Points but by little and little and by degrees For it did not define nor pronounce any thing in express Terms about the Deity of the Holy Ghost during the four first Ages very near 'T is certain Gregory Naz. Orat. 20. Ep. 26. excuses the Conduct of St. Basil who tho he was right in his Opinion of the Deity of the Holy Ghost would not however for Peace-sake call it God openly and expresly because he knew there were many otherwise good Catholicks who would be offended if that Name should be given to the Holy Ghost that being not ordinarily and publickly done among the Catholicks till after the second General Council held in 381. Which is as much as to say that at last Time and Custom had placed the Holy Ghost in the Number of the Gods Good God! almost four intire Centuries of the Church which were the brightest and the purest did determine nothing about the Deity of the Holy Ghost just before the end of the 4th they durst not speak of it but shily for fear of offending the very Orthodox themselves Where was then the Trinity Was the Tradition then lost What that of the Orthodox and the Catholicks who rejected or at least were offended at an Article so fundamental What greater Crime could Hereticks have been guilty of Whence came it that the third Person was admitted so very late Prudence they tell us would have the Notion conceal'd for a time But why was not that of the second Person concealed too Are there not the same prudential Reasons for that too I think I perceive the difference of the case The third was not known to the Platonizing Fathers themselves but in a very confused manner and was not by the greatest part of them held for any other than a Creature The Second was in high esteem with all the Platonic Party deifyed by the whole Sect the Favourite Notion and principal Machine of the System 'T was easy to introduce this among the Gods of their Christian Religion which at that time was modell'd according to Plato's Notions But for the third which was not so much in favour 't was difficult to admit it into that Rank without great Address and Precaution In the mean time their over-cautiousness has prov'd a Disadvantage to both the third interferes with the second who should have been produced at the same time with his Brother or both eternally concealed For it the third cannot defend it self what will become of the second which is his elder Brother He is not of better Blood nor of a nobler Stock Can we doubt after such convincing Proofs of the antient Tradition but by the Virgin Church whereof Hegesippus speaks in Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 32. this antient Nazarene meant the Church of the Circumcision which had not yet imbibed Platonism as by the Seducement of Error and Science falsly so called that had its Birth under Adrian's Reign he meant the Platonizing Doctrine of the Gnostics which was then brought into the Church 'T was Philosophy that intirely ruin'd the true Religion as the Apostles had foretold In short Valesius observes upon the Passage I shall by and by cite out of Eusebius that this Historian too much extends the words of Hegesippus ascribing thro Mistake to the Universal Church what Hegesippus spoke only of the Church of Jerusalem or Judea But Hegesippus his being so particular is remarkable He would have us observe by it that fatal Epocha when the Nazarene Christian Bishops were succeeded by the Gentiles and by that means Platonism came in the room of that pure and unmixt Truth which St. James his Successors had preached which happened exactly in the Reign of Adrian that is when the Jews were driven out of Judea and the Christians of the Circumcision with them Sulpitius Severus in his Hist l. 2. c. 45. had reason to say the Christian Faith which according to him is the Platonizing Doctrine drew great advantages from this Dispersion He would have said that the Nazarenes then ceasing the Observation of the legal Ceremonies made no further scruple to unite with the Gentile Church But this is not all the greatest advantage that accrued to the Gentile Church was that Platonism meeting no longer with any Opposition from the Primitive Faith which the Nazarenes had inviolably preserv'd it spread far and wide and like an Inundation overspread the whole Church not excepting that of Jerusalem that antient Repository of the Apostolick Tradition which then lost its Simplicity and Virginity as Hegesippus expresses it 'T was at this time the Gentiles in the Person of Pope Victor rose up against the Christians of the Circumcision and oppress'd 'em by taking from 'em an Apostolick Tradition touching the Day when the Passover was to be celebrated And if they could wrest from 'em this Tradition in a point of mere Practice it was more easy to strip 'em of a Tradition in a point of Doctrine concerning the Nature and Person of Jesus Christ the former being much more easily retained than the latter There must have been a great noise and hurly-burly to alter the former whereas for the latter 't was enough if they took the method of