and so Tertullian speaks in his Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ against Praxeas chap. 7. where he proves at large that when God uttered his Word he gave it a Body indeed not a Body of Flesh but an Hypostasis that is Solidity and Substance which is the true Signification of the Word That 's probably what he means when in chap. 6. of the Book of the Flesh of Christ he assures that Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham with Flesh which was not yet born non nata adhuc that is to say not indeed with such Flesh as ours but with a solid Body which had more than appearance A Body I say which he in the 8th Chapter calls the Seed of God from which as from a Heavenly Seed the Messiah was to be born and this Seed is the Holy Ghost or the Substance of the Word which insinuated it self into it Thence the antient Docetes and all the other Hereticks who held the pre-existence of the Word suppos'd that the Word did not take true Flesh of Mary but that he contented himself with the Celestial and Etherial Body which he formerly bore in the Apparitions of the Old Testament which had no more than the Appearance and Figure of a Man which the Scripture calls the Face of God Mons le Moyne did not understand the thing otherwise in his Varia sacra p. 415. The Docetes says he compared the Apparitions of Jesus Christ to the Apparitions of the Old Testament which having been in Etherial Bodies for certain times vanished into the Air as soon as the Dispensation was finish'd imagining that the Body of Jesus Christ was not of any other Nature And it is in the same sense that Cerinthus and Ebion suppos'd that Jesus Christ had not taken true Flesh as St. Jerom assures in the Preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew As Cerinthus held Iren l. 1. c. 25. Epiph. Haeres 28. That the World had been created by a Power he also maintain'd that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary was the Son of the Creator As to the Christ or the Word he made him the Son of another Power superiour to the Creator and attributed to him a Celestial Body which he had always kept without
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
by his Word that is to say by the Command and Order of God See Grotius on Joh. 10 3◠What is become now of the Mystery Whence comes such a gross Mistake The Learned Hammond quoting this Paraphrase in Luke 1.2 doth read it indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his Word which is just what these Gentlemen would be at but if I am not mistaken 't is without any Authority nor do I think that if such a Reading were sound in any Copy either in Manuscript or printed it ought to be prefer'd to the common Reading which is grounded as we have shewn on the Custom of the Hebrews Besides we may assert without any fear of being in the wrong that if there be any alteration in the original Term it was not done to favour the Hereticks we may presume the contrary It is true indeed that Dr. Bull in his Defence of the Council of Nice quotes a Paraphrase we have not to prove the false Reading But it is likely that those who say they have seen it saw but a Latin Translation which hath it Verbo suo in the Ablative as the Grammarians term it by his Word and it is the ambiguity of the Latin Construction that impos'd on those who saw not the Original So true it is that Error always begets a Mystery and that even a Grammatical Ambiguity is capable to furnish us with high-flown and gorgeous ones What makes me think so is this that I have observ'd the like ambiguity in the Author of the imperfect Work on St. Matthew in Mat. 8.8 This Evangelist brings in the Centurion speaking Lord speak the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Author allegorizing no doubt on the Term Word makes him deliver himself thus Lord you have need only to command one of your Messengers and Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and my Servant shall be healed whereas he meant only that our Saviour should speak the Word altho I would not condemn absolutely the Explication of this Author because it is somewhat plausible if we regard how the Centurion goes on For I am saith he a Man under Authority having Soldiers under me and I say unto this Man Go and he goeth and to another Come and he cometh and to my Servant Do this and he doth it These Expressions seem to insinuate indeed that he intended J. C. should command some one of his Servants as he commanded his own Speak to an Angel or to any one of your Disciples to go and heal my Servant and my Servant shall be healed And in this sense an Angel or an Apostle would have been the Word of J. C. even as J. C. himself was the Word of the Father If you take it thus I shall grant with all my heart that the Paraphrast in this place means the Messiah by that Term Word The Judgment of Father Simon upon these Paraphrases deserves your notice Hist critic du V. T. lib. 2. ch 18. It is true saith he that Galatine and many other Divines after him made use of these Paraphrases to establish some Articles of our Faith in opposition to the Jews principally those relating to the Messiah But altho these Proofs seem conclusive as to the Jews because they are taken out of their Books yet I do not think it advantageous to the Christian Religion to have recourse to Books stuff'd with Fables Besides the Passages we believe to favour our Religion consisting chiefly but in Allegories it will be easy for the Jews to evade them for we cannot prove the Truth of our Mysteries invincibly by Allegories But if notwithstanding all these Discoveries the Trinitarians will still insist upon these Paraphrasts to authorise their pretended Mystery we shall be alarm'd so little at the advantage they pretend to get by them that we shall over and above lend them this Passage of the Targum of Jerusalem extremely fit to prove the Pre-existence of their Word Glassius relates it Philol. p. 22. The Paraphrast expounding these Words Behold Adam is become as one of us brings in the Word speaking to his Father Papa behold Adam whom you have created who is your only Son on Earth as I am your only Son in Heaven It seems as if the Word was pleas'd that he had a Brother and a Compare on Shall we never be asham'd of these Rabbinick Frenzies or rather of these Platonick Impostures CHAP. XVII Concerning the Method of the Sacred Writers and some of their Disciples viz. Hermas Barnabas c. in the Interpretation of the Scriptures THE Writers of the New Testament being Jews by Birth did affect according to the Genius of that People an analogick Sense and Accommodations finding every where Relations between the Old and the New Testament Every body knows how they have adapted one History to another one Event to another Event and of what nature are their frequent Allusions and Allegories On this wise to omit other Examples what Moses saith of the Word of God producing the Creature out of nothing St. John accommodates to that Word of J. C. which forms Men anew and manifests the Power of God demonstrating by Miracles that all Creatures obey him J. C. being not so much the Interpreter of the Will of God as the Instrument of his Power You will find this Analogick Sense may be observ'd in most of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Apostles have applied to the New Beza on 2 Cor. 4.6 calls this Sense Anagogical that is to say Spiritual Sublime Mystical and exalted above the pitch of the Letter See Scult Exerc. Evangel lib. 1. cap. 62. where he speaks at large of the manner how the Sayings of the Prophets are accomplish'd analogically under the New Testament The Testimonies of the Old Testament saith he are not always alledg'd to confirm a thing but to illustrate it by an ingenious and well-contriv'd Accommodation which is very familiar to the Holy Ghost The Therapeutes or Jewish Philosophers of Alexandria retain'd this way of interpreting the more willingly because it was altogether conformable to the Method of the Platonists among whom they liv'd Eusebius relates Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 16. that they had the merely Allegorical Commentaries of the Antients and that in expounding the Scriptures they philosophiz'd after the manner of their Predecessors that is to say by the way of Figures and Allegories pretending that the Letter is but a Shell wherein many Mysteries are inclos'd The most antient Fathers of the Church viz. Hermas and Barnabas did follow this Method of the Jews searching for a Spiritual Meaning in the Facts and Rites of the Old Testament in order to adapt them to the New but yet not so as to bring in such Platonick Ideas as obtain'd some time after in the Christian Religion The following Fathers having not only carry'd their Allegories too far and exceeded the antient manner of affecting mystical Senses but also spoil'd this Method by joining gross Platonism with it which personaliz'd every thing
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
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