and upon the Cross of J.C. whereof he hath found a thousand Figures in the History of the People of old which he brings to his bent by Violence and Artifice he seeks particularly for a sublime Sense in the Name of Joshua or Jesus the Son of Nun. He saith That the Father hath shew'd us in Joshua every thing that may be said of his Son Jesus insomuch that it may be said according to him that J. C. brought the People of the Jews into the Land of Canaan because he had done it in Joshua his Figure or rather because he did the same in a spiritual Sense So that J. C. was Joshua by whom so many Miracles were wrought in the Land of Canaan and for the same reason J. C. was the Word by which all things were made I say the Word for altho Barnabas makes no mention of it in all his Epistle yet he makes an allusion thereto in these Words Let Vs make Man which he applies to J. C. Lastly Barnabas adds Behold here Jesus again not the Son of Man but the Son of God who appear'd in Flesh in his Figure Who sees not here that Jesus the Son not of a Man as Joshua was but the Son of God being born of a Virgin did manifest himself in Flesh in a typical and figurative manner in the Person of Joshua We may say likewise according to this way of interpreting the Scriptures that the same Jesus created the World in the Person of that Spirit or of that Word which spake and the Creature appear'd because that first Word was the Type of that other Word which insinuated it self into J. C. and which said for example Lazarus come forth and Lazarus came forth immediately out of his Tomb and from the Dead That gave Life and so did this You may in the same sense as most of the Fathers did say that J. C. appear'd to the Patriarchs because the appearing of the Angels in a Human Shape was the Type of his Manifestation in Flesh Hence comes it that Clement of Alexandria calls him the mystical Angel the Angel being J. C. in a Type and J. C. being the Angel in a Mystery Moreover Barnabas continuing his Allegory upon the Sabbath and the Temple whence he is continually drawing forth mystical Interpretations and having run over all the Figures of the Old Testament in the spiritual Application he makes of them to J. C. and his Church he calls this Parables and concludes You have here saith he all that regards the Glory of J. C. viz. how all things were made for him and by him Where by all things without doubt all those Dispensations of the old Oeconomy are to be understood which have any relation to him to his Birth Death or Resurrection the which he may be said to have done not literally but spiritually in the Person of the Prophets who were his Figures This is so clear by the sequel and coherence of his Discourse that I have been amaz'd at the Confidence of Dr. Bull who in his Defence of the Council of Nice p. 67. dares to quote these Words as if Barnabas had said them of the first Creation For it is so far from these Expressions being serviceable to his Hypothesis that they demonstrate on the contrary how these Words that all things were made by J. C. are to be understood that is because either he did them in his Types as Barnabas teaches us here or because he meant that the same Power or one like to that which created the old World and inspired the Prophets did dwell in J. C. Whoever knows the Character of Barnabas but a little must be very conceited if he gives any other Sense to his Words See here the Judgment of Mr. Du Pin concerning him Biblioth Tom. 1. at the Word Barnabas The Epistle of this Father saith he is full of forc'd Allegories on the Holy Scriptures and with extraordinary Explications deviating from good Sense But these Allegories these mystical Explications and Fables hinder not this Epistle from being his whose Name it bears You must have but a small insight into the Genius of the Jews and the first Christians brought up in the Synagogue if you believe that such kind of Thoughts could not be theirs On the contrary this was their very Character they learn'd of the Jews to turn the Scriptures into an Allegory We ought not then to wonder that St. Barnabas a Jew by Birth and writing to the Jews should explain allegorically many of the Passages of the Old Testament and apply them to the New Every body knows that the Books of the first Christians are full of this sort of Fables and Allegories Mr. Le Moine is of the same Judgment in his Notes on Barnabas To conclude the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very familiar to this Author he means by it a sublime and profound Sense This appears by his infinitely extolling this Knowledg which he also names Science and Wisdom above the Vertues which accompany Faith This way of distinguishing Science from Faith was follow'd by Origen it seems that Gnosticism was brought in by this Allegorick Science of the Scriptures and afterwards degenerated into Poetical Speculations and an Heathenish Philosophy The first Method was Jewish the second Platonic All which seems to prove that the Author of this Epistle was a true Gnostic I mean one of the first of them who imitated the Jewish Cabala in their mystical Interpretations of the Old Testament which was accounted a sublime Science but not one of those Gnosticks who were afterwards decried for converting that Allegoric Science into a Philosophy merely Pagan For these last who were Gentile Proselytes imagining they had the same right with the Proselyte Jews to the use of these Allegoric Interpretations adapted presently the Theogony of their Poets and the Ideas of Plato to the Evangelical Truths The former sought for a mystical sense of the Law but the latter the sublime sense of Philosophy both of them in relation to Jesus Christ and his Holy Doctrine Those of the latter sort who passed the Bounds in this Method and made so wide a Pleroma were called Hereticks but those that used it with a greater Caution and Modesty and who carried the Pleroma no further than the three Aeons which seemed to have some ground in the Scriptures and kept a Decorum better in their Resemblances had the good fortune to pass for Orthodox even to Posterity I think it is better to argue thus about the Author of this Epistle than to say with Dr. Hammond that he opposeth Cabala to Cabala and that by the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he attacks the false Science of the Gnosticks For it doth not appear that he disputes with any body unless it be only against the Jews who would not receive his Allegories However it doth not appear that Gnosticism such as it was at that time confined to mere Allegory on the Scripture was then decried On the contrary
