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
the Reason and Soul of the World hath thereby laid down as the Principle of the Creation of the Vniverse the Goodness Wisdom and Power of God But the best Interpreter of this Platonick Trinity is Galen in his third Book de Vsu Partium his Words are plain and may be call'd the right Key of Platonism I do not says he make true Religion and Piety towards God to consist in sacrificing Hecatombs or in sending up the Smoke of much Incense but in knowing and making known to others what God's Wisdom Power and Goodness are For in my opinion that God has been pleas'd to fill the World with so many good things is a Mark of his Goodness which deserves our unmost Praise That he has found the way of putting it into so good Order is the highest pitch of Wisdom and that he could execute so vast a design is the effect of Almighty Power Nothing is plainer than this Comment He fully explains the Doctrine of the Three Principles without mixing any Philosophical Subtleties or Cabalistick Mysteries with it Here all refers to the Creation of the World and shews no more than a natural Trinity which all may read in these three admirable Properties which God has if I may so speak made visible in his Works And lastly Clem. Alexan. Lib. 5. Strom. p. 547. Edit Lutet 1629. fully shews Plato's mind in the Definition he gives of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Word of the Father of all things says he is not that which was utter'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a most evident Wisdom and Goodness of God with an Almighty and truly Divine Power This is plain here you have the Wisdom Goodness and Power whereof Plato made his Three Principles and whereof Clemens makes only the internal Word the Word of the Father in opposition to the utter'd Word So free and unlimited is this Allegorical Philosophy Observe farther That the words most evident refer to what appears of God in the Creation of the World which is properly the Word of God according to all the Platonical Allegorists As to the Begotten Word which is not that Wisdom nor that Goodness nor that Power which was manifested in the Creation of the World what can it be but the World it self Nevertheless the Fathers believ'd the Prolation of this Word to be the true Generation and consequently when they spake of a Begotten Son understood it of this World without thinking of it Plato then having so personaliz'd the several Operations of the Godhead spake of many Gods to please the People Populo ut placerent quas secisset fabulas reserving to himself the liberty of owning but one God when he convers'd with the Learned or as appears by his Epistles when he wrote to his Friends CHAP. VIII That the Pleroma of the Valentinians was an Allegorical Theology With a Digression concerning the Fanaticism of both the Antient and Modern Gnosticks I Pass from the Philosophers to the Hereticks who imitated them It is certain that there was a hidden and mystical Theology in the Pleroma of the Valentinians That prodigious number of Emanations which seems so monstrous an Opinion to us was at bottom but either a System of the several Orders of Angels who are often call'd Aeons I mean such a Celestial Hierarchy as that of Dionysius was or that Collection of Ideas those different Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Valentin calls them apud Iren. l. 1. c. 5. those several Dispensations which they conceiv'd in one and the same God For they did consider him 1. without regard to the Creature as incomprehensible and retir'd into a profound Silence that is as not having yet spoken that efficacious Word which was to make the Creature and then he call'd him the Profound and the Silence that was the first Order of Aeons 2. They consider'd God with respect to the intelligible World as having his Vnderstanding fill'd with Ideas Ideas being the Essence and the Truth of things according to the Platonists and then they call'd him the Vnderstanding and the Truth that was their second Syzigy 3. They consider'd God with respect to the sensible World as executing his Design and speaking that powerful Word which gave Life and Being to all Creatures and then they call'd him the Word and the Life that was their third Syzigy 4. They consider'd God with respect to the Spiritual and Evangelical World as working Redemption and there they found the Mediator Jesus Christ Man with the new Church which he made by his Preaching and Death and then they call'd him the Man and the Church that was their fourth Alliance But after all these several Emanations rightly taken are but the several Respects in which they conceived one and the same God who having been hid in an Abyss of Light did outwardly manifest himself in these two admirable Works of the Old and New Creation That is the Testimony which Irenaeus l. 2. c. 15. gives of them The Valentinians says he after having divided their Emanations did however return to the Unity holding that all together made but one And in Lib. 1. c. 6. the same Father's relating that Ptolomy gave the most High God two Wives Vnderstanding and Will which they called the Father's two Powers apparently shews that Ptolomy fell into Plato's Allegory in ascribing Wisdom and Power as two Properties inseparable from one and the same Spirit to the Good or Creator of all things And I don't see why Ptolomy might not as well Allegorically say that the supreme Father had two Wives as Philo in the like case that the World had God for its Father and Knowledg for its Mother But if all these several Powers of the Valentinians did not destroy the Unity of God whence then comes it you 'l say that their Doctrine was so abhor'd The reason is apparent viz. That in avoiding the Christian Simplicity they run the Faith into terrible Confusion exposing God's Unity to Peril by their idle Speculations As for the Basilidians they did also allegorize on the word Abraxes whereby they understood that Supreme Power from which all the other Aeons or Spirits proceeded This Name has in its Greek Letters the Number 365 which is that of the Days of the Year or according to Basilides of the Celestial Orbs. And he intended to signify that Abraxas or the most High God was the Father of the Celestial Orbs Ages or Aeons and Creator of the Universe 'T is probable that this is a Hebrew Word and that it comes from Ab Ben Rouach Father Son and Spirit Menage would with his Etymological Sagacity find no difficulty in proving this to be its Derivation thus Ab Ben Rouach Abenrach Aberach Abrach and adding a Greek Termination Abrachas Abraxas Serenus the Physician of the Sect of the Basilidians lengthening the Word fram'd Abracadabra of it which is another mysterious Name which he made use of as an Amulet or Preservative for the Cure of all intermitting
their profound Speculations For to theologize according to them is not only to speak of God and his Attributes but of Angels too of Aeons of Ideas of Emanations and in a word of every thing that belongs to the intelligible World of the Platonists Theology being a Term affected by all the contemplative Gentlemen whether Orthodox or Gnosticks These sort of Folks did not regard the Facts of the Gospel which prove its Divine Authority any otherwise than as grosser Proofs proper for vulgar weaker Minds But for Contemplation the Case was quite otherwise this they thought a noble and powerful Medium by which Souls of the first Rank elevated themselves to the Knowledg of the noblest Truths Yet the Gospel is not founded upon any thing but Facts and the chief Objects of our Faith are certain Facts contained in the Apostles Creed Is it not therefore a putting the Gospel upon another Foot if we carry on our Contemplations to Abstractions and the Ideas of a crude chimerical Metaphysicks 'T is an extravagant System if instead of Facts well proved and rightly circumstanced there be nothing left but a mere Operation of the Understanding and an Ens Rationis which these Gentlemen are pleas'd to call the Word or the Son theologized That great Man Mons Jurieu whom God was pleased to favour with the knowledg of every thing did not fail to set aside this false Theology of the Fathers 7 Ler. Past de la 3. Année Besides the Faith of the Vulgar says he which was immediately founded upon the Sacred Writings the Doctors fram'd a Theology that is they undertook to expound the Mysteries in a sense beyond that wherein the Holy Scriptures themselves have delivered them And 't is in that they have disagreed and one must not wonder at it because the things they went about to explain were profound and it may be inexplicable and because they made use of a false Philosophy which they brought into their Theology And by so doing they have ruined Theology and at last Religion in all Ages The Faith of the Antients therefore must not be condemned as if it were changed altho they disagreed in their Theology And it must be noted that this Theology should not be admitted into the Faith that is Articles of Faith should not be formed out of Theological Expositions Is not this much for the Honour of the