it saith the same in the same words of the New All the Encomiums it gives to the Law are applied more truly to the Gospel and lastly it saith nothing of God the Father which it doth not accommodate to J. C. his Son who is the Vicarius of the Father as Tertullian calls him and who saith he makes us to hear the Father in his Words and makes us see him in his Actions By this Rule you get the Key to all the Passages that seem to give the Son the same Names Prerogatives and the same Properties that God the Father hath it is because J. C. being the Vicarius of God both the Words and Actions of the Father are attributed to him by the virtue and upon the account of the Reprejentation if I may thus express my self For it is not as I judg by a mere Accommodation but by a Subordination Whatever is said of the Father in an exact and rigid Sense may also be said of the Son as of a Minister and Ambassador that represents God or to speak better that executes in a visible manner what the Invisible Father had already promis'd should be done Now lest any one should wrangle about this Title of Ambassador I shall say more namely that there is more than a Subordination because we see in J. C. not only the Character of an Envoy but likewise an Abode and an immediate Presence of the Father's Person He that receives a Prophet receives him who sends the Prophet therefore when J. C. came vested with the Authority of the Father to accomplish what God had promis'd should be perform'd by the hands of the Messiah God himself came in his Person and we have receiv'd him in the Person of Christ Hence it comes to pass that J. C. is adorn'd with all the Characters of Glory and Power which God attributes to himself when he promiseth that signal Deliverance by the Prophets which he design'd to perform one day for the good of his Church For this reason J. C. is call'd Emmanuel God with us which is a Symbolical Name by which the Scripture denotes the extraordinary Presence of God in the Messiah and teaches us that it is not so much the Man but that it is the Sovereign and Inviable God that acts I speak not of my self I speak only the things my Father taught me I do nothing of my self but the Father that dwelleth in me he doth the Works These in one word are the constant Expressions of J. C. he refers all the Authority of his Doctrine and all the Glory of his Miracles to the Father dwelling in him This the Jews call'd Shekinah the Habitation of God Here is more than the Abode of God in the midst of his People of old this is a more sensible and magnificent Presence and to say all 't is God's dwelling in the Messiah for God was with him saith the Apostle You have need only of this Reflection to foil the strongest Objection of the Trinitarians They say that the New Testament attributes constantly the same Properties and the same Perfections to the Son and to the Holy Ghost which the whole Scripture attributes to God the Father Granted What follows then Necessarily one of these two things Either you prove by it that there are three Gods all which have the same Properties and equal Perfections which is contradictory and disown'd even by those that make this Objection or you must acknowledg with us that the Perfections of the Son are nothing else but the Perfections of the Father dwelling in him and communicating himself to him And the Holy Ghost is likewise only the Virtue and Power of God It is objected against this Doctrine I am now establishing that it is not customary to call the Ambassador by the Name of the King that sends him I will not enter now upon the Particulars of this Controversy nor even examine the History of the Centurion related by St. Matthew Chap. 8. and by St. Luke Chap. 7. which alone were sufficient to decide it It will be enough for me to remark at present that tho this Custom were not us'd by Men in their Transactions yet it is incontestably so in God's Method Drusius De Nomin Tetragram in Epist ad Conrad Vorstium grants that it may be said the King doth what the Ambassador transacts in his Name but he denies at the same time that you may give to the Envoy the Name of the King that sends him And thereupon he will not receive without some alloy that Rule of the Hebrews That the Angel bears the Name of God who sends him But with all the respect I owe this Great Man I affirm that this Rule of the Hebrews is well grounded it being taken from the Scripture it self where God declares that he will put his Name on the Angel whom he design'd to send It is no matter then whether this be the Custom of Kings or no seeing it is clear by this Place that it is the Custom of God to give his Name to his Envoys at least on some occasions and in extraordinary Cases And this Name that I may take notice of it by the by doth not denote only that they may call themselves the Lord the Jehova but indeed they have all the Glory the whole Authority and all the Power yet not absolutely but only in reference to that Commission they are then honoured withal that is to say they appear with as much Majesty they act with as much Authority and Power as God would in the like case were he pleas'd to act without a Medium and by himself alone And this is a great reason why God should act thus for seeing he could not manifest himself if the Angels by whom he was manifested had never taken his Name upon them it would have come to pass that the Jews having the knowledg only of Angels would have totally forgotten God whereas the Angels by taking the Name of God upon them on some extraordinary occasions put that People from time to time in mind of him by the Idea of his Presence After all seeing God is invisible by his Nature and cannot manifest himself by himself it follows then that every time he manifests himself by an Angel this Manifestation will not be regarded as an Appearance of an Angel but as that of God himself whom that Angel represents and consequently it is not so much the Angel that bears the Name of Jehova and is ador'd by Men but God himself that Angel being his Person and Presence This will be clear if you regard these three Rules 1. That according to the Oriental Idiom the Envoys make their Masters speak always directly as for example instead of saying The Lord saith he is the Jehova they speak thus The Lord saith I am the Jehova 2. They suppress often these Expressions The Lord saith and speak absolutely without making use of that Preface I am the Jehova 3. That you ought to supply those Words and
