and Oeconomical Mystery of the antient Fathers The Reason of Prudence ceasing since we have now no more Platonists to gain nor Gnosticks to outbrave the Oeconomy of the Logos ought to cease at the same time Yet we do in this as in every thing else we never reform and it often happens that the Religion of Posterity is nothing else but the mere Policy or Oeconomy of their Ancestors I have but one Reflection more to shew the Source of this Allegory Cerinthus was the Man who first brought in this usage of Platonizing As he is the first Author of a Logos or an invisible Christ he is also the first who began to make use of the Oeconomy in the Christian Religion 'T is he who turns the Resurrection into Allegory explaining it by the Evangelical Regeneration or rather by the State of Quietude wherein the Contemplative are when they quit this World to raise themselves to the Speculation of Mysteries and the Knowledg of Ideas The Quietists have not fail'd to frame an Ideal and Allegorical Word or Logos even as they have also taught an Allegorical and Ideal Resurrection Without question they allegoriz'd when they said Christ descended into Jesus meaning that Jesus was anointed and made the Christ when the Holy Ghost descended upon him at his Baptism See Grotius on 1 Cor. 15.1 They did no less allegorize when upon the same ground they added that the Christ which descended on Jesus ascended into Heaven and left him at the moment of his Passion By which they meant as St. Paul says that Jesus humbl'd himself that he laid by the Power and the Spirit with which he was endu'd and left himself to be crucified as a Man feeble and without Power or rather as a Slave Tertul. contra Prax. cap. 30. St. Hilary and St. Ambrose did not understand so much fineness since they made bold to say bluntly and without figure that the Word was divorc'd from the Flesh that the God was separated from the Man and left him to himself In short that which I am saying of the use of this Allegory amounts to this 'T is well known that the Pagans invented three sorts of Allegory the Physical the Moral and the Theological which never fail'd 'em at a pinch to cover the absurdity of their Fables and of the History of their Gods 'T is after this way they defended themselves as we see in St. Clemens his Recognitions lib. 10. cap. 30. saying that the literal Sense of their Fables was contriv'd in condescension to the Vulgar but that they had besides an allegorical and elevated Sense for the Learned That in this last Sense they said for example that Jupiter from his own Brain begat the Goddess Minerva that is Wisdom to shew that 't is by his Wisdom that the Father of all things created the World One may truly say the Christians have in a manner follow'd the same Method For not to mention their many Moral Allegories which they invented to conceal that which seemed to 'em too low and mean for the Majesty of the H. Scriptures 't is sufficient to observe here that all they have told us of an eternal and invisible Son of his incomprehensible Generation and other Speculations of the like nature is nothing else but a theological Allegory by which they varnish'd whatever appear'd too mean in the eyes of Philosophers in the History of Jesus Christ The Pagans and the Christians have hereby equally quitted themselves of a difficulty that expos'd 'em to mutual Reproaches The Pagans were asham'd of their ridiculous Fables and the Christians were of the Cross of Christ and both of 'em surmounted those Inconveniences by a dextrous use of what we call the Wonderful which is to be met with in their Allegory CHAP. XXI An Account of what the Father 's called Theology WHAT the Father 's called Theology is another sort of Machine they acted withal to represent to us a contemplative Gospel formed after the Ideas of Plato which theologizes that is speaks of any Person in the same Stile as one usually speaks of God as if the Person had a miraculous Birth to say he came down from Heaven if he reform'd Mankind to say he created the World if God rais'd him to any extraordinary Dignity to say that he was begotten of God All this so far agrees with the Scriptures but especially with the Stile of St. John who affects throughout his Writings to theologize all the Subjects he treats on I will give you but this one Instance John 3.13 No Man says he has ascended into Heaven c. The foregoing Words do shew that he theologized in this Passage he had said to the Jews How will you believe if I tell you of Heavenly things For no Man has ascended into Heaven c. that is to say plainly that no Man can acquaint you with Heavenly Things but he who came down from Heaven or who drew his Origin from Heaven The sense therefore is this The Son of Man who was born from Heaven by the Holy Ghost and on this account may be said in the theological way to have come down from Heaven The same Son of Man was raised to the Knowledg of all the Secrets of Heaven by the Gifts he received from the same Spirit and on that account it may be further said in the theological Stile That be ascended into Heaven No Man then was rais'd to the Knowledg of the Secrets of Heaven but he who was originally from Heaven that is the Son of Man who was wholly from Heaven After this manner the Jews did theologize