this Council are lost and we know nothing of them but by what St. Athanasius * Vid. Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. §. 2. c. 1. §. 10 seq and some others extremely interessed to uphold this word have said in their Disputes against the Arians If we believe them the Fathers of the Council of Antioch said that the Father and the Son were not consubstantial in the same sence wherein we say that two pieces of Money made of the same Metal are consubstantial because that these pieces suppose a pre-existent Matter of which they have been form'd Whereas the Father and the Son do not suppose the like substance Paulus Samosatenus said that if the Son had not been made God we must suppose that he is of the same kind of Essence as that of the Father and that thus there must have been an anterior substance to the one and to the other of which they must have been form'd St. Athanasius assures us †In lib. de Syn. Arim. Seleu. Tom. 1. p. 919 seq that the term of Homoousios was condemn'd at Antioch in as much only as it might include the Idea of a Matter anterior to things which we call Coessentials These are the chief Heretical Opinions touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ which appear'd before the Council of Nice As for the Fathers which are respected as Orthodox they have not varied from the Expressions of the Platonists and as these have sometimes said that the Reason is different from the Supreme Being and sometimes that they are both one The Fathers have exprest themselves in the same terms The Platonists have said That the Father could not be without the Son nor the Son without the Father as the Light could not be without the Sun nor the Sun without Light And the Fathers have said the same thing Both one and the other have acknowledged that the Reason has existed before the World and that she has produced it and as Plato speaks in his Timaeus and Plotinus in his Enneades of the Generation of Reason as if the Good it self had produced it to create and govern the World So the Fathers have said that the Son hath proceeded in some manner from the Father before the Creation of the World to manifest himself to Men by his Production and that hence it is that the Scripture calls him the Son of God and his First-born Sometimes they say there was a time in which the Son was not sometimes that he was from Everlasting as well as the Father sometimes they affirm they are Equal and elsewhere they say the Father is Greatest Some of them believe that the Father and Son are two Hypostases two Natures two Essences as appears from the passage of Pierius related by * Cod. CXIX Photius others deny it To bring Instances of all this would be too great an Enlargement for this place and there being enough to be seen in Bull 's Book which we have already cited If it be demanded at present what Idea's they fix'd to these Expressions it cannot be affirm'd that they have been clear First Because whatever Endeavours are used to understand what they say a Man can get no distinct Notion thereof And Secondly Because they acknowledge themselves that it is a thing Incomprehensible All that can be done on this occasion is to relate the Terms which they have used to the end that it may be seen how they have heretofore exprest themselves on this Matter However learned Men have given themselves a great deal of trouble to explain the Passages of the Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice without considering that all their Explications are fruitless seeing the Fathers in acknowledging that what they said was Incomprehensible acknowledg'd at the same time that they fix'd no Idea on the Terms they used unless such as were general and confused Had the Matter staid here there had never been such great Disputes on the Sentiments of the Antients touching this Mystery seeing the Dispute doth not so much lie on the Terms they have used as the Idea's they have fasten'd to them which cannot be reduced to any thing that is clear Sometimes they use Terms which seem perfectly to agree with those which have been used since but there is found in some other places of their Works Expressions which seem to overthrow what they had said so that one cannot form any Notion of what they thought Lactantius for Example answers thus to the Heathens who ask'd the Christians how they said they acknowledged but One God seeing they gave this Name to the Father and to the Son * Instit l. 4. c. 29. p. 403. Ed. Oxon. When we call the Father God and the Son God we do not say that each of them is a different God And we do not separate them because the Father cannot be without the Son nor the Son separated from the Father He cannot be called Father without his Son nor the Son be begotten without his Father Seeing then that the Father makes the Son and that the Son is made the one and the other has the same Intellect One only Spirit and One only Substance VNA VTRIQVE MENS VNVS SPIRITVS VNA SVBSTANTIA These are Words which seem to be decisive and had Lactantius held to these Expressions he had never been accused of Heterodoxy But if he be question'd what he means by the word Vnus whether it be a Numerical Vnity or an Vnity of Consent and Resemblance he will appear determin'd to this latter sence * Ib. p. 104. When any one says