the perfect Generation i. e. the real and actual Generation Mons Du Pin Bibl. Tom. 1. at the Word Theophilus saith That the Fathers affirm the Logos to be Eternal and that it was in God from all Eternity as his Counsel his Wisdom and his Word But they say the same Word which was in God did after some manner come out of God when God resolved to ereate the World because he then began to make use of that Word in order to act outwardly This is what they term to be the Procession Prolation and even the Generation of the Word This hinders not indeed the Word 's having been from all Eternity nor its eternal Generation of the Father as we conceive the manner thereof but this is not what they call Generation The same Author owns in his Notes upon the Article of Tertullian that this Father means not Generation to be the eternal Procession of the Son but only a certain Prolation or outward Emission conceiv'd by him to have been at the Creation of the World because God both created and governs it by the Word He saith further we need not wonder that he should tell us in his Book against Hermogenes that there was a time when the Father was not Father and that the Son began to be Son because he believ'd that the Son had neither that Quality nor Name but only when the Word was created Mons Jurieu expresseth himself as fully in his sixth Pastoral Letter of the third Year attributing this Sentiment to all the Antenicene Fathers viz. that the Word had not its perfect Birth before the World's beginning i.e. according to Mr. Jurieu the Word is not eternal as it is a Son but only was hid in the Bosom of his Word as Wisdom and that he was as it were produc'd and became a distinct Person from that of the Father a little before the Creation You must be wilfully blind if you perceive not from what source this Theology of the Word doth spring As it is certain that the Heathens ever philosophiz'd of their Gods but relatively to the Origin of this Universe and have always join'd Theogony with their Cosmogony So likewise these Platonizing Christians followed the Steps of this Pagan Philosophy their Creation of the World always accompanying the Prolation of the Word or the Generation of the Son This is noted by the same Mons Jurieu in the aforemention'd Passage when he speaks of Athenagoras and Tertullian They believed saith he that the Wisdom which was not the Son of God at first but only in a Bud or Seed having spread it self over the Chaos did not only generate the Creatures but did also as it were by the same Effusion give a perfect existence to the Word or to the second Person of the Deity This indeed may be said to philosophize like Heathens May it not be said that the Wisdom and the Chaos were the Father and Mother whose Children are the Word and the Creatures But this is not all they bring them in by Couples like the Aeons of Valentine so true it is that the Christians would not divide what the Philosophers and Poets had united so closely viz. Theogony and Cosmogony I return to Dr. Bull praying him to consider whether a real Generation and properly so called can be expressed better than by saying that it is perfect that it is in Act that it gave a perfect Existence to the Word that it made the Word a Person distinct from the Father and in short that it render'd the Father to be properly a Father and the Son properly a Son This the Fathers say of the second Generation which they consider as the only Generation and Birth of the Son On the contrary can an improper and Metaphoric Generation be expressed berter than by saying that the Son existed only in Idea potentrally in a Bud in its Seed in the Heart in the Womb and the Bowels of God For thus the Fathers talk of the first Generation or to express it better of the first Existence of the Son of God which they scarce reckon to be a Generation For can you for example-sake call the Metaphoric Existence of Levi in the Loins of his Father when he was decimated in Abraham a Generation But the Fathers think thus of the first Existence whilst they say that the Son existed then only in a Bud or Seed and not as Mons Jurieu pretends Tabl. du Socin Let. 6. Art 3. that he was contain'd in the Bosom of the Father as a Child is in its Mother's Womb as if the Word had need to form it self by degrees in the Bowels of the Father and wait its time to wit that of the Creation of the World which should likewise happen to be that of its Delivery If Mr. Jurieu had understood the Platonic Philosophy he had taken care to avoid such a ridiculens Thought CHAP. XIV The immediate Generation of the Word THE antient Doctors followed Plato and their meaning was that the Divine Understanding is the Principle and Bud where the Son existed from Eternity as to his Essence all Essences being eternal in this respect according to the Platonists because they are the Emanations of the Substance of God but particularly all generated Spirits hence Homousianism takes its rise The Son came forth out of this first source of all Essences being the chiefest of them in God's Design He came forth in Time as to his Person to be the first Minister of the Father in the Creation of this Universe This distinguisheth him from all the Creatures the Birth of which is less noble as not being immediate Hereupon if you had asked them the reason why the Word alone amongst all the generated Spirits should be called the Son or the only Son they could not have alledged any other than the Privilege of being generated immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father whereas the other Spirits were so by the means of a second God and Minister The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions speaks thus Lib. 8. cap. 12. The Father who alone is above all Generation and Beginning having created all things by his only Son has immediately generated without any Intermedium that his only Son by his Will by his Power and Goodness He generated him before all the Aeons making use of him afterwards to create even the Aeons the Cherubims and Seraphims c. According to him the Angels were form'd by the Son but the Son was generated only by the Will and the immediate Power of God which is his Prerogative You need not doubt that Eusebius intended the same thing when he calls J. C. de Laud. Constan cap. 1. the most antient of all the Aeons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Fathers thought the same whenever they made use of these Words of St. John In the beginning was the Word for they did not mean that by the Beginning Eternity ought to be understood which this Word cannot denote as Maldonat confesseth
ingenuously in Joan. 1.1 they only meant that the Word was not created in the beginning of all things when God created the Heavens and the Earth after the manner of other Creatures or that of the other generated Spirits because it had a Being then already the Father having begotten it before by an immediate Generation For this Reason the Author of the Recognitions lib. 3. cap. 11. denies formally that the Holy Spirit may be called Son because there is saith he but one ungenerated and but one generated it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit is a Son having been made by another who was likewise made Eusebius delivers this Doctrine as a * Such is the Argument of that Chapter Tradition of the Church De Eccles Theol. lib. 3. cap. 6. The Spirit the Paraclet saith he is neither God nor Son because he took not his Origin from the Father after the same manner as the Son did being of the Number of those things that were made by the Son for whom all things were made All things saith the Evangelist consequently then the Holy Spirit also Origen's Doctrine is the source of all this who maintains in his 1 Tom. upon St. John that the Holy Spirit is a Creature of the Son relying with Eusebius upon this Expression that all 〈◊〉 not excepting the Holy Spirit were made by the Son This Theology of the Antients â—â—â—hing the immediate Generation of the Word at the time of the World's Creation was follow'd by many other Doctors even after the Council of Nice Marius Victorinus is of this Number who would have it in his first Book that the Generation of the Word is only an Effusion and Manifestation of that Power which created the World and which was hid in God before You may join Zeno of Verona with him de aeterna Filii Generatione Serm. 3. who moreover explains this Generation by referring it to the Creation of the World For as he saith it was then that the Word which was as it were buried in the Abyss of the Divine Understanding in profundo sacrae Mentis Serm. 1. was thrust forth and begotten Would Valentine have expressed himself otherwise about his Word which came forth out of the Understanding than this Man doth of his come out of the Deep and Silence But we ought not to forget Rupert who unfolds admirably this Philosophic Cabala saying That the Father actually begot the Word which contain'd potentially all things when he created the Heavens and the Earth Yes he goes on the Father thrust forth this good Word out of his Heart and before the Morning-Star begot him out of his Bosom viz. out of the Bottom of his Substance when he said Let there be Light Nothing can be more like to Origen's Expression That the Generation of the Light is the Generation of the Son Mr. Huel excuseth Origen alledging that he spoke allegorically we do not doubt it all this Theology is Allegorick The Word or Command which God utter'd to the Creature is the Son of God but improperly so and in the same sense that my Thought or my Speech are the Sons of my Understanding which both conceives and brings them forth This is too evident and for this Cause Dr. Ball had reason to retrench out of his Quotation Desen Fidei Nic. p. 395. these last Words of Rupert's Passage That the Father beget the Son when he â—â—id Let there be Light But Lactartius goes beyond all these Doctors I quoted for he allows not to the Word so much as the Advantage of an immediate Generation above the other generated Spirits He finds no difference between them but only in the different manner of their Prolation and in the different Design God had in the begetting of them The Holy Scriptures teach us saith he Lib. 4. c. 8. that the Son of God is the Word of God even as also the other Angels are the Spirits of God For the Word is a Spirit which was brought forth with a significative Voice But because the Spirit Breath and Speech are thrust forth by different Organs the Spirit proceeding out of the Nostrils and the Speech out of the Mouth consequently there is a great difference between this Son of God and the other Angels caeteros Angelos these being come forth out of God as silent and mute Spirits because they were not created to preach the Doctrine of God but only for the executing of his Orders But the Son notwithstanding he is a Spirit yet he came forth of the Mouth of God with a Sound and a Voice like unto Speech because God was to make use of his Voice to instruct the People c. You see manifestly how he confounds the Angel who is called the Word with the other Angels that he makes them all to proceed out of God equally by an immediate Prolation and that the only difference he makes here consists in this that the common Angels proceeded out of the Nostrils of God as mute Spirits design'd only to execute his Orders by Deeds whereas this chief Angel whom he calls the Son doth proceed out of the Mouth of God as a vocal and sounding Speech design'd to deliver his Oracles and to reveal his Will Lastly Origen or some body else under his Name goes beyond even Lactantius himself in that he confounds the Generation of the Word with that of common Creatures Homil. 2. in diversos For tho on the one hand he seems to say That the Word was born before all things and that all things were made by him yet he advanceth at the same time that these Words all things were made by him signify only that at his being born of the Father all things were likewise born together with him the Generation of the Word-God being the same with the Creation of all things And tho he saith That the Son is of a different Substance from the Creature that he hath the same Nature with the Father and that he had a beginning before Time was He seems to destroy all this by adding That the Substance of the Father is the Cause of the Son's Substance and that Jesus Christ intended so much when he said that his Father was greater than he which asserts evidently that the Substance of the Father is greater than that of the Son As also when he goes on To exist before Time is to exist not in Time but with Time His Conclusion will tell us his Meaning We ought then saith he to believe three things the Father bringing forth the Son begotten and the things that were made by the Word the Father speaks the Word is begotten and all things are made Conformably to what he was saying viz. that the Father bringeth forth the Word that is to say begetting his Wisdom all things were then made It is not difficult to sound the Depth of this Philosophy The Word is of the same Substance with the Father because it is the proper Power of the Father but it is less than
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