Theology of the Antients According to Mons Jurieu these good Doctors could not theologize the Son without hazarding the Faith and consequently one ought not to receive amongst the Articles of Faith their theological Explications concerning a Son begotten and not made an Internal Word and a Word brought forth c. Nevertheless it 's well known that the Fathers consider'd the theological Sense not only as true but as that which the Spirit of God had chiefly in its view So that they who would impose the Faith of the theological Sense of the Word because the Fathers urg'd it are themselves obliged to receive all the other theological Senses which the same Fathers have given to so many other Terms in Scripture and which they believe to be no less the Purport and Design of the Holy Ghost which yet is not done but they are looked upon even as ridiculous Why therefore is it not acknowledged bona Fide also that the Exposition of the Logos or Word is one of those wretched Allegories so much declaimed against at that day and an Article of that false Theology which is incompatible with the Christian Faith But let us pay as much respect to the Fathers as we can let us preserve their Theology be it so provided that the theological Sense be not said to be designed for any other than contemplative and seraphic Minds and that no more than the Faith or Belief of the plain natural sense be requir'd of Men as Men Origen was too fair to desire more than this he acquaints his Readers at the beginning of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Sacred Writers did not concern themselves with abstruse Matters and speculative Subjects which few of them whom they called to the Christian Religion were capable of understanding but confined themselves to those few clear Articles which were necessary for the Reformation of the World to bring them into a State of Righteousness and give them hopes of Immortality Leaving the more refined Contemplations which were not contrary to prime Truths to the commendable Curiosity of those whom Nature and Education had qualify'd for such Enquiries Dr. Rust in his Discourse of Origen and the chief of his Opinions has observed also That there were necessary Truths which the Apostles had clearly taught and the Church received the contrary whereto cannot be received without retrenching an essential part of Religion But that there were besides some Contemplations about which the Scriptures had not determin'd any thing and that the Truth as to these matters was purposely concealed by the Holy Ghost as Origen thought to excite their Study and Industry who were Lovers of the Truth that the Discovery of so great a Treasure might be a Recompence for their pious Enquiries Without doubt all the other Fathers agreed in this very Principle with Origen that the contemplative Subjects were not necessary nor essential to Religion that they did not oblige ordinary Christians and that they were left to the commendable Enquiries of the Curious Servetus who constantly imitates the Fathers agrees in this tho he was in other respects a great Admirer of Platonism and Contemplation The Apostles says he de Trinit lib. 2. p. 50. did not rashly publish this great Mystery of the Incarnation of the Word 't was after several Essays and having fasted and prayed that St. John pronounced these Words In the beginning was the Word c. 'T was sufficient to Salvation to believe that Jesus was the Christ or the Messias the Son of God the Saviour of the World The common People were justified by this Faith alone altho they did not exactly know his Divinity You therefore pious Readers who are not able to comprehend the manner of his Generation nor the whole Fulness of his Divinity always believe that he is the Messias begotten of God and thy Saviour This is the only thing you should believe that you may live by him But let us hear Origen speak for himself 't is in his Preface to St. John that one shall find the famous distinction he makes between the intelligible and the sensible Gospel and how he there divides Christians into two Classes the one of those who are Children in the Faith and are led by the Rudiments of the Gospel and the other of those intelligent and elevated Minds who are capable of understanding the Divinity of the glorified God That Doctor or Teacher says he who is willing to profit all Persons cannot however make the secret and sublime Christianity known to such who can only understand the plain and the revealed Christianity Wherefore
which comes not from his Vnderstanding by a necessary Emanation but by his Will by a free Operation That Power I say which may be called his Word or his Spirit according to the different respects wherein one considers it I will produce another Proof of this important Truth from Theophilus Antiochenus in his 2d Book to Autolycus Who says he speaking of the Word being the Spirit of God the Beginning the Wisdom the Power of the Highest came down into the Prophets by whom he spake What could he say more formal to make us understand that he took for one and the same thing the Spirit of God his Word his Wisdom and his Power His meaning cannot be mistaken when one considers that the Spirit and the Word whereof he speaks is the same that inspir'd the Prophets Words that very well agree with those of Justin which I now come to examine These two Fathers understood by the Word nothing but that prophetick Spirit the fulness whereof dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ and that St. Paul calls the fulness of the Godhead This is in effect the Explication that the Author of the Homilies ascrib'd to Origen has given in Diversos Homil. 2. St. Paul says he calls the fulness of the Godhead those mystick Senses or the truth of those legal Shadows which dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ that is to say truly and really because that he is the Fountain and Fulness of Grace the truth of the antient Symbols and the accomplishment of Prophetick Visions But according to the Fathers Jesus Christ was sill'd with this Prophetick Spirit not only when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a Dove and that God made him a Prophet but especially when he was conceived by the Power of the Highest and he was as I may say begotten a Prophet that is to say when by virtue of his Generation his Body was formed for the Office of a Prophet And 't is chiefly this last Consideration that is urg'd against the Josephites because this Privilege of his Birth makes us to regard him not only as a Man who was a Prophet but as a Prophet who was also the Son of God But to return to the Passage from Theophilus if it be read thruout one shall find a fine Allegory upon the Word and the Holy Spirit which he calls the Wisdom of God Sometimes he considers 'em as two Divine Emanations proceeding from the Bowels of God and which God us'd as his two Hands or two Ministers by whom he created the World And sometimes he makes 'em but one Operation and so both are the Spirit and the Word the Wisdom and the Power of God c. Why so If not because that this Spirit takes divers Names either for the diversity of its Prolation or for its different Operations For the Word is the Spirit or Breath prolated with a Sound and a Voice and the Spirit is a Word brought forth tacitely and in silence the one with the other without sound One acts inwardly in a hidden and secret manner and the other outwardly and openly 'T is thus the Fathers speak In my opinion 't is idle to look for any exactness in these sort of allegorical Discourses which are loose and where the Fancy taking its swing drives on in full Career Irendus one of those Fathers who was obliged to urge the miraculous Conception of our Saviour against the Epionites confounded the Holy Ghost with the Word These Hereticks would not own says Ireraeus lib. 5. cap. 1. the Vnion of God with Man Why Because says he they believed the Lord Jesus to be a mere Man How a mere Man Because they believed him to be the Son of Joseph and Mary like other Men and not of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost What says the Holy Father to this He laments that they would not consider how in the first Creation the Breath of God uniting it self to the Body of Adam animated the Man and made him a reasonable Creature So in the New Creation the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God being united to the old Substance of Adam hath form'd a living and perfect Man who contains in himself the perfect Father Dr. Bull in his Judic Eccles p. 10. having cited this Passage takes no notice of these words who contains in himself the perfect Father it may be because Irenaeus seems to say that 't was the Father who was incarnate or as 't is more probable because these Words expresly demonstrate that by the Word Irenaeus understood nothing but the very Power of God The living Man of whom he speaks containing in himself the perfect Father only because he was filled with God's Spirit and God's Word which were united to the Man But whatever he himself thought this is a truth that one perceives at first in reading the Text