he has a Son whom he dearly loves and who dwells in the House and under the governing Power of his Father although the Father grants him the Name and Authority of a Master yet in the terms of Civilians here is but one House and one Master So this World is but one House belonging to God and the Son and the Father who inhabit the World and who are of one Mind Vnanimes are One only God the One being as the Two and the Two as the One. And this ought not to appear strange seeing the Son is in the Father because the Father loveth the Son and the Father is in the Son by reason of his faithful Resignation to his Father's Will and that he does nothing nor never did do any thing unless what the Father has will'd or commanded him We may read further the 6th Chap. of the 4th Book which begins thus God who has conceived and produced all Things before he began this curious Work of the World begat a Spirit Holy and Incorruptible that he might call him his Son Although he has produced infinite others whom we call Angels for his Ministry yet he has vouchsafed to give the Name of Son to his First-born who is cloathed with the Vertue and Majesty of his Father That which is particular in this is That though Lactantius says That the Son is Co-eternal with the Father yet he
Projection and the other that he was not begotten no more than the Father To this Arius added the Explanation of his Opinion which we have already related The Bishop * Sozom. II. of Nicomedia having receiv'd this Letter call'd a Synod of his Province of Bythinia which wrote Circular Letters to all the Eastern Bishops to induce them to receive Arius into Communion as maintaining the Truth and to engage Alexander to do as much We have still a Letter of Eusebius to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre wherein he not only intreats Paulinus to intercede for Arius but wherein he exposes and defends his Sentiments with great clearness He says He has never heard there were Two Beings without Generation nor that the One has been parted into Two but that this single Being had begotten another not of his Substance but perfectly like to him although of a different Nature and Power That not only we cannot express by Words the Beginning of the Son but that is even Incomprehensible to those Intellectual Beings which are above Men as well as to us To prove this he cites the 8th of the Proverbs God the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways before is works of old I was set up from Everlasting and he has begotten me before the mountains were brought forth He says That we must not search in the Term of Begetting any other signification than that of Producing because the Scripture does not only use it in reference to the Son but moreover in speaking of Creatures as when God says I have begotten Children and I have brought them up but they have rebelled against me But these Letters not having had the Success which Arius expected he sent to get leave of Paulinus of Eusebius and Patrophilus Bishop of Scythopolis to gather those who were of his Opinion into a Church and to exercise among them the Office of a Priest as he was wont to do before and as was done at Alexandria These Bishops having Convocated the other Bishops of Palestine granted him what he demanded but ordered him however to remain subject to Alexander and to omit nothing to obtain Communion with him There is extant a Letter of Arius directed to this Bishop * Apud Epiph II. and written from Nicomedia which contains a Confession of Faith according to the Doctrine which Arius affirm'd that Alexander himself had taught him wherein after having denoted his Belief touching the Father which includes nothing Heterodox he adds That he hath begotten his only Son before the times Eternal that it is by him that he has made the World that he has begotten him not only in Appearance but in Reality that this Son subsists by his own Will that he is unmoveable that he is a Creature of God that is perfect and not as other Creatures that he is a Production but not as other Productions Nor as Valentinian said a Projection of the Father Nor as Manes affirm'd a Consubstantial Part of the Father Nor as Sabellius call'd him a Son Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor as Hieracas spake a Lamp lighted by a Lamp or a Torch divided into two that he did not exist before he was begotten and became a Son that there are three Hypostases that is to say different Substances the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and that the Father is before the Son although the Son was created before all Ages Arius adds that Alexander had several times preach'd this Doctrine in the Church and refuted those who did not receive it This Letter is sign'd by Six Priests Seven Deacons and Three Bishops Secondus of Pentapolis Theonas of Lybia and Pistus whom the Arian Bishops had Establish't at Alexandria Alexander * Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. wrote on his side Circular Letters wherein he sharply censures Eusebius of Nicomedia in that he protected Arius and recommended him to others He joins to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated and explains their Doctrine wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius's his Letters touching the Beginning