whether it be by an Angel or by an immediate Virtue is the Holy Spirit And all this is call'd the Oeconomy or as Irenaeus saith they are mysterious and extraordinary Dispensations of the Divinity which environ his Majesty to temper its great Splendor and adapt it to our Curiosity For to imagine that this is a second Person of this Divinity as invisible and as infinite as the first would make all the Reasonings of the antient Fathers not only useless but also absurd for they all unanimously declare not only that the Father never makes himself visible but also that he cannot do so It is impossible saith Eusebius Demonstr Evang. lib. 5. cap. 20. That the Eyes of Mortals should ever see the Supreme God to wit him who is above all things and whose Essence is unbegotten and immutable It is absurd and against all reason saith the same Author Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 2. that the unbegotten and immutable Nature of Almighty God should take the Form of a Man and that the Scripture should forge such like Falsities God forbid saith Novatian de Trinit cap. 26. that we should say that God the Father is an Angel lest he should be subjected to him whose Angel he were Et ibid. cap. 31. If the Son saith he were as incomprehensible as the Father the Objection of the Hereticks would have some ground that then there are two Gods It is an Impiety say the Fathers of the Council of Antioch Epist adv Paulum Samosat to fancy that that God who is above all things can be called an Angel Lastly otherwise I must transcribe all the Fathers Justin Martyr explains himself on this wise in his Dialogue with Tryphon No body saith he unless he be out of his Wits will dare to advance that the Father and Author of all things did quit the Heavens to cause himself to be seen in a small part of the Earth I thought to have finished but that I can by no means pass by that excellent Passage of Tertullian against Praxeas cap. 16. That he would not believe that the Sovereign God descended into the Womb of a Woman tho even the Scripture it self should say it This Father being persuaded by Reason and Philosophy that the supreme God is immense immutable and invisible demands how it could come to pass that the Almighty God whose Throne is the Heaven and the Earth his Footstool that this most high God should walk in the terrestrial Paradise should converse with Abraham should call to Moses out of a Bush c. and what is yet worse that he should descend according to Praxeas into the Womb of Mary that he should be impeached before Pilate and be shut up in the Sepulcher of Joseph He goes on Really one would not believe this concerning the Son if the Scripture did not speak it and perhaps would not believe it of the Father tho even the Scripture should say it How so would he mistrust the Scripture No he means only that he should mistrust the literal sense and search there for an Allegory Consequently then all these Fathers own that the Word by which the Father makes himself visible is not of a Nature incapable of causing it self to be seen but something sensible which represents God to us It matters not whether they conceive by it an Hypostasis a Spirit an intelligent Being or any other kind of Representation in a bright Cloud animated with a Voice This will always remain true that they did not understand the Word to be a Spirit equal to the Father as invisible by its Nature as the Father but only a certain Emanation where God produceth himself outwardly and discovers himself in a sensible manner And tho they might have sometimes spoken of the Word as of something invisible they meant not by this that it was invisible by its Nature but only that it was not visible to Men out of the time of its Oeconomy retiring it self from their Presence and becoming as it were hid in God Sometimes they would denote by it even the Energy and the Power of God wherewith his Manifestation is always accompanied but never a second Hypostasis in the Divine Nature For we must observe here sincerely once for all that the Word if you consider it only in its Energy is no other thing but God himself but when it is consider'd as it is a Mark of the Divine Presence then it is something sensible a Voice a Light or some external Form such like as was seen in Angels or in the Man J. C. our Lord. CHAP. II. The Antients believed that the Word was Corporeal WHerefore the Antients attributed a Body to the Word as Servetus very well observed Apolog. ad Philip Melanct. and so Tertullian speaks in his Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ against Praxeas chap. 7. where he proves at large that when God uttered his Word he gave it a Body indeed not a Body of Flesh but an Hypostasis that is Solidity and Substance which is the true Signification of the Word That 's probably what he means when in chap. 6. of the Book of the Flesh of Christ he assures that Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham with Flesh which was not yet born non nata adhuc that is to say not indeed with such Flesh as ours but with a solid Body which had more than appearance A Body I say which he in the 8th Chapter calls the Seed of God from which as from a Heavenly Seed the Messiah was to be born and this Seed is the Holy Ghost or the Substance of the Word which insinuated it self into it Thence the antient Docetes and all the other Hereticks who held the pre-existence of the Word suppos'd that the Word did not take true Flesh of Mary but that he contented himself with the Celestial and Etherial Body which he formerly bore in the Apparitions of the Old Testament which had no more than the Appearance and Figure of a Man which the Scripture calls the Face of God Mons le Moyne did not understand the thing otherwise in his Varia sacra p. 415. The Docetes says he compared the Apparitions of Jesus Christ to the Apparitions of the Old Testament which having been in Etherial Bodies for certain times vanished into the Air as soon as the Dispensation was finish'd imagining that the Body of Jesus Christ was not of any other Nature And it is in the same sense that Cerinthus and Ebion suppos'd that Jesus Christ had not taken true Flesh as St. Jerom assures in the Preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew As Cerinthus held Iren l. 1. c. 25. Epiph. Haeres 28. That the World had been created by a Power he also maintain'd that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary was the Son of the Creator As to the Christ or the Word he made him the Son of another Power superiour to the Creator and attributed to him a Celestial Body which he had always kept without
mixing it with the Flesh of Jesus For we cannot think he suppos'd that Jesus the Son of Mary had not Flesh like ours He meant nothing more than that the Word or the Christ as he is pleas'd to call him had not appear'd to Men but with a Body wholly celestial and impassible so separating Jesus from the Christ and making two Natures of them as St. Irenaeus informs us It is with reason wonder'd that so grave Authors have said and so often repeated that Cerinthus's Heresy consisted in denying the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ when he is the first who brings the two Natures of Jesus Christ into the Christian Religion the Divine Nature which he believed to be impassible and which he makes to descend from Heaven and the Humane which he believed to be begotten by Joseph and Mary But there is yet greater reason to wonder that Irenaeus has been quoted for it who says nothing less than what Controvertists make him say All that that Father says concerning the Error which St. John oppos'd in Cerinthus is that the World had been created by an inferiour God or by an Angel but that there was another superiour God who had sent his Word or the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove into the Son of Mary That the inferiour Christ who was called Jesus was indeed the Son of the Creator but that the superiour Christ who descended into the other was the Son of the most high and unknown God who after having render'd Jesus capable of working Miracles and of manifesting the unknown God withdrew himself into his Pleroma when Jesus was to suffer Iren. l. 3. c. 11. This Opinion was not so much Plato's as Philo the Jew 's who believed that God had never done any thing but by Angels Some Hereticks added that besides the God of the Jews who was one of those Angels and Creator of the Universe there was another God who had never manifested himself until he made himself known by the Coming of the Christ Indeed it seems that this is the only Error which St. John opposes in his Gospel First he shews therein following the Psalmist St. Paul and St. Peter that the World was not made by any other than by the Word or by the Power of God that this Word was not an Efficacy or Power distinct or separate from the most High God that is an Angel or self-subsisting Hypostasis but that it was in God the Creator as his Efficacy or to say better that it was the Creator himself Then he shews that the Word the Spirit or the superior Christ who descended into Jesus who dwelt in him and who had wrought so many Miracles was not an Hypostasis or an emanated Efficacy of another God than he who had created the World but the proper Efficacy of God the Creator the same Word which having created the World was united to Jesus Christ and manifested in him The Word by which all things were made says he was made Flesh or manifested in the Flesh Which shews that Christ was the Son of the Creator and not of another God superiour to him and that the World was not made by an Angel but by the most high God Mons le Moyne among others believes that St. John aim'd at opposing this Error St. John assures says he Varia sacra p. 407. that the Word was made Flesh in opposition to the Doctrine of the phantastick Body of Christ He has no other Design in his first Epistle where he teaches that Christ is come in the Flesh and protests that he preaches and insists on no other Word of Life than that which he had seen heard and touched that is according to him that Christ came no otherwise than in a real Body and no way in an etherial one If we inclin'd to believe that St. John aim'd at Cerinthus in writing his Gospel we might add that it is very remarkable that as often as this Evangelish relates Jesus Christ's saying that he descended from Heaven he always makes him speak as if he directly oppos'd that Heretick For whereas Cerinthus said that the Christ or a Spiritual Nature descended from Heaven Jesus Christ assures on the contrary that 't is the Son of Man that 't is his own Flesh which descended from thence Man as you see and not a Nature distinct from Man Flesh and not a Spirit 'T is pity that Heretick did not live in the time of our Lord one might have the Pleasure of forming a curious System on that Subject which would not be less well contrived than that which has been built on the Word of St. John with respect to that Heretick But if we cannot positively assert that Jesus Christ or his Disciple did attack Cerinthus we may at least affirm that 't was against him or his like that St. Irenaeus disputed They hold says that Father l. 3. c. 17 18 19 20. that indeed Jesus is born of Mary but that as to Christ he descended from above so dividing the Lord by saying that he is composed of two Substances c. With their Mouths they confess but one Christ but in reality they have two one passible and the other descending from Heaven invisible and impassible not knowing that the Word which was united to and mix'd with his Work and which was made Flesh is it self that Jesus who suffer'd for us But if one suffer'd while the other remain'd impassible it is not one Christ but two Now every Spirit which divides Jesus Christ qui solvit Jesum Vulg. is not of God What hinder'd the Apostles from saying that Christ descended into Jesus or the Saviour who is above the Oeconomy into him who is of the Oeconomy But the Apostles neither knew nor said any thing like it What there was of it they said to wit that the Spirit descended on him like a Dove It appears by this Passage and by the whole Work of St. Irenaeus that his Opinion was that the Word was made Flesh not only in communicating it self to the Flesh which the Hereticks believ'd but also in mixing it self with the Flesh And therefore in the 21st Chapter of the same Book he twice calls him the Word mix'd and blended commixtum Verbum The same Theology is found in Novatian de Trinitate c. 11 19. In one place he maintains that Jesus is not only a Man but that he is likewise God according to the Scripture because the Divinity of the Word enter'd into the Composition and mix'd it self with the Flesh Divinitate Sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta In another place like unto this he takes upon himself to demonstrate that the Word having by its Vnion and by its Mixture with the Flesh associated to it self the Son of Man made him what he was not to wit the Son of God Origen says as much of it in his third Book against Celsus The Humanity of Christ says he rais'd it self to such a degree of Divinity not only by