explaining and illustrating or pretended an accommodation to a Sense more noble and profound 'T is of this Innovation attended with Tyranny that the Artemonites complain as Euseb tells us Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 28. Their Complaint was that their Doctrine which was the same Truth that the Antients and Apostles had taught and which had been preserved intire till the time of Pope Victor was corrupted under Zephirin his Successor The Anonymous who relates this endeavours to confute 'em by alledging Authors who liv'd before Victor and had ascrib'd Divinity to Jesus Christ or had called him God But I have demonstrated that this Theology of the Antients is grounded only upon the Birth of our Saviour of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost and does by no means go so far as the Platonick Notion of his Generation The first of these the Artemonites did not disown for they believ'd Jesus Christ to be the Son of God by Mary If the Anonymous would prove from the Antients against the Artemonites that Jesus Christ was God's Son begotten before all Ages how comes it to pass that he finds no antienter a Patron of his Platonizing Opinion than Justin Martyr who wrote after the fatal Epicha when the Succession of the Nazarene Bishops ended and after the rise of the first Gnosticism Basilides and Valentinus c. that is after the Church had lost its Virgin Purity and the Gnostick Opinions had corrupted the antient Theology The Authorities of his date are to be suspected Why does he not ascend as high as Barnabas Hermas Clemens Romanus and Polycarp Would he have wanted the Honour of having these Apostolick Men for his Vouchers if he had thought 'em opposite to Artemon He does not go so far back as Ignatius which makes it to be suspected either
the Reason and Soul of the World hath thereby laid down as the Principle of the Creation of the Vniverse the Goodness Wisdom and Power of God But the best Interpreter of this Platonick Trinity is Galen in his third Book de Vsu Partium his Words are plain and may be call'd the right Key of Platonism I do not says he make true Religion and Piety towards God to consist in sacrificing Hecatombs or in sending up the Smoke of much Incense but in knowing and making known to others what God's Wisdom Power and Goodness are For in my opinion that God has been pleas'd to fill the World with so many good things is a Mark of his Goodness which deserves our unmost Praise That he has found the way of putting it into so good Order is the highest pitch of Wisdom and that he could execute so vast a design is the effect of Almighty Power Nothing is plainer than this Comment He fully explains the Doctrine of the Three Principles without mixing any Philosophical Subtleties or Cabalistick Mysteries with it Here all refers to the Creation of the World and shews no more than a natural Trinity which all may read in these three admirable Properties which God has if I may so speak made visible in his Works And lastly Clem. Alexan. Lib. 5. Strom. p. 547. Edit Lutet 1629. fully shews Plato's mind in the Definition he gives of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Word of the Father of all things says he is not that which was utter'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a most evident Wisdom and Goodness of God with an Almighty and truly Divine Power This is plain here you have the Wisdom Goodness and Power whereof Plato made his Three Principles and whereof Clemens makes only the internal Word the Word of the Father in opposition to the utter'd Word So free and unlimited is this Allegorical Philosophy Observe farther That the words most evident refer to what appears of God in the Creation of the World which is properly the Word of God according to all the Platonical Allegorists As to the Begotten Word which is not that Wisdom nor that Goodness nor that Power which was manifested in the Creation of the World what can it be but the World it self Nevertheless the Fathers believ'd the Prolation of this Word to be the true Generation and consequently when they spake of a Begotten Son understood it of this World without thinking of it Plato then having so personaliz'd the several Operations of the Godhead spake of many Gods to please the People Populo ut placerent quas secisset fabulas reserving to himself the liberty of owning but one God when he convers'd with the Learned or as appears by his Epistles when he wrote to his Friends CHAP. VIII That the Pleroma of the Valentinians was an Allegorical Theology With a Digression concerning the Fanaticism of both the Antient and Modern Gnosticks I Pass from the Philosophers to the Hereticks who imitated them It is certain that there was a hidden and mystical Theology in the Pleroma of the Valentinians That prodigious number of Emanations which seems so monstrous an Opinion to us was at bottom but either a System of the several Orders of Angels who are often call'd Aeons I mean such a Celestial Hierarchy as that of Dionysius was or that Collection of Ideas