which he attributes to the Son he says moreover that this Priest maintain'd that the Son is one of the Creatures that we cannot call him the Reason and Wisdom of the Father but improperly seeing that he himself has been produced by the Reason and Wisdom of God that he is subject to change as other Intelligent Creatures that he is of another Essence than God that the Father is Incomprehensible to him and that he doth not so much as know what his proper substance is that he has been made for our sakes to serve God as an Instrument in Creating us and that without this God had never begotten him Alexander adds That having assembled near a hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers by reason of his Opinions He afterwards comes to prove this and shews first The Eternity of the Son by this passage of St. John In the Beginning was the Reason 2. That he cannot be reckoned among the Creatures because the Father says of him in the 45th Psalm My Heart has uttered eructavit a good Word 3. That he is not unlike the Essence of the Father of which he is the perfect Image and the Splendor and of whom he says He that has seen me has seen the Father 4. That we cannot say There was a time in which he was not seeing that he is the Reason and the Wisdom of the Father and that it will be absurd to say There was a time in which the Father was without Reason and Wisdom 5. That he is not subject to change because the Scripture says He is the same yesterday and to day 6. That he was not made because of us seeing St. Paul says That it is because of him and by him that all things are 7. That the Father is not Incomprehensible to the Son seeing he says As the Father knows me so I know the Father This Letter wherein Eusebius of Nicomedia is extremely ill treated shock't this Bishop to the utmost Point and having great access to the Court because Constanstine made then his abode at Nicomedia this occasion'd divers Bishops to be at his devotion But he could not engage Alexander to forget what had past to speak no more of this Controversie and to receive Arius into Communion The Quarrels every day grew hotter and the People were seen to range themselves some taking Arius's side others Alexander's and the Comedians being Gentiles this gave them occasion to make a Sport of Christian Religion on their Theatres Each side treated one another with the odious Name of Heretick and endeavoured to shew that the Sentiments of the opposite Party overthrew the Christian Religion but it appears that neither the one nor the other Party could yet persuade the Emperor seeing he wrote to Alexander and to Arius a long Letter of which Hosius Bishop of Cordavia was the Bearer wherein he
Subject in hand I shall not undertake this Matter Perhaps some time or other I shall publish a Dissertation about it I had rather observe here That although Clemens doth often charge the Greek Philosophers with Theft yet he believed that God had given them part of their Knowledge by the Ministry of Inferior Angels whereas he instucted the Christians by the Ministry of his Son * Strom. l. 7. p. 702. The Lord of all Men of the Greeks as well as the Barbarians persuades those that will believe in Him For he doth not force him to receive Salvation who may chuse and do what is in his power to embrace the Hope which God offers him 'T is He who gives Philosophy to the Greeks by the Ministry of Inferior Angels †Ibid. l. 1. p 309. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Angels have been long ago dispersed among the Nations by the Command of God but the Opinion of those that Believe is the Gift of the Lord. Afterwards he proves at large in the same place that God is the Saviour of the Heathens as well as the Jews As to the Ministry of Angels to reveal Philosophy to the Greeks Clemens and those who have been of the same Opinion came by it partly by reason of what Socrates said concerning his Daemon who warned him of several things and of whom ‖ Ibid. l. 1. p. 311 334. Clemens seems to speak in such terms as may make one believe that he was persuaded that Socrates spake the Truth And this agrees well enough with the Opinion of the same Father and several others who believed after several Heathen Philosophers that every Man had a Tutelar Angel who might sometimes advize him After what hath been said 't is no wonder that Clemens should ascribe a kind of Prophecy * Ibid. l. 5. p. 601. to Plato especially if it be considered that the words of that Philosopher suit Jesus Christ so well that the Condition which the Saviour of the World was reduced to when he was nailed to the Cross can scarce be better described now He †De Rep. l. 2. p. 423. ed. Ficin describes a Perfect Vertue and says that one might bestow that Name upon the Vertue of a Just Man who yet should be accounted a Wicked for being a strict Observer of Justice and who notwithstanding the ill Opinion which the World should have of him would walk on in the way of Vertue even to Death although he should be Whipt although he should suffer several Torments and be kept in Chains although his Eyes should be burnt out with a red-hot Iron although he should be exposed to all sorts of Misery and at last be Crucified However Clemens did not equal the Heathen Philosophy to the Doctrine of Christ He acknowledges