the Communication of the Word but also by its Vnion and by its Mixture therewith permixtione that it is become a God Tertullian carrys the matter yet farther in his Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ Ch. 16. For he supposes that As the Clay whereof Adam was formed was converted into true Flesh so the Word of God is converted into the Substance of the same Flesh Whence I infer that these antient Doctors believ'd the Word to be corporeal and capable of being compounded with the Flesh so that as the Flesh has by this mixture been in a manner deify'd the incorporated and incarnated Word has likewise been render'd passible I say passible taking the Word according to its literal Signification and not by the Figure of the communication of Idioms as we are used to speak For otherwise they would have owned two Natures in Jesus Christ the one passible and the other impassible which is the very Opinion they oppos'd It is plain that according to Irenaeus the Hereticks said that the Christ had been made two Substances or as he speaks Substance and Substance altera altera Substantia Now what difference would there be between two Substances and two Natures Let us then say that they could not be any otherwise refuted than by supposing that the Word with the Flesh made but one Nature or but one Christ who from impassible as he was made himself passible for our sakes If there be any other Substance distinct from the Christ which descended on him Irenaeus teaches us that 't is no other than the Holy Ghost as the Evangelists assure us The Valentinians held that Christ descended into Jesus thence Irenaeus infers that they made two Christs Now if the Orthodox had held that the Son of God descended into the Son of Mary 't was natural thence to draw the same consequence that then they made two Sons of God The Gnosticks did not deny that the Son of Mary had true Flesh and that he really suffer'd They only taught that Christ who descended into him contenting himself with his Celestial and Etherial Body did not so unite himself to the Flesh of the Son of Mary as to have truly suffer'd with him and therein they divided Christ Irenaeus would no less have divided Christ into two if he had believed that the Word always remain'd impassible while the Man whereunto it was united did suffer He could not therefore refute them but by supposing that this Word so united it self to the Flesh that from being impassible as it had been before it became passible almost as our Soul is so join'd to our Body that it suffers with it If the Trinitarians now hold that the Divine Nature did not suffer they are in the same Opinion with those Hereticks and if by reason of the Union of the two Natures they can say that the Son of God or the Word suffer'd because one of the two Natures did suffer the Hereticks might also have said that Christ did not suffer because one of the two Substances had not suffer'd And that the rather because 't was the Substance which had the Personality whereto the Actions and Passions do belong For who doubts but that they were provided with many distinctions What Irenaeus said in Chap. 21. of the same Book may be objected to the Opinion which I ascribe to him viz. that the Word suspended his efficacy that Jesus Christ might die But that does not signify that the Word did not suffer but that he would not make use of his Power to hinder himself from suffering as appears by the following opposite Proposition That the Man was absorb'd that Christ might rise again Which does not exclude the Man from Resurrection but means only that his Infirmities and his Nothingness brought no obstacle thereto having been surmounted by the Power which rais'd him from the Dead We might support this Hypothesis with many Passages of the Epistles of Ignatius but that Discussion would carry us too far It is to be remember'd that we give only an Essay and not a compleat Dissertation on the Word of St. John CHAP. III. What the Spirit of God is where the Word is again consider'd The Cause of that Error AFter having spoken of the outward Manifestation of God I come to the manner whereby he communicates himself inwardly God is a rich Spring which hath always been diffusing it self which he hath done either by insinuating himself into all his Works into which he hath inspired Soul and Life so that there is not any part of the Universe which bears not some strokes and Rays of his Divinity or by shedding his extraordinary Favours into those of his intelligent Creatures whom he has often chose to be the Interpreters of his Will With respect to the former his Communication is call'd the Spirit or the Breath of God The Spirit mov'd upon the Deep to stir the confused Mass of the World and prepare Matter for the Word of God who framed the several Parts of it Therefore the Author of Pimander did not conjecture amiss when he thinks that what Moses said of the Spirit of God which moved upon the Deep is to be understood of the Word of God It 's the same Spirit but in a more noble degree which insinuated it self as the Breath of God into the Body of Adam to inspire into him Knowledg and Reason God's Hands made him the Spirit of God gave him Life Two Powers which always accompany each other in the Work of the Creation A double Power which David expresses by saying in Psal 33. That by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made and their Strength cometh from the Breath of his Mouth There is a like Expression in the Book of Judith ch 16.17 Thou saidst the Word and the Heavens were made thou didst send thy Spirit and he built them All which well expresses God's Command outwardly his Energy and Efficacy inwardly which Philo somewhere calls two Powers accompanying God and a Doctor of the Church Irenaeus the Creator's two Hands To express God 's not needing any other than himself his Omnipotent Will his single Command his Strength only and having no occasion for Instruments and Machines a Learned Bishop Mons de Meaux Disc on Vniv Hist p. 138. says God is represented to us as he who does all and who does all by his Word as well because he does all by Reason as because he does all without Labour and that the doing so great Works costs him but one single Word that is it costs him no more than the willing it The Jewish Lawgiver says Longin Tract de Sublim who was not an ordinary Man well conceiving the Greatness and Power of God express'd it in its full Dignity at the beginning of his Laws by these Words God said Let there be Light and there was Light All that God does says Rabbi Maimon More Nevochim Par. 1. c. 23. is attributed to his Word as in Psal 33. The Heavens were
created by the Word of God c. by a Comparison taken from the Kings of the Earth whose Word is the only Instrument they imploy to execute their Wills Indeed God has no need of any Instrument whereby to act he does all by the sole Act of his Will And Ibid. c. 65. The Word of God says he signifies no other than his Will But because Men cannot presently apprehend how a thing can be made by the Will only thinking it necessary that he who will make any thing must either do it himself or cause it to be done by others the Scripture says that God commands that a thing be when he will have it to be not only by comparison to our manner of acting but also because those Expressions do also signify the Will So as often as in the Work of the Creation we meet with the words God said it is the same as God willed And these that the Heavens were created by the Word of God is the same thing as by the Spirit of his Mouth For as his Mouth and his Spirit are Metaphorical Expressions so his Speech and his Word are also Metaphorical the meaning whereof is that things exist by his Will only And lastly in Cap. 66. mentioning these Words of Psal 8. The Heavens are the Works of thy Hands or of thy Fingers he says that the Finger of God is the same thing with the Word of God and the Word of God the same thing with the Will of God Grotius makes almost the same Observation on John 1.1 Because says he Moses wrote God said Let there be Light the Hebrews have thence call'd Devar the Word that Power or Divine Emanation by which God brought things out of Nothing and worketh all that is uncommon and extraordinary Psal 33.6 148.8 That which we read of Isaiah My Hand hath laid the Foundations of the Earth is in the Chaldee I have laid the Foundations of the Earth by my Word St. Peter uses the same Expression 2 Ep. 3.5 And that Paraphrast uses it so when treating of Miracles Prophecy or God's extraordinary Assistance and particularly when the Hebrew says the Eyes the Hand or the Face of God Whence it appears that in Scripture saying that the Hands of God laid the Foundations of the Earth or that he laid the Foundations of it by his Word or by his Spirit are equivalent Expressions and consequently that there is no Mystery in this Term Word or Speech Otherwise we must seek it also in Hand Finger Mouth c. and make of 'em so many Persons of the Trinity 'T would be much more proper to say with the Bishop of Meaux as above noted that thereby is signify'd nothing more with respect to God than that the doing great Works costs him but one single Word In truth this literal Sense is much more reasonable than the suppos'd Mystery But I said in the second place that there is another more excellent Communication when God fills with his extraordinary Gifts and if I may so speak overflows with his Favours those of Mankind whom he appoints to execute his Decrees as his Prophets and other Messengers and particularly the Messiah whom he sent into the World with all the Characters of an extraordinary Consecration This latter kind of Communication is called the Holy Ghost And here again we see on the one hand the Word and the Commission of God address'd to his Minister and on the other the Holy Ghost confirming God's Order to the Minister and conferring on him Power to discharge all the Duties of his Office So true it is that the Word and the Spirit are two united Powers which ordinarily work 〈…〉 I say ordinarily because Cases 〈…〉 een seen where the Communication 〈…〉 ut any Manifestation and on 〈…〉 trary others where God manifested himself by meer Apparitions which do not imply any Union of the Godhead with the Person who was honour'd with them But here it must be observ'd with respect to Prophetical Communication that there are two kinds of it whereof each hath its specifick Character The first which was when God spake by the Prophets was only for particular Dispensations for certain Times and Ministrys The other which was demonstrated in Jesus Christ to whom the Divine Nature was communicated in a much more perfect manner was inseparable and perpetual The first is called the Holy Ghost the second is not only called the Holy Ghost but also the Word because Jesus Christ was not only a Prophet by reason of the Gifts received from the Holy Ghost but also because he was begotten a Prophet and born a Prophet a distinction which raises him infinitely above all other Prophets This is the Truth which St. John design'd to teach us in writing the Preface or Prologue to his Evangelical History viz. that the same Jesus who was born of a Woman was born the Christ or is the Christ in right and by the advantage of his Birth And the reason which he gives for it is that the Holy Ghost or the Word for that 's the same thing did not only make his Flesh but also insinuating himself into it as the antient Doctors speak did there sow the Principles of his Prophetical Operations in the same manner as our bodily Fathers do not only give us Birth but often transmit to us the Seeds of their Inclinations and Vertues Now that which had never been seen in any other Prophet obliged the Evangelist to call Jesus Christ the Word to distinguish him from all other Prophets and Interpreters of God and to express himself in so forcible a manner on the Birth of this great Prophet in saying that the Word was made Flesh The old Translation was Verbum Domini factum est ad Prophetam The new has something more emphatical Verbum Domini factum est caro the Word insinuated it self into the Flesh and prepared it for Prophecy Marius Victorinus to give an Idea of this twofold Divine Dispensation Manifestation and Communication says in his 3d Book against Arius That there is a double Energy or Operation of the Word the one in a manifest way Christ in Flesh the other in a secret way the Holy Ghost Whereupon he calls the Father a Voice in silence the Son the Voice and the Holy Ghost the Voice of the Voice Which shews that the Holy Ghost is the Word of the Son as the Son is the Word of the Father And it is in this manner that St. Basil speaks 5 advers Eunom The Son is the Word of the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Word of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now we see by what means Error was introduc'd God having reveal'd himself to his Creature by way of outward Manifestation and by way of inward Communication out of those two Dispensations have been made so many Divine Persons distinct from God the Father that is a second Person was made of the Manifestation and of the Communication was made a third It
