If it be so his History of a Phaenix ought not to seem so strange to us it is a Fable containing a great Truth in his Opinion he makes use of it as of an ingenious Allegory that seems to have been made expresly to represent to Men the Doctrine of the Resurrection As to the rest whenever Clement doth not allegorize he explains to us simply his Sentiment about the Word and the Trinity As to the former he saith in Chap. 27. of his 1st Ep. to the Corinthians That God founded all things by the Word of his Power and that he can destroy them by the same Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utrobique Whence it is evident that the Word in his sense is only the Power and Efficacy of God by which as he created the World he can also destroy it when he pleaseth This agrees with the Scriptures saying By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth Psal 33.6 and that by the same Breath he destroys the Wicked Isa 11.4 2 Thess 2.8 We cannot find here the Platonic Ideas of a Personalized Word so that Photius had reason to complain Bibl. Cod. 126. that Clement did not speak of J. C. in that sublime Stile which is made use of when God is spoken of His Simplicity has offended those that love only the high-flown Philosophy of Plato For whereas a Platonic Christian would never have omitted on such an occasion to inculcate that God the Father created all things by his Son who is his Word and eternal Wisdom Clement is dumb here and contents himself to attribute the Creation to the Power or the Command of God Elsewhere when he speaks expresly of J. C. he withholds himself from giving him any other Excellencies or Titles than those resulting from the Offices he possesseth by the Gift of God as a Recompence for his Sufferings viz. those of an High-Priest and Lord never quoting any other Passages but those that serve to this purpose As to his Trinity nothing is more simple for being willing to move the Corinthians to Concord and Union he alledgeth this Motive among the rest Have we any other but the same God the same Christ and the same Spirit of Grace shed upon us This is a Trinity of a Man truly Apostolic one God one Messiah and one Spirit shed upon the Faithful CHAP. XVIII Of the Method of the refin'd Platonists and of Allegory in General FROM these Disciples of the Apostles let us come to the Disciples of Plato Peruse the Platonist Writers and you 'll therein find yet some remains of well contrived Platonism They having conceived the Ideas and Archetypes of all Creatures which are in the visible World to be in the intelligible World did easily invent a Spiritual and Intelligible Gospel which is the Substance and First Form of the sensible Gospel a Distinction which Origen did not fail to make as he distinguisht between the exemplary and ideal Word different from the sensible Word and as he expresses it in his second Tom. on John A Word which was in God and which was as different from that which was made Flesh as an Original is from the Copy Substance and Reality from the Shadow They use the Comparison of an Architect who has in his Mind the Idea and Plan of a House he intends to build Whereon they giving themselves liberty find all the Wonders of our Gospel in the Ideas of the Divine Understanding If in the sensible Church there be found an Oracle and Interpreter from God born of the Father by the Holy Ghost making the new Creature by the Power and Wisdom which he has received from the Father To this they make another Answer in the intelligible Church a Word proceeding from the Bosom or Understanding of God begotten of his Substance who is the Eternal Wisdom of God and secondary Cause of all things subsisting in the World Take off the veil of Allegory or rather suppose all that to be Allegory and 't is a rational Philosophy which reduces all to God's eternal Decrees as the prime Cause of all existent Beings but particularly of Christ who being with respect to his Essence the only Son and First born of all Creatures consequently is in God's Vnderstanding the Idea which God immediately begets whereon all others depend He is I say the noblest Idea or as some speak the Idea of Ideas And if they found this Christ in the Ideas and Decrees of God it is not to be wonder'd if they found him also in the antient Dispensation of Angels while 't is not more difficult seeing him in those first Sketches than in the Design and Idea which God had fram'd of him Thus far I perceive right Platonism I see in it the Foot-steps of what it was when in its Purity and I at the same time observe in it fair remains of antient Allegory either of the Jews or of the Chaldaeans who delighted in profound Senses and theological Interpretations But I no sooner cast my eye on those eternal Substances conceiv'd as real Emanations those Emanations as real Generations and those Generations as subsisting Persons than I see only deprav'd Platonism as absurd as the Theology of the Poets and as unpolish'd as the Religion of the most superstitious Vulgar To make this Truth the more evident 