that before his coming into the World it was only as it were a Degree and Preparation to Christianity and that the Philosophers could only be lookt upon as Children if compared to the Christians He thought that Faith was Necessary since the Gospel had been published through the whole World * Strom. l. 7. p. 704. The Saviour says be having given his Commands to the Barbarians and Philosophy to the Greeks hath shut up Unbelief until his Coming in which time whosoever doth not believe in Him is without Excuse All the Books of Clemens are full of these Sentiments and he defends them every where so clearly and so fully that it plainly appears that in his time those Opinions were not at least so commonly lookt upon as dangerous for it is not likely that they would have made him a Catechist after his Master Pantaenus or bestowed so many Praises upon him as they have done since if he had been lookt upon as a Man infected with dangerous Opinions St. Chrysostom maintained the same thing concerning the Salvation of Heathens in his 38th Hom. upon St. Matthew 'T was necessary to observe in few words those Opinions of Clemens because without it several places of his Writings cannot be understood and because 't was upon this account that he kept whatever he thought to be Rational in the Doctrine of the Heathens rejecting only what seem'd to him False or inconsistent with the Doctrines of the Gospel or what had been blamed by Christ and his Apostles Thus All the Greek Philosophers even those who were for a Fate having believed that Men are Free by their Nature and can abstain from doing Evil as they are able to apply themselves to Vertue And Christ and his Apostles having not undertaken to take them off from this Opinion Clemens openly maintains That Men have a liberty of Doing Evil or Abstaining from it * Strom. l. 1. p. 311. Neither Praises says he nor Censures nor Rewards nor Punishments are Just if the Soul hath not the power of Sinning or not Sinning and if Sin is Vnvoluntary The Pagans knew nothing of what was called since Original Sin And Clemens observing that the Sacred Writers do not upbraid the Heathens with their Ignorance in this Matter nor teach them that even New-born Children deserve the Fire of Hell he denies that Children are any ways corrupted The before-mentioned Hereticks who condemn'd Marriage faid amongst other Reasons That Men did only thereby bring Polluted Children into the World †Ibid. l. 3. p. 468 469. since David says of himself Psal 51. That he was conceived in Sin and shapen in Iniquity And Job maintains chap. 14. ver 4 5. That none is free from Pollution even though he should live but one Day Hereupon Clemens exclaims thus Let them tell us how a Child new-bown hath sinned or how he who hath done nothing yet is fallen under Adam 's Curse Afterwards he explains that Passage of David as if the Prophet had meant only that he was descended from Eve who was a Sinner It must be further observed That a Man with such a Disposition of Mind could scarce avoid believing that the Philosophers were of the same Opinion with the Apostles as soon as he perceived some Likeness between their Terms Thus Plato having spoken of the Three Chief Deities whom he acknowledged * In the Life of Eusebius as I shall shew elsewhere in Terms like those that were used by the Primitive Christians speaking of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Clemens believed that the Doctrine of that Philosopher was the same with that of the Christians I think says †Strom. l. 5. p. 598. he that Plato understood nothing else by it but the Holy Trinity and that the Third Being mention'd by him is the Holy Spirit as the Second is the Son by whom all things were made according to his Father 's Will. Wherefore when he speaks of Christ's Divinity he doth not describe it otherwise than the Platonicks did the Reason * Strom. l. 5. p. 598. The Nature of the Son says he is the most Perfect the most Holy that which hath the greatest share in the
third of Greek Words and Phrases either worthy of Observation or such as that Author hath used in a particular Sence If those Index's were Compleat and Correct they would be undoubtedly very useful but they are neither There is a great many Faults in the Numbers and the Sence of Clemens is often mis-represented in them That Passage of Job There is none but is polluted is referred to the 25th Chapter of his Book whereas 't is in the 14th There is in the Index Peccato originali infectae omnium animae corpora 468. d. On the contrary Clemens confutes that Opinion in that place but Sylburgus or another who made that Index in all probability thought of what Clemens should have said in his judgment rather than what he did really say There is besides a Fourth Index before the Book which contains a Catalogue of the Authors cited by Clemens but the Pages in which they are cited being not marked 't is altogether useless 'T were to be wisht for the Common-wealth of Learning not only that Kings were Philosophers or Philosophers Kings but also that Printers were Learned Men or Learned Men Printers and that we might see again the Age of the Manutius's and Stephens to give us good Editions of the Writings of the Antients and make that Study more Easie which is Difficult enough of it self without