those different Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Valentin calls them apud Iren. l. 1. c. 5. those several Dispensations which they conceiv'd in one and the same God For they did consider him 1. without regard to the Creature as incomprehensible and retir'd into a profound Silence that is as not having yet spoken that efficacious Word which was to make the Creature and then he call'd him the Profound and the Silence that was the first Order of Aeons 2. They consider'd God with respect to the intelligible World as having his Vnderstanding fill'd with Ideas Ideas being the Essence and the Truth of things according to the Platonists and then they call'd him the Vnderstanding and the Truth that was their second Syzigy 3. They consider'd God with respect to the sensible World as executing his Design and speaking that powerful Word which gave Life and Being to all Creatures and then they call'd him the Word and the Life that was their third Syzigy 4. They consider'd God with respect to the Spiritual and Evangelical World as working Redemption and there they found the Mediator Jesus Christ Man with the new Church which he made by his Preaching and Death and then they call'd him the Man and the Church that was their fourth Alliance But after all these several Emanations rightly taken are but the several Respects in which they conceived one and the same God who having been hid in an Abyss of Light did outwardly manifest himself in these two admirable Works of the Old and New Creation That is the Testimony which Irenaeus l. 2. c. 15. gives of them The Valentinians says he after having divided their Emanations did however return to the Unity holding that all together made but one And in Lib. 1. c. 6. the same Father's relating that Ptolomy gave the most High God two Wives Vnderstanding and Will which they called the Father's two Powers apparently shews that Ptolomy fell into Plato's Allegory in ascribing Wisdom and Power as two Properties inseparable from one and the same Spirit to the Good or Creator of all things And I don't see why Ptolomy might not as well Allegorically say that the supreme Father had two Wives as Philo in the like case that the World had God for its Father and Knowledg for its Mother But if all these several Powers of the Valentinians did not destroy the Unity of God whence then comes it you 'l say that their Doctrine was so abhor'd The reason is apparent viz. That in avoiding the Christian Simplicity they run the Faith into terrible Confusion exposing God's Unity to Peril by their idle Speculations As for the Basilidians they did also allegorize on the word Abraxes whereby they understood that Supreme Power from which all the other Aeons or Spirits proceeded This Name has in its Greek Letters the Number 365 which is that of the Days of the Year or according to Basilides of the Celestial Orbs. And he intended to signify that Abraxas or the most High God was the Father of the Celestial Orbs Ages or Aeons and Creator of the Universe 'T is probable that this is a Hebrew Word and that it comes from Ab Ben Rouach Father Son and Spirit Menage would with his Etymological Sagacity find no difficulty in proving this to be its Derivation thus Ab Ben Rouach Abenrach Aberach Abrach and adding a Greek Termination Abrachas Abraxas Serenus the Physician of the Sect of the Basilidians lengthening the Word fram'd Abracadabra of it which is another mysterious Name which he made use of as an Amulet or Preservative for the Cure of all intermitting
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
hereof you need only read his Book de Temulentia where he pusheth on very far his Allegory of a Spiritual Marriage between God and Wisdom saying that the latter was deliver'd of an only and well-beloved Son that is the sensible World He makes use of the same Expression in the Book of the Life of Moses where he calls the World the most perfect Son of God One of our Authors Steph. le Moine in Notis ad Hippolyti Sermonem hath sincerely acknowledg'd this Truth It is true saith he that Philo the Jew hath often spoke of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he calls the Angels the Words of God and what is more he calls the World so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Philo borrow'd these ways of Expression from the Platonists for dwelling at Alexandria where there were many of these Philosophers he took from their Opinions very many things which he inserted in his Writings As to Josephus his Studies were wholly different for not having had any Commerce with the Platonists you cannot discover in him that Genius and Inclination to Allegory so much observ'd in Philo so that we cannot trace any thing of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him It is objected that Philo hath given the Name of God to the Word of Plato which he had not done if he had understood the World by it 'T is remarkable saith Cudworth in his Intellect Syst p. 549. that Philo altho a great Enemy to Polytheism doth not stick to call the Divine Word