the same Infatuation for Allegory which drew the Jews as well as Christian Hereticks into this Cabalistical Philosophy the outside whereof appears to us so very extravagant and whimsical The one compos'd their Pleroma of certain Pairs of Aeons The other do as much with their Sephiroth or Enumerations which they range by two and two We cannot then say otherwise either of the Jews or Valentinians than that under these Theological Fictions they design'd to conceal their true Doctrine concerning Cosmogony and the Origin of things Those Eastern Philosophers never believed that the World was made out of nothing Creation out of nothing was then unheard of As they held that all Substance that is in the World had always existed and that the first Cause included all other Natures in the Immensity of its own they understood by their Sephiroth only the Emanations of all Beings from the substance of the supreme Being And as Emanations are of two kinds one of which respect the sensible World and the other the intelligible by the first they intended to express only the several Forms of all Creatures which are as so many Emanations from the first Substance and by the other they designed to represent the Ideas of the Divine Understanding which are the Emanations of Eternal Wisdom which they call'd Exemplars the Instruments and Means of the Creator's Power So that one cannot doubt but that with a little Application one might discover in the Cabalistick Emanations either the diverse Dispensations of Providence or the essential Properties of the Creater and particularly the three which gave birth to the Platonick Trinity Goodness Wisdom and Power which are in effect found among the ten Divine Names whereof their Sephiroth are compos'd For after all that has been said 't were Obstinacy not to own That what 's to be born with in the Jewish Cabal and which is rashly applied to the Christian Trinity is borrow'd from Plato's Cosmogony and taken from the grounds of the soundest and antientest Philosophy concerning the Origin of the World So that one may without fear of mistaking assert that the Cabal is nothing else but a Mixture which has been made of Jewish Superstitions with Platonick Speculations As to the rest consisting in the Science or Mystery of Numbers of Points Syllables and Letters which they pretend to have taken from certain Books ascrib'd to Esdras it 's what we call the Visions and Dreams of those People When all is done what could Protestants gain in citing against us the Cabala and Writings of the Rabbins Do not the Papists make use of the same Authority to support their Transubstantiation For in truth 't is just as much found there as the Trinity is 'T is easy finding all sorts of Mysteries in those Obscurities What do Protestants say when those Chimera's are objected to them You need but read the Dialogues where Dr. Stillingfleet compares the Trinity with Transubstantiation He extricates himself very well p. 32. of the first Part in rejecting this Cabal as having no Authority There Galatinus is treated as a Plagiary and as an Author who ought not to find any Credit among civilized People The pretended Rabbins who lived before the Coming of Jesus Christ are made a Jest And it 's justly supposed that the Jews cannot reckon that among their Doctrines which is one of their strongest Objections against Christianity Ah! good God and is not the Trinity likewise one of that sort of Objections which the Jews make against Christians By what Machine shall we then make it one of their Doctrines Shall Galatinus have more Authority to make us receive that as a known Doctrine of the Jews than Transubstantiation and shall the Paraphrases be more antient and the Cabala more authentick when used in dispute against the Socinians than when we are to answer the Papists Objections So they deal without Modesty or Honesty secundum currentiâ— Tempora CHAP. IX Plato's System explain'd I Return to the System of Plato which I shall endeavour to unfold That Philosopher admitted of three sorts of Divine Essences which he call'd three Principles or three Gods The first is the Supreme God to whom the two others owe Honour and Obedience because he is their Father and their Creator The second is the visible God Minister of the invisible and Creator of the World The third is called the World or the Soul which animates the World to whom some give the Name of Demon. To return to the second which he also ram'd the Word Vnderstanding or Reason he conceiv'd two sorts of Words one which dwelt in God from all Eternity whereby God did from all Eternity inclose all sorts of Virtues in his Bosom doing all things with Wisdom with Power and with Goodness For being infinitely perfect he hath in this internal Word all the Ideas and Forms of created Beings The other Word which is the external and uttered Word is according to him nothing else than that Substance which God put forth from his Bosom or which he begat to frame the Universe by it It is in this respect that Mercurius Trismegistus said that the World is consubstantial with God And it is remarkable that Irenaeus tho a Christian says of Matter what the other Fathers have said of the Word only That God utter'd it and put it forth Lib. 2. Cap. 29. He followed the above-noted Principles of Plato Bp Huet ascribes the same Opinion to Origen Origen Quaest 2. That the Matter which God made use of to form the World by was from all Eternity emanated from his own Substance Many of Plato's Disciples having embrac'd Christianity they fail'd not to attribute to Jesus Christ all that this Philosophy attributed to the second God and particularly the Creation of the World maintaining that Jesus Christ was this second Nature of their Divine Plato who had existed before the Creature and had received order from his Father to produce it from Nothing That this Word had since appear'd to the Patriarchs as the Minister of the most High God and that at last having assum'd a Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary he had preached the Gospel to Men. They thought they should thereby infinitely raise the Honour of the Messiah and draw the Platonists the more easily to the Christian Religion Besides that 't would have been grievous to them that after having studied so long and made so fine a Figure in Plato's School it should be said that they had studied in vain 'T is easy producing Proofs of this from both Philosophers and Christians As to the former one need but read Timaeus Locrus from whence Plato had his Doctrine That antient Philosopher De Anima Mundi first supposes a most good Principle whom he calls God Then he distinguishes three Orders of Things 1. The Idea or Form which is eternal in God and which is the perpetual Pattern of all things begotten and liable to change That 's the first Word the internal and intelligible Word 2.