encreasing the Difficulties by our own Negligence The Life OF EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea THE same Reason that induced me to give the Publick the Life of Clemens Alexandrinus obliges me to give an Account of that of Eusebius of Caesarea It will be so much the more Curious to those who cannot consult the Originals because there happened more Remarkable Things in Eusebius his time than in Clemens's and because the former was in a Higher Station than the latter Eusebius was born in Palestine and perhaps at Caesarea at least * Ap. Socrat l. 5. c. 8. he seems to intimate in the beginning of his Letter to the Christians of that City That he was Instructed in the Christian Faith and Baptized there He was Born towards the End of the Third Century though we cannot find exactly the Year of his Birth He began early to apply himself to Learning especially to Divinity as it sufficiently appears in his Writings wherein may be seen that he had carefully read all sorts of Profane Authors and that all the Writings of the Christians who wrote in Greek and those of the Latin that were translated into that Tongue were known to him He had the advantage of the curious Library which the Martyr Pamphilius his particular Friend had collected at Caesarea It s affirm'd * Hieron Epist ad Chron. Heliod Antipater Bostrencis in Concil Nicaen II. Act. 5. That being become Bishop of this City he entreated Constantine who passed through it and who had bid him ask some Favour in behalf of his Church that he would permit him to make a search into all the Publick Registers to extract the Names of all the Martyrs and the Time of their Death However he has committed Faults enough in Chronology as Joseph Scaliger and a great many other Learned Men have observed and especially in relation to Martyrs as Mr. Dodwel has lately shewn in his Dissertation de Paucitate Martyrum But it was no easie Matter to escape these kind of Faults in such a Work as his Ecclesiastical History which was the first of that sort that was ever undertaken the Primitive Christians taking no care of the History of their Times Eusebius is commonly call'd the Son of Pamphilius Whether he was really his Son as some affirm or his Nephew according to the Opinion of others or in fine as most believe by reason of the great Friendship between them This Pamphilius was of Beryte in Phoenicia and Priest of Caesarea he held Origen's Opinions for whom he wrote an Apology of which there remains to us but a part of it in Latin among the Works of Origen and St. Jerome He made it in Prison where he was put in the Year 307 under the Emperor Decius and where Eusebius did not forsake him He could write only the five first Books having been hinder'd from finishing * Phot. Cod. CXVIII this Work by the Death which he sustered for the Gospel two years after he had been thrown into Prison But Eusebius finish'd it in adding thereto a sixth Book and publish'd it after his Death Pamphilius had for Master †Id. Cod. CXIX Pierius Priest of Alexandria who likewise suffer'd Martyrdom and was also of Origen's Opinion whose Assiduity and Eloquence he imitated which got him the Name of Second Origen It 's not amiss here to relate the Judgment which Photius makes of his Works He advances several things says he remote from those which are at present establish'd in the Church perhaps according to the Custom of the Antients Yet he speaks after a pious manner of the Father and the Son excepting that he assures us that they have Two Essences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Two Natures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the words Essence and Nature as it appears by what precedes and follows in this Passage for that of Hypostasis and not in the sence of the Arians But he speaks of the Holy Spirit in a dangerous and impious manner for he attributes to him a Glory inferiour to that of the Father and the Son Yet he was Catechist of Alexandria under the Patriarch Theonas who was Consecrated in the Year 282. Pamphilius being dead as has been said Eusebius retired to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre his Friend where he was Witness as he tells us * L. 8. c. 6. himself of several Martyrdoms the History of which he has left us in his Book of the Martyrs of Palestine From thence he went into Egypt where he found the Persecution yet more violent and where he was thrown into Prison But this Persecution having ceased he was set at liberty and a while after elected Bishop of Caesarea after the Death of Agapius It 's not certainly known in what Year this Election was made but at least he was already Bishop when Paulinus dedicated a stately Church in the City of Tyre which he had built there which was in the Year 316 in the 10th of Year Constantine's Reign for it was the Custom of the Christians * Ant. Pagi Diss Hypat par 2. c. 3. n. 12 13. as well as of the Pagans to Consecrate their Churches in the time of the Decennales of the Emperors or of any other Solemnity Eusebius recites a fine Oration spoken at this Dedication †L. 10. c. 4. and though he does not say that it was he himself that spoke it yet the Stile of this Oration and the modest Manner after which he mentions him that made it gives one reason to believe that he has supprest his Name only through Modesty One might imagine that he was then but Priest were it