according to the Platonists a second God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without thinking to thwart his Religion and the first Commandment of God But this Author excuseth Philo but ill saying That the Commandment speaks only of created Gods whereas Philo held his second God to be eternal and consequently an uncreated God It is absurd to think that a Jew would have admitted of a second uncreated God as if there could be many uncreated Cudworth over-lookt that Philo speaking as a Platonist allegorizeth upon the intelligible World which he calls the second God inasmuch as he looks upon it as an Emanation of the Divine Understanding even as the Plan and the Idea of a Building is the Emanation of the Understanding of an Architect that intends to build it according to this Image Which is a Comparison very samiliar to the Platonicks as you will find it in Philo himself in the beginning of his Book de Mundi Opificio The intelligible World saith he is nothing else but the Word of God preparing it self to create the World even as an intelligible City is nothing else but the Reasoning of the Architect that designs to build a City according to the Plan that he form'd of it in his Mind Now can any one be ignorant that this internal Word this City or this intelligible World are nothing else but the Understanding of the Architect and consequently the Architect himself From whence we discover the reason why Philo who own'd the second God of the Platonists would not platonize yet further being unwilling to admit of their third God for fear of contradicting his Religion which could not allow the created World to be a God the Platonists calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature If he went no further 't is because he might carry on his Allegory so far as to the making of a second God of the Image which is in the Divine Understanding and which is God himself But he could not without danger carry it on as far as the visible World which is a Creature so as to make it a third God seeing this third God as Petavius remarks Annot. ad Syness in Calv. Encomium is nothing else in the opinion of the Platonists and Stoicks but the sensible World only Cicero 2. de Natura Deor. And is the same that Philo calls the only Son whose Father is God and his Mother Wisdom which ought to be distinguish'd from that other which the same Author calls the Word of God and the intelligible World I say the Word this being the Name he always gives to the intelligible World never calling it the Son as he doth the sensible World See Maldon in Joh. 1.1 But when Philo sometimes gives the Name of God to the Soul of the World he understands by the Soul of the World no more as Cudworth hath own'd than the Word it self or the second God to whom he might give different Names according to the diversity of Notions that he form'd either of God or of the Wisdom or Power c. But however it be 't is always whilst he considers the thing in God and never out of God nor in the created World In this same Sense St. John said that the Word that made all things was in God and that the Life or the Soul was in that Word not distinguishing at all the Soul from the Word as the Platonists did You may judg by this whether Mr. Le Clerc had good ground to quote Philo in his Paraphrase upon St. John as one of those who were not ignorant of the Mystery of Three in the Deity Philo having said first That in the literal Sense the three Men that appear'd to Abraham were three Angels he afterwards goes on to the hidden and allegorick Sense where he saith that it is God accompany'd by his two Powers whereof the one is that Power that created the World the other that Wisdom which conducts and governs it God saith he between these two Powers presents to an enlighten'd Soul sometimes one Image only sometimes three For our Soul seeth but one Image when being purified by Contemplation she raiseth her self above all Numbers and advanceth to that pure and simple Idea which is one and independent of all others On the contrary the Soul considers three of them when not being as yet initiated in the Mysteries of the first Order she stops at the smaller viz. when not being capable of comprehending him who is consider'd in himself and without any foreign Aid she seeks him in his several Relations of Creator and King The Mystery of Three then according to him is for low Souls who are not capable of comprehending God in his Unity independently of all Creature and that seek him in the Works of Creation and Providence But the great Mystery of purified Souls is to raise themselves by a Contemplation transcending all Creatures towards that only and simple Idea that hath nothing common with the rest Lastly he pretends that there is a third Sense differing from that of the Contemplation which he seems besides to call the Letter of the Scripture according to which 't is he who is with his two Powers But this last cannot be the literal Sense seeing it would be contradictory to say that in the literal Sense they were three Angels and yet in the same Sense it was he who is with his two Powers Besides that by this means he would confound this last Sense with the second which