have innovated He must know little of Plato who can believe that he could fall into so dull a Philosophy as that God did from all Eternity necessarily beget a Son a second God putting him forth out of himself with his proper Hypostasis which distinguisheth him from the Father and that he made use of him to create the World unless 't were perhaps to deceive the vulgar People But that God did voluntarily conceive a Design of creating the World that he did actually create it by his efficacious Word that that Word is his Son in an allegorical Sense because it was emanated from the Divine Understanding that it was in an allegorical sense the Creator because it was the Means and Instrument which the Wisdom of God made use of to give Life and Being to all things Then indeed I own literally Moses saying that God spake and the Creature obey'd then I shall own Plato's Allegory telling me the same thing with Moses but in the Stile of the Religion wherein he was born Then to conclude I own the good Divinity of Clemens Alexandrinus who assures me that the Word of the Father is not that which was begotten but supreme Goodness profound Wisdom and infinite Power manifesting it self in the Work of this Universe This is without doubt the true way of understanding Plato and we have a famous Platonist as our Warrant for it 't is Coelius Rhodoginus Lect. Antiq lib. 9. c. 12. For that Great Man very judiciously observes that one can never be a good Platonist if he do not reckon that Plato is to be understood allegorically Good Platonists like the Author of the Recognitions discover to us the Origin of this allegorical Philosophy by saying That from the first Will proceeded another Will and from this the World Lib. 1. c. 24. That is to say that from the first eternal and internally begotten Will proceeded at the beginning of all things a second Will externally begotten an express Command which spoken all things were made And this second Will is metaphorically the Son because proceeding from God himself and from the Invisibility which is proper to his Nature it is a kind of Generation producing his Image every Manifestation being the Image of God Irenaeus is also another of the good Platonists who allegoriz'd In many places of his Treatise against Heresies he supposes God not to have needed any more than his two Hands to create the World There 's no difficulty in perceiving his intention thro those Words Whereas the Hereticks maintain'd that all was made by Angels and that those Spirits had created the World Irenaeus in opposing that Doctrine flies into the opposite extreme viz. That God who had no need of Angels made use of no more than his two Hands his Word and his Spirit to do all things not that by those two Powers he understood two Hypostases but only personaliz'd them in opposition to the Aeons or to the Gnosticks Angels which were esteemed Persons And he meant nothing more than that God needed not any other than himself as he explains himself in the 19th Chapter of his first Book and in no wise any Power separate from him having an Hypostasis distinct from his This God says he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ What do these words signify That God needed no other than himself if not that God had no need of any more than his Command and Power to operate what he will'd Now this Command and this Power are not two Hypostases separate and distinct from his which was the Opinion of those Hereticks but two Powers which he imploy'd as his two Hands Either let 's blind our selves or see Allegory in all this Again it 's by a common Figure that the Name the Qualities and even the Personality of the thing which ceaseth to be or which is rejected is given to that which takes its place tho it be of a different nature God rejecting Sacrifices gives the name of Sacrifice to the Obedience which he accepts There is nothing more natural says Dr. A. in his Manuscript concerning the Satisfaction than to give to a thing which supplies the place of another and which procures all the fruits of it the Name of that instead whereof it is substituted St. Paul observ'd this Rule in his Epistle to the Hebrews If he gave the Name of Sacrifice to the Obedience of Jesus Christ it was to sute his Expressions to the Ideas which prevail'd under the antient Dispensation wherein the principal Acts of Piety consisted in Sacrifices he applied those antient Sacrifices to the Death of Jesus Christ without intending any other Mystery in it Whereto may be added that Jesus Christ speaking of the Holy Ghost who was to teach the Truth by his Inspirations as he himself had taught it by Preaching speaks of him as of a Teacher as of a Person because he was to supply the absence of a Teacher and fill the place of a Person So as the Gnosticks spake of nothing but Angels who had created the World and govern'd the antient People and of Emanations and Generations from the Supreme Being Irenaeus answers The true Angels which created the World and taught the Prophets are the Word of God and his Spirit and that Word and Spirit are his true Emanations So making of a Manifestation and of a Communication God's Helpers his Coadjutors in the Creation his Ministers in the Government of the World making I say so many Hypostases of the Godhead of those Powers because he substitutes them in lieu of the Hypostases rejected by him It is by the fame method that Theophilus of Antioch made intirely allegorical Commentarys on the four Gospels Thus he allegorizes the first words of St. John The Beginning says he that is God The Word that is the Son of God Jesus Christ of whom the Voice of the Father saith in the Psalm My Heart hath uttered a good Word that is to say Christ by whom all things were made And without him nothing was made Nothing that is to say an Idol which as the Apostle saith is nothing in the World It is apparent by the Method of this Author who designs the explaining the Gospels allegorically and particularly by the allegorical Explanation he gives of the word Beginning and of that of Nothing that what he says of the Word is likewise allegorical The Word says he is the Son of God that is to say the Christ by whom all things were made Is not that saying that it is the Christ the Man whom God hath anointed who is the Son and the Word by whose Power all under the Gospel was made even the Idol which was made without him having been destroy'd and the World reform'd Let us deal plainly Christ is the Word only by virtue of an allegorical Sense which considers him as a second Word in as much as he is with respect to the spiritual World what the Word-God was with respect to the sensible World It