of Irenaeus 'T is at least most evident that he confounds the Spirit of God with the Word of the Father as one and the same Power which formed the New Adam and that he opposes it to the Divine Breath and Spirit of God which animated the first Adam His only aim being to oppose the Ebionites who denied that the Spirit of God interven'd in the Conception of Jesus Christ His only concern is also to establish firmly this miraculous Conception and to make 'em regard Jesus Christ as the most perfect Man whom the Father who is perfect had miraculously begotten by his Word and by his Spirit in the same manner as by the means of his Almighty Word he animated the first Man with the Breath of Life To make Irenaeus his Conception of the Word the same with the Moderns is to see and not perceive In short by reading his Text alone one shall be convinced that in his stating the Divinity of Jesus Christ he goes no farther than his miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost He not only confounds the Word with the Spirit but calls the Word the Descent of the Holy Spirit into the Womb of Mary He calls it I say the Union and Mixture of God with Man He says the Father wrought at the Incarnation of his Son or at the new Generation with the same Hands excuse his Phrase as he did at the Generation of the Old Adam If we ask him what he means by Hands in this place he tells you in his 4th Book 37 Chap. that he understands thereby the Word of God his Son his Wisdom and his Spirit He means that powerful Command which God us'd in the Creation of things which is called his Spirit forasmuch as it is in God and is in a manner his Soul and which is also call'd his Word and his Son in regard that it came from his Mouth to form the Creation it was in a manner begotten That is to say by the same manner of speaking that the Wisdom and the Power of God are called his Hands by the same they are called his Son his Word
Divine Persons nor by consequence the Persons themselves Be it as it will the Doctor will find it hard enough to apply his Solution to all the Arguments I am about to mention And if he can do it 't will be no more difficult for him to find the Divinity of J. C. in all the Passages of the Gospel where mention is made of the Holy Ghost I hope also that at last he 'l say that when J. C. promis'd his Holy Spirit to his Apostles he promis'd them his Divine Nature But I must beg my Reader 's Patience a little longer to see what Answer the Doctor will make against the last Authority I am going to alledg And that 's a Letter of the Council of Sardis in the second Book of Theodoret's Hist Eccles The Fathers there drew a Creed in three very distinct Articles the first concerning the Father the second the Son and third Article the Holy Ghost In the last which is so expresly distinguished from that of the Son they speak thus of the Incarnation by the Holy Ghost We believe also there is a Holy Spirit or Paraclet which the Lord promis'd and sent He did not suffer but the Man whom he assumed or took from the Virgin Mary he suffer'd because he was capable of it whereas God is immortal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Is passus non est Where one sees the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Neuter Now of this Spirit the Fathers say he cannot suffer but 't was Man whom he put on and took from the Virgin that did suffer This they speak I say of the Paraclet whom they confess after the Father and the Son and not of the Divine Nature of J. C. A Passage express and formal which clearly proves these Doctors understood nothing else by the Holy Ghost but that Power of God whereof the Word is the Manifestation and the Operation confounding the Spirit with the Word and very distinctly assuring us that the Paraclet was incarnate Is the Paraclet the Divine Nature of J. C. or the second Person of the Trinity Here we 'll wait the Doctor 's Answer Valesius not bearing with this Incongruity in the Council had the Boldness to corrupt this Passage in his Version by foisting in the word Christ for thus he has translated it He did not suffer but the Man whom Christ put on The Word Christ is not in the Text which intirely relates to the Holy Ghost or Paraclet In short that Word ruines the whole sense of the Period and strangely confounds all this third Article which belongs only to the Holy Ghost and is distinct from that concerning J. C. Both Translators and Copists are guilty of Falsification in this particular Give me leave to affirm one thing and that is that the Antients have often distinguished the Holy Spirit from the Power of the Highest whereof he is speaking in the same Text calling the latter the Word of God the Son of God and saying only of the former that he overshadowed the Virgin Now even this shews that by the Word they understood nothing but the Power and the Operation of the Holy Spirit which is the same thing with the Power and Operation of the Highest The Holy Spirit signifying the Substance and the Power of the Highest signifying the Operation it follows that the Word which is the Power of the Highest according to the Fathers is not otherwise distinguished from the Holy Spirit than as the Operation is distinguished from its Subject We may conclude therefore from Proofs so very evident that the Antients who have deified J. C. had no other ground for their Theology but the Birth of J. C. of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost that by the Word and the Son of God they always understood this miraculous Operation and that they never advanced any higher in their Discourses towards that which is called an eternal Generation CHAP. XII An Account of the Foundation of the Allegorical Theology of the Fathers concerning the Word and the Holy Spirit I Dare assure my Reader that I can shew him the very Foundation of this Allegorical Theology 'T is known that the Fathers imitated the Gnosticks in many things and particularly in the way of Allegory and Contemplation But 't was Mark the Valentinian as we are inform'd by Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 12. who was the Author of the Allegorical Exposition on the Birth of J. C. that is the first who elevated it to a sense of Contemplation and Mystery He makes a Quaternity of the Man and the Church which are the first Pair and of the Word and Life which are the second Pair But what sort of Theology does he couch under this Enigma or Allegory Why nothing less than the wonderful Conception of J. C. The Man says he is the Power of the Highest because that acted instead of the Man The Church is the Holy Virgin because she held the place of the Church The Angel Gabriel was instead of the Word and the Holy Spirit instead of Life Nothing can better convince us of the Allegory us'd by the Valentinians than this Passage in which the Angel is the Word and the Spirit is the Life the Power of the Highest is instead of the Man and the Virgin is instead of the Church I might also have produc'd this Passage for a Proof when I was arguing this Point but I have reserv'd it on purpose for this place to shew that the whole Mystery of the Word reduces it self to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour upon which both the Hereticks and the Orthodox have equally allegorized each taking his Flight as his Contemplation led him on And this is that famous Theology so much extolled by the Fathers I know most of them being entangled with their Platonism have mightily embroiled the first and antient Ideas of this matter But I know also that before they came to make two Hypostases of the Word and the Holy Spirit they were terribly perplexed about the latter and could not tell what to do Hence it was without doubt that they so long delayed the deifying of the Holy Ghost The Council of Nice has not at all touched upon its Divinity So far were they from it and the Holy Ghost made so small a Figure at that time that some Fathers of the Council made no difficulty to give its place to the Blessed Virgin by making her the third Person in the Trinity Of which we are informed by Elmacinus and Patricides in Hotting Orient Hist lib. 2. p. 227. The Council of Constantinople durst not speak openly upon the point And in S. Basil's time there was a little Shiness in calling the Holy Ghost directly and formally God 'T is worth our regard what Petavius de Trinit lib. 2. c. 7. § 2. says hereupon The Catholic Church says he accommodating it self for prudential Reasons to human Frailty came not to the full Profession of some
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