Fevers almost as the Superstitious use some Words of the beginning of St. John's Gospel which they hang about the Patient's Neck as I my self have seen Now in as much as the Basilidians pass for the first Authors among Christians of the Discipline of the Secret and of the Platonick Trinity it is very likely that they design'd to hide it under this Allegorical and Symbolical Name But it is also possible that this Name contains only the Gospel-Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost whereon they allegoriz'd extravagantly according to the Custom of that Time By this Essay which we have been making it sufficiently appears that we could give a rational Meaning to the other Orders of the Aeons wherewith the Gnosticks did also enlarge their System With a little labour in taking off the Veil of Allegory which covers the hidden Meaning of this mysterious Theology one might easily enough discover that the true aim of these Christian Philosophers was to set off the lowness of the Gospel by the suppos'd depths of their Mysteries But we 'll go no farther on this Article The Sample given is sufficient But if any one desires proof of this our Explication of Valentin's Aeons that he conceiv'd them only as the several Affections of the Divine Understanding or as so many Dispensations of Providence let him but consult Chap. 12. of Danaeus de Haeresib To be brief we 'll here quote only the famous Pearson Vindic. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 5. Valentin says he made an open Profession of believing but one God and tho Tertullian asserts somewhat Rhetorically that this Heretick believ'd as many Gods as he number'd Aeons that Father himself did nevertheless own that Valentin's Aeons were nothing else but the Divine Propertys and Affections whereof his Disciples afterwards made Personal Substances Gallasius had before Pearson observ'd the same thing in Annotat. in lib. 1. Irenaei for he recites the Words of Tertullian Ptolomy says that Father follow'd Valentin's Doctrine only he made Personal Substances subsisting distinctly from God of what Valentin had consider'd only as Affections and Ideas internal and intimate to the Godhead Irenaeus also informs us that by these Aeons Valentin understood only certain Dispositions and Powers of the most High God Summi Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum quasdam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he clearly explains in his L. 1. c. 6. where he relates the System of the discreet Valentinians When say they the Supreme God would produce any thing he was in that respect call'd Father but because his Productions are true he was at the same time called the Truth and then when he would produce and manifest himself he was called the Mun. The Man by speaking begat the Word which is the first-born Son All which shews that Allegory being undetermin'd every one took it the way which best pleas'd him But however it appears that they all agree that these Aeons are nothing else but God's several Affections or Dispensations What 's peculiar in this last Hypothesis is that Man which signifies God manifesting himself utters the Word his First-born Which yet has a good Sense according to Mark the Valentinian who in Chap. 10. of the same Book says That God to give a visible Form to the invisible Grandures which are in him utter'd his Word like himself Understanding by the Word only the visible Form which God takes to manifest himself in So our Quakers understand no more by the Word than the Goodness of the Supreme God manifesting himself to Men. This was the Opinion of the Sabellians who by the Christ did not any way understand a Man but only Divine Clemency and Heavenly Aid manifesting it self to Men in the Work of Redemption It may perhaps also have been the Opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus who as we have already seen calls the Word the most manifest Goodness of God That of Origen and of many other Allegorists does not at all differ from it since they did not so much believe in the Son of Mary as in their Theologiz'd Son as they speak much slighting Faith and the sensible Gospel as we shall shew hereafter and valuing only Contemplation This Platonick Fanaticism has Cerinthus for its Author who carefully distinguish'd Jesus the Son of Mary from this Christ or this Celestial Aid which came to enlighten and guide Men and it is now adopted by Father Malebranche Dr. More and Mr. Norris This last is a right Platonick Fanatick who has brought disorder and confusion into both the Speculative part of Religion and the Duties of Christian Piety His several Treatises of Doctrine and of Morality shew that the Dreams of a contemplative Man are capable of converting the most sensible Lights of Reason and Revelation into Smoak Can we forbear judging of what he has written of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato as we judg of what he has written concerning the Love of God which he makes to consist in such refin'd Contemplations and Enthusiasms as render Gospel-Morality tho of it self so plain and natural wholly impracticable Fanaticism all over And if we see it in the Morality of these Visionaries why do we not perceive that their strain'd Platonism is no less the fruit of Mystical Theology The Fathers were right Quakers in their System of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if we will not be Quakers in point of Morality let us keep close to our Principles and neither be so in the Doctrine of the Word and such other speculative Points as have been render'd incomprehensible by too much refining of them If I may say what I think this Gallimaufry about the Divine Word which is defin'd see the Treatise intitul'd Reason and Religion An intelligible World Archetype and Ideal or even the Essence of God as far as it is variously imitable variously exhibitive and representative of all things which exist This Cant I say is suspected by me and I am tempted to believe that under these specious Names nothing more is given us than a fair System of my Understanding with its Reason and Ideas or to speak better its universal and unchangeable Natures which the Philosophers call'd the Reality and Truth of things and whereof they made even the Essence of God Yea I dare venture to say that 't is Deism or Atheism disguis'd The Accusation is heinous and requires Proofs of the utmost evidence Well and we shall produce them Read and weigh these Words ubi supra p. 209. that Author says The Idea of a Triangle has a determinate and immutable Nature such as it is not in my power to make the least alteration in which is a certain Proof that it is not of my making for then it would be arbitrary and I might change it as I pleas'd but that it is an absolute Nature distinct from and independant of my Understanding And to say the truth it is nothing else than the Essence of God himself modify'd and as it is exhibitive and imitable
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
is difficult to find the Father of the Universe he shews by this not only that the World was generated but also that it was generated as his Son Plato himself gives us the Substance of his System in his 2d Letter to Dionysius with this caution that it is altogether aenigmatical All things says he are round about the King of the Universe the things of the second Order are about the Second and the things of the third Order are about the Third Which is thus interpreted by Marsilius Ficinus The Ideas are about the Good the Angelic Spirits about the Reason and the Forms about the Soul of the World He adds that Plato calls them three Principles not because they are equally such but inasmuch as they are subordinate the one to the other The Good is such of himself the Reason inasmuch as it is the nearest to God and the Soul inasmuch as it is produced by the first and second God Now this Order whatever it be hath no relation at all to an invisible Trinity but is manifestly refer'd to the World and Creation seeing the Second and the Third God are nothing else but the Vnderstanding and the efficacious Will of the supreme God the one being filled with the Ideas of all Beings and the other producing their different Forms Thus you have the Riddle unfolded I am not ignorant that Clemens Alexandr pretends in the same Book I have quoted that these Words of Plato mean nothing else but the Christian Platonic Trinity if I may express my self thus but without any ground as is evident by the Commentary of Ficinus Clement endeavours to shew in this whole Book that there is no Tenent in the whole Christian Religion but what is found in Plato and the other Philosophers Now seeing the Doctrine about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Darling of Plato we need not wonder if the Platonic Fathers search'd for all the possible Resemblances between the Second God of Plato and the only Son of God on whose behalf and to this purpose they imagin'd a Generation and Pre-existence before Time was having chang'd all the Gospel matters of Fact concerning the miraculous Birth of our Saviour into vain and empty Contemplations which suppos'd in him another distinct Nature from that which he received from the Holy Ghost and the Virgin To conclude whoever insists as it is usual on the seeming Resemblance found between the Word of St. John and that of the Divine Plato seems willing to deceive himself seeing the most able Criticks have own'd already that there is no Resemblance at all between these two Words Desiderius Herauldus as he is quoted by Mons Le Clerc Biblioth Vniv Tom. VI. p. 24. remarks judiciously That the Christians of that Time strain'd to their Advantage all the Actions Words and Writings of the Pagans which they often interpreted contrary to the true Meaning of the latter I shall now quote Casaubon who is not at all suspected in this Affair This Critick having related a Passage of Cyril against Julian where this Father pretends that Plato ascribing the Creation of the World to the Word speaks the same with St. John that Critick declares that himself is not at all of that Opinion You have here the Word saith he Exercit. in Baron pag. 5. by the which Plato assures the visible World was made He indeed seems to say what St. John did which is what Cyril pretends to but if we take a nearer view of this Affair this Word or this Reason as Plato would have it which the supreme God employed in the Creation of the World is visibly and wholly different from the Word Jesus Christ whereof St. John speaks which Word is unknown to those to whom the Revelation is known There are found many such like Expressions in the Fathers where the Ambiguity of the Words may deceive those who do not examine them with a requisite Attention See here in brief what may be gathered from the Platonists Writings of the Platonic Philosophers These Philosophers considering the Trinity always with respect to the Creation of the World built three Systems thereon We shall name the first a Theologic System which puts down the supreme Being for the first God the intelligible and Ideal World for the second and the sensible World for the third The first is the Father because he is the Understanding generating the Ideas the other is the Son the internal Word or the Thought of the Father because he is immediately generated and subsists always in the Ideas of the Father the last is the Spirit and Soul or the Creature proceeding from the other two because it receives the Form from the Idea but its Life and its Motion from the first Author of all things I shall name the second System of the Platonists the Ailegoric System which considers a Trinity of Properties in the second God or the Word in relation to the Creation meaning by the Divine Word nothing else but the infinite Goodness the admirable Wisdom and the immense Power which have form'd the Universe as we have observed it above in a Passage of Clemens Hence it appears on what account they called it the Maker and Creator of all things Lastly we will name the third the Physical System which considers in relation to the World an efficient Cause viz. a Creator and a Father a Matter subsisting from all Eternity in this first Author which proceeded from him by the way of Prolation or Emanation and a Form produced resulting from the other two both from the Matter and the first Cause The one is the internal Word the other the Word brought forth and the third is the animated World These three Systems and perhaps many others that may be found in the allegorizing Platonists pregnant with such like Methods are the Cause of Plato's Doctrine being so consus'd and difficult to be penetrated Therefore Mr. le Clerc was in the right when he says Biblioth univ Tom. X. p. 396. That there is a great deal of Confusion in the Platonists System that they have even contradicted themselves not having a clear and distinct Idea of what they would say We may affirm the same of the antient Fathers who follow'd this Philosophy in relation 〈…〉 But he did not observed 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 remarkable hereof proceeds not only from the Diversity of their Systems but also for want of a good distinction between the subtil Platonism for so I shall call it which treated allegorically of the Goodness Wisdom and Power of God under a Figure of three Gods who created the World and the gross Platonism which perceiving not the subtil part of this Allegory and following the Letter made three Hypostases of these three Powers The first Method being allegoric and arbitrary might without contradicting it self change the Name Order and Number c. of the Figures it made use of to express always the same thing This was an ingenious Invention that varied its Representations and