't will be necessary to say somewhat of Allegory and of the use which the Antients made of it But we must as I promis'd in Page 64. at the same time shew that Disciples who ofttimes change their Masters Method do nevertheless retain certain Remains of the antient Discipline which betrays them and discovers their Innovations That is we will shew the tracks of the antient manner of allegorizing even in those very men who have abandon'd the Allegory of the three Principles and chosen the literal Sense of three Hypostases I have already given some account of it which ought to be recall'd to mind by the Reader to join to what I have farther to say thereon Allegory is a Figure in Speech whereby one thing is expressed and another intimated by rising from the literal to a nobler and more theological Sense See Grotius on Matth. ch 1.22 I shall not here speak of the Enigmatical Science of the Chaldeans and Egyptians but come directly to the Philosophy which is most known to us But before I come to Particulars I must advertise my Reader that if he would be fully inform'd on this Head he may read all the 5th Book of the Stromates of Clemens Alexandrinus I 'll content my self with quoting thence the following Words which give us a general Idea of the Antients Method in the use they made of Allegory All those says that Father who have treated of Divine Matters as well Greeks as Barbarians concealing the Principles of things wrap'd the Truth in Enigma's Symbols Allegories and Metaphors as intricate as those of the Oracles Even the Poets who
twofold Operation the one manifest which is Jesus Christ in the Flesh the other secret or hidden which is the Holy Spirit the one by way of Manifestation the other by way of Communication But after all 't is but a twofold Operation of one and the same Power I forbear to take notice of divers other Testimonies of Tertullian of the like kind as for instance at the beginning of his Book concerning Prayer in his Dispute against Marcion lib. 3. cap. 6 16. and in his Discourse of the Flesh of Jesus Christ cap. 19. the Reader may consult 'em if he pleases To the foremention'd Authoritys from Tertullian I will subjoin that of Novatian de Trinitate cap. 19. That which chiefly constituted the Son of God says he was the Incarnation of the Word of God which was formed by means of that Spirit of whom the Angel said the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. For this is the true Son of God who is of God who uniting himself to the Son of Man makes him by that Union the Son of God which he was not before So that the main reason of this Title the Son of God arises from that Spirit of the Lord which descended How the Word of God incarnate by means of that Spirit which descended on Mary Is the second Person incarnate by means of the third Very good Divinity Is it not rather this Divine Operation that bears the Name of the Word which manifested it self in the Flesh of Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit which insinuated it self into that Flesh That is to say that which is called the Spirit on account of its Substance is at the same time called the Word on account of its Manifestation and its Operation For this reason Novatian places not the chief ground of the Filiation of Jesus Christ in a Word which was a different Hypostasis from the Spirit but in the Word which is the Operation of that Spirit of whom the Scripture speaks saying the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. And it would not be understood what the Fathers mean when they confound the Word with the Spirit that over-shadowed the Virgin or when they distinguish these two Powers if it be not laid down for a Rule that by the Spirit they understand the very Nature of the Spirit the Principle or Source whence Prophecy comes and by the Word a certain and particular Operation of that Spirit as for instance the miraculous Conception of our Saviour I have yet an antient Doctor to alledg and he not of the meanest Rank I mean St. Cyprian who does not make any distinction between the Word the Spirit the Son of God the Wisdom c. This Father having cited the second Psalm de Mont. Sina Zion adv Jud. cap. 2. where he speaks of the King whom God had anointed on Mount Sion 'T is upon this Mountain says he that the Holy Spirit the Son of God was establish'd King to proclaim the Will and the Empire of God his Father and in the fourth Chapter of the same Discourse the Flesh of Adam says he which J. C. bore in a Figure that Term has a Tang of Marcion's Heresy this Flesh was call'd by his Father the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven the Christ the anointed of the Living God a Spirit united to Flesh The same Father elsewhere in his Discourse de Idolor vanit cap. 6. expresses himself thus The Word and the Son of God is sent whom the Prophets had forespoken of as the Instructor of Mankind He is the Power of God his Reason his Wisdom and his Glory the Holy Spirit hath put on Flesh God is mingled or united with Man The Holy Spirit is