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
in such and such a manner since nothing is absolutely immutable but God himself he alone being that Father of Lights in whom there is no shadow of turning This is plain The Idea of a Triangle is nothing else but the very Essence of God modify'd in such a manner Again the Idea of an Owl is only this Divine Essence so modify'd the Idea of a Lobster is still but a Modification of this Divine Essence in a word the Idea of all Beings is nothing else than the very Essence of God modify'd in such or such a manner Jupiter est quodcunque vides quocunque moveris What do you call that It 's however on such fine Discoveries that these Gentlemen value themselves confidently and triumphingly saying So true it is that true Platonism is a good Preservative against Socinianism Yes say I but under a pretence of preserving us from Socinianism we are rudely robb'd of Christianity Let 's once more venture to speak as we think Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus of Antioch with many others of venerable Rank and Antiquity whom out of respect I do not name these Fathers whom our Moderns imitate with so much affectation consider'd the Christian Religion only as a new Sect of Philosophy which under low and popular Similitudes contain'd the most hidden Sense and profoundest Mysteries of all sorts of natural and divine Sciences whereon they gave themselves free scope and explain'd the Scriptures not as Interpreters but as sophistical Speculative Philosophers pretending to find Plato's Mysteries in certain Terms much as our Chymists pretend they find their Art in Genesis or in the History of the Creation Cabala every where I shall be exclaim'd against as abusing those Great Men but wrongfully All our Criticks say worse of them than that For not to mention Daille Huetius and Petavius who are not thought their Friends Dr. Bull will suffice as he is indisputably one of their greatest Admirers and if we may say it their pension'd Apologist his Testimony will be worth ten thousand others * Peruse his Defence of the Council of Nice He says of Origen That he sometimes spake too freely and like a Sceptick Of Tertullian That he little car'd how he spake of God provided he did but contradict his Adversary and that an Egg 's not more like an Egg than the Expressions of that Father resemble the extravagant Conceits of Valentin Of Lactantius That he was but a Rhetor ignorant in Theology Of St. Jerom That he was but a Joster and a Sophist Indeed there are scarce any of em whom he has not a fling at when he 's not pleased with their Theology Their Arian or Gnostical Expressions give him so much trouble that it puts him almost always out of humour What might we not say of their poor Interpretations of Scripture They went strangely to work on it if we may believe St. Jerom. Mons Le Clerc recites two Passages of him which will come in very properly here one of them is in Tom. X. p. 492. where that Father says in Apol. pro lib. cont Jovin p. 106. seq Ed. Gryph 'T is one thing to write in order to dispute and another to write for Instruction In the former Method Dispute is very extensive and the endeavour is only to answer the Adversary Now this is propos'd then that we speak in one manner and act in another c. In the latter an open and ingenuous Behaviour is necessary c. Origen Methodius Eusebius and Apollinarius have written much against Celsus and Porphyry Observe what Arguments and what doubtful Problems they make use of to overthrow the Writings compos'd by the Spirit of the Devil And that because they are necessitated to say not what they think but what the Dispute requires non quod sentiunt sed quod necesse est they contradict the Gentiles The other Passage may be found in the XII Tom. of the Bib. Vniv p. 146. and is taken out of St. Jerom's Letter to Nepotian p. 14. I was says he once desiring Gregory Nazianzen who was formerly my Master to explain to me what was meant by the * The English Testament hath it the Second Sabbath after the First Second-first Sabbath in St. Luke he pleasantly answered me I 'll inform you concerning that in the Church where when all the People are giving me their Acclamations you 'l be constrain'd to know what you do not know or if you alone are silent you 'l be accounted a Fool. To have yet more convincing Proofs of the pitiful manner of the Fathers explaining the Scriptures one need but see their Puerile Interpretations of these Words regnavit a ligno Deus which they apply to the Cross of Jesus Christ and on many other Texts whence they subtlely draw Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are no more than a Train of flat and forc'd Explications as that which they give of these Words ex utero te genui c. Again see how Tertullian makes what David said of the Palm-Tree sute to a Phaenix The Hebrew Word is not equivocal and it 's likely that Tertullian was deceiv'd by the double sense of the Greek Word No 't was designedly that he played upon it not seeking so much the sense of the Scripture as an opportunity of finding in the Scriptures one of the greatest Wonders Paganism ever spake of Neither were the Fathers so ignorant in the Scriptures but that a little good Judgment would have