in the 33d and 45th Psalms which they made use of to prove that the term Word had no other Signification than that of Prolation properly so called For he supposes that these Words My Heart hath utter'd a good Word do not signify such a Prolation a proper and literal Generation but a metaphorical Prolation and that from this reason that the word Heart in this Text being figurative the term Word must also be figurative And that we may the better apprehend how far Origen carrys the Figure of this Word the other Text which he quotes from the Psalms so fully clears the matter as to leave no room for cavilling The Valentinians says he believe that these Words The Heavens were created by the Word of God and by the Spirit of his Mouth were said of our Saviour and of the Holy Ghost tho it be certain that one may give them this other Sense That the Heavens were establish'd by Divine Reason and Wisdom ratione Dei as we say that a House was built by that Skill which is the Art of building Houses I leave the Reader to judg whether an Vnitarian could more plainly remove all the Idea of Hypostasis from our Minds Therefore when the same Origen does elsewhere argue concerning the Word as if he himself believ'd it an Hypostasis his so speaking was according to the Principles of the Greek Philosophy For as Porphyry rightly observes Origen having continually apply'd himself to reading the Writings of the Platonists and the Pythagoreans and having therein learnt the allegorical way of those Philosophers expounding the Mysteries of the Greeks made use of it himself in his Interpretation of the Scriptures apud Euseb l. 6. c. 19. See likewise Bibl. univ T. 6. p. 50. That declared Enemy of the Christian Religion is not the only Person who has given that judgment of Origen Mr. Huet does not treat him more favourably in his Origeniana l. 2. c. 2. Origen says he was one of Plato's greatest Admirers insomuch that instead of suting the Platonick Tenents to the Christian Doctrine he regulated the Doctrine of Christianity by the Dogma of the Platonists And a little lower he adds That Origen had been carry'd to those Excesses by the example of his Preceptor Clemens Alexand. who us'd to embelish the Religion of Jesus Christ with the Academick Paint Can any one think that Justin did not discourse by the Principles of this Allegorical Philosophy when in his second Apology he calls the Reason which is in Man a Part and Seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Word The Divine Word is in his sense only that universal Reason that Source and Fulness of Wisdom-which resides in the Divine Understanding whereof ours is a Stream and a part Is our Reason an Hypostasis distinct from Man How shall we then imagine that this Father ever intended to say that Divine Reason is an Hypostasis distinct from God I may very well say that my Reason has taught me such a thing and that I consulted my Reason without supposing my Reason to be any other Person than my self Then why may we not say God made use of his Reason to create this Universe that his Reason was his Counsellor and his Minister without making a second Person of his Reason Certainly my Reason cannot be personalized any otherwise than by the Power of Allegory neither can that of God be any otherwise Nay it may be that Justin strain'd his Allegory yet farther and that he intended to say that Reason or the universal Seed is no other than the Gospel which is not a part of the Seed as the Precepts of Reason which enlighten'd the Philosophers are but the fulness of that incorruptible Seed which regenerates the Heart I will produce another Example of this allegorical way of interpreting the Scripture St. Cyprian explaining that famous Passage of St. John 1 Ep. 5.8 concerning the three Witnesses on Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood has spoken of them as of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which are the three Witnesses in Heaven now found in our Bibles but were not there in the days of that Father Some as Fulgentius having confounded St. Cyprian's Discourse with the Sacred Text did not doubt but that Holy Martyr had spoken literally and as words of the Scripture what he said only in Allegory not observing that what he asserted of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a spiritual Sense which he had drawn from the Three Witnesses on Earth as if the Spirit were the Father the Blood the Son and the Water the Holy Ghost But Facundus did not suffer himself to be at all deceiv'd by it for he informs us Defens Trinit Capit. l. 1. c. 3. That St. Cyprian will have that to be understood of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which St. John said of the Spirit Water and Blood which can be only an allegorical Interpretation And that Allegory was followed by St. Augustin contra Maxim lib. 3. c. 12. where he expresly says That the Spirit the Water and the Blood are the Sacrament of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost What 's the meaning of the Sacrament if it be not the Mystery and Allegory Now I pray who can warrant me that the Fathers who so strained the Allegory on the three Witnesses on Earth to find the Trinity therein have not also strained it on the Word of St. John to find in it their Favourite Doctrine Plato's second God If they misapplyed these Words My Heart hath uttered a Good Word and these I have begotten thee in my Bosom before Aurora how can I be assur'd that they have not deceived me or that their Infatuation for Plato has not deceived themselves when they Platonically interpret those other Places where it is said That the Word was God and that the Word was made Flesh However that be it must be granted me That the Fathers made no difficulty of seeking sublime senses in the Scriptures and of raising themselves up very high above its plain and natural meaning That appears by the use St. Cyprian and St. Augustin made of the Epistle General of St. John Now the same Fathers having expressed their Allegories in too absolute Terms without characterizing them by some Mark whereby they might be distinguished from a proper and literal sense it has in succeeding time happened that the literal sense of what they said has been followed We have seen it in the Example of St. Cyprian that Father expressing himself absolutely It is written says he of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And these three are one Now that was written only of the Spirit the Water and the Blood Then the Allegorical Exposition has been taken for an express Text of Scripture I strongly suspect that the same thing has happen'd to that noted Text of St. Paul 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 16. The Mystery of Godliness is great God manifested in the Flesh