the perfect Generation i. e. the real and actual Generation Mons Du Pin Bibl. Tom. 1. at the Word Theophilus saith That the Fathers affirm the Logos to be Eternal and that it was in God from all Eternity as his Counsel his Wisdom and his Word But they say the same Word which was in God did after some manner come out of God when God resolved to ereate the World because he then began to make use of that Word in order to act outwardly This is what they term to be the Procession Prolation and even the Generation of the Word This hinders not indeed the Word 's having been from all Eternity nor its eternal Generation of the Father as we conceive the manner thereof but this is not what they call Generation The same Author owns in his Notes upon the Article of Tertullian that this Father means not Generation to be the eternal Procession of the Son but only a certain Prolation or outward Emission conceiv'd by him to have been at the Creation of the World because God both created and governs it by the Word He saith further we need not wonder that he should tell us in his Book against Hermogenes that there was a time when the Father was not Father and that the Son began to be Son because he believ'd that the Son had neither that Quality nor Name but only when the Word was created Mons Jurieu expresseth himself as fully in his sixth Pastoral Letter of the third Year attributing this Sentiment to all the Antenicene Fathers viz. that the Word had not its perfect Birth before the World's beginning i.e. according to Mr. Jurieu the Word is not eternal as it is a Son but only was hid in the Bosom of his Word as Wisdom and that he was as it were produc'd and became a distinct Person from that of the Father a little before the Creation You must be wilfully blind if you perceive not from what source this Theology of the Word doth spring As it is certain that the Heathens ever philosophiz'd of their Gods but relatively to the Origin of this Universe and have always join'd Theogony with their Cosmogony So likewise these Platonizing Christians followed the Steps of this Pagan Philosophy their Creation of the World always accompanying the Prolation of the Word or the Generation of the Son This is noted by the same Mons Jurieu in the aforemention'd Passage when he speaks of Athenagoras and Tertullian They believed saith he that the Wisdom which was not the Son of God at first but only in a Bud or Seed having spread it self over the Chaos did not only generate the Creatures but did also as it were by the same Effusion give a perfect existence to the Word or to the second Person of the Deity This indeed may be said to philosophize like Heathens May it not be said that the Wisdom and the Chaos were the Father and Mother whose Children are the Word and the Creatures But this is not all they bring them in by Couples like the Aeons of Valentine so true it is that the Christians would not divide what the Philosophers and Poets had united so closely viz. Theogony and Cosmogony I return to Dr. Bull praying him to consider whether a real Generation and properly so called can be expressed better than by saying that it is perfect that it is in Act that it gave a perfect Existence to the Word that it made the Word a Person distinct from the Father and in short that it render'd the Father to be properly a Father and the Son properly a Son This the Fathers say of the second Generation which they consider as the only Generation and Birth of the Son On the contrary can an improper and Metaphoric Generation be expressed berter than by saying that the Son existed only in Idea potentrally in a Bud in its Seed in the Heart in the Womb and the Bowels of God For thus the Fathers talk of the first Generation or to express it better of the first Existence of the Son of God which they scarce reckon to be a Generation For can you for example-sake call the Metaphoric Existence of Levi in the Loins of his Father when he was decimated in Abraham a Generation But the Fathers think thus of the first Existence whilst they say that the Son existed then only in a Bud or Seed and not as Mons Jurieu pretends Tabl. du Socin Let. 6. Art 3. that he was contain'd in the Bosom of the Father as a Child is in its Mother's Womb as if the Word had need to form it self by degrees in the Bowels of the Father and wait its time to wit that of the Creation of the World which should likewise happen to be that of its Delivery If Mr. Jurieu had understood the Platonic Philosophy he had taken care to avoid such a ridiculens Thought CHAP. XIV The immediate Generation of the Word THE antient Doctors followed Plato and their meaning was that the Divine Understanding is the Principle and Bud where the Son existed from Eternity as to his Essence all Essences being eternal in this respect according to the Platonists because they are the Emanations of the Substance of God but particularly all generated Spirits hence Homousianism takes its rise The Son came forth out of this first source of all Essences being the chiefest of them in God's Design He came forth in Time as to his Person to be the first Minister of the Father in the Creation of this Universe This distinguisheth him from all the Creatures the Birth of which is less noble as not being immediate Hereupon if you had asked them the reason why the Word alone amongst all the generated Spirits should be called the Son or the only Son they could not have alledged any other than the Privilege of being generated immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father whereas the other Spirits were so by the means of a second God and Minister The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions speaks thus Lib. 8. cap. 12. The Father who alone is above all Generation and Beginning having created all things by his only Son has immediately generated without any Intermedium that his only Son by his Will by his Power and Goodness He generated him before all the Aeons making use of him afterwards to create even the Aeons the Cherubims and Seraphims c. According to him the Angels were form'd by the Son but the Son was generated only by the Will and the immediate Power of God which is his Prerogative You need not doubt that Eusebius intended the same thing when he calls J. C. de Laud. Constan cap. 1. the most antient of all the Aeons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Fathers thought the same whenever they made use of these Words of St. John In the beginning was the Word for they did not mean that by the Beginning Eternity ought to be understood which this Word cannot denote as Maldonat confesseth
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
Men because if I may say so these Dispensations were the Figures of the great Oeconomy of J. C. or rather of God the Father manifesting himself in the Flesh of his Son Therefore Irenaeus calls it the Dispensation which was from the Beginning You may see what Vossius saith in his Notes concerning these Allegories of Barnabas and the other Fathers It is known by all saith he how these first Christians interpreted the Scriptures after a mystic and superstitious manner I was like to say childish and foolish Cotelier saith almost the same and shews their Absurdities But take this along with you that these dull Allegories did not by far so much Mischief as that Christianity in Masquerade which some other Fathers borrowed from Plato It is of these you may more justly say than of the Allegorists according to one of our Criticks that the Day these good Fathers were writing so many philosophic Visions they voided a Purge Purgamentum aliquod cacasse Let us now come to Hermas who is as well stored with Visions and Parables as Barnabas At least his Method is the same In his Parable or Similitude the 9th § 12. he saith That the Rock is the Son of God now the Rock is of old because the Son of God is more antient than any Creature inasmuch as he assisted in the Council of his Father in order to form the Creature All this is said in a mystic and an allegoric sense to explain that the Father did all in regard to his Son and the new Creation The Author having said as much in his first Vision § 4. concerning the Church for asking of the Angel Why the Church of God is an old Woman the Angel answers because she was the first thing that was created and that it was by reason of her the World was made It is likely in the Greek it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translator rendered not per illam but propter illam You see then that this Father saith no more of J. C. than he doth of the Church and that these Words antiquior omni Creatura mean the same thing with anus prima omnium creata which are true only in a mystic sense but false in the Letter Consequently then J. C. is from the Beginning in the same sense that the Church is so I mean in the Decree and Design of God which the Author expresseth by his being in the Council of the Father which he borrowed manifestly from the Author of the Book of Wisdom I shall now produce a remarkable Instance of the Alteration that ensued as to the Tenent it self notwithstanding the Terms remained the same You see that Hermas saith here the Son of God is more antient than any Creature and that he speaks so allegorically Let us get over one Age or two and you shall see Origen making use of the same Expression but in an Arian sense The Holy Scriptures saith he Lib. 5. contra Cels discover the Son of God to us as the most antient of all the Creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means that he was created a little before the World but let us return to our Subject Justin Martyr who first taught the Pre-existence of