when they said that their Law was before the Creation of the World The Mahometans do the same when they speak so magnificently of the Gospel as to say it fell down from Heaven sometimes speaking the same thing of the Alcoran which they call the Word of God which was not made but came down from Heaven Barthol Edessen Confut. Agar They give also the same Honour to Jesus Christ who because he was born without a human Father after an extraordinary manner is in their oriental and theological Stile the Eternal Word the Word of God by way of Excellence that is he is the Word 1. Because he had no other Father than that Word and that Commandment had which made the World from nothing 2. Because he with the assistance of that very Word has distinguish'd himself by a great number of Miracles Hortinger Hist Orient lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 105. Simon Voyage du Mont. Liban p. 262. Again nothing is more reasonable than that manner of Theologizing things great and extraordinary provided all these pompous Expressions be taken in a metaphorical sense But the Misfortune is that the grosser Platonism has impos'd upon the Fathers who have spoken in this manner of J.C. in the very Letter So that to theologize with them is to ascribe to Jesus Christ the Divine Nature and Substance with all its Attributes or at least
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
this matter before he was well aware 'T is Bp Pearson I mean in his Vindication of Ignat. Epist Part. 2. cap. 1. where he tells you Ignatius was one of those Primitive Fathers qui Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who deify'd Jesus Christ or gave him the Title of a God which was also done by the Catholick Doctors and Christians of his time who as Pliny reports it sang Hymns to Jesus Christ as to a God and who as one of the Antients tells us in Euseb Eccl. Hist lib. 5. c. 28. did celebrate the Praises of Jesus Christ the Word of God by ascribing to him Divinity But after the Philosophy of Plato was received in the Church the Writers of the second and third Century are not wont to speak of Jesus Christ with so much simplicity as barely to call him God This manner of speaking of Jesus Christ has the relish of St. Ignatius his time who simply or barely call'd him God Photius reproaches Clemens Romanus for not giving the Title of God to Jesus Christ which so well became him Hence it appears that this able Critick thought the Practice of giving Christ the Title of a God was peculiar to this first Age of the Church But the Title God so often given to Christ by Ignatius tho not with the restriction with which 't is done by the succeeding Fathers but simply and by it self is indeed a mark of the Antiquity of St. Clemens his Writings He imitates throughout the Epistles of St. Paul which had been received from the beginning in all Churches but he rarely cites the Gospels which had been more lately received He has nothing in his Epistles of human Learning nothing that does not become the Simplicity of an Apostolick Man and the Purity of the Gospel They who wrote after him usually borrow from the Pagans and sometimes blend their Opinions with the Christian Religion which every one did according to the Principles of that Philosophy they had imbib'd before they embrac'd Christianity Ignatius had for a long time been a Bishop and became a Christian at a time when very few of the Learned Gentiles turn'd Christians but we find him to be purely the Christian not form'd in the Schools or nurs'd up in Librarys and without the Sentiments of the Academy or the Portico Bp Pearson acquaints us in this fine Passage that the Antients did theologize that is attribute Divinity to Jesus Christ and spoke of him as a God This taken in a good Sense very well explains what they understood by the title of a God when they gave it to Jesus Christ They meant nothing else by it but this that they look'd upon him as a Divine and extraordinary Man and that they honour'd him as such In short it would not be proper to say that the Antients sang Hymns to the Father as to a God quasi Deo that they celebrated the Praises of the Father by ascribing Divinity to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deifying him this would be ridiculous Language We don't use to speak thus of the Supreme God These Expressions cannot sute any other Object but one who has not Divinity in an absolute Sense but in certain respects only And 't is upon the following accounts that Jesus Christ was spoken of as a God either with regard to his Nature being the Son of God form'd by the Operation of his Spirit or with regard to his Dignity since that the Father by making him Lord and Christ had made him God as St. Ambrose reads this Passage Lib. 1. de fide ad Grat. Aug. Cap. 7. 