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
have innovated He must know little of Plato who can believe that he could fall into so dull a Philosophy as that God did from all Eternity necessarily beget a Son a second God putting him forth out of himself with his proper Hypostasis which distinguisheth him from the Father and that he made use of him to create the World unless 't were perhaps to deceive the vulgar People But that God did voluntarily conceive a Design of creating the World that he did actually create it by his efficacious Word that that Word is his Son in an allegorical Sense because it was emanated from the Divine Understanding that it was in an allegorical sense the Creator because it was the Means and Instrument which the Wisdom of God made use of to give Life and Being to all things Then indeed I own literally Moses saying that God spake and the Creature obey'd then I shall own Plato's Allegory telling me the same thing with Moses but in the Stile of the Religion wherein he was born Then to conclude I own the good Divinity of Clemens Alexandrinus who assures me that the Word of the Father is not that which was begotten but supreme Goodness profound Wisdom and infinite Power manifesting it self in the Work of this Universe This is without doubt the true way of understanding Plato and we have a famous Platonist as our Warrant for it 't is Coelius Rhodoginus Lect. Antiq lib. 9. c. 12. For that Great Man very judiciously observes that one can never be a good Platonist if he do not reckon that Plato is to be understood allegorically Good Platonists like the Author of the Recognitions discover to us the Origin of this allegorical Philosophy by saying That from the first Will proceeded another Will and from this the World Lib. 1. c. 24. That is to say that from the first eternal and internally begotten Will proceeded at the beginning of all things a second Will externally begotten an express Command which spoken all things were made And this second Will is metaphorically the Son because proceeding from God himself and from the Invisibility which is proper to his Nature it is a kind of Generation producing his Image every Manifestation being the Image of God Irenaeus is also another of the good Platonists who allegoriz'd In many places of his Treatise against Heresies he supposes God not to have needed any more than his two Hands to create the World There 's no difficulty in perceiving his intention thro those Words Whereas the Hereticks maintain'd that all was made by Angels and that those Spirits had created the World Irenaeus in opposing that Doctrine flies into the opposite extreme viz. That God who had no need of Angels made use of no more than his two Hands his Word and his Spirit to do all things not that by those two Powers he understood two Hypostases but only personaliz'd them in opposition to the Aeons or to the Gnosticks Angels which were esteemed Persons And he meant nothing more than that God needed not any other than himself as he explains himself in the 19th Chapter of his first Book and in no wise any Power separate from him having an Hypostasis distinct from his This God says he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ What do these words signify That God needed no other than himself if not that God had no need of any more than his Command and Power to operate what he will'd Now this Command and this Power are not two Hypostases separate and distinct from his which was the Opinion of those Hereticks but two Powers which he imploy'd as his two Hands Either let 's blind our selves or see Allegory in all this Again it 's by a common Figure that the Name the Qualities and even the Personality of the thing which ceaseth to be or which is rejected is given to that which takes its place tho it be of a different nature God rejecting Sacrifices gives the name of Sacrifice to the Obedience which he accepts There is nothing more natural says Dr. A. in his Manuscript concerning the Satisfaction than to give to a thing which supplies the place of another and which procures all the fruits of it the Name of that instead whereof it is substituted St. Paul observ'd this Rule in his Epistle to the Hebrews If he gave the Name of Sacrifice to the Obedience of Jesus Christ it was to sute his Expressions to the Ideas which prevail'd under the antient Dispensation wherein the principal Acts of Piety consisted in Sacrifices he applied those antient Sacrifices to the Death of Jesus Christ without intending any other Mystery in it Whereto may be added that Jesus Christ speaking of the Holy Ghost who was to teach the Truth by his Inspirations as he himself had taught it by Preaching speaks of him as of a Teacher as of a Person because he was to supply the absence of a Teacher and fill the place of a Person So as the Gnosticks spake of nothing but Angels who had created the World and govern'd