the Word imitating the Notion of Hermas did teach the Pre-existence of Christians no less than that of Christ himself whilst Apol. 2. he saith That all those who were Partakers of the Word or Reason as well Greeks as Barbarians were Christians and consequently Christians did not commence yesterday or to day but were always and every where a principio saith he from the beginning attributing to them the very Prerogative of the Word it self These good Men turn'd themselves every way to ward off the Reâ—roach of Novelty wherewith Christianity was charged In like manner Eusehius endeavouring to prove that the Christian Religion was not new maintains that the Patriarchs profest it and that it was instituted from the beginning Hist Eccles Lib. c. 4. Thus much he cannot advance but in a mystic sense as he observes it himself because all those who acted justly and served that God who is above all were Christians Consequently then Christ could not converse otherwise with them but in the same manner as they professed Christianity which cannot be true but by way of Analogy and Accommodation Christ then pre-existed as the Christian Religion and Christians did pre-exist Let us return to Hermas It is manifest that he allegoriz'd even by his entituling his third Book where he speaks of the Pre-existence of J. C. Similitudes or Parables which carry on throughout spiritual and mystic senses as is evident by Similitude 5. where he explains the Parable of the Father of a Family in a theological manner in relation to the Father the Holy Ghost and the Son The Father in the Plan of his Allegory is the Landlord the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Houshold and he who out of Allegory is called the Son is but a Servant in the Allegory The Landlord saith he is the same who created all things the Son is the Holy Ghost and the Son of God is the Servant He goes on and adds a little after The Holy Ghost insinuated himself into the Body wherein God was to dwell and this Body whereinto the Holy Ghost did insinuate himself having served the Holy Ghost and having been faithful to him always did obtain the Approbation of God by his Labours and Obedience By the Holy Ghost cannot be meant here the second Person which is called the Divine Nature of J. C. as Dr. Bull pretends for who sees not that Hermas speaks here of that Spirit of Sanctification which prepared the Body of J. C. for Prophecy and consecrated it for a Temple for God to dwell in And seeing this Idea of the Holy Spirit 's being infus'd into the Body of J. C. is so conformable to what the Holy Scriptures deliver concerning it you must be very extravagant if you think that Hermas differed from it Besides what could he mean if his sense were the same with that Dr. Bull attributes to him Would he introduce two Sons of God so opposite one to the other The one who serves and obeys and the other who is served and obeyed and what is yet more strange two Sons of God in the self-same Person of J. C. our Lord. The Son saith Hermas is the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is the Servant Now if the Divine Nature of J. C. be denoted by the Spirit and that the Servant signifies the Human Nature you will have two Sons according to the very Letter Thus the Orthodox embroil all things to fish for Mysteries in Troubled Water whereas nothing is more clear than the meaning of Hermas He allegorizeth and would say By him whom the Parable calls the Son I mean nothing else but the Holy Spirit and by him whom the Parable calls a Servant I mean J. C. our Lord who out of the Parable is the proper Son of
learnt Theology of the Prophets perhaps of the Egyptian Prophets did often philosophize according to the hidden Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having made this general Observation I pass to somewhat more particular A great noise has been made in the World of the Opinion of Pythagoras concerning the Transmigration of Souls The literal Sense which has been given to this Opinion has been almost generally receiv'd and there have been but few Persons who perceiv'd that it only run on a mere Allegory thro want of duly reflecting on the Genius of antient Philosophy Coelius Secundus Curio was one of those who saw thro the Mystery of it Aranei p. 42 c. As to the Opinion of Pythagoras says he I can never persuade my self that that Learned Philosopher ever came to such a degree of Absurdity as to believe that the Souls of Men passed out of one Body into another Let us not doubt but that he thereby intended to signify the Change whereunto Matter is subject making it continually pass from one form to another a Metamorphosis which that Philosopher call'd Regeneration Palingenesiam or a Metempsychosis which according to him is nothing but the Transmigration of the Spirit infus'd in Matter and with it transmitted into all the several Forms which it puts on 'T was the misunderstanding of this Revolution of Souls which made some Hereticks say that Adam's Soul had pass'd into Jesus Christ in misapplying some Texts of Scripture where Christ is called the second Adam and which suppose a kind of Analogy between the one and the other 'T is by a like Mistake that some others held that the Soul of Elias had passed into the Body of John Baptist grounding themselves on these Words that John came in the Spirit and Power of Elias and not comprehending that those Words refer to the Conformity of Zeal and Courage between those two Prophets But when once the right understanding of a mere Figure in Speech comes to be lost and the literal Sense prevails into what Extravagances are we not capable of falling Witness the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation which owes its birth to the Ignorance of an Allegory a little strain'd Again Have not some fallen into a prodigious Error by literally taking that Expression of the Apostle where he says that Melchisedec was without Father without Mother and without Descent Have not Men infer'd from those Words that Melchisedec was not of the Posterity of Adam as other Men are Some having suppos'd him a Celestial Man consubstantial with the eternal Son of God others that he was an Angel others the Holy Ghost others the Son of God himself and lastly others a Power superior to the Son of God from which the Son of God had receiv'd his everlasting High-Priesthood I am asham'd for Christians when I think with what Superstition they consecrate all their Fancies and make as many Mysteries of them In short I might venture to affirm that the Fable of Simon the Magician's flying in the Air carry'd by Devils and struck down by St. Peter is no more than a mere Allegory of St. Peter's Victory over Simon when disputing together concerning the Unity of God the Apostle put that Heretick to silence as the Author of the Constitutions speaks Lib. 6. c. 8. That pompous Description signifying nothing more than that the Evangelical Simplicity concerning the Unity of God prevail'd and triumph'd over the too swelling Philosophy of Simon who held divers Persons in one God But to proceed Another fam'd Doctrine of Antiquity is that of the Pre-existence of Souls Somebody explaining those Words of Moses that the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men turn'd that Text into an Allegory and interpreted it of Souls delighting in being united to Human Bodies But because he expressing himself theologically called the Sons of God Angels that Word deceived many Platonist Fathers who took it literally And thence came that so absurd yet at the same time so generally receiv'd Opinion that the Angels had Commerce with Women and that from those monstrous Copulations proceeded Giants Origen in his 50th Book against Celsus teacheth us the Mystery of that Allegorical Copulation Some body says he meaning Philo de Gigant has apply'd that Text of Moses to incorporeal Souls which he metaphorically calls the Daughters of Men. It may be the other Fathers were nor ignorant of this spiritual Sense but they follow'd their manner of philosophizing which was to speak always in such terms as kept the Allegory conceal'd in order to give the more mysterious Air to what they said They always suppos'd that the Wits of the first rank for whom they wrote knew the Secret of it and as to the Vulgar their aim was to conceal it from them After what has been said how shall we know but that they affected the giving an appearance of a real and literal Doctrine to all they have deliver'd to us concerning the Word And whether they have not designedly conceal'd from us the Secret of the Allegory that they might by that majestick Out side draw the more admiration and respect from the common People who love what 's wondrous The Distinctions which Origen so often makes between intelligible and sensible between Contemplation and Faith between the Word-God which is the Object of seraphick Minds and the incarnate and crucified Word the Object of vulgar Minds I say these Distinctions and some others of like nature scarce leave room to doubt of it And indeed he may be confident of it who considers what the same Origen says ubi supra By the second God says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we mean no other than a Power which comprehends all other Powers a Word or Reason which contains all other Reasons and we say that that Reason is particularly united to the Soul of Jesus Christ because that only is capable of receiving the Word it self Wisdom it self Justice it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And elsewhere he teaches us That the Word was join'd to the Soul of Jesus Christ even before the Incarnation that Soul having merited to be join'd to it ib. l. 4. That so that Soul or that Word for he uses those two Words indifferently did for our sakes descend on Earth there to suffer Death for us Mortals Again Comment in Joan. Tom. 20. That this Soul which was before in God in its Perfection and Fulness was by God sent into the Womb of Mary there to take a Body other less perfect Souls not having had the same Honour If to this be added his affirming in the 1st and 2d Tome on the same Gospel That 't is only the uttered Word which according to him can be no other than the Soul of Jesus Christ That I say only this Word and not the Word-God was incarnate it cannot be doubted but that by this Soul sent descended and incarnate he means the same thing which he and others say when they speak of a Word sent descended and