'T is true this Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another sense is sometimes us'd with respect to God the Father but then it signifies nothing else but to speak with reverence of the Deity to celebrate his Praises and not to deify or ascribe Divinity to him Vide Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 10. cap. 3. In the first of the Senses abovementioned the term may be well applied to Jesus Christ to express the Divine Honours they gave him For if he was Man because a Woman was his Mother it might also be said that he was a God and a God by Nature for being born of a Virgin he had none other Father but God Natura a nascendo But he deserves this high Character yet further forasmuch as the Father has highly exalted him and given him a Name above every Name By this Name says Novatian de Trinit cap. 17. we understand nothing else but the Name of God Because he was faithful says Lactantius Institut lib. 4. cap. 14. and had exactly done the Will of his Father he received the Name or Title of God 'T is in this sense that the Author of the second Epistle ascrib'd to Clemens Romanus exhorts us to think of Christ as of a God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he explains that by subjoining as of the Judg of Quick and Dead Shewing us thereby that he gave him not that Name but with regard to the Power the Father bestowed upon him for his Obedience This is the very Theology of St. Paul Heb. 1. who tells us that God made Christ more excellent than the Angels when he said to him thou art my Son that is plainly that then he made him a God For 't is of his Exaltation the Apostle speaks as appears by his Citation out of the Psalms O God thy God has anointed thee for so I read it as the Trinitarians do Now a God anointed and consecrated is nothing but a King and consequently Jesus Christ is God with regard to the Dominion he has received from the Father over the New Creation But with respect to God the Father he is nothing but the Minister of his Will If he be called Lord that 's no more than a Term of Inferiority in the New Testament which signifies one whom the Father hath appointed his Vicegerent and it cannot be understood otherwise because 't is said the Father has made him Lord. St. Paul exactly follows this Sense for in all the Symbols he mentions he takes care to ascribe the Name of God only to the Father excluding the Son and saying the Father is the One God and the Son the One Lord which St. Paul does always when he speaks of Father and Son together And this is an Observation I had from Tertullian who speaks thus in his Dispute against Praxeas I will not say two Gods and two Lords but I will follow the Apostle St. Paul and if the Father and the Son are to be nam'd together I 'll call the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord. But if Jesus Christ be named alone then I may call him God as the Apostle himself does when he says Of whom is Christ who is God over all things blessed for ever But in my opinion Novation expresses the thing more clearly in his Discourse de Trinitate cap. ult God the Father says he is without contradiction the God of all and the very
twofold Operation the one manifest which is Jesus Christ in the Flesh the other secret or hidden which is the Holy Spirit the one by way of Manifestation the other by way of Communication But after all 't is but a twofold Operation of one and the same Power I forbear to take notice of divers other Testimonies of Tertullian of the like kind as for instance at the beginning of his Book concerning Prayer in his Dispute against Marcion lib. 3. cap. 6 16. and in his Discourse of the Flesh of Jesus Christ cap. 19. the Reader may consult 'em if he pleases To the foremention'd Authoritys from Tertullian I will subjoin that of Novatian de Trinitate cap. 19. That which chiefly constituted the Son of God says he was the Incarnation of the Word of God which was formed by means of that Spirit of whom the Angel said the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. For this is the true Son of God who is of God who uniting himself to the Son of Man makes him by that Union the Son of God which he was not before So that the main reason of this Title the Son of God arises from that Spirit of the Lord which descended How the Word of God incarnate by means of that Spirit which descended on Mary Is the second Person incarnate by means of the third Very good Divinity Is it not rather this Divine Operation that bears the Name of the Word which manifested it self in the Flesh of Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit which insinuated it self into that Flesh That is to say that which is called the Spirit on account of its Substance is at the same time called the Word on account of its Manifestation and its Operation For this reason Novatian places not the chief ground of the Filiation of Jesus Christ in a Word which was a different Hypostasis from the Spirit but in the Word which is the Operation of that Spirit of whom the Scripture speaks saying the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. And it would not be understood what the Fathers mean when they confound the Word with the Spirit that over-shadowed the Virgin or when they distinguish these two Powers if it be not laid down for a Rule that by the Spirit they understand the very Nature of the Spirit the Principle or Source whence Prophecy comes and by the Word a certain and particular Operation of that Spirit as for instance the miraculous Conception of our Saviour I have yet an antient Doctor to alledg and he not of the meanest Rank I mean St. Cyprian who does not make any distinction between the Word the Spirit the Son of God the Wisdom c. This Father having cited the second