shewn them the natural Signification of these Words eructavit cor meum c. It is not God the Father but David who there speaks however they were willing upon occasion to find the sublimest Doctrine of Plato's School in this ordinary expression of Scripture or make the Heathens believe that there was nothing so great in their Philosophy which was not hidden in those Scripture-Expressions which to us seem plainest and least mysterious But Dr. Bull finds admirable Expedients to save the Reputation of the Fathers He distinguishes between the Witness of the Faith and the Interpreter of the Scriptures and always taking for granted that they are good Witnesses of the Faith he grants that they are sometimes bad Interpreters of Scripture which is respectfully stabbing them with a Dagger So in pag. 140. alledging for Proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost a Passage out of Irenaeus where that Father mistakenly quotes the Prophet Isaiah We do not trouble our selves says he with Irenaeus's bad Interpretation for we are not consulting that Father as an Interpreter always happy in explaining the Scripture but as an irreproachable Witness of Apostolical Tradition I confess bad Interpreters may be good Witnesses of the Faith of their Age. But it must at the same time be granted me that the Faith whereof they testify is a too much suspected Faith when it depends on the Evidence of so bad Interpreters I say bad for it is not only one or two Passages mistaken by these Doctors which we are speaking of but
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
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
us to understand that when the Platonic Fathers applied these losty Expressions of Solomon to their Eternal Word they did not or could not do it but by the way of an Accommodation or Allusion The same Bishop having related the Opinion of some Fathers a little lower who apply the same Expressions of Solomon to the Man Jesus Christ afterwards goes on thus pag. 63. But this saith he not being the sense of the Words which Solomon first intended I shall not build my Paraphrase upon it but take Wisdom here as it signifies in other Places of this Book and hath been hitherto described whom Solomon now celebrates for her most venerable Antiquity and introduces like a most beautiful Person no less than a Queen or rather some Divine Being infinitely to be preferred before that base Strumpet spoken of in the foregoing Chapter Indeed Solomon hath made her speak by introducing her as a Person and exborts young People to give ear to her She speaks of herself that God created her or that she comes to us from God that she was before the World was made because God who is the source of her and communicates her to Men did make use of her in framing this Universe Also that Kings reign by her because Prudence and good Counsels are the Soul of a good Government Notwithstanding this clear and natural sense Prejudice hath abused these Words to apply them to Jesus Christ but there are many other that cannot at all agree to him 'T is true that the Platonick Fathers are alledg'd here who understood this Chapter literally of a Personal Wisdom I own it but the same Fathers have also and that with no less Pomp quoted that Passage of the 45th Psalm My Heart is inditing a good Matter Word to prove the Eternal Generation of J. C. We justly laugh now adays at so ridiculous an Interpretation as well as of that Psal 110. From the Womb of the Morning thou hast the Dew of thy Youth Which the antient Interpreters did endeavour to make subservient to the same purpose Let us then I pray mistrust them as to this Text in the Proverbs they having so grosly deceiv'd us in those two of the Psalms which they made use of for the same ends as frequently and with as much Confidence But after all tho their Testimonies should be produc'd in shoals we can produce better Interpreters of Prov. 8. I mean the Books of the Old Testament it self the Wisdom and Ecclesisticus which tho they are Apocryphal yet are of greater Authority than the Writings of the Fathers who were the Disciples of Plato the Authors of these two having probably known better the Mind of Solomon and the Sentiments of the Jews The Author of the Wisdom having made use of the same Prosopopeia with him in the Proverbs calls Wisdom The Breath Spirit of the Power of God a pure Stream flowing from the Glory of the Almighty the Brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted Mirrour of the Power of God the Image of his Goodness and that she sits on the Throne of God He goes on like the Author of the Proverbs that when God created the World Wisdom was with him knew his Works was present then knoweth and understandeth all things But to let you see that he speaks only of a Quality or Virtue he adds That he loved her sought her out from his Youth desired to have her for a Spouse was a Lover of her Beauty He desires of God in his ardent Prayers to give her to him to send her out of the Heavens to assist him to teach him that his Works might be acceptable For saith he we hardly guess aright at things that are upon the Earth but the things that are in Heaven who can search out unless God gives Wisdom and send his Holy Spirit from above See Chap. 7 8 9. The same Author speaking further of this Divine Perfection saith That God made all things by his Word form'd Man by his Wisdom Chap. 9. 