the antient People and of Emanations and Generations from the Supreme Being Irenaeus answers The true Angels which created the World and taught the Prophets are the Word of God and his Spirit and that Word and Spirit are his true Emanations So making of a Manifestation and of a Communication God's Helpers his Coadjutors in the Creation his Ministers in the Government of the World making I say so many Hypostases of the Godhead of those Powers because he substitutes them in lieu of the Hypostases rejected by him It is by the fame method that Theophilus of Antioch made intirely allegorical Commentarys on the four Gospels Thus he allegorizes the first words of St. John The Beginning says he that is God The Word that is the Son of God Jesus Christ of whom the Voice of the Father saith in the Psalm My Heart hath uttered a good Word that is to say Christ by whom all things were made And without him nothing was made Nothing that is to say an Idol which as the Apostle saith is nothing in the World It is apparent by the Method of this Author who designs the explaining the Gospels allegorically and particularly by the allegorical Explanation he gives of the word Beginning and of that of Nothing that what he says of the Word is likewise allegorical The Word says he is the Son of God that is to say the Christ by whom all things were made Is not that saying that it is the Christ the Man whom God hath anointed who is the Son and the Word by whose Power all under the Gospel was made even the Idol which was made without him having been destroy'd and the World reform'd Let us deal plainly Christ is the Word only by virtue of an allegorical Sense which considers him as a second Word in as much as he is with respect to the spiritual World what the Word-God was with respect to the sensible World It
to the Learned and the Philosophers with whom they convers'd 'T is this mischievous Policy that has brought so much confusion into the Christian Religion that there can be no appealing to pretended Antiquity the testimony whereof is become altogether useless and liable to great illusion One may think of having recourse to the Antients as to very good Witnesses but instead of that we meet with Oracles ambiguous and unintelligible A Person of good Abilitys in the last Age complains of this as well as I. Michael le Vassor Traite de l' Examen ch 1. p. 10. Since Philosophy says he was brought into Christianity the latter has so visibly degenerated from its primitive Simplicity that the Pagans themselves have taken notice of it The Men of thought believ'd it would be a great Service done to Religion to render it agreeable to the taste of the Philosophers they had a mind to reconcile our Mysteries with Plato's Principles which were extremely in fashion when the Gospel first went abroad into the World Origen and St. Austin afterwards have so embarass'd Theology the former in the East and the latter in the Western Churches where both had their Admirers and Disciples by endeavouring to adjust Christianity to that Philosophy that 't will cost one a world of pains to distinguish that which they and their Followers have said with any exactness of thought upon divers important points of Religion They give us none but allegorical Senses to divers Passages in the Holy Scriptures Their Expositions appear so wide from the Sense of the Sacred Authors that one knows not how to understand it so as to discern the true Doctrine of the Apostles from the particular Speculations of the major part of those Fathers to whom we are refer'd as to faithful Witnesses of the Faith of the Times they liv'd in But the Fathers were not content to accommodate their Doctrines to the Platonick Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but enquir'd further after another Pre-existence of Jesus Christ for the satisfaction of the Jews and they found it in the Angel that spoke to Moses and the other Patriarchs Tertullian in his Dispute against Marcion lib. 3. speaking of the State of Christ before the Revelation of the Gospel says that he was in that allegorical State of spiritual Grace c. These few Words seem to discover the whole Mystery of the Oeconomy of the Antients For they signify that Christ was not only represented in the Figures of the Law but as Origen speaks that he was substantially present in Moses and the Prophets Tract 26. in Mat. meaning thereby that Moses and the Prophets were if one may so speak substantial and personal Types of Christ to come or rather that Christ was then present in the Person of Moses and the Prophets who were his Types On the like ground may we not say that he was allegorically present in all the Angels who spoke from God to Men and that he was also allegorically present in that Word of God which created the World that powerful Word which said Let there be Light being a Type of this powerful Word which said by Jesus Christ Let the Light shine in the Hearts of Men. This allegorical Pre-existence of Christ is very agreeable with the Scriptures which say that of him which cannot