the Son of God and at the same time the Word is the Son of God and which is more the Flesh of J.C. is called the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven which could not be true but of its Celestial Origin and as it was formed by the Holy Spirit So that Cyprian seems to intimate thereby that 't is because of this Celestial Origin that the Scriptures say the Flesh of J. C. came down from Heaven that the Son of Man came down from Heaven for it may be very well said that J.C. came down from Heaven since his Origin was from Heaven in his Birth by the Holy Ghost And what is the Holy Spirit but the Word according to this Father The Word is the Holy Spirit which united it self to Man the Word is the Holy Spirit which put on Flesh In short 't is the Holy Spirit which is the Christ of God You 'll say what hinders but the second Person in the Trinity may have also the Name of the third That 's pure Fancy Why should one shut ones eyes when one sees as clear as the day that St. Cyprian alludes to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour and that these sublime Expressions of that Father have no other Foundation but that Mystery As for what Lactantius affords us I hope his Authority will not be contested with me in the decision of a Point wherein he does no more than confirm a Tradition elsewhere well supported and followed This pious Person having said in his Institutions lib. 4. c. 6. That God begat a Holy Spirit which he call'd his Son he resumes this Discourse in the 12th chap. of the same Book thus This Spirit of God says he coming down from Heaven made choice of a pure and holy Virgin into whose Womb he insinuated himself and this Virgin conceived being full of the Holy Spirit which embrac'd her That which Lactantius expresses by these Words descended on a Virgin can it be any other than that which St. Luke expresses in these The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee But the Holy Ghost of whom the Angel speaks is the same according to Lactantius with that Holy Ghost which God begat and which he called his Son Dr. Bull tells us the Fathers understood by the Holy Ghost the Divine Nature of J. C. Very well but why so If not for this Cause that J. C. had no other Divinity than that Spirit of Power and Holiness which form'd his Body in the Womb of a Virgin For in short the Fathers speak after this manner when they explain these words The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. or allude to them and always with regard to his Birth of a Virgin But the Holy Spirit in this Passage Luke 1. 35. signifies most certainly that Power which we Trinitarians call the third Person And if the Fathers had a mind to find the second there as is said there 's no knowing what the Words signify for it must be affirmed that they have strangely mistaken the Scriptures and in so unaccountable manner as I may say that there is no longer any certainty to be met with in their Writinâ—â—â—â—ll's in Confusion as in the antient Chaos There 's nothing whereby to discover the Names of the
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
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
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
Resemblances tho it continued the same at the bottom But the second Method fix'd on the Number Three which were always reckoned in the same Order and had almost always the same Names given them could not be liable to the same Confusion especially among Christians who applied it constantly to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Besides they could explain themselves clearly in this last Method and speak of it distinctly whereas the other in its very rise was a politick Method prudentially invented and which was understood either ill or not at all because it kept secret and allegorical Furthermore the same distinction of gross and subtil Platonism ought to take place in reference to the other two Systems viz. in relation to the Creator Matter and Form and with respect to the Father the intelligible World and the sensible World If you distinguish not well between the Allegory and the Letter nothing will prove more intricate or unintelligible Lastly the principal Cause of this Confusion is these two Methods being so often intermix'd for if you mind it the Fathers sometime philosophizing according to the spurious Platonism insist rigidly on the sense of the three Hypostases and sometimes treading in the Footsteps of the true and antient Platonism do only allegorize and by their Emanations seem rather to mean the Powers of the supreme Being than Spirits subsisting Sometimes nothing will serve their turn but Subsistences Substances a true Generation and a real Procession At other times 't is a quite different thing they mean only the Powers and different Oeconomies of God manifesting himself in the Creation of the World to which they seem to give improperly the Name of a generated Son and Wisdom brought forth which doubtless is the Cause why so much Sabellianism overspreads their