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
read The Lord saith I am the Jehova and then the Expression will become so natural as not at all to be mysterious CHAP. XVI Where it is demonstrated that the Chaldee Paraphrasts meant by the Word nothing else but an Angel BEsides the Moralist Jews the Chaldee Paraphrasts are also quoted as if they had known the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato The greatest part of these Paraphrases are stuff'd with Fables and Impieties not to say that they are of a late date and unknown to the Antients who had any Skill in the Oriental Tongues This is own'd by some of the modern Learned as Ribera Isaac Vossius Father Simon and others However an able Man hath already demonstrated with the utmost evidence Gul. Vorstius Discept de Verbo Dei that these Paraphrasts never gave the Name of the Word to the Messiah when they spake of him expresly but always call'd him the King Messiah and the Messiah of the Lord or the Messiah of Israel c. So that St. John could not follow a Paraphrase then not extant and which never gave the Title of the Word to the Messiah of Israel But lest you should reply that it is sufficient for this Apostle to have follow'd the Opinion of all the Jews of that time you need but consider the Words of Trypho to Justin to be assur'd of the contrary We wait saith he speaking in the Name of his Nation for a Christ a Man born of Men. It is true that this Expression the Word is very frequent in all these Paraphrases but it is always attributed to God in the same sense with the Latin Numen Jovis Numen Junonis for Jupiter and Juno themselves Somewhat like our giving a King the Title of His Majesty as his Majesty hath resolv'd order'd his Majesty said or did instead of The King hath resolv'd order'd hath said or done In the like manner when these Paraphrasts say the Word did commanded or declar'd any thing 't is the same with God did commanded or declar'd it I do not say these are absolutely the same Expressions however these Examples shew that there are in all Tongues some particular Modes of speaking from the which no such consequence is to be drawn as if every strange Word contain'd a great Mystery We deceive our selves this Mountain brings forth but a Mouse Would you have me speak plainly These Paraphrasts by the Word design'd only the Angel who bare the Name of God and who spake in his stead this Term being particularly appropriated to Messengers and Interpreters We likewise see that the Author of the Book of Wisdom did thus call Chap. 18. 15. the destroying Angel sent to kill the First-born of Egypt because he was intrusted with the Command of God therein and the Execution of it Thine Almighty Word saith he leapt down from Heaven c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Word saith Maldonat in Joan. 1.1 cannot at all be J. C. of whom it cannot be said that he was sent to perform the Office of an Executioner Thus those of Lystra call'd St. Paul Mercury or the Interpreter of Barnabas whom they look'd upon as their Jupiter and this because he Paul was the chief Speaker viz. was the Word of Barnabas Hermes which is the Name the Greeks give to Mercury signifies an Interpreter and they explain it often by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word Hermes saith the Author of the Life of Homer that is to say the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phurnutus calls him an Angel or Messenger Heraclides Ponticus gives the Name of Angel to Iris and the Name of Word to Mercury Sometimes he joins the Term Word with that of an Interpreter calling Mercury the Word Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also observes that Iris was thus call'd because she brings word as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Hermes was call'd so because he is the Interpreter of the Gods as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At last he gives the reason why Wings are ascrib'd to him because saith he there is nothing so swift as Speech which made Homer say that Words had Wings Hence it comes no doubt that we give Wings to Angels as well as to Mercury because they are the Messengers and the Interpreters of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the Heathens talk'd thus of the Messengers of their Gods and call'd them Interpreters and Words I cannot discern any greater Mystery in the Jewish Paraphrasts nor why they should not give the same Names to Angels or other Messengers that spake to them on the behalf of God Maldonat in Joan. 1.1 did really observe well that the Paraphrasts made use of this Term when God was treated of as conversing with and speaking to us or coming to aid and succour us This cannot be understood but of a Divine Manifestation by the Ministry of an Angel neither would it have been surprizing if what they said of the Angels they had said also of the Messiah I mean in respect to his Commission but not at all in relation to an inviable Nature And then if you would have it that St. John did imitate the Jews as to the use of this Term I shall agree with you provided it be in the sense we have given which is both plain and agreeable to the Scripture We have observ'd already p. 17 18. that the Paraphrasts we speak of do not make use of this Term Word but only in those places where the Hebrew speaking of the Actions and Affections of God expresseth them by the Terms of Face Eyes Feet Hands c. which are corporeal Parts and belonging only to Man We observ'd at the same time that these ways of speaking which the Hebrew Text makes use of were grounded upon this that the Angel of God who appear'd in God's Name and had his Authority did most commonly appear in the shape of a Man The consequence I would draw from these two Remarks is evident and for this reason the Paraphrasts us'd this Term Word only to denote the Divine Manifestation by Angels under sensible Representations but particularly those of a Human Voice and Shape Their Testimony then is so far from favouring the Idea of a Metaphysical Word that it serves on the contrary to confirm our Hypothesis which is that we ought to understand by the Word a sensible Manifestation of God either in a bright Cloud or by a Heavenly Voice or by a Human Shape It is true that some Controvertists object to us that Passage of the Paraphrase upon the Psalms which is the worst of all viz. that upon Psalm 110. The Lord said to his Word I know not where they had it for in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Interpreter translates it very well in Verbo suo by or in his Word which is a mere Hebraism instead of God hath said The Jews spake on this wise saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or
learnt Theology of the Prophets perhaps of the Egyptian Prophets did often philosophize according to the hidden Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having made this general Observation I pass to somewhat more particular A great noise has been made in the World of the Opinion of Pythagoras concerning the Transmigration of Souls The literal Sense which has been given to this Opinion has been almost generally receiv'd and there have been but few Persons who perceiv'd that it only run on a mere Allegory thro want of duly reflecting on the Genius of antient Philosophy Coelius Secundus Curio was one of those who saw thro the Mystery of it Aranei p. 42 c. As to the Opinion of Pythagoras says he I can never persuade my self that that Learned Philosopher ever came to such a degree of Absurdity as to believe that the Souls of Men passed out of one Body into another Let us not doubt but that he thereby intended to signify the Change whereunto Matter is subject making it continually pass from one form to another a Metamorphosis which that Philosopher call'd Regeneration Palingenesiam or a Metempsychosis which according to him is nothing but the Transmigration of the Spirit infus'd in Matter and with it transmitted into all the several Forms which it puts on 'T was the misunderstanding of this Revolution of Souls which made some Hereticks say that Adam's Soul had pass'd into Jesus Christ in misapplying some Texts of Scripture where Christ is called the second Adam and which suppose a kind of Analogy between the one and the other 'T is by a like Mistake that some others held that the Soul of Elias had passed into the Body of John Baptist grounding themselves on these Words that John came in the Spirit and Power of Elias and not comprehending that those Words refer to the Conformity of Zeal and Courage between those two Prophets But when once the right understanding of a mere Figure in Speech comes to be lost and the literal Sense prevails into what Extravagances are we not capable of falling Witness the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation which owes its birth to the Ignorance of an Allegory a little strain'd Again Have not some fallen into a prodigious Error by literally taking that Expression of the Apostle where he says that Melchisedec was without Father without Mother and without Descent Have not Men infer'd from those Words that Melchisedec was not of the Posterity of Adam as other Men are Some having suppos'd him a Celestial Man consubstantial with the eternal Son of God others that he was an Angel others the Holy Ghost others the Son of God himself and lastly others a Power superior to the Son of God from which the Son of God had receiv'd his everlasting High-Priesthood I am asham'd for Christians when I think with what Superstition they consecrate all their Fancies and make as many Mysteries of them In short I might venture to affirm that the Fable of Simon the Magician's flying in the Air carry'd by Devils and struck down by St. Peter is no more than a mere Allegory of St. Peter's Victory over Simon when disputing together concerning the Unity of God the Apostle put that Heretick to silence as the Author of the Constitutions speaks Lib. 6. c. 8. That pompous Description signifying nothing more than that the Evangelical Simplicity concerning the Unity of God prevail'd and triumph'd over the too swelling Philosophy of Simon who held divers Persons in one God But to proceed Another fam'd Doctrine of Antiquity is that of the Pre-existence of Souls Somebody explaining those Words of Moses that the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men turn'd that Text into an Allegory and interpreted it of Souls delighting in being united to Human Bodies But because he expressing himself theologically called the Sons of God Angels that Word deceived many Platonist Fathers who took it literally And thence came that so absurd yet at the same time so generally receiv'd Opinion that the Angels had Commerce with Women and that from those monstrous Copulations proceeded Giants Origen in his 50th Book against Celsus teacheth us the Mystery of that Allegorical Copulation Some body says he meaning Philo de Gigant has apply'd that Text of Moses to incorporeal Souls which he metaphorically calls the Daughters of Men. It may be the other Fathers were nor ignorant of this spiritual Sense but they follow'd their manner of philosophizing which was to speak always in such terms as kept the Allegory conceal'd in order to give the more mysterious Air to what they said They always suppos'd that the Wits of the first rank for whom they wrote knew the Secret of it and as to the Vulgar their aim was to conceal it from them After what has been said how shall we know but that they affected the giving an appearance of a real and literal Doctrine to all they have deliver'd to us concerning the Word And whether they have not designedly conceal'd from us the Secret of the Allegory that they might by that majestick Out side draw the more admiration and respect from the common People who love what 's wondrous The Distinctions which Origen so often makes between intelligible and sensible between Contemplation and Faith between the Word-God which is the Object of seraphick Minds and the incarnate and crucified Word the Object of vulgar Minds I say these Distinctions and some others of like nature scarce leave room to doubt of it And indeed he may be confident of it who considers what the same Origen says ubi supra By the second God says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we mean no other than a Power which comprehends all other Powers a Word or Reason which contains all other Reasons and we say that that Reason is particularly united to the Soul of Jesus Christ because that only is capable of receiving the Word it self Wisdom it self Justice it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And elsewhere he teaches us That the Word was join'd to the Soul of Jesus Christ even before the Incarnation that Soul having merited to be join'd to it ib. l. 4. That so that Soul or that Word for he uses those two Words indifferently did for our sakes descend on Earth there to suffer Death for us Mortals Again Comment in Joan. Tom. 20. That this Soul which was before in God in its Perfection and Fulness was by God sent into the Womb of Mary there to take a Body other less perfect Souls not having had the same Honour If to this be added his affirming in the 1st and 2d Tome on the same Gospel That 't is only the uttered Word which according to him can be no other than the Soul of Jesus Christ That I say only this Word and not the Word-God was incarnate it cannot be doubted but that by this Soul sent descended and incarnate he means the same thing which he and others say when they speak of a Word sent descended and