1 2. taking the Word and Wisdom for one and the same thing viz. for that Power which created the World and whereof Wisdom is but an Emanation Can you imagine now this Author meant that God did create the World by his Son the second Person of the Trinity Can such a Thought enter into a rational Creature Let us come now to the Author of the Ecclesiasticus who expresseth better the Sense we ought to give to the Words of Solomon He introduceth Wisdom speaking thus of her self I came out of the Mouth of the most High he created me from the beginning before the World Hitherto he seems to speak of a Person but explains himself clearly Ch. 24. Ver. 23. where he declares that he meant by this nothing else but the Law of Moses which the Jews name Wisdom by way of Excellency For having spoken of Wisdom under other Figures than that of a Person I mean under the Figure of a Palm-tree an Olive-tree a Vine c he sums up what he had said in these words All these things are the Book of the Covenant of the most High even the Law which Moses gave Can the Law given by Moses be call'd more expresly not only an Olive-tree or a Vine but also the Word which came out of the Mouth of the most High and Wisdom which God created before the World Which are Expressions visibly figurative the which under the Fiction of a Person or the Figure of a Vine represent the Wisdom of God to us sometimes as revealing it self in the Creation of the World and again as replenishing Men with the Fruits of its Knowledg in the Dispensation of the Law This kind of Fictions was familiar to the Moralist Jews and to all the Oriental Philosophers You must be purblind if you discern not immediately the Genius of that People accustom'd to a figurative and parabolick Stile St. John imitates the Moralist Jews and according to the same Ideas hath at one view represented to us the Word or Wisdom of God manifesting himself to Men in two of the greatest of his Dispensations viz. in the Old and the New Creation The Method is the same absolutely you need only put the Gospel or the Author of the Gospel instead of Moses and the Law You may really see him join these two things together viz. The Wisdom of God residing in God himself and presiding at the Creation of the World and the same Wisdom descending upon J. C. in whom it was as it were incarnated and ordering the New World For if according to the Hebrews the Law was the Wisdom or the Word or Precept by way of Excellency much more doth this great Elogium belong to the Gospel namely to be the Word the Wisdom the Truth the Light and the Life by way of excellency An Elogium consequently belonging to J. C. who brought the Word and the Life and was the great Teacher of Truth Whatever the Scripture saith of the First Creation
and upon the Cross of J.C. whereof he hath found a thousand Figures in the History of the People of old which he brings to his bent by Violence and Artifice he seeks particularly for a sublime Sense in the Name of Joshua or Jesus the Son of Nun. He saith That the Father hath shew'd us in Joshua every thing that may be said of his Son Jesus insomuch that it may be said according to him that J. C. brought the People of the Jews into the Land of Canaan because he had done it in Joshua his Figure or rather because he did the same in a spiritual Sense So that J. C. was Joshua by whom so many Miracles were wrought in the Land of Canaan and for the same reason J. C. was the Word by which all things were made I say the Word for altho Barnabas makes no mention of it in all his Epistle yet he makes an allusion thereto in these Words Let Vs make Man which he applies to J. C. Lastly Barnabas adds Behold here Jesus again not the Son of Man but the Son of God who appear'd in Flesh in his Figure Who sees not here that Jesus the Son not of a Man as Joshua was but the Son of God being born of a Virgin did manifest himself in Flesh in a typical and figurative manner in the Person of Joshua We may say likewise according to this way of interpreting the Scriptures that the same Jesus created the World in the Person of that Spirit or of that Word which spake and the Creature appear'd because that first Word was the Type of that other Word which insinuated it self into J. C. and which said for example Lazarus come forth and Lazarus came forth immediately out of his Tomb and from the Dead That gave Life and so did this You may in the same sense as most of the Fathers did say that J. C. appear'd to the Patriarchs because the appearing of the Angels in a Human Shape was the Type of his Manifestation in Flesh Hence comes it that Clement of Alexandria calls him the mystical Angel the Angel being J. C. in a Type and J. C. being the Angel in a Mystery Moreover Barnabas continuing his Allegory upon the Sabbath and the Temple whence he is continually drawing forth mystical Interpretations and having run over all the Figures of the Old Testament in the spiritual Application he makes of them to J. C. and his Church he calls this Parables and concludes You have here saith he all that regards the Glory of J. C. viz. how all things were made for him and by him Where by all things without doubt all those Dispensations of the old Oeconomy are to be understood which have any relation to him to his Birth Death or Resurrection the which he may be said to have done not literally but spiritually in the Person of the Prophets who were his Figures This is so clear by the sequel and coherence of his Discourse that I have been amaz'd at the Confidence of Dr. Bull who in his Defence of the Council of Nice p. 67. dares to quote these Words as if Barnabas had said them of the first Creation For it is so far from these Expressions being serviceable to his Hypothesis that they demonstrate on the contrary how these Words that all things were made by J. C. are to be understood that is because either he did them in his Types as Barnabas teaches us here or because he meant that the same Power or one like to that which created the old World and inspired the Prophets did dwell in J. C. Whoever knows the Character of Barnabas but a little must be very conceited if he gives any other Sense to his Words See here the Judgment of Mr. Du Pin concerning him Biblioth Tom. 1. at the Word Barnabas The Epistle of this Father saith he is full of forc'd Allegories on the