incarnate And what can this Reason be which it merited and which was united to it When the Veil of Allegory is taken off it can be no other than that high Contemplation whereof the Soul of Jesus Christ had by its pre-existent Obedience render'd it self capable or than that degree of Prophecy and that Spirit without measure wherewith God had honoured it and which made it Partaker of the Divine Nature or lastly the very Office of Word or of Interpreter of God whereof God had judged it worthy as the most perfect and noblest of the Spirits which he had decreed to declare his Mind Celsus says he ibid. lib. 7. will not own that he who suffer'd Death can be worthy of the second Honours next to the Supreme God as well because of the Powers he had acquir'd in Heaven as because of those he had acquir'd on Earth Supposing as you see that Jesus Christ had merited in Heaven before he came to merit on our Earth he was very far from believing him to be the most High God Wherefore Origen having said of the Word that it was in God that it came from God that it was made Flesh and affirming the same of the Soul of J. C. this Conformity yields just reason to suspect that the Doctrine of the Word is nothing but the Soul of Jesus Christ theologiz'd whereon they discours'd Allegorically That 's in a manner prov'd by the Hypothesis of the Arians who believ'd that the Word was to Jesus Christ instead of a Soul and consequently by the Word understood only the Soul of Jesus Christ created before all Ages An Hypothesis renew'd in our time by John Turner who has given it a new turn for he maintains That the Word is nothing else but the Soul of Jesus Christ created indeed but eternally united to the Substance of God and by that Union participating all his Perfections A Discourse concerning the Messiah Ep. Dedic p. 154. The same is infer'd from the Use which has been made of some Texts of Scripture as for example these I came from the Father O Father glorify me with the Glory which I had with thee c. Who being in the Form of God c. Our Divines interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Word but Origen and Dr. Rust in his Book intitul'd Origen and his chief Opinions interpret them of the Pre-existence of the Soul of Jesus Christ Whence comes this Confusion of Ideas The reason of it is easily given The former of these Interpretations is mysterious and allegorical and the latter literal So we may conclude that the Fathers allegoriz'd on the pre-existent Soul of Jesus Christ loving our Nature and becoming incarnate for our Salvation which they in their allegorical Stile call'd the Word or the Son of God And consequently those who take this last Allegory in the literal Sense and understand it of a Divine Person united to our Flesh are not less ridioulous than they who stumbling at the Letter of the first Allegory really believ'd that Angels had mix'd themselves with mortal Women The Text for the first Hypothesis that the Sons of God were married to the Daughters of Men serves as well as that for the second I have begotten thee before the Morning This Pre-existence of Souls and particularly of that of Jesus Christ has been very antient in the Church We find it plainly enough express'd in the second letter attributed to Clemens Romanus C. 10. These are his Words As you have been call'd dwelling in the Flesh so you will come in the Flesh Jesus Christ the Lord who sav'd us being the first Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made Flesh and so called us 〈◊〉 likewise we shall receive the Recompence in the Flesh This Passage supposes the Pre-existence of our Souls as well as that of the Soul of Jesus Christ For he compares our Spirits existing in the Flesh to that first Spirit which was made Flesh to call us He calls Jesus Christ the first of all Spirits whether Souls or Angels because God begat him first a little before he undertook the Creation of the World and afterwards imploy'd him to create the other Spirits according to the Doctrine of Lactantius Instit lib. 4. c. 6. who further teaches us ibid. c. 1.2 That this Holy Spirit descending from Heaven chose the Womb of a Virgin to enter into And the better to carry on the Comparison which he makes of that Spirit to all incarnate Spirits he shews that he was rais'd to the Recompence only by his faithful Obedience and Vertue ibid. cap. 14. His Words are remarkable God says he having sent his Son to Men He hath shewn his Faithfulness in teaching that there is but one God and that he only is to be worship'd and he never call'd himself God because he would have violated his Truth if being sent to take away from the World the Plurality of Gods and to establish the Unity of God he had introduc'd more than one God That had not been preaching One God nor working for the Interest of him who sent him but for his own and it would have been dividing himself from the Father whom he came to glorify Then by his having been thus faithful and in the Design of discharging his Commission not attributing any thing to himself he has receiv'd the Dignity of everlasting High Priest the Honour of Supreme King the Power of Judg and the Name of God By the way these Words of this Father are a curious Paraphrase on those of St. Paul Phil. 2.6 c. Who being in the Form of God did not attribute to himself c. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and hath given him a Name which is above every Name c. Let us here remember a distinction of the Fathers which has been mention'd already and wherein the Footsteps of antient Allegory visibly appear The Fathers distinguish'd two kinds of Generation of the Word the one eternal and internal and the other external which began with the World and the only one which they properly call Generation Dr. Bull acknowledgeth this distinction only he pretends but without reason that 〈◊〉 the latter which is metaphorical Granting him his desire 't is the same thing with respect to the Question now treated of For it remains nevertheless true that they allegoriz'd on one of the Generations of the Word be it which it will and that 's all I need Let them as long as they please say that the Fathers spake of a Generation of the Word which was proper and literal I shall answer Yes and that 's what I call gross Platonism which has made them philosophize so absurdly But by their own confession the same Fathers have spoken of another Generation of the Word which is metaphorical and allegorical and that 's what I call their refin'd Platonism the fair Remains of sound Philosophy which betrays them and manifestly discovers the absurdity of the other part of their System whereon they