incarnate And what can this Reason be which it merited and which was united to it When the Veil of Allegory is taken off it can be no other than that high Contemplation whereof the Soul of Jesus Christ had by its pre-existent Obedience render'd it self capable or than that degree of Prophecy and that Spirit without measure wherewith God had honoured it and which made it Partaker of the Divine Nature or lastly the very Office of Word or of Interpreter of God whereof God had judged it worthy as the most perfect and noblest of the Spirits which he had decreed to declare his Mind Celsus says he ibid. lib. 7. will not own that he who suffer'd Death can be worthy of the second Honours next to the Supreme God as well because of the Powers he had acquir'd in Heaven as because of those he had acquir'd on Earth Supposing as you see that Jesus Christ had merited in Heaven before he came to merit on our Earth he was very far from believing him to be the most High God Wherefore Origen having said of the Word that it was in God that it came from God that it was made Flesh and affirming the same of the Soul of J. C. this Conformity yields just reason to suspect that the Doctrine of the Word is nothing but the Soul of Jesus Christ theologiz'd whereon they discours'd Allegorically That 's in a manner prov'd by the Hypothesis of the Arians who believ'd that the Word was to Jesus Christ instead of a Soul and consequently by the Word understood only the Soul of Jesus Christ created before all Ages An Hypothesis renew'd in our time by John Turner who has given it a new turn for he maintains That the Word is nothing else but the Soul of Jesus Christ created indeed but eternally united to the Substance of God and by that Union participating all his Perfections A Discourse concerning the Messiah Ep. Dedic p. 154. The same is infer'd from the Use which has been made of some Texts of Scripture as for example these I came from the Father O Father glorify me with the Glory which I had with thee c. Who being in the Form of God c. Our Divines interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Word but Origen and Dr. Rust in his Book intitul'd Origen and his chief Opinions interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Soul of Jesus Christ Whence comes this Confusion of Ideas The reason of it is easily given The former of these Interpretations is mysterious and allegorical and the latter literal So we may conclude that the Fathers allegoriz'd on the pre-existent Soul of Jesus Christ loving our Nature and becoming incarnate for our Salvation which they in their allegorical Stile call'd the Word or the Son of God And consequently those who take this last Allegory in the literal Sense and understand it of a Divine Person united to our Flesh are not less ridioulous than they who stumbling at the Letter of the first Allegory really believ'd that Angels had mix'd themselves with mortal Women The Text for the first Hypothesis that the Sons of God were married to the Daughters of Men serves as well as that for the second I have begotten thee before the Morning This Pre-existence of Souls and particularly of that of Jesus Christ has been very antient in the Church We find it plainly enough express'd in the second letter attributed to Clemens Romanus C. 10. These are his Words As you have been call'd dwelling in the Flesh so you will come in the Flesh Jesus Christ the Lord who sav'd us being the first Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made Flesh and so called us 〈◊〉 likewise we shall receive the Recompence in the Flesh This Passage supposes the Pre-existence of our Souls as well as that of the Soul of Jesus Christ For he compares our Spirits existing in the Flesh to that first Spirit which was made Flesh to call us He calls Jesus Christ the first of all Spirits whether Souls or Angels because God begat him first a little before he undertook the Creation of the World and afterwards imploy'd him to create the other Spirits according to the Doctrine of Lactantius Instit lib. 4. c. 6. who further teaches us ibid. c. 1.2 That this Holy Spirit descending from Heaven chose the Womb of a Virgin to enter into And the better to carry on the Comparison which he makes of that Spirit to all incarnate Spirits he shews that he was rais'd to the Recompence only by his faithful Obedience and Vertue ibid. cap. 14. His Words are remarkable God says he having sent his Son to Men He hath shewn his Faithfulness in teaching that there is but one God and that he only is to be worship'd and he never call'd himself God because he would have violated his Truth if being sent to take away from the World the Plurality of Gods and to establish the Unity of God he had introduc'd more than one God That had not been preaching One God nor working for the Interest of him who sent him but for his own and it would have been dividing himself from the Father whom he came to glorify Then by his having been thus faithful and in the Design of discharging his Commission not attributing any thing to himself he has receiv'd the Dignity of everlasting High Priest the Honour of Supreme King the Power of Judg and the Name of God By the way these Words of this Father are a curious Paraphrase on those of St. Paul Phil. 2.6 c. Who being in the Form of God did not attribute to himself c. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and hath given him a Name which is above every Name c. Let us here remember a distinction of the Fathers which has been mention'd already and wherein the Footsteps of antient Allegory visibly appear The Fathers distinguish'd two kinds of Generation of the Word the one eternal and internal and the other external which began with the World and the only one which they properly call Generation Dr. Bull acknowledgeth this distinction only he pretends but without reason that 〈◊〉 the latter which is metaphorical Granting him his desire 't is the same thing with respect to the Question now treated of For it remains nevertheless true that they allegoriz'd on one of the Generations of the Word be it which it will and that 's all I need Let them as long as they please say that the Fathers spake of a Generation of the Word which was proper and literal I shall answer Yes and that 's what I call gross Platonism which has made them philosophize so absurdly But by their own confession the same Fathers have spoken of another Generation of the Word which is metaphorical and allegorical and that 's what I call their refin'd Platonism the fair Remains of sound Philosophy which betrays them and manifestly discovers the absurdity of the other part of their System whereon they
that the Church made no difficulty even of tolerating the Valentinians that is the Doctrine of them who held thirty Persons in the Deity and that she admitted them into her Communion She had more Indulgence than I should have The first Christians says Vossius did not presently cast Hereticks out of her Communion they came not to that Extremity but did it when the Hereticks went so far as expresly to contradict the Christian Faith As to others who did but alter the Truths of the Gospel by mixing with them the Gentile Fables they dealt not so rigorously with them but allow'd them some kind of Liberty He puts down Valentinian among these last whence it follows that if the thirty Aeons of that Heretick were tolerated there would have been no difficulty to admit of three Hypostases instead of three Attributes or three Modes These good Men thought it not amiss to accommodate the Truths of the Gospel with the Fables of the Pagan Philosophers and Poets but rather a Service to Religion Hence it was without doubt that Platonism which at first served her only for Ornament at length became under favour of this Toleration the very Support of her Mysteries This brings to my remembrance a Remark of Mons Le Clere in his Rules of Criticism Biblioth Vniv Tom. 10. p. 334. which very well deserves our Reflection It has so fallen out that tho there have been always in use among Christians some certain Terms yet they have insensibly departed widely from their Ideas which they who first used the Terms fixed to them and tho the Words remain the same yet the Sense of them has passed thro divers Revolutions The Phrases or Expressions being says he written in sensible Characters in a great many Books could not suffer any great Alteration but the Ideas first belonging to those Expressions being things not to be seen with ones Eyes and their Rise and Disappearance and their several Changes being all secret things within the Mind of every Man and invisible to every body else 't is hard to guess what has happened by the means of equivocal Sound One sees on a Theater the Actors come forth from behind the Curtains in certain Habits may one therefore conclude that always when one sees the same Habits they are the same Actors who have them on 'T is the same with Thoughts and the Words wherein they are dressed In these Words you have an account as it were of the Comedy our Trinitarians act at this day They put on all the Dresses of the Church and say with her Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity three Persons and one God But does it follow therefore that under the same Words they conceive the same Ideas or that they are the same Actors always when seen in the same Habits Not at all Some are Sabellians others are Rigid and others are moderate Trinitarians and all together have Ideas so confus'd and so contrary to one another that it may be one should not be much mistaken if one said that this Expression three-Persons in their Mouths has as many senses as there are Divines who pronounce 〈◊〉 if it be true that they six any meaning to them and that they form any Ideas about them So that altho the Blatonists and the Christians have used these Terms yet it does not follow thereupon that they had the same Ideas nor that the Platonists had the same among themselves nor that all Christians among themselves in all Times and Places affix'd to the same Terms one constant uniform Signification The present Time sufficiently shews us what one ought to judg of the past The Terms have been always the same but they are only sensible Objects that are not ◠to change but the Meaning and the Ideas being things invisible which pass within the Mind they may be and are changed without being perceived To conclude I make this Reflection only with regard to metaphysical Terms whereof we have but unsteady and confus'd Ideas and by consequence they are liable to very great Alterations As these Ideas do not enter into our Minds without difficulty so they are not maintained there with a little Pains sooner or later they vanish and after all they cannot pass from the Master's Mouth to the Scholar's Ear without some Revolutions The Unity of God is one thing with a Jew and another with the Trinitarian The Term Consubstantial with the Samosatenians carrys a different Idea with it in the Mind from that of the Nicene Fathers Three Hypostases have one sense with the Platonists and another with the Athanasians one with the Followers of Arius and another among Vs And certainly the Fathers of the Council of Alexandria had reason to give this Advice to them at Antioch in the Letter they writ to them apud Athan. vid. Dupin Tom. 2. p. 138. That they should not differ among themselves about the Hypostases since they who owned three in the Trinity and they who allowed of no more than one are both of the same Opinion and differed only in the manner of their Expression We understand well enough what this means the metaphysical Terms are capable of the most contradictory sense one may make them as we make the Clock strike what we please If you own three Hypostases you are Orthodox if you acknowledg but one you are still so nevertheless This Term is a sort of Prote is that takes in all senses In some mens mouths it signifies the manner of subsisting and then 't is three with others it signifies Substance and then 't is but one You see here both are sound to be of the same mind before they are aware Alas I really think that I and the Church shall be of the same mind too if when she owns one Essence and three Persons I should say on the contrary one Person and three Essences we mean the same thing it may be We express our selves indeed differently but after all we shall agree at the bottom 't will always be three somewhats in one I know not what for that 's all that the Terms Essence and Persons signify in the Mouths of Tripitarians But Raillery apart who would nor pity St Jerom who takes so much pains Epist ad Damasum to enquire whether he should say one Hypostasis or three Hypostases What! Learned Doctor must the Pope be consulted about that Say what you please for you may with a very safe Conscience Sr. Austin much better understood the sense of his Party as to the Word Person de Trinit lib. 5. cap. 9. When says he 't is asked what the Three are human Langnage is scanty and affords not Terms to express it 't is therefore answer'd three Persons not as if that was some what to the purpose but something must be said and one must not be silent to the Question As for Terms which express things that fall under our Senses or Actions whereof we have a distinct and perfect Idea it falls out quite otherwise they may
't is necessary that we should be Ministers of the Gospel as well in the Letter as in the Spirit and that we preach the sensible or corporeal Gospel as he stiles it When we see it proper we tell the Carnal that we aim at nothing else but to know Jesus Christ crucified But when we meet with the elevated Minds that are advanced in the Doctrine of our Saviour and enflamed with the Love of Heavenly Wisdom 't is these we acquaint with the Knowledg of the Word or Logos And in his 7th Book against Celsus There is not one Person says he to whom Jesus Christ does not give a tast of these Mysteries some way or other For he imparts his Theology to the Wise who raise their Minds to contemplate sublime Subjects On the other hand he accommodates himself to the Capacity of the Common People of Idiots of the Weak of Women of Slaves c. He affords them such means of a good Life as they seek after keeping from them such Notions as they cannot comprehend Thanks be to God I can now take Breath The Doctrine of God the Word is no more than secret or mystical Christianity not necessary to the Vulgar and serves only for Contemplation May it continue to be the Study of contemplative Minds who were born for the purpose of knowing Mysteries and have Skill to advance their Knowledg beyond Revelation It 's enough for me that I have their Leave to content my self with plain revealed Christianity which is the Object of Faith and that they allowing me the Rudiments or Lessons of the Gospel for my Guide I may say with their Leave as the Apostle and other plain simple Christians of the same Class I know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified Really one could not but with surprize hear so great a Doctor as Origen treating the Christian Religion and the Theology of St. Paul so unworthily if one did not know at the same time his Fondness for Platonism What! shall this Contemplation be accounted the sublime Christianity because it has found out Objects of it self without the help of Revelation What then is that poor Faith that 's founded upon Objects revealed Can it be any thing more or less than a carnal Christianity 'T is some favour however that it may be Christianity Tho so much as that will hardly be granted at this time of Day They who know nothing but a crucified Christ do not pass even for Christians now a deified Jesus is the only Orthodoxy If you have a mind to observe also what a prodigious difference there is between the Simplicity of the Apostolic Faith and the Mystery of Platonism you need only to consider how little regard it had to the first assoon as any one own'd this Fundamental Article that Jesus was the Messias he was instantly baptized and received as a true Member of the Church But when its Articles of Faith were enlarged and became inexplicable by the profound Speculations with which they were clog'd how cautiously and warily did they initiate Persons in the Theology of the same Church This is plain from the several degrees of the catechized State thro which their Novices passed At first they did not suffer them to come within their Churches then they admitted 'em only to hear Sermons after that they might be present at the Prayers at last after long Instructions they were qualified for Baptism Tantae molis erat Platonis condere gentem So great a Task had they to establish the Platonick Theology Will it not be said that these are the same Formalities that were us'd in admitting the antient Mystae Thro how many degrees must they pass before they were admitted to enter the Sanctuary of the Great Goddess that is before they became Epoprae or Eye-Witnesses of the most private Ceremonies The Pagans lost nothing in the Forms of Initiation by embracing the Christian Religion But this is not all it must be farther consider'd what a Beadroll of Mysteries are taught in their Catechisings Take but that of Cyril of Jerusalem and you will certainly meet with them in him There you have the Trinity the Eternal Generation the Incarnation the sacred and venerable Sacrifice and many other things of that nature that must be known he tells you in order to Baptism If any one of them be neglected there 's no Admission for you All these Mysteries have an essential Band of Union between them so that if any one of them be not understood you are in peril of being ignorant of all the rest And hereupon Cyril recommends to the Catechized before all other things the Knowledg of these Mysteries What a Drudgery is here for the poor Novices Incomprehensible Mystery and a Labyrinth in Theology And besides which is a little wonderful he does not forget that Mystery of Mysteries and sublimer part of Theology I mean the Doctrine of Transubstantiation There is no longer says he to his Novices Bread or Wine let your Senses say what they please you are not to regard them but the Testimony of Faith Since J. C. has said of the Bread This is my Body who dares call it in question And since he has said This is my Blood who dares say it is not He at other times changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed when he says he has changed the Wine into his Blood c. Here he acquits himself like an Orator and a Sophister too Can any body wonder after this if the stew baptized were deluded into the Belief of the Trinity with such Harangues as these The Artifice is the same in both Cases Wherefore the Author of the Book of the Sacraments takes care to compare these two Mysteries and to prove them as I may say by one another shewing that what we receive in the Eucharist is as really the true Flesh of Christ as he is truly the consubstantial Son of God As Jesus Christ says he is the true Son of God and is so not only by Grace as Men are but as he is a Son of the Substance of the Father So it is the Flesh of Christ we receive and the Blood of Christ that we drink One deep calls upon another The Doctrine of the Consubstantiality c. is the Model and Original to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And the first serves for a Guide and a Light to conduct you thro the Perplexitys and Obscurities of the last for they are Twin-Sisters born in Plato's School That which is remarkable is that Justin the first of the Platonizing Fathers made the very same Comparison so natural was it for Platonism to sort these two Mysterys and make 'em Companions We do not says he Apol. 2. receive these things as common Bread or common Wine but just as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Man and took Flesh and Blood to save us so we are taught that the Elements wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by the Alteration
Testimony Every one frames for himself an Idea of sound Doctrine according to his particular Judgment of things Supposing therefore that this antient Author believed as the Orthodox Doctrine of his time was that J. C. was not the Son of Joseph and Mary and supposing on the other side there was none other Theology of his Birth than this that he was the Son of God by the Virgin Mary Hegesippus might very well say the Nazarene Bishops were sound in their Doctrine of the Person of J. C. without any ground for concluding thence that they held the Platonic Faith and were of Eusebius his Judgment 'T is enough that they were not engaged in the Error of the Ebionites because they were Orthodox To explain this by an example let 's suppose that Eusebius had said of some Arian Eishop that his Faith was sound as to the Person of J.C. could the Doctor and his Friends thence conclude that this Bishop believed the Consubstantiality and Equality of the Father and the Son By no means All they could hence infer is that the Bishop believed the Platonic Pre-existence which was the true Faith according to Eusebius who believed neither the Consubstantiality nor the Equality c. We ought to reason in the same manner from the Words of Hegâ—sippus who held that for a sound Faith which Eusebius would have called impious if he had known it as the Doctor would that which Eusebius thought sound Who does not know that those very Persons who held the Orthodox Faith of the first Ages I mean that of the miraculous Birth of our Saviour were accounted impious in the time of Eusebius Because they would not receive the Notion of the Platonic Word and the modish Philosophy of an Eternal Generation that was rashly superinduced or brought in the room of a plain Doctrine of a Generation in time of Mary by the Holy Ghost that is of a Woman by the Power of God But from the beginning it was not so they had another Theology for the better Demonstration of which I shall shew in the following Chapter that CHAP. X. The Word and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost according to the sense of the Antients were but one and the same thing I Shall lastly consider that the Word among the Antients and the Holy Ghost in the Evangelists are but one and the same thing and that the Platonizing Writers themselves led by an antient Tradition the Footsteps whereof remain'd a long time have confounded these two Terms having often used 'em in one and the same Signification An evident Proof that the Philosophy of the Platonic Word owes its Birth to Allegories made upon that Divine Power which overshadowed the Blessed Virgin which Power may be indifferently call'd the Holy Ghost or the Word But as the latter Term is more agreeable to the Doctrine of Plato so 't is more frequently used So that at last this Conformity of Terms brought the Platonic Fathers to a conformity in Doctrine with Plato that is to say they fell into two Errors directly opposite to the Doctrine of the Gospel One in that they have made of a Power or a mere Operation an Hypostasis the other in that they have made two Hypostases of the Word and the Holy Ghost which at the bottom are but two diverse Operations Where therefore they made two Hypostases of these two Operations they follow'd their own Philosophy but when they confounded these Operations they built without question upon this Passage of David which says The Heavens were made by the Word of the Lord and by the Breath of his Mouth where the Word and Breath of the Lord are put together as things inseparable which differ not in effect only in this that the Breath is the Substance of the Word and the Word is the Operation of the Spirit to use the Words of Tertullian adv Prax. I shall pass over Hermas who in his 5th 9th Similitudes says That the Holy Ghost is the Son of God I have already shewn that he speaks thus but in parable for which reason his Testimony would be of no use but to serve for an Illusion And I shall say nothing more of Ignatius who salutes the Church at Smyrna in the Inscription of his Epistle with these Words The Holy Spirit which is the Word of God as if he had said by or thro him who is the Holy Ghost or the Word of God This Passage is not very exact or clear so as to perceive the meaning of the Author and to be able to draw from it a convincing Proof Les us begin therefore with Justin Martyr He in his 2d Apol. p. 74 c. having stil'd Jesus Christ the first and principal Power the Son and the Word who had not his Birth from Man but by the Power of God he comes afterwards to examine the Passage in St. Luke The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall over shadow thee c. By the Holy Ghost or Spirit says he and the Power which came from God we ought to understand nothing but the Word which is the first-born of God And for the better understanding what Word he is speaking of he adds all in one Breath That 't is the Spirit which inspir'd the Prophets and which spake in the Person of a Prophet or in the Person of the Father or in the Person of Christ or in the Person of the People Here 's no difficulty either he has said nothing or he has formally said that the Holy Ghost which inspir'd the Prophets and the Power of the most High of which St. Luke speaks and the Word in St. John are all but one and the same thing After a Testimony so express I have no need to heap up other Passages out of the Writings of this Father wherein we may in part discover the same truth As when in his Dialogue with Trypho P. 327. he makes an Opposition between the Word of the Serpent by which Eve conceived and the Word of God by which the Blessed Virgin did conceive These are rather flights of Fancy and starts of Wit in a Preacher than an Exposition of the Christian Faith Only I would have it observ'd how in his 5th Book P. 284. he collects all the Qualities and all the Names which were usually given to the Word and to the Spirit that he may apply 'em to Jesus Christ First says â—he God â—eâ—â—t before all the Creatures a 〈◊〉 â—â—sonable Power which is sometimes called the Spirit the Glory of the Lord sometimes the Son sometimes the Wisdom sometimes an Angel sometimes God sometimes the Lord and the Word For all these Names are given to him either because he is the Minister of the Designs or Purposes of the Father or because he was begotten by his Will All this has much of the air of a theological Allegory by which one would express that Spirit and that Power of God which he imploy'd to execute his Counsels and