the same thing The First is more Excellent than the Second and the Second more Excellent than the Third 4thly The Terms which Plotinus uses are worth observing 1. He calls not only Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Plato the Nature of the Being of the Reason and of the Soul of the World but he likewise uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matter and says that the Matter of the one is more perfect than that of the other Having pretended that Parmenides had said before Plato that there are Three Principles he expresses himself in these terms Parmenides holds likewise the Opinion of the Three Natures 2. It 's observable that the word Hypostasis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things with this Philosopher first the Existence of a thing considered abstractedly and in the second place the thing it self which exists as it 's taken in the Title of this Book of the Three Hypostases which are the Principles of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Title of the Third Book of the same Enneade of Intelligent Beings 3. As he says That the Reason is the Father of the Soul he says likewise That the Reason begets and makes the Soul For we must observe that in this matter Plato and his Disciples use indifferently the words to Beget to Make to Produce c. and that Begotten and Made is the same thing here in their mouths We need only read Plato's Timoeus 4. Plotinus says That the Father and the Reason are one and the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they coexist and forsake not one another He says that the Supreme Being and whose Essence consists in Existing in a manner wholly particular has begotten by his Nature the Spirit and that he cannot be without him no more than a Luminous Body can be without Light The Spirit on his part whose Essence consists in having perpetually a lively conception of the Being cannot exist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without this They cannot be separated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one from the other because there is nothing between them as there is nothing between the Spirit and the Soul 5. He says That that which is begotten resembles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Cause just as the Light resembles the Sun 6. He says That the Spirit is the Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Being as the Soul is the Image of the Spirit St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Eighth Book against Julian cites a Passage of Porphyry out of his Third Book of the Philosophical History whence it appears that the Platonists disputed among themselves whether there could be more than Three Hypostases in the Divinity Plato saith Porphyry has taught That the Divine Essence may extend it self even to Three Hypostases to wit the Supreme Divinity or the Good it self after it the Creator who is the Second and the Soul of the World which is the Third c. But there are Men who pretend that we must not reckon the very Good or Good it self among the things which he has produced and that being of a perfect Simplicity and incapable of Accidents he has Communion with nothing so that it is by the Spirit that we must begin to reckon the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However Porphyry's Master whom we have already cited seems * Ennead V. lib. 8. cap. 12. to say that there may be more than Three Hypostases in these remarkable words God has begotten an excellent Being and has brought forth all things in Him This Production has cost him no Pain for pleasing himself in what he begat and finding his Productions good he has retained them all in Himself tempering his Brightness and theirs Those which have there remain'd being more excellent there 's only his only Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter who has appear'd without by whom as by the Supreme Son of the Divinity and as in an Image one may see what the Father is and the Brethren which have remain'd in the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Platonists likewise used in speaking of the Union which they conceiv'd to be between the different Orders of their Divinities the terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of different Essence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-essential By the first they denote the different sorts of Beings and by the second what is of the same kind Here 's a Proof taken out of Jamblichus in his Book of the Mysteries of the Egyptians Sect. 1. ch 19. He speaks of the Manner after which the Superior Gods are united to the Inferior according to the Platonick Philosophy The Divinities says he of the Second Order turning themselves towards the First Intellectual Beings and the First giving to the Second the same Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Power this entertains their Union What we call Union in the things which are of different Kinds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Soul and the Body or which are divers Species 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Material things or which are otherwise divided this Union I say happens to 'em from Superior things and