Holy Scriptures and with extraordinary Explications deviating from good Sense But these Allegories these mystical Explications and Fables hinder not this Epistle from being his whose Name it bears You must have but a small insight into the Genius of the Jews and the first Christians brought up in the Synagogue if you believe that such kind of Thoughts could not be theirs On the contrary this was their very Character they learn'd of the Jews to turn the Scriptures into an Allegory We ought not then to wonder that St. Barnabas a Jew by Birth and writing to the Jews should explain allegorically many of the Passages of the Old Testament and apply them to the New Every body knows that the Books of the first Christians are full of this sort of Fables and Allegories Mr. Le Moine is of the same Judgment in his Notes on Barnabas To conclude the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very familiar to this Author he means by it a sublime and profound Sense This appears by his infinitely extolling this Knowledg which he also names Science and Wisdom above the Vertues which accompany Faith This way of distinguishing Science from Faith was follow'd by Origen it seems that Gnosticism was brought in by this Allegorick Science of the Scriptures and afterwards degenerated into Poetical Speculations and an Heathenish Philosophy The first Method was Jewish the second Platonic All which seems to prove that the Author of this Epistle was a true Gnostic I mean one of the first of them who imitated the Jewish Cabala in their mystical Interpretations of the Old Testament which was accounted a sublime Science but not one of those Gnosticks who were afterwards decried for converting that Allegoric Science into a Philosophy merely Pagan For these last who were Gentile Proselytes imagining they had the same right with the Proselyte Jews to the use of these Allegoric Interpretations adapted presently the Theogony of their Poets and the Ideas of Plato to the Evangelical Truths The former sought for a mystical sense of the Law but the latter the sublime sense of Philosophy both of them in relation to Jesus Christ and his Holy Doctrine Those of the latter sort who passed the Bounds in this Method and made so wide a Pleroma were called Hereticks but those that used it with a greater Caution and Modesty and who carried the Pleroma no further than the three Aeons which seemed to have some ground in the Scriptures and kept a Decorum better in their Resemblances had the good fortune to pass for Orthodox even to Posterity I think it is better to argue thus about the Author of this Epistle than to say with Dr. Hammond that he opposeth Cabala to Cabala and that by the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he attacks the false Science of the Gnosticks For it doth not appear that he disputes with any body unless it be only against the Jews who would not receive his Allegories However it doth not appear that Gnosticism such as it was at that time confined to mere Allegory on the Scripture was then decried On the contrary
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
also of their Divine Oeconomy which is inseparable from it And I must say of them that they made use of a pious Fraud to represent the Gospel under nobler Ideas and in a sense elevated to the relish of the Philosophers becoming all things to all that they might win them to Jesus Christ and this is that which is called their Oeconomy I do not say that all the Fathers particularly the latter were in the secret of this sort of Conduct Some of them have suffered themselves to be surprized with the very literal sense and at last this Mystery which was at first prudentially designed degenerated into real Opinions and Metaphysical Squabbles It 's enough then that I observe that this at first was the thing they chiefly aimed at who brought into the Church this way of philosophizing Hence came that famous Managery of Mystery so much talked of by the Antients and about which the Moderns at this time dispute tho 't is much alter'd indeed but it flows however from the same Spring 'T is known that the Pagans made use of this Method to keep up the Credit of their Religion that was filled with ridiculous Storys scandalous and injurious to their Gods They had so much address as to pretend that a mythological and mystical sense was hidden under the umbrage of those Symbols This one sees if one reads the Author of Horrâ—â—'s Life Heraclides Ponticus upon the Allegory of that Poet and all the Philosophers who have defended the Pagan Religion against the Attacks of Christian Writers The same may be said of the Jews their Law becoming publick by the Version of the LXX They were out of Countenance that a Law given ' cm from Heaven should amuse them with childish and mean Ceremonies and undertook to defend it from the Scoffs of the Profane by turning all into Allegory and extracting sublime Interpretations to render it the more venerable Philo among others has excelled in this way The Christians very much followed this Practice of the Jews particularly they of Alexandria who learn'd this Custom of the Therapeutes As the Pharisees were addicted to their Traditions the Essenes on the contrary were addicted to the way of Allegory being fond of extracting from the Scriptures quidlibet ex quolibet Philo imitates these latter and the Christians have followed him See Code 105 of Photiits and Fâ—ller's Miscellan lib. 2. c. 5. The Obscurity of our Saviour's Birth and the Scandal of his Death mightily perplexed the Catechists they could not conceal his Death from their Scholars as was wont to be done from those who were initiated in the Mysteries of Ceres Wherefore they bethought themselves of another Oeconomy which would lessen their discredit or balance it with the Honour of a pretended Pre existence by supposing in Jesus Christ another Nature which was immortal and this they represented very much like Plato's Logos pretending to discover an exact conformity between the Doctrine of St. John and that of the Philosopher This Argumentum ad hominem look'd incomparably more convincing to their Novices than that which they drew from Christ's Exaltation which seem'd somewhat dangerous in giving countenance to the Apotheosis of their false Gods Hence is it that they rarely make use of the latter and almost always of the former Was it not I pray by this Occonomy that Justin Martyr Clemens and Origen maintain'd that vertuous Pagans were in a manner Christians because they partly understood Reason or the Logos And by these evident Conformitys with 'em they flatter'd the Pagans and insinuated themselves very dextrously into their good opinion Justin Martyr amasses with great dexterity every thing that was proper in Apologue to colour and to justify the Mystery of the Nativity and the Birth of Christ Apol. 2. and takes as much pains to defend the Names and Titles that Christians have given him Since the Son of God says he to them would be but a Man like other Men he was worthy hevertheless of being stil'd the Son of God since all Writers give to God the Character of being the Father of Men and Gods If we say further that besides his Birth usually mention'd this Perion was begotten by God as his Word of Logos herein we should do no more than you have already done who call Mercury the Word the Messenger and the Interpreter of God With the same design Tertullian Apol. c. 21. makes a Parallel of the History of the Son of God with the Story of Jupiter's Children Receive this Apologue says he to the Pagans for it resembles yours This he spoke in the way of Occonomy or Accommodation And it was not only usual with these Fathers thus to accommodate themselves to the Prejudices of the Pagans but by the same method to answer their Objections For when they objected that the Adoration of the Christ a Man was no less Idolatry than that whereof the Christians accus'd them 't was for the Interest of the latter to betake themselves to their Oeconomy and to find out the second God of Plato in that Divine Power which dwelt in Jesus Christ which might be worship'd without Idolatry it having made Heaven and Earth To conclude 't is this Occonomy that gives Rules to the use of their Method of Allegory and that suted it to Occasions and Circumstances To explain this matter it must be noted that there are two sorts of Allegory One wherein the popular and familiar Ideas are used to accommodate things to the capacity of the Vulgar which is called Parable or Mythology and has been us'd by the moral Philosophers The other followed by Divines and speculative Philosophers who affected mysterious and profound Senses and did accommodate themselves to such as lov'd what we call the Wonderful Of this sort are those nice Allegories of the Fathers wherein under great and sublime Images they cover'd the Simplicity or Meanness of the Gospel But above all they endeavour'd to aggrandize the Person of our Saviour and the Sacraments of the New Covenant wherein one sees nothing but Bread and Wine and Water One must consider the turn they give those things when they speak as magnificently of 'em as they can and when they would in a manner make that which seems contemptible with the Philosophers appear by this artful d sguise to be the very Wisdom of those Philosophers But as it is of the nature of Parable to make use of vulgar and popular Images to adapt to the Capacities of the meaner sort their great and more sublime Mysteries Jesus Christ made use of these in preaching his Gospel to the Poor and in letting down his Doctrine to meaner Capacities But the Fathers who had other Occasions and were in other circumstances took quite another way and follow'd the Rules of their Oeconomy they advanc'd their Allegorys by the most noble and most magnificent Images to aggrandize the Simplicity of the Gospel and to make it acceptable at any rate to the great Men of the World
Sense of Contemplation 'T is moreover upon the same account that so many great Men are said to Judaize because they were for keeping the Scriptures in their natural and literal Sense such were Aquila Symmachus Theodotion and others 'T is evident that the Fathers who were for appearing Learned and would not be outdone by the Gnosticks have allegoriz'd after the very manner of those Hereticks but upon such things that had some sort of Foundation in the Scriptures and in the Philosophy of those Times embrac'd by the Jews or the Platonick Party As for instance about the Ideas and Decrees of God concerning the Messiah about the Soul of the Messiah about the Spirit that form'd and after sanctified him about the Angels that were the Preludia of his Mission or lastly about that Word of God which created the World to whom they ascrib'd Personality after the Platonick way The Word or Logos might signify all these things the Wisdom of God that dwelt in Jesus Christ his pre-existent Soul the Spirit that form'd him and the facility with which he wrought so many Miracles only as it were at the expence of a Word After this manner the Jews have allegoriz'd upon the seven things that they say were created before the World among which they count the Name or the Glory of the Messiah To say the truth the Oeconomy of the Fathers very often varys For at one time they are for concealing the sublimer part of their Mysteries that they mayn't give offence to some sturdy Minds that will not so readily give way to mystical Notions At other times they pass over the plainer part of Religion to gain upon their speculative Gentlemen who admire chiefly what we call the Wonderful But however they are always constant in pursuing this Design of their Oeconomy and Rule of Prudence in adapting themselves to the