which comes not from his Vnderstanding by a necessary Emanation but by his Will by a free Operation That Power I say which may be called his Word or his Spirit according to the different respects wherein one considers it I will produce another Proof of this important Truth from Theophilus Antiochenus in his 2d Book to Autolycus Who says he speaking of the Word being the Spirit of God the Beginning the Wisdom the Power of the Highest came down into the Prophets by whom he spake What could he say more formal to make us understand that he took for one and the same thing the Spirit of God his Word his Wisdom and his Power His meaning cannot be mistaken when one considers that the Spirit and the Word whereof he speaks is the same that inspir'd the Prophets Words that very well agree with those of Justin which I now come to examine These two Fathers understood by the Word nothing but that prophetick Spirit the fulness whereof dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ and that St. Paul calls the fulness of the Godhead This is in effect the Explication that the Author of the Homilies ascrib'd to Origen has given in Diversos Homil. 2. St. Paul says he calls the fulness of the Godhead those mystick Senses or the truth of those legal Shadows which dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ that is to say truly and really because that he is the Fountain and Fulness of Grace the truth of the antient Symbols and the accomplishment of Prophetick Visions But according to the Fathers Jesus Christ was sill'd with this Prophetick Spirit not only when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a Dove and that God made him a Prophet but especially when he was conceived by the Power of the Highest and he was as I may say begotten a Prophet that is to say when by virtue of his Generation his Body was formed for the Office of a Prophet And 't is chiefly this last Consideration that is urg'd against the Josephites because this Privilege of his Birth makes us to regard him not only as a Man who was a Prophet but as a Prophet who was also the Son of God But to return to the Passage from Theophilus if it be read thruout one shall find a fine Allegory upon the Word and the Holy Spirit which he calls the Wisdom of God Sometimes he considers 'em as two Divine Emanations proceeding from the Bowels of God and which God us'd as his two Hands or two Ministers by whom he created the World And sometimes he makes 'em but one Operation and so both are the Spirit and the Word the Wisdom and the Power of God c. Why so If not because that this Spirit takes divers Names either for the diversity of its Prolation or for its different Operations For the Word is the Spirit or Breath prolated with a Sound and a Voice and the Spirit is a Word brought forth tacitely and in silence the one with the other without sound One acts inwardly in a hidden and secret manner and the other outwardly and openly 'T is thus the Fathers speak In my opinion 't is idle to look for any exactness in these sort of allegorical Discourses which are loose and where the Fancy taking its swing drives on in full Career Irendus one of those Fathers who was obliged to urge the miraculous Conception of our Saviour against the Epionites confounded the Holy Ghost with the Word These Hereticks would not own says Ireraeus lib. 5. cap. 1. the Vnion of God with Man Why Because says he they believed the Lord Jesus to be a mere Man How a mere Man Because they believed him to be the Son of Joseph and Mary like other Men and not of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost What says the Holy Father to this He laments that they would not consider how in the first Creation the Breath of God uniting it self to the Body of Adam animated the Man and made him a reasonable Creature So in the New Creation the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God being united to the old Substance of Adam hath form'd a living and perfect Man who contains in himself the perfect Father Dr. Bull in his Judic Eccles p. 10. having cited this Passage takes no notice of these words who contains in himself the perfect Father it may be because Irenaeus seems to say that 't was the Father who was incarnate or as 't is more probable because these Words expresly demonstrate that by the Word Irenaeus understood nothing but the very Power of God The living Man of whom he speaks containing in himself the perfect Father only because he was filled with God's Spirit and God's Word which were united to the Man But whatever he himself thought this is a truth that one perceives at first in reading the Text of Irenaeus 'T is at least most evident that he confounds the Spirit of God with the Word of the Father as one and the same Power which formed the New Adam and that he opposes it to the Divine Breath and Spirit of God which animated the first Adam His only aim being to oppose the Ebionites who denied that the Spirit of God interven'd in the Conception of Jesus Christ His only concern is also to establish firmly this miraculous Conception and to make 'em regard Jesus Christ as the most perfect Man whom the Father who is perfect had miraculously begotten by his Word and by his Spirit in the same manner as by the means of his Almighty Word he animated the first Man with the Breath of Life To make Irenaeus his Conception of the Word the same with the Moderns is to see and not perceive In short by reading his Text alone one shall be convinced that in his stating the Divinity of Jesus Christ he goes no farther than his miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost He not only confounds the Word with the Spirit but calls the Word the Descent of the Holy Spirit into the Womb of Mary He calls it I say the Union and Mixture of God with Man He says the Father wrought at the Incarnation of his Son or at the new Generation with the same Hands excuse his Phrase as he did at the Generation of the Old Adam If we ask him what he means by Hands in this place he tells you in his 4th Book 37 Chap. that he understands thereby the Word of God his Son his Wisdom and his Spirit He means that powerful Command which God us'd in the Creation of things which is called his Spirit forasmuch as it is in God and is in a manner his Soul and which is also call'd his Word and his Son in regard that it came from his Mouth to form the Creation it was in a manner begotten That is to say by the same manner of speaking that the Wisdom and the Power of God are called his Hands by the same they are called his Son his Word
Matter whereby he understands that Substance which God put forth out of himself destitute of Form which others have called the second Word or the utter'd Word 3. Having consider'd the Idea as the Father and Matter as the Mother he holds that of these two Principles a third is fram'd who is their Son which he calls the Sensible or the sensible World to distinguish it from the intelligible and which others have call'd the Soul or Spirit which animates the World and the Order of Nature Thence he concludes that there is but one World that this World is the only Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is perfect that it is indu'd with a Soul and with Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God says he intending to produce a most fair God made him a begotten God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phurnutus gives the same Elogy to the World C. 27. De Natura Deorum The World says he is the only Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Author of Mercurius Trismegistus so exactly sutes his Language to that of these Philosophers that one cannot in the least doubt but that he designs to speak of the World under the Name of the Son of God which he gives it Lactantius suffer'd himself to be deceiv'd by it according to the good Custom of the Fathers who apply'd every thing to Jesus Christ greedily receiving whatever seem'd to favour their Platoniz'd Christianity This is the Passage such as it is in that Father Divin Instit l. 4. c. 6. The Lord says Mercurius and the Creator of all things whom we call God because he has made a second visible and sensible God this Lord I say having made this the first and the only one he appear'd to him beautiful and full of all sorts of good things and he sanctified him and loved him as his only Son He who is not wilfully blind must here observe the sensible World as the only Son of the Creator Now it is apparent that these Philosophers spake thus of the World because they believ'd it created in opposition to the Opinion of Occllus Lucanus who indeed holds in his Book de Vnivers◠Natura cap. 1. That the World was not begotten negat suisse genitum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the 2d Chapter he expresly says that the World is unbegotten ingenitus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning that it is eternal and that it never was created Thence it is that those who follow'd the other Opinion held that there was none but God who was unbegotten ingenitus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that as to the World it was begotten being the only Son of God Hence came that famous distinction of the Platonists between the ingenitus and the genitus having apply'd to the Father and to the Son what the Philosophers had said of God and of the World because they did not apprehend this Allegorical Philosophy and had not read this Lesson of Phurnutus ubi supra Cap. 35. That the Antients subtily Philosophiz'd on the Nature of the World by Symbols and Enigma's Salust the Philosopher de Diis Mundo Cap. 2. calls these Enigma's Theological Fables and the Commentator on this Philosopher observes on this Place that Plato follow'd these Fables which belong to Theology leaving those which contain the Mysteries of the ordinary Causes and Effects of Nature to the Poets It 's among these Theological Fables that you 'l find the ground of modern Theology and of those fine Mysteries of the Emperichoresis of the God of God of Light of Light and of a Son existing as soon as the Father These Sources are to be found particularly in Salust Cap. 2 13. Apuleius is another of those who very well understood Plato's Doctrine Plato says he De Dogmate Platonis supposes three Principles of all things God Matter and Forms which he calls Ideas God incorporeal and ineffable who is the Creator and the Father Matter increatable incorruptible and infinite which is neither corporeal nor incorporeal and Ideas that is to say the Forms of things which are simple eternal and incorporeal Then he makes him divide into three Orders what he calls the first Substances viz. God Vnderstanding and the Soul Lastly he observes that Plato sometimes asserts that the World is without Beginning and sometimes that it had an Origin and was begotten Which does not imply any Contradiction the intelligible Platonick World being eternal but the sensible and corporeal World having been begotten It is the same with the Word Some have said it was eternal having taken its Eternity from the intelligible and ideal World Others suppos'd that there had been a time wherein it was not taking its beginning from the Origin of the visible World And those who believ'd it eternal agree as you see very well with those who believ'd it form'd in time while the one intended to speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the internal Word and the others of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the begotten Word put forth when God intended to create the World So true it is that the System of the Word was made by the Model of the System of the World As to the World this is the Observation of Curio in fol. 35 c. of his Araneus If all things are eternal the Opinion of the Peripatetics concerning the World's Eternity proves true For since God created the World and that nothing strange or unexpected can happen to him what Inconvenience is there in saying that what was made in time was in him before all time God is of himself The Beings which the Greeks call Ideas and we call Forms are so in God that they are nothing in themselves Now before the World was made it was nothing in it self but in God in that vast Nature in that ideal Model where all things always have been and always are The Presence of this Universe not being separable from the immense and eternal Wisdom of God To conclude after the World was made it had a double Existence one it self with respect to all things existing in time another in God because nothing can exist out of his Eternity and Wisdom All which does in all respects agree with the Word Before it was begotten or utter'd it was nothing in it self it had no Hypostasis it subsisted only in God in the Idea of that vast Nature in which all things have been from all Eternity But after it was put forth it had a double Being or Existence the one in God as he is himself the Model and Archetype of all things which exist the other in it self as it is the First-born of all Creatures Whence it appears that the Arians and Athanasians destroying each other in so brutal a manner as they did was from a mere Mistake CHAP. X. Philo Examin'd WE ought to rank Philo amongst the Platonick Philosophers seeing it is certain that he follows exactly the Ideas of Plato about the Word of God To be convinc'd