Writings We need not wonder henceâ—â—â—th if their Trinity is sometimes so inconsistent with the Vnity of God this proceeds from their gross Platonism Whereas in other Places their Three Principles suffer the Vnity to remain intire which proceeds from their refin'd Platonism CHAP. XIII The Christians have contriv'd a twofold Word grounded upon the two Words of Plato They meant only by Generation the Prolation of the second Word which happened a little before the Creation of the World SOCRATES reduc'd Philosophy to Morality his Disciple Plato advanced it further even to Theology by making three Persons or three Divine Hypostases of the three Divine Properties by whose concurrence the World was created or rather by conceiving a Creator infinitely Good with an Vnderstanding drawing the Plan of the World and an Energy that performs it These Theologic Philosophers allegorizing after their wonted manner changed the intelligible World into the Word and the sensible World into a Son The one is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers in like manner distinguish'd the two Words whereof the one is internal the other brought forth and consider'd only the second as a Son because properly speaing they called Generation only that which was perform'd at the beginning of the World They say When God wil'ed to create the World he brought forth or generated the Word May you not easily perceive that such Modes of Speech owe their rise to the Mystic Philosophy which consider'd the whole World as the Son of God and as a Son generated by his Word or Command Yes these Turns of Expression owe their birth to some Poetical ones of the Heathens like those of Orpheus related by Justin in Protrep ad Gentil I swear saith the Poet by that Voice which the Heavenly Father uttered when he formed the whole Creation Then it was according to Justin that God generated his Word because he brought it forth in order to create the World All this is well meant and grounded upon the Words of Moses The only difference I remark in the System about these two Words is seeing Allegory is arbitrary some have fix'd it on the sensible World which they made to be the Son of God as many of the Philosophers we quoted have done because they consider'd it as the Production of the Divine Speech or Power but others fixed their Allegory upon the intelligible or Ideal World even on the Speech it self as thrust forth which they considered as a Production of the Divine Vnderstanding This last System was followed by the Christians when they personalized either the Word brought forth as the first Fathers and the Arians or the Internal and Mental Word as the Fathers of the Council of Nice and the Athanasians did Dr. Bull being forc'd to own this Truth pretends to clear the difficulty by distinguishing a twofold Generation of the Word the one Eternal and the other Temporal and maintaining that the Fathers consider'd the first as Real the second as Metaphorical but just the contrary hereof is true Theophilus of Antioch distinguisheth carefully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Thought of God from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Word generated Athenagoras and Tatian tell us of a Son who was in God in Idea and potentially before he actually existed as a Person Tertullian saith There was a time when the Son was not a Son and that the Father was not always a Father that the Word which he distinguisheth from Reason was not from the beginning Novatian declares expresly chap. 31. that the Procession of the Son which was done when the Father willed it that is to say when he resolved to create the World That this Prolation say I made the Son a second Person Origen and Clement make a difference between the Word which was God and the Word which was made Flesh meaning that the former was the internal Word which is the Divine Vnderstanding and God himself and by the latter the Word brought forth which is only an Emanation from the former Prudentius calls J. C. Verbigena begotten of the Word where you may see manifestly the two Words the one generating and the other generated the one being the essential Wisdom of God the other is its Production And the first Word is so far from being the Son that Prudentius considers it as the Father Lastly not to be redicus Marius Victorinus makes to great a difference between the Word speaking and the Word silent that he calls the former the Son and the latter the Father All these Fathers generally tell us that before the Word was generated it was in the Heart of God in the Womb of his Vnderstanding in his Bowels whence it came forth as it were from its Seed and Bud. Either all these Terms mean nothing or they denote that the Son did not then exist otherwise than in the Design and Intent of the Father that he came forth thence when by the virtue of the Divine Prolation he did receive a real Existence Now it is not the first Existence but the second which the Fathers constantly and properly call the Generation of the Son or in other words