change or vary and the things we make them to signify may not vary at all in our Minds or suffer the least Alteration The Facts for instance mention'd in the Apostles Creed are things of that nature the Ideas whereof are preserv'd without any Change As its Articles are plain few in Number without any Speculations and contain only the Primitive Doctrines of Christianity it was easy therefore to preserve the sense and to have always a true Knowledg of them 'T is a Faith as I may say that 's born with us that offers it self to our Understandings from the Moment we enter into the Church that is in the Mouth and Heart or every Christian and there is no need of ascending into Heaven of consulting Councils nor of descending into the Deeps to know it and employing Missions of Dragoons to impose the Lelief of it Wherefore Cyril in Catech. 5. Ruffinus in Expos Symbol Jerom in Epist 61. ad Pâ—mmach c. 9. Hilarius de Synod had good reason to say That the Creed was not only written upon Paper but upon the Tables of the Heart and in the Mind of Man Expressions that Jeremy and St. Paul make use of about the Precepts of the Gospel to signify that there 's no need of a Teacher to learn them because Reason is capable of suggesting them and Memory of retaining them The Passage of St. Hilary is the more remarkable because he makes an express Opposition between this Faith graven upon the Heart and that which is only in the Letter and the Writings of Men For he congratulates the Western Bishops for their maintaining the Apostolic Faith for the Spirit wherewith they were animated and that they knew not the Forms of Faith which were written by Mens Hands The Spirit here does not signify the Holy Ghost as Mons Du Pin supposes but the Spiritual Sense in opposition to the Literal Which shews that there was no need of writing down the Apostles Creed in the first Ages of the Church Every one had the sense of it in his Mind As it was short and plain and consisting only of the principal Facts and Primitive Truths which constitute the very Essence and Spirit of the Christian Religion it was easy for the most illiterate to keep it in mind as to the Substance of it for the rest every one expressed himself as he pleased Hence it was that 't was very late before any Formula was drawn up and that too with some difference in the Terms and Number of Articles particularly in those which seem to explain one another It ought not to be wonâ—red at after this if it be not found among the antient Doctors to be just as we have it at this day They received it only by Tradition and worded it upon occasion every one in his own way The Christians says Dupin Tom. 1. p. 30. had this Faith so ready in their Minds that they did not stick to any certain Form hence came the difference in point of Form of the Creeds mentioned by the Fathers Moreover it must not be supposed that when some particular Christians came at length to enlarge the Apostles Creed by their Platonic Speculations the People entered into those Notions and Philosophical Ideas They always kept themselves to that Simplicity of Faith which the general Spirit of Religion had imprinted upon their Minds The Christian Religion says Mons Le Vassor Traite de l'Examen ch 2. p. 69. was at no great distance from its first and primitive Simplicity till the Council of Nice If Origen and some others before that attempted to adjust it to the Principles of Pagan Philosophy their novel Speculations were not generally received In short Origen shews us that nothing but the Word revealed was preached to the People that is to say Jesus Christ crucified but the Word-God glorified was reserved for Persons of the higher Class that is for Favourite Souls who had spiritualized themselves in Plato's School Wherefore History tell us that to bring in this Platonizing Faith into the Church and to make Entrance for it into the Minds of ordinary Christians there was â—eed of no less than the Anthority of Emperors the Cabals of Councils and the Violence of Penal Laws Monsieur Jurieu speaks to the very same effect Says he all the vain empty Speculations of the Doctors of that time the Fathers of the three first Ages did no harm to the pure Faith of the Church that is the People Tabl. du Socin 1 part Let. 6. p. 269. The Speculations had not yet reached the People they continued in the Simplicity For the rest it was for the Speculative Divines and Philosophers bred in Plato's School such as the Justin Martyrs the Tatians and the Athanagoras's were and other Platonizing Doctors of that sort Then Jurieu concludes saying There 's no body but knows that Theological Explications are not matters of Faith 'T is true we must do this Justice to Jurieu as to own that he made room for the Mystery of God in three Persons in this Simplicity of the Primitive Faith But it would really be a wrong done to his Judgment and good Sense to believe that he spoke it seriously For in short if he would not affirm that the Belief of three Persons which are but one God was one of those Platonizing Speculations against which he so much declaims at least he ought to own that 't is an Explication that has nothing of Simplicity in it and which by consequence cannot be a matter of Faith I desire him to remember a Remark he has made in his seventh Pastoral Letter That when Learning was scarce among Christians two or three Learned Men drew the People into their Opinions He could have informed us better that two or three Platonizing Fathers for they were the Learned Men of the Age were able to mislead the People from the Simplicity of their Faith to the Theology of Plato If it be true that the People knew this profound Theology Mons Jurieu has spoken more truly than he thought For we find at the bottom of the Letter that two Learned Platonists Origen who had his Admirers in the East and St. Austin who had his in the West have not only led the People into their Opinions but likewise all the Learned Men that came after them who have only copied from them And consequently this Theology whether it be to be found only among the Learned or with the People too was none other than a strange Faith which the Learned brought into the Church and after drew the People into it It amounts to the same thing either the People understood it not or if they did 't was by surprize that the Learned impos'd their Mysteries and made the common People receive a Pagan Notion for the Doctrine of J. C. CHAP. XX. Of the Divine Polity or Oeconomy taught by the Fathers HAving given some account of the way of Allegories us'd by the Fathers I must not forget to say something