and of Spirit begotten and unbegotten made a God in the Flesh the true Life in Death born of Mary and of God This Father arguing against the Josephites does not oppose to their Error the eternal Generation of the Son of God but his Birth of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit I would say he does not speak of a God incarnate but of a Man who was made God in the Flesh that is to say who was born a God or made a God by his Birth because he was born of God and of the Virgin Mary In this Sense Ignatius assures us that our Physician is partly Flesh and partly Spirit since by his wonderful Conception he partook equally of the fleshly or Human and of the Spiritual and Divine Nature He adds this Physician is begotten and unbegotten since he was begotten of a Woman like other Men and at the same time unbegotten having no Man for his Father Lastly he says that this Physician was born of the Virgin Mary and of God which explains all the rest for 't is as much as to say that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the Power of the Spirit of God and not by her Intercourse with Joseph This word God as you may see being there manifestly oppos'd to Man or to Joseph Jesus Christ our God as Ignatius further says in the same Epistle was conceived of the Virgin Mary according to the Divine Dispensation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in truth of the Seed of David but by the intervention of the Holy Spirit Where one sees the same Antithesis continued which we observ'd in the foregoing Passage that is between God and Mary and between the Seed of David and the Power of the Spirit The true Oeconomy according to Ignatius is not the Incarnation of the Supreme God but the miraculous Conception of the Messiah who is both God and Man by his Birth of a Woman by the Power of God This is a Physician who was made God in the Flesh being born of the Virgin Mary and of God of David and of the Holy Spirit This is the true Divine Dispensation this is the great Mystery of the Christians The same Author in his Epistle to the Church of Smirna presents us with another Passage sutable to this occasion For thus he speaks of Jesus Christ That he was truly of the Race of David or the Son of David according to the Flesh but the Son of God according to the Will and Power of God in that he was truly born of a Virgin Monsieur Daillé having mark'd out this Passage of Ignatius as Heretical since he makes the Generation of the Son to depend on the Will and Power of the Father Bp Pearson gives this account of it in his Vindic. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 9. That 't is clear this Father does not speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son but of his Incarnation which as the World owns was by the Will and Power of God For which reason adds Pearson the Interpolator having a mind to pervert these Words by applying 'em to the Divine Nature he was forc'd to change their Order 'T is sufficient that this Learned Person affirms that in this Passage there 's nothing of an eternal Generation and that Ignatius speaks not but of Jesus Christ in allusion to the Words of the Angel The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee c. Wherefore that which c. shall be called the Son of God 'T is enough that he owns this Conception was so wonderful as to intitle Jesus Christ to the Name and Dignity of the Son of God As for the word Incarnation which Ignatius does not use we 'll excuse it in Pearson 't is a Term of art unknown to the good Father and signifies in the Platonizing Divinity that the Supreme God was made Man And if it be certain that Ignatius did not speak in this Passage but of the miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ can it be doubted whether he discours'd upon that same Subject and by no means on the eternal Generation in the two other Passages I am about to cite and which are very like to this here In the mean time Dr. Bull has the rashness to produce them for a Proof of that which he calls the two Natures of our Saviour that is that of a Supreme God and that of a Man like one of us in his Judic Eccles p. 5 seq Who would not wonder at the Artifice of Divines who have the Skill to pervert these Passages to serve their Notion of the Eternal-Generation We can furthermore shew you the Footsteps of this plain antient Divinity in other of the Fathers who Platonize more than Ignatius as in Justin and Irenaeus But we shall have another opportunity of examining the Theology of those two Fathers at present the Passage in Ignatius will suffice whereby to judg of the rest The only Reflection that remains is that Ignatius having so often distinguish'd between the Son born of God and of Mary and the Son born of David and the Holy Spirit 't is upon this Foundation that the distinction of the two Natures in Christ is founded in the true sense of it or if you please his twofold Filiation the one Divine the other Human. He is the Son of God says the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox Quest 66. in that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Son of Joseph in that he was born of Joseph's Wife 'T is in this the Mystery consists He was born of Joseph's Wife this is but a legal Filiation with regard to Joseph and he was born of the Spirit of God this is a proper and natural Filiation with respect to God So that in this last respect it may be said that he is truly Light of Light and God of God I have already said it and I 'll repeat it again The Fathers thought that the Holy Spirit which overshadowed the Virgin Mary in some sort united it self to the Flesh of Jesus Christ so as never to be separated from it and 't is upon this perpetual Inhabitation that they have philosophized in their manner upon the two Natures of our Saviour Grotius aim'd at this Theology in one of his Notes upon Colos 1.19 The Plenitude of Divine Vertues says he dwelt in Jesus Christ that is to say 't was perpetually and inseparably united and not by intervals as in the Prophets This is what 's called the Hypostatick Vnion This in effect is the personal Union of the Divine with the Human Nature even this Shekinah or this perpetual Inhabitation of the Spirit of God in Jesus Christ To go farther in quest of other Mysteries betrays a Vanity of Mind The Fathers compriz'd all in what I have said and upon it they built those profound Speculations with which their Books are fill'd If at some times they went farther and spoke of the Word in a manner not agreeable with the ground I have laid down 't is
be begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin is no such glorious Privilege for the Messias that it does not give him any Preheminence above some other Men who have been miraculously begotten and by the immediate Power of God That in a word it answers not that great Idea which those Words the only Son of God naturally raise in our Minds I have already answered this Objection with a Passage of Bartholomew of Edessa I could further say that according to this way of reasoning of the Doctor 's J.C. is no longer by his Hypothesis the only Son of God if we take those Words as he does in their strictest sense because he has a Brother begotten of God as well as himself I mean the Holy Ghost He will clear himself of this when he can shew me what the difference is between Generation and Procession that is to say between Emanation and Emanation I mean such a difference that makes the one a Son and the other not this is what we expect from him He knows very well that this knotty difficulty put St. Austin hard to it This Father in his 5th Book 9. ch de Trin. puts this Question Whence is it that the third Person is not the Image of God as well as the second Why not his Word Why not his begotten Son He protests that 't is hard to give a reason why the Father did not beget one as well as t'other since as the Intellect begat its Wisdom by knowing it self it seems likely it should beget its Love by loving it self And at last finding himself too weak to master this difficulty he betakes himself to his usual Sophistry and makes you a rare Medley of Discourse wherein he understands not what he says himself After so great a Master what may we expect from Dr. Bull or rather who will not be surprized to hear his Objections 'T is not enough says he that God begets a Son of the Substance of a Woman by his own Power without the Intervention of a Man 'T is not enough that this Generation is without Example This extraordinary Son if he be not the Supreme God he is not therefore the Son of God 'T is not enough that God has given us an extraordinary Man for the Messias If he be not the Supreme God he cannot be the Messias Wonderful What! if God had thought fit to send none other than such a Man a second Adam not a jot more the Son of God than the first Adam was shall this be no Messias And would this be done upon a Principle of Religion Should this Messias be thought unworthy of us because he does not answer the Idea and the Expectation of the Doctor I am astonish'd when I consider the extravagant Hypothesis of our Trinitarians God in their opinion will not make good his illustrious Promises his Word given to Abraham and his Seed and his Oath sworn to David that he would raise him up a Son to reign upon his Throne God I say will do nothing that will answer the Greatness of his Promise and the Expectation of the Patriarchs if the Blessed Seed if the King so often promis'd and so long expected if the Messias who is so glorious be not the supreme God himself Nothing is magnificent according to these Gentlemen if it be not extravagant God may do well in raising a miraculous Seed to Abraham from the Womb of a Virgin And he may do well in raising up to David a King and a Prophet drench'd with the Fulness of his Spirit and reigning at the Right Hand of his Majesty All this has nothing great in it this will not come up to their System of the Messias nor deserve place in their sublime Theology if the supreme God himself be not incarnate and suffers not himself to be crucified to merit by his Sufferings the same Glory he voluntarily abandon'd This is what they call a glorious Gospel not that plain simple Religion which presents you with a Man ascending into Heaven but that which without