Psalm de Mont. Sina Zion adv Jud. cap. 2. where he speaks of the King whom God had anointed on Mount Sion 'T is upon this Mountain says he that the Holy Spirit the Son of God was establish'd King to proclaim the Will and the Empire of God his Father and in the fourth Chapter of the same Discourse the Flesh of Adam says he which J. C. bore in a Figure that Term has a Tang of Marcion's Heresy this Flesh was call'd by his Father the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven the Christ the anointed of the Living God a Spirit united to Flesh The same Father elsewhere in his Discourse de Idolor vanit cap. 6. expresses himself thus The Word and the Son of God is sent whom the Prophets had forespoken of as the Instructor of Mankind He is the Power of God his Reason his Wisdom and his Glory the Holy Spirit hath put on Flesh God is mingled or united with Man The Holy Spirit is the Son of God and at the same time the Word is the Son of God and which is more the Flesh of J.C. is called the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven which could not be true but of its Celestial Origin and as it was formed by the Holy Spirit So that Cyprian seems to intimate thereby that 't is because of this Celestial Origin that the Scriptures say the Flesh of J. C. came down from Heaven that the Son of Man came down from Heaven for it may be very well said that J.C. came down from Heaven since his Origin was from Heaven in his Birth by the Holy Ghost And what is the Holy Spirit but the Word according to this Father The Word is the Holy Spirit which united it self to Man the Word is the Holy Spirit which put on Flesh In short 't is the Holy Spirit which is the Christ of God You 'll say what hinders but the second Person in the Trinity may have also the Name of the third That 's pure Fancy Why should one shut ones eyes when one sees as clear as the day that St. Cyprian alludes to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour and that these sublime Expressions of that Father have no other Foundation but that Mystery As for what Lactantius affords us I hope his Authority will not be contested with me in the decision of a Point wherein he does no more than confirm a Tradition elsewhere well supported and followed This pious Person having said in his Institutions lib. 4. c. 6. That God begat a Holy Spirit which he call'd his Son he resumes this Discourse in the 12th chap. of the same Book thus This Spirit of God says he coming down from Heaven made choice of a pure and holy Virgin into whose Womb he insinuated himself and this Virgin conceived being full of the Holy Spirit which embrac'd her That which Lactantius expresses by these Words descended on a Virgin can it be any other than that which St. Luke expresses in these The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee But the Holy Ghost of whom the Angel speaks is the same according to Lactantius with that Holy Ghost which God begat and which he called his Son Dr. Bull tells us the Fathers understood by the Holy Ghost the Divine Nature of J. C. Very well but why so If not for this Cause that J. C. had no other Divinity than that Spirit of Power and Holiness which form'd his Body in the Womb of a Virgin For in short the Fathers speak after this manner when they explain these words The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. or allude to them and always with regard to his Birth of a Virgin But the Holy Spirit in this Passage Luke 1. 35. signifies most certainly that Power which we Trinitarians call the third Person And if the Fathers had a mind to find the second there as is said there 's no knowing what the Words signify for it must be affirmed that they have strangely mistaken the Scriptures and in so unaccountable manner as I may say that there is no longer any certainty to be met with in their Writinâ—â—â—â—ll's in Confusion as in the antient Chaos There 's nothing whereby to discover the Names of the
Divine Persons nor by consequence the Persons themselves Be it as it will the Doctor will find it hard enough to apply his Solution to all the Arguments I am about to mention And if he can do it 't will be no more difficult for him to find the Divinity of J. C. in all the Passages of the Gospel where mention is made of the Holy Ghost I hope also that at last he 'l say that when J. C. promis'd his Holy Spirit to his Apostles he promis'd them his Divine Nature But I must beg my Reader 's Patience a little longer to see what Answer the Doctor will make against the last Authority I am going to alledg And that 's a Letter of the Council of Sardis in the second Book of Theodoret's Hist Eccles The Fathers there drew a Creed in three very distinct Articles the first concerning the Father the second the Son and third Article the Holy Ghost In the last which is so expresly distinguished from that of the Son they speak thus of the Incarnation by the Holy Ghost We believe also there is a Holy Spirit or Paraclet which the Lord promis'd and sent He did not suffer but the Man whom he assumed or took from the Virgin Mary he suffer'd because he was capable of it whereas God is immortal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Is passus non est Where one sees the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Neuter