J. C. the only Son of God our Lord how I pray is he God's only Son Why that 's explain'd in these Words he was conceiv'd by the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin his miraculous Generation and Nativity made him a God and how he became our Lord appears in these Words he was raised from the Dead and ascended into Heaven whence he shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead his Obedience and his illustrious Vertue rais'd him to this supreme Dignity These two Articles make up the whole of the antient Theology with respect to the Person of Christ but the latter of the two without dispute was the most important and is only insisted on for our Salvation J. C. never preach'd to the Jews his miraculous Birth but he always proved his Mission from Heaven by Miracles wrought publickly and openly The Apostles in the History we have of their first Sermons have spoken nothing more they insist not on any other Topic concerning their Divine Master but those of his Resurrection and Exaltation St. Paul lost his Life for preaching that last Mystery But in how many Passages does he press as essential and necessary to Salvation the Belief of Christ's Exaltation If thou confessest with thy Mouth that Jesus is the Lord and believest with thy Heart that God hath rais'd him from the Dead thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.9 The earliest Antiquity was of the same Judgment as it appears by two Instances The first is that of Victor Bp of Rome who excommunicated Theodotus altho he believed J. C. was born of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit because as is remarked by the Author of a Catalogue of Heresies suppos'd to be Tertullian Theodotus believed Christ to be a mere Man who had no other Advantage or Prerogative above other Men but what he had from his own Righteousness This is plainly to say that tho he believed him a Man extraordinary in his Birth and his Vertue yet he did not therefore believe him to be that Christ and that Lord whom the Father had rais'd above all other Men and even above Angels whereby Theodotus rejected a fundamental Article of Christianity The other Instance is that of Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho He there owns for his Brethren that there were some Christians of his time who held for a Truth that J. C. was but a mere Man the Son of Joseph and Mary but however believed him to be the Christ which plainly intimates that they did not look upon him barely as a Prophet who only preached Righteousness to the Jews but besides they thought him to be the Messias sent to all Nations and the Lord whom God had made such over all Men and in this they retain'd the fundamental Article of Christianity After this Opinions changed as Pearson before cited has remarked Those says he who wrote just after the purer Ages of the Church borrowed the Sentiments of the Pagans and mingled them with the Christian Religion following those Principles of Philosophy which they had imbibed before they embraced the Christian Religion That was the source of the ensuing Evils the Exaltation of our Saviour which had been esteemed the chief point in Christianity as we have seen in the Writings of Polycarp and Clement was no longer regarded as such But his miraculous Birth was the only Article insisted upon The Reason whereof is plainly this that in their Disputes with the Philosophers they did not so much insist upon the High Offices of the Messias as upon the Excellency of his Nature and Person for they wanted a Parallel with the emanated Word of the Philosophers And indeed this miraculous Birth was much more sutable to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy which enter'd into the Christian Religion upon the Conversion of some Learned Men. An holy Spirit coming down from Heaven upon a Virgin and begetting in her that holy Man who from that is stiled the Son of God An Event I say so extraordinary as this was without doubt the most proper thing in all that Gospel to serve for a Foundation of the Platonic Doctrine 't was easy with a little philosophic Dexterity to find in it the second God the begotten Son the Son of God the Word the Mind or Vnderstanding and in one word the whole Train of the Platonic Preexistence Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus began with an Accommodation of these Terms more or less You may see in their Writings not that naked downright Platonism as one sees in Origen for example and Clemens Alexandrinus but Platonism in disguise which appeared in the Mask of Christian Religion Plato's Logos or Word and the Holy Spirit which overshadowed the Virgin Mary always keep company in their Writings For this Passage in St. Luke The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee c. one shall meet with blended throughout with their starch'd and most affected Speculation The Platonic Opinion did not enter all at once into Christianity which then would have been sensible of the Innovation but crept in by little and little under the Mask of Explication and Illustration Any change in the Christian Religion was not intended hereby but to set it off to the best advantage and make it fit for the 〈◊〉 of the Philosophers And hereupon they went on philosophizing upon a point incontestably Christian viz. upon the Sovereign Power that form'd the Body wherein Jesus dwelt till they quite lost the sight of it The Philosophers could not endure that so plain a Doctrine as that of J. C. should pretend to combat their Notions They always twitted the Christians with the Unskillfulness Coarseness and Ignorance of their Writers The Christians asham'd of this Reproach endeavour'd to obviate it Some coming fresh from the Pagan Schools made a show of their Learning and mingled it with the Christian Doctrine Others applied themselves so well to human Learning to Rhetorick and Philosophy that they excelled and â—iâ—ied the Pagans but at the eâ—pence of the Christian Religion the Simplicity of which they alter'd I say to obviate the Reproach aforesaid they made use of two Expedients first they dressed up suppositions Pieces containing the most subtil and most refin'd Philosophy and publish'd them under the Names of Dionysius the Areopagite Clemens Romanâ—â— and many others To make it appear that the first Preachers of Christianity were not 〈◊〉 illiterate aâ— was supposed this very Observation is made even by Mons Daille and Dr. Cave Yet those sparious Pleces published for the Credit of the pretended Authors among the Pagans under great Names had this effect besides that they adulterated the Christian Religion In the second place those platonizing Doctors 〈…〉 pted the Simplicity of the Gospel by their Allegories and other Helps to Contemplation to heighten the Christian Doctrine by sublime Terms and profound Notions Thus by the force of a philosophic Management of the Doctrine of the Generation of the Son of God by the Operation of the Holy Spirit this Point