Genius and Relish of every body in making Mystery of every thing to beget in their Scholars a Veneration for their Opinions when they come to be acquainted with ' em And further they take care to distinguish between those Opinions which were transmitted to 'em by the Writings of the Apostles and others which came from the same Apostles by Tradition only and in Mystery as St. Basil speaks Lib. de Spir. S. ad Amphil. Cap. 27. that is by the way of secret Discipline and Instruction Clemens of Alexandria makes mention of these last Opinions Stromat 5. p. 576. and calls 'em The Lesson of the Perfect which consists in certain spiritual and sublime Senses which were deliver'd vivâ voce and by Tradition but the Apostles could not set 'em down in their Epistles This Expedient of setret Tradition open'd a wide Field for philosophizing according to their humour and is adapted to the purpose of introducing new Opinions into Religion We must be upon our guard when we are reading their Writings and take very little of them in the literal Sense where every thing almost is allegorical and they are throout pursuing what we call the Wonderful 'T is well known to the Protestants that the Declamations and Apostrophe's of the Fathers have given birth to some Errors and the Idolatry practis'd at this day They know well enough how to account for the hyperbolical Expositions of the Antients upon the Eucharist as that Jesus Christ was offer'd upon an Altar that he was slain strangl'd extended died carry'd bury'd c. And these ridiculous Apostrophe's O great and sacred Passover the Purgation of our Sins c. Greg. Naz. O Divine and sacred Mystery vouchsase to remove the Veil wherewith we are encompassed and manifest your self clearly to us by enlightning with your brightness the Eyes of our Mind See Counterseit Denis These Apostrophe's seem to deify the Sacrament and to make it a Person Why should we not acknowledg at the same time that the over-curious Platonism of the same Fathers has led 'em into those extravagant Descriptions whereby they have made a second God a Person of the Word or Logos a Son begotten before Ages and incarnate in time Mysteries no less strange than that of Transubstantiation Who does not see that they had a mind to speak magnificently of every thing They ascrib'd a Divine and extraordinary Virtue to the Oil and the Cream They say that the Holy Ghost has chang'd and transform'd 'em by a Divine Emcacy They have said no less of Baptism for they believ'd the Divinity and the Holy Ghost descending and insinuating it self into the Water us'd in that Sacrament imparts to it the Power and Virtue of regenerating They allow that the Eucharist shews a Divine and quickening Virtue emanating from the Body of the incarnate Word The Word according to them is an Emanation from the Substance of God The Body of Christ is hypostatically united to the Word The Bread is hypostatically united to that Divine Body and consequently hath the quickening Virtue of the Word They own a twofold Emanation the Word is the Emanation of God and the quickening Virtue of his Flesh is an Emanation of the Word And they hold a twofold Incarnation one of the Word in the Body of Jesus Christ and another of the quickening Virtue of the Body of Christ in the Bread of the Sacrament This was a System of Policy well contriv'd whereby these cunning Doctors brought nothing less than Divinity into every thing and spoke with advantage upon the meanest Subjects to make 'em look mysterious and venerable It may be said of them as has been observ'd of those who make Canons in Councils that they spake more than they meant so that many Ages after Mysteries are discover'd in their Expressions which they never dreamt of I have met with nothing so like that as these two Apostrophe's which the Church of Rome chants in her Liturgy One is address'd to the Trinity O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God have Mercy upon us miserable Sinners The other is address'd to the Cross of Christ O Cross my only Hope I salute thee at this time of the Passion increase the Righteousness of Good Men and pardon the Crimes of the Wicked Here you have two Saints which one and the same Superstition hath canoniz'd two Prayers cast in the same Mould for both one and t'other are the fruit of Idolatry and of false Eloquence Upon which I will make this Observation that it has fal'n out with the Oeconomy of these Primitive Fathers as it has with the Admirers of Episcopacy here in England who having retain'd a Liturgy and divers Ceremonies that they might bring over the more Papists to their Communion yet they still continue to look upon those things at this time in a sort necessary to Religion altho there 's now no more occasion for that Reason of Prudence and even as great a Reason of Charity and a second Reason of Prudence should oblige 'em to relax or lay 'em by to gain the Non-Conformists 'T is the same case with the Allegorical
that he did not believe Ignatius favour'd the Opinion of Christ's Pre-existence or that the Epistles of that Father were a Forgery after his time 'T is to the first and earliest Antiquity we must ascend Artemon will be in the right if he rejects those latter Testimonies and produces more antient ones for his own Doctrine But the Anonymous cites Scripture and so does Artemon appeal to it alledging that his Doctrine is the same Truth that the Apostles had taught That therefore is the thing in question We shall see hereafter who has the most reason to appeal to this most Primitive Authority for I intend to examine in what sense the Son of God is there deify'd The Anonymous makes another small attack upon the Artemonites for their seeming to insinuate that Victor was not against their Doctrine but that Zephirin was the first that did persecute it I will not repeat here what I have remark'd touching the