Now of this Spirit the Fathers say he cannot suffer but 't was Man whom he put on and took from the Virgin that did suffer This they speak I say of the Paraclet whom they confess after the Father and the Son and not of the Divine Nature of J. C. A Passage express and formal which clearly proves these Doctors understood nothing else by the Holy Ghost but that Power of God whereof the Word is the Manifestation and the Operation confounding the Spirit with the Word and very distinctly assuring us that the Paraclet was incarnate Is the Paraclet the Divine Nature of J. C. or the second Person of the Trinity Here we 'll wait the Doctor 's Answer Valesius not bearing with this Incongruity in the Council had the Boldness to corrupt this Passage in his Version by foisting in the word Christ for thus he has translated it He did not suffer but the Man whom Christ put on The Word Christ is not in the Text which intirely relates to the Holy Ghost or Paraclet In short that Word ruines the whole sense of the Period and strangely confounds all this third Article which belongs only to the Holy Ghost and is distinct from that concerning J. C. Both Translators and Copists are guilty of Falsification in this particular Give me leave to affirm one thing and that is that the Antients have often distinguished the Holy Spirit from the Power of the Highest whereof he is speaking in the same Text calling the latter the Word of God the Son of God and saying only of the former that he overshadowed the Virgin Now even this shews that by the Word they understood nothing but the Power and the Operation of the Holy Spirit which is the same thing with the Power and Operation of the Highest The Holy Spirit signifying the Substance and the Power of the Highest signifying the Operation it follows that the Word which is the Power of the Highest according to the Fathers is not otherwise distinguished from the Holy Spirit than as the Operation is distinguished from its Subject We may conclude therefore from Proofs so very evident that the Antients who have deified J. C. had no other ground for their Theology but the Birth of J. C. of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost that by the Word and the Son of God they always understood this miraculous Operation and that they never advanced any higher in their Discourses towards that which is called an eternal Generation CHAP. XII An Account of the Foundation of the Allegorical Theology of the Fathers concerning the Word and the Holy Spirit I Dare assure my Reader that I can shew him the very Foundation of this Allegorical Theology 'T is known that the Fathers imitated the Gnosticks in many things and particularly in the way of Allegory and Contemplation But 't was Mark the Valentinian as we are inform'd by Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 12. who was the Author of the Allegorical Exposition on the Birth of J. C. that is the first who elevated it to a sense of Contemplation and Mystery He makes a Quaternity of the Man and the Church which are the first Pair and of the Word and Life which are the second Pair But what sort of Theology does he couch under this Enigma or Allegory Why nothing less than the wonderful Conception of J. C. The Man says he is the Power of the Highest because that acted instead of the Man The Church is the Holy Virgin because she held the place of the Church The Angel Gabriel was instead of the Word and the Holy Spirit instead of Life Nothing can better convince us of the Allegory us'd by the Valentinians than this Passage in which the Angel is the Word and the Spirit is the Life the Power of the Highest is instead of the Man and the Virgin is instead of the Church I might also have produc'd this Passage for a Proof when I was arguing this Point but I have reserv'd it on purpose for this place to shew that the whole Mystery of the Word reduces it self to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour upon which both the Hereticks and the Orthodox have equally allegorized each taking his Flight as his Contemplation led him on And this is that famous Theology so much extolled by the Fathers I know most of them being entangled with their Platonism have mightily embroiled the first and antient Ideas of this matter But I know also that before they came to make two Hypostases of the Word and the Holy Spirit they were terribly perplexed about the latter and could not tell what to do Hence it was without doubt that they so long delayed the deifying of the Holy Ghost The Council of Nice has not at all touched upon its Divinity So far were they from it and the Holy Ghost made so small a Figure at that time that some Fathers of the Council made no difficulty to give its place to the Blessed Virgin by making her the third Person in the Trinity Of which we are informed by Elmacinus and Patricides in Hotting Orient Hist lib. 2. p. 227. The Council of Constantinople durst not speak openly upon the point And in S. Basil's time there was a little Shiness in calling the Holy Ghost directly and formally God 'T is worth our regard what Petavius de Trinit lib. 2. c. 7. § 2. says hereupon The Catholic Church says he accommodating it self for prudential Reasons to human Frailty came not to the full Profession of some