at last was changed into that of a Generation of Plato's Word or Logos To pass for the present the consideration of those Objections pretended to have great weight which are taken from the suppos'd Impossibility of a change in the Tradition of the Church as the Author of the Fathers vindicated argues I must tell him 't is in vain for him to attack us with those very Weapons with which he has already been beaten in France We will make our Defence at the same rate he has done his on another occasion Justin Martyr if you please shall not be the very Innovator who changed the Tradition of the Church all at once 't is not in that manner Error is equally introduc'd that 's agreed But you must own whether you will or not that Justin was the first who brought in the new Mode of expressing himself in matters of Faith the first who made use of a Stile that was strange and unknown to his Predecessors Clemens Barnabas Hermas and Polycarp and who spoke a philosophic Jargon wherein appears throout the swelling Notions and Expressions of Plato and nothing of the Simplicity of J. C. But to what purpose was this new Language unless it was to begin the Innovation under colour of Embeilishing of Accommodation and more ample Explication and that this was for prudential Reasons and for the purpose of the Divine Oeconomy This is the very way that Error has always taken The Doctrine of Mahomet which establish'd it self by force was indeed made and introduced all at once by one Man alone But the Doctrine of Antichrist took time and came in by degrees it began with the Imposture and Finenesses of Philosophy and us'd no Force nor Violence till by its Seducements it had gain'd the upper hand Justin Martyr at first imploy'd his Philosophy in the Cause and Pope Victor afterwards his Tyranny and thus you see how the Innovation was compleated it came in as the Proverb has it like a Fox and reign'd like a Lion CHAP. V. Further Reflections upon the forementioned Passage in Bp Pearson's Vindication of Ignatius Part 2 c. 1. HItherto I have considered this remarkable Passage in Bp. Pearson only with regard to this particular design which was to shew in what sense Jesus Christ was deify'd or spoken of as a God among the first Christians I have yet three further Reflections which have a more general aspect upon the whole extent of this Controversy 1st Remark My 1st Remark is upon the Passage in Pliny concerning the Worship of the antient Christians who as he relates it sang Hymns to Jesus Christ as to a God Now here I say that Pliny speaks of the Christians in his Pagan Stile that 't is the Language of an Idolater so that the least consequence cannot be drawn for the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the modern Sense of it for he speaks after the same manner of Christ as if he had been to speak of his Deify'd Heroes See Biblioth Vniv Tom. 10. p. 346 347. Mons Le Clerc has well observ'd in his Rules of Criticism that all sorts of Authors are wont to express the Sentiments and Behaviour of the Persons whose History they write in terms current and received at the time of their writing and in the Country where they liv'd And that if this be not well minded one may easily mistake the Phrase of one Country for another and confound their Meaning 2d Remark Bp Pearson pretends it was customary in the first Age to call Jesus Christ God Monsieur Valois maintains on the contrary that the Antients did not usually ascribe that Name but to the Father only 'T is not difficult to determine which of these two Criticks was in the right Pearson's Remark has no other ground but the Stile of Ignatius alone which is the very thing in question Whereas Valesius his Observation is founded upon the constant Usage of the Fathers in the first Century viz. Clemens Barnabas Hermas and Polycarp who most certainly have never given the Name of God to Jesus Christ in the Writings which are incontestably theirs So that since Ignatius has done otherwise supposing the Epistles are truly his it must be said according to Valesius his Observation that Ignatius did vary from the Practice in his time or that the word God has been foisted in by the Copists as the History of Thaddeus 3d Remark My last Remark is of much greater importance than the two former and intirely decisive in this Controversy For in this Passage of Bp Pearson you may take notice that what he affirms will effectually and at once defend all kinds of Unitarian Hereticks from the formidable Authority of the Platonizing Fathers with which they are always baited The Fathers who wrote after Ignatius says Pearson the Doctors of the 2d and 3d Century are used to borrow their thoughts from the Pagans and sometimes to blend 'em with the Christian Religion Take notice that al this is said with regard to Jesus Christ and remember too that the second Century is the fatal Epocha wherein the Church lost the Purity and Simplicity of her Principles which happened as Hegesippus observes soon after the Death of the Apostles when Platonism prevail'd To come to matter of Fact the Fathers of the first and second Century namely the Justins the Athenagorasses the Theophilusses the Irenaeusses the Clemens Alexandrinusses the Tertullians the Origens c. these Fathers who wrote after Ignatius have mingled Pagan Notions with the Christian Religion therefore those Fathers ought not to be heard in this Controversy as good Witnesses of the Christian Faith and as to the point of Christ's Divinity ought to be regarded as Demi-Pagans The Vnitarian Hereticks likewise ought not in reason to be attack'd with their Authority and consequently the Notion of Christ's Divinity ought to be reduc'd to the state and account given of it by the Writers of the first Century who were not form'd in the Schools nor bred up in Libraries who were not imbu'd with the Sentiments of the Academy or the Portico In fine every Sentence and Expression in their Writings that regards Christ's Divinity and has not the Purity and Simplicity of the first Century cannot be look'd upon as any other but as a smatch of Paganism CHAP. VI. The Theology concerning the Word or Logos is nothing else but a Philosophick Speculation partly grounded upon the Divine Power that entred and dwelt in the Messiah at the moment of his Conception TO prove this that the Theology concerning the Word or Logos is nothing else but a philosophick Notion partly grounded upon the Divine Power that enter'd and dwelt in the Messiah at the moment of his Conception there 's nothing more to be considered than 1st That the most antient Authors go no further in search after Christ's Divinity than his Birth of a Virgin Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians satisfies us of this Truth There is says he but one Physician who is of Flesh