deposing of Theodotus that Victor might excommunicate him as an Ebionite without breaking Communion with the Artemonites who maintained the Orthodox Doctrine of the miraculous Conception of our Saviour 'T is sufficient at present to shew that the Words of Artemon may fairly signify that Victor was the first who attack'd the Apostolick Faith but that Zephirin intirely destroy'd it So far is Artemon from ranking Victor among those who preserv'd the Truth intire that he seems to say on the contrary that he began and Zephirin completed its Ruin Victor began by excommunicating one single Christian Theodotus and certainly Zephirin concluded by excommunicating the whole Orthodox Church or all the other Great Men who joined with Artemon in the defence of expiring Truth as the Fable concerning their Bp Natalis that comes after inclines one to think I call it a Fable for nothing is more extravagant than to talk of Angels whipping and scourging the Artemonite Bishop into the bosom of the Church How were the Angels the first who made Converts by Dragooning Is there any thing that can more discredit this Romance of the Anonymous Another Story that Eusebius has tack'd to this is when he makes the Anonymous say that Theodotus was the first Author of the Error ascrib'd to him which is false take his Heresy in what sense you please Dr. Bull endeavours to cover the Reputation of Eusebius by a certain wretched distinction but he does not observe that Eusebius contradicts him for he goes on to say in the same Book that Theodotus was the first whom Victor excommunicated which supposes that he was the first who suffer'd for his adherence to this Doctrine but not the first who published it If he was the first Martyr for it it does not follow that he was the first Author of it 'T is highly probable that the great noise of the Excommunication of Theodotus upon the very account that this Persecution was new and unheard of made him pass in after-times for the very Author of that Opinion for which he was persecuted Not to insist on it at present that Eusebius makes no scruple a little to corrupt the Story at all times when he can by that Fraud give the Air of Antiquity to his Platonick Logos or of Novelty to the opposite Doctrine which he hated with all his heart he has been catcht in so many other Places that the Presumptions against him cannot but be very violent For instance where he makes Josephus say that on the Day of Christ's Passion a Voice was heard in the Temple of Jerusalem saying Let us go hence And witness another Passage where he makes the same Josephus say Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 9. that 't was an Angel who appear'd over the Head of Herod Agrippa whereas Josephus expressy says it was an Owl One plainly discerns where the pious Fraud lies he would not have it be thought that the Jewish Historian did not agree with St. Luke Thus it appears in spite of all the Efforts of Eusebius that 't was in the time of Victor and Zephirin that the pure Faith of the first Christians fell with the Church of the Nazarens which from that time have often pass'd for Hereticks The new Succession of Gentile Bishops Euseb lib. 4. c. 5. began with one Mark and Platonism enter'd into the Church with the new Bishops Saturninus Basilides and the whole Class of the Gnosticks made a mighty progress afterwards under colour of discovering Secrets unknown heretofore to the Church About the same time Carpocrates his Heresy was broach'd another Mysteryman To speak the truth the infamous Practices of these Pretenders to Illumination were not long born withal in the Church Human Nature alone without the Succours of Religion knew how to quit it self of it in a short time But as for their Philosophy the Church managed that to her purpose after some sifting and refining 't was adjusted to the more specious part of her Religion for the support of her new Opinions which being pure Speculations the Affections were not so far concern'd about 'em as to take notice of their Repugnancy And the Mind which is naturally desirous of Knowledg found its account in 'em and the natural Veneration Men have for Mystery and for every thing they do not comprehend had the greatest Stroke in this matter and gained the Point So one sees how by insensible Methods and Degrees the Gospel which is a Doctrine purely practical was exchanged for Contemplation Mystery and Fanaticism CHAP. XIII An Account of the first Christians call'd Nazarens TO conclude it may not be amiss to give my Readers an Idea of the first Christians called Nazarens There were two sorts of 'em as many of the Fathers and some of the Moderns have observ'd The former improperly so called and more properly Ebionites for they believ'd Jesus Christ to have been the Son of Joseph and obliged the Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses Among these such who held Jesus to be the Christ were tolerated and accounted Christians but the others had not that Character because they made Moses's Law necessary to Salvation and held Jesus for no more than a just Man or a Prophet who suffer'd in the Cause of Righteousness and Truth They would not have the Benefits of his Mission to extend to the Gentiles or in a word that he was the promis'd Messiah and had any Power in Heaven Some believed he was not truly rais'd from the Dead others believed he was that he might receive the Reward of a Good Man but not that he might be made Lord of the World They could not be persuaded to think that Jesus who was come in the Flesh that is in so low and mean a Condition could be the glorious Messiah the Christ so often promis'd by the Prophets The other sort of Nazarens properly so called were the Believers of Judea to whom that Name was given as the Name Christian was to the Gentile Proselytes These believ'd Jesus Christ to be born of a Virgin by the Holy