belong to any thing but these Types as the Reproach of Christ the Spirit of Christ prophesying tempted of Christ and other Expressions of that kind which represent to us Jesus Christ in his allegorical State Those particular Commissions of Angels and Prophets being in some sort the Preludia of this universal and extraordinary Commission of Jesus Christ with regard to the whole World I ought not to pass over the Remark of Father Simon upon this Occonomy of the Antients Hist Crit. du N. T. Tom. 1. chap. 2. The mingling says he of the Platonick Philosophy with the Christian Religion was not intended to ruin the Orthodox Faith but the more easily to persuade the Greeks to embrace the Christian Religion The Fathers were in this for imitating the Apostles especially St. Paul who sometimes did stoop to the Infirmitys of the Weak becoming all things to all men Father Simon observes further that Clemens of Alexandria does sometimes carry this Occonomy too far that he applies himself intirely to Allegory it being fashionable in his time amongst the Christians especially with the Gnosticks who thought thereby to raise the Credit of the Scriptures that he is no ways behind 'em in point of Invention and Subtilty That this was the more excusable in him because he liv'd in a great City where 't is likely they affected those kind of Subtilties and that he believ'd 'em of use to establish the Christian Religion it being a prudent part in an able Master to adapt things to the capacity of them he is to instruct That his Paedagogus wherein he was to lay down nothing but plain Instructions was drawn up with this design and that in it he explains the Scriptures in the sublime and allegorical Sense He observes also Chap. 4. That those who had not these sublime Notions pass'd for plain weak Christians who knew not the design of Religion that the Gnosticks imagin'd themselves outdid all others in this kind of Knowledg and that it had been better if the Orthodox had not imitated them therein but had contented themselves with the literal Expositions of the Scriptures He goes forward to say that the Jews had mingled in their Religion divers Platonick Notions whereof one finds at this day not a few in their Cabalistick Writings This made some impression on the Minds of some of the first Christians who read with pleasure Books that treated of Angels and their Converse with Men. The same Author makes it appear That not only those who rejected the allegorical way were accounted illiterate but even pass'd for Hereticks too ibid. chap. 31. and that Theodorus of Mopsues who followed the literal Sense of the Bible according to the Method of his Master Diodorus and avoided the spiritual and allegorical Sense was reckoned for a Person who favour'd Judaism by his too literal Expositions For my part I make no doubt but 't was of that Set of Divines who imitated Theodorus that Pamphilus is speaking when he complains Apol. pro Orig. That they who charg'd Origen with so many Absurdities would not admit Allegory to be us'd in expounding the Holy Scriptures It may be conjectur'd from these words that the great reason why the Ebionites and Nazarenes were accounted plain simple People and poor in the Faith was this that they rejected the allegorical Theology of the Platonizing and Gnostick Christians The Word Ebionite which signifies poor and the other Word Gnostick which signifies knowing being directly oppos'd 'T is certain Origen calls the Ebionites poor in Spirit Philoc. c. 1. because they adher'd too much to the Poverty of the Letter or literal Sense and despis'd the rich and the sublime
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
be begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin is no such glorious Privilege for the Messias that it does not give him any Preheminence above some other Men who have been miraculously begotten and by the immediate Power of God That in a word it answers not that great Idea which those Words the only Son of God naturally raise in our Minds I have already answered this Objection with a Passage of Bartholomew of Edessa I could further say that according to this way of reasoning of the Doctor 's J.C. is no longer by his Hypothesis the only Son of God if we take those Words as he does in their strictest sense because he has a Brother begotten of God as well as himself I mean the Holy Ghost He will clear himself of this when he can shew me what the difference is between Generation and Procession that is to say between Emanation and Emanation I mean such a difference that makes the one a Son and the other not this is what we expect from him He knows very well that this knotty difficulty put St. Austin hard to it This Father in his 5th Book 9. ch de Trin. puts this Question Whence is it that the third Person is not the Image of God as well as the second Why not his Word Why not his begotten Son He protests that 't is hard to give a reason why the Father did not beget one as well as t'other since as the Intellect begat its Wisdom by knowing it self it seems