that be Dr. Bull deceives himself grosly in supposing this Creed of Cyril to be the antient Creed of Jerusalem We can produce another of greater Antiquity which the same Church ascribes to the Apostle St. James Bishop Vsher de Symbol p. 10. presents us with it It must be minded says the Primate that there were two sorts of Creeds us'd by the Easterns one contracted which Ruffinus compares with that of Rome and Aquileia the other fuller and larger Among the first we place the Creed of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I believe in one God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God c. Thus 't is read in the antient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem ascribed to St. James who is held to have been the first Bishop of that Place and with this Creed an Office was read once a year in memory of its Antiquity And since the Articles that follow have which I mightily regret been left out as suppos'd to be generally known I thought it proper to repair this Loss by substituting in the room of what is wanting the entire Confession of the Apostolic Faith that Cyril expounded to the Illuminated at Jerusalem which indeed is somewhat larger as it appears by this addition at the beginning viz. visible and invisible The short Creed which Vsher gives us being made by St. James it follows that of Cyril is an Exposition and Commentary And 't is impossible on the contrary that this should be an Abridgment of Cyril's Creed for nothing can be more antient than the draught of an Apostle Without doubt the shorter Creed is the Original and the larger none other than a Copy stuffed and lengthened with a wretched Platonism and has not Simplicity enough to pass for an Apostle's but it may without wrong be accounted the Work of a Platonizing Faction But let that be as it will there is good ground for believing that Dr. Bull had a mind to deceive us in dissembling his Knowledg of this antient Creed of St. James of which Bishop Vsher makes mention and in palming upon us for the most antient Eastern Creed that of S. Cyril which is so very different For altho we have but two Articles of the Jerusalem Creed which is the same with what we call the Apostles yet these two are sufficient to shew that the Apostles Creed is in effect the most antient of all however Dr. Bull Jud. Eccles p. 128. pretends it to have been of later Date And I say further this may satisfy us that at this time of Cyril the Mother of all Churches had strangely alter'd her Faith Bishop Vsher observed what was added to the first Article Who doubts but that like might have been done to others about which there were far greater disputes He might have observed the same and the thing is obvious that the second Article concerning the Person of J. C. being entire as it appears by the Oriental Creed of Ruffinas which goes no further it follows then that all that which is in Cyril upon the same Article has been added since Platonism prevailed Ruffinus says Bishop Vsher has compar'd the shorter of these two Oriental Creeds with the Roman wherefore this shorter Creed was not the same with the Roman let the Doctor say what he will nor are we to be much concern'd as the Primate speaks for the Loss of it◠Ruffinus has preserv'd it Almost all the Eastern Churches says he in Symbol Apost give us their Creed after this manner I believe in one God the Father Almighty and then in the following Article whereas we say and in J. C. his only Son our Lord they say in one Lord J. C. his only Son professing one God and one Lord according to the Doctrine of St. Paul Note here all the difference the Easterns made between their Creed and that we call the Apostles There 's nothing in 'em of the Pre-existence of J. C. and his Generation before Ages as you have it in Cyril's Creed This shews that the Article concerning J. C. goes no farther in this part of the Oriental Creed which Bishop Vsher gives us that the etc. does not retrench any part of it but is plac'd at the end of the Article only to shew that the remaining Articles are omitted We may conclude therefore that all the Jargon of the Platovic Philosophy in Cycil's Greed took place of the antient simple Tradition which was I believe in J. C. the only Son of God who was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary And consequently the antient Opinion of the Filiation and Deification of J. C. ran no higher than his being born of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost this was the true Theology concerning him Ruffinus had reason for calling this plain Confession the Tradition of his Ancestors meaning thereby not the Doctors bigotted with Plato's Enthusiasm but the whole Body of the Church the People as Du Pin observes Tom. 1. p. 30. who doubtless never enter'd into the Speculations of those Doctors Let us see what Marcellus wrote to Pope Julius Epiphan haeres 72. where after he had said what he thought fit concerning the Word which he denies to be an Hypostasis distinct from the Father saying it subsists in the Father and that 't is his very Wisdom and his inseparable Power he confines himself to this Confession of Faith which he says he had received from the Scripture and his Ancestors I believe in God Almighty and in J. C. his only Son our Lord begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried the third day be was raised from the Dead and ascended into Heaven and sat at the right hand of God Whence he shall come to judg the Quick and the Dead And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Holy Church the Remission of Sins the Resurrection of the Flesh the Life everlasting See here in express words the Creed we call the Apostles the antient Theology without Platonism without Speoulation There 's nothing retrench'd from the antient Confessions of Faith yet Retrenchments were not unusual amongst some of them If therefore some Creeds are found to be larger in some of the Antients 't is according to their laudable Practice by an addition of their novel Interpretations This is the more evident because that pretended Interpretations are found to be pure Platonism with which 't is known they were extremely bigotted CHAP. VIII Reflections upon the Apostles Creed with respect to the foregoing Doctrine TO render the Antiquity of the Apostles Creed doubtful 't is said that 't is notorious that the greater part of the Articles have been added from time to time and upon divers occasions What of that if those additional Articles are not in the present Contest Is it not enough that the three Articles concerning the Father the Son and the Holy
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