Machines or Hocus Pocus brings the supreme God down from Heaven Good God! What vain Imaginations are in the Heart of Man CHAP. IX The Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias c. IT is time to consider in the third place that the Theology of the Primitive Church went no farther than the miraculous Conception of the Messias Which appears from this that the Expression mere Man which she condemned as heretical was not oppos'd to an Eternal Generation but to Christ's being begotten by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin So that the Platonizing Christians themselves who have us'd it in this last sense have been as it were forced to do it thro Custom What remains of the antient Tradition obliging them to speak in that manner Yea the Force of the antient Tradition has made them to betray themselves as we are about to shew The Terms mere Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear at this day in our Minds a different Idea from that which was in the first Ages of the Church With us now it is supposed to exclude I know not what sort of a Generation of the Substance of God But with the Antients it was purely oppos'd to the miraculous Generation of the Substance of a Virgin We find at this day some Footsteps of the antient usage of these Words The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions lib. 6. c. 26. giving an account of the Opinion of the Ebionites says They hold J. C. to have been a mere Man by maintaining that he was not begotten any other way but by the conjugal Intercourse of Joseph and Mary There cannot be a better account than this of what the Antients meant by a mere Man A Man begotten by Joseph and not a Man who is not the supreme God Justin or the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox Quaest 66. expresses himself thus Who says he speaking of J. C. was begotten or conceived by the Holy Ghost the Son of God but being born of the Wife of Joseph was the Son of Joseph The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee c. Wherefore c. shall be called the Son of God It must be observed here 1. That Son of Joseph and Son of God are two Terms oppos'd J.C. is called the Son of Joseph as he was born of the Wife of Joseph and the Son of God as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost 2. That J. C. is called Son of God on the account of his being begotten by the Holy Ghost in a sense directly opposed to Son of Man that is to say in a sense of excellence which Dr. Bull is so bold as to deny 3. That the Text of St. Luke which Justin cites as a Proof demonstrates in some sort that the Antients did not at first ascribe any other Divinity to J. C. but that which was grounded upon his being conceived and born of a Virgin by the
and his Spirit And further to make it clearer that this Father always confounds the Holy Ghost with the Word I must observe that in the last Passage I am about to cite he applies to the Holy Ghost the same Words of Solomon which are ordinarily applied to the Son The Word says he who is the Son was always with the Father and because the Wisdom which is the Holy Ghost was also with God before the Creation it speaks thus by Solomon God hath founded the Earth by his Wisdom c. and again The Lord created me c. There is therefore but One God who hath made all things by his Wisdom and by his Word CHAP. XI A Continuation of the same Proofs that the Antients understood by the Word and the Holy Ghost one and the same thing BUT after all you will say Irenaeus makes an express distinction between the Word and the Spirit I answer Yes But David makes the same distinction too and from him I believe the Fathers borrowed theirs The Heavens says he were formed by the Word of the Lord and by the Breath of his Mouth By the way who will be so weak as to affirm that he did not mean by these two words the same Power of God as if the Word was not the Breath of his Mouth and the Breath of his Mouth the Word Can one forbear smiling when one sees our Divines put David in the number of the Trinitarians In fine Irenaeus extols the Generation of the son of God by the Operation of the Holy Ghost as infinitely more excellent than the Generation of the first Man which was by breathing Life into him or by the Divine Breath Irenaeus affirms it but Dr. Bull denies it maintaining that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God by virtue of his miraculous Conception in a manner more excellent than Adam was by virtue of his immediate Generation or Formation by God's own hand Let us suppose it as the Doctor would have it yet after all he must agree that this Holy Father carries the Parallel that he makes between the first and second Adam no further than their Generation which was equally extraordinary in both This appears in the 31st Chapter of his 3d Book If the first Adam says he had his Being from a Man it might be said with some shew of reason that 't is the same as to the second Adam and that Joseph was his Father But if it be true on the contrary that the first was form'd out of the Earth by the Word of God must not the same Word acting with the same Power as he did at the Formation of Adam carry a resemblance of the same Generation Let this Comparison be a little minded it contains this clearly that God did no more in the Generation of the second Adam in whom he would dwell than in that of the first Adam that Adam and Jesus Christ are the immediate Production of this Word Consequently there 's no more reason to infer the hypostatick Union of the Word with Jesus Christ than with Adam this Word being as you see nothing but the Power of God which having immediately formed the first Man did also form Jesus Christ after the same primitive manner of Generation All the difference is that God was pleas'd to dwell in the latter after an extraordinary manner Let 's see in the next place what Tertullian has to say He was a great Platonist but that Party does not always strictly observe the Rules of Platonism They have their lucid Intervals wherein some Remains of the antient Tradition drop from their Pens Whenever they philosophize according to the humour of that Faction they are to be suspected 't is the effect of their Prejudices but when they happen to speak to the disadvantage of their own Hypotheses what is it that could oblige them to it but the Power of Truth alone Tertullian therefore at the end of his Discourse against Praxeas sisting this matter of the Nature of the Word and the Holy Ghost to the bottom speaks of 'em as one and the same Power 'T is worth while to read the whole throughout but I shall content my self with this following Passage which is decisive and beyond dispute Contra Prax. cap. 26. The Spirit of God i. e. Holy Ghosi shall come upon thee c. By saying the Spirit of God altho the Spirit of God be God nevertheless he not calling it directly God he would have us understand a Part of the Whole which was to attend the Person of the Son and get him the Name that he has This is that Spirit of God which we call the Word also For as when St. John says the Word was made Flesh by the term Word we understand the Spirit so in this Passage we understand the Word under the Name of the Spirit since the Spirit is the Substance of the Word and the Word the Operation of the Spirit and these two are but one For if the Spirit be not the Word and the Word be not the Spirit 't will follow that he of whom St. John says that he was made Flesh will not be the same with him of whom the Angel says that he shall be made Flesh Let us weigh well all these Words By the Spirit Tertullian understands nothing but a Portion of the whole a Beam of the Substance of God as he expresses himself elsewhere because otherwise it would follow according to Praxeas that the Father himself was incarnate He will have it that this Portion makes the Son what he is that is the Son of God He confounds the Spirit with the Word and will have St. Luke and St. John speak the same Language and that the first might have said the Word shall come upon thee and the latter the Holy Ghost was made Flesh since that by the term Holy Ghost the Word must be understood and by the term Word the Holy Ghost and that 't is not likely St. John would speak of one particular Spirit and the Angel of another And more than this he acquaints us what use we ought to make of these two Words which at the bottom signify but the same thing and that is we ought to call this Power Spirit when we would express its Substance and Word when we would express its Operation In short he decides our Question by saying that these two are but one and the same thing that is to say the same Power For the Word says he in his Rule of Faith de Praescript descended from the Spirit and the Power of God into the Womb of the Virgin What does this import viz. the Word descended from the Spirit and the Power of God if not this that the Word is nothing else but an Emanation a Manifestation of the Power which is internal and essential to God And 't is almost in the same sense that Marius Victorin contra Arium lib. 1. states a twofold Power of the Word that is to say a