likely it should beget its Love by loving it self And at last finding himself too weak to master this difficulty he betakes himself to his usual Sophistry and makes you a rare Medley of Discourse wherein he understands not what he says himself After so great a Master what may we expect from Dr. Bull or rather who will not be surprized to hear his Objections 'T is not enough says he that God begets a Son of the Substance of a Woman by his own Power without the Intervention of a Man 'T is not enough that this Generation is without Example This extraordinary Son if he be not the Supreme God he is not therefore the Son of God 'T is not enough that God has given us an extraordinary Man for the Messias If he be not the Supreme God he cannot be the Messias Wonderful What! if God had thought fit to send none other than such a Man a second Adam not a jot more the Son of God than the first Adam was shall this be no Messias And would this be done upon a Principle of Religion Should this Messias be thought unworthy of us because he does not answer the Idea and the Expectation of the Doctor I am astonish'd when I consider the extravagant Hypothesis of our Trinitarians God in their opinion will not make good his illustrious Promises his Word given to Abraham and his Seed and his Oath sworn to David that he would raise him up a Son to reign upon his Throne God I say will do nothing that will answer the Greatness of his Promise and the Expectation of the Patriarchs if the Blessed Seed if the King so often promis'd and so long expected if the Messias who is so glorious be not the supreme God himself Nothing is magnificent according to these Gentlemen if it be not extravagant God may do well in raising a miraculous Seed to Abraham from the Womb of a Virgin And he may do well in raising up to David a King and a Prophet drench'd with the Fulness of his Spirit and reigning at the Right Hand of his Majesty All this has nothing great in it this will not come up to their System of the Messias nor deserve place in their sublime Theology if the supreme God himself be not incarnate and suffers not himself to be crucified to merit by his Sufferings the same Glory he voluntarily abandon'd This is what they call a glorious Gospel not that plain simple Religion which presents you with a Man ascending into Heaven but that which without Machines or Hocus Pocus brings the supreme God down from Heaven Good God! What vain Imaginations are in the Heart of Man CHAP. IX The Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias c. IT is time to consider in the third place that the Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias Which appears from this that the Expression mere Man which she condemned as heretical was not oppos'd to an Eternal Generation but to Christ's being begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin So that the Platonizing Christians themselves who have us'd it in this last sense have been as it were forced to do it thro Custom What remains of the antient Tradition obliging them to speak in that manner Yea the Force of the antient Tradition has made them to betray themselves as we are about to shew The Terms mere Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear at this day in our Minds a different Idea from that which was in the first Ages of the Church With us now it is supposed to exclude I know not what sort of a Generation of the Substance of God But with the Antients it was purely oppos'd to the miraculous Generation of the Substance of a Virgin We find at this day some Footsteps of the antient usage of these Words The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions lib. 6. c. 26. giving an account of the Opinion of the Ebionites says They hold J. C. to have been a mere Man by maintaining that he was not begotten any other way but by the conjugal Intercourse of Joseph and Mary There cannot be a better account than this of what the Antients meant by a mere Man A Man begotten by Joseph and not a Man who is not the supreme God Justin or the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox Quaest 66. expresses himself thus Who says he speaking of J. C. was begotten or conceived by the Holy Ghost the Son of God but being born of the Wife of Joseph was the Son of Joseph The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. Wherefore c. shall be called the Son of God It must be observed here 1. That Son of Joseph and Son of God are two Terms oppos'd J.C. is called the Son of Joseph as he was born of the Wife of Joseph and the Son of God as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost 2. That J. C. is called Son of God on the account of his being begotten by the Holy Ghost in a sense directly opposed to Son of Man that is to say in a sense of excellence which Dr. Bull is so bold as to deny 3. That the Text of St. Luke which Justin cites as a Proof demonstrates in some sort that the Antients did not at first ascribe any other Divinity to J. C. but that which was grounded upon his being conceived and born of a Virgin by the