destroys it self at a certain time But the more we elevate our selves to Superior things and to the Identity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the First Beings and in regard of the Species and in regard of the Essence when we ascend from the Parts to the Whole the more we acknowledge the Union 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Eternal and the more we see what is the Union properly so called and the Model whereon all the rest have been form'd and that it hath about it and in it self the Diversity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Multiplicity Porphyry had ask'd Whether a kind of Being is form'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mixt with our Soul and Divine Inspiration which made the Prophets able to foresee the Future * §. 3. c. 21. Jamblichus answer'd No and gives this Reason for it which is That when One thing is form'd of Two the Whole is of one and the same Species of the same Nature and Co-essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this does not happen in the case proposed by Porphyry One may see hereby the Subtilty with which the Platonists handled these Matters and the Terms they used But we should take notice of two things in endeavouring to form to our selves an Idea of their Sentiments The first That we must not always suppose they had a clear and distinct Knowledge of what they would say themselves and that they saw all the Consequences of their Opinions So that it would be perhaps in vain to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment touching the Three Principles of all things because perhaps they themselves conceiv'd not clearly what they said at least their Style is so different on this occasion from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings wherein they speak of things which they may
thank God because that which arose in the Church of Nazianzum was over 4. That the Church of Nazianzum which before that last Division knew not what Schism was ought to endeavour for the future to enjoy a perpetual Peace 5. That in the last Discord Men were so fully persuaded that the Bishop of Nazianzum acted sincerely and kept the Truth of the Faith that they upbraided him only with his being imposed upon by equivocal Words 6. That every thing invites us to Peace God Angels and all Creatures which are maintained by Concord 7. That the Jews had been happy whilst they were at Peace one with another but became unfortunate as soon as they were divided 8. Notwithstanding that all manner of Peace ought not to be sought after but that a medium ought to be kept and that 't is one 's Duty to oppose Heresie with all one's might when any body prefesses it openly but that one ought to forbear making a Schism upon meer Suspicions * Pag. 203. When says he that which troubles us is only a Suspicion and a Fear grounded upon no Certainty Patience is more useful than Precipitation and Condescension more than Passion 'T is much better to remain united together to correct mutually one another as the Members of the same Body than to condemn one another by a Schism before they understand reciprocally one another or to lose the Trust which they put one in another by a Division and than to undertake to correct others not after a brotherly but tyrannical manner with Edicts and Laws Lastly Gregory exhorts the Church of Nazianzum to keep the good depositum concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity which he expresses in these terms * Pag. 204. We worship a Father a Son and a Holy Spirit in the Son we acknowledge the Father and in the Holy Spirit the Son c. Before we join them we distinguish 'em and before we distinguish 'em we join ' em We don't look upon those Three Things as One GOD for they are not things †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Life of Eusebius destitute of a distinct Existence or that have but One Existence so that our Riches be only in Names not in Things and that Three Things be really but One. 'T is One Thing not in Existence but in Divinity We worship an Unity in a Trinity and that Trinity re-united in the Unity is all adorable and Royal it hath but One Throne and Glory it is all above the World above Time Uncreated c. That Speech as almost all the Speeches of Gregory is 1st Without any great Order Thoughts are heaped one upon another as they came into the Author's Mind a Defect which almost all the ancient Orators were guilty of as well as he and which makes him repeat the same things to no purpose 2dly His Reasonings seem too far-fetch'd and are not very convincing as when he says That the World is preserved by Peace That 's a far-fetch'd Thought and the contrary might be said as indeed some Philosophers have asserted That the Opposition which is between the several Parts of the Universe keeps them in the state they are in because they hinder one another from leaving it 3dly The Style of that Oration is too full of Figures little correct and even sometimes harsh all which things often breed Obscurity However it must be confest that he abounds in noble Comparisons and happy and Energick Expressions such as those * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he uses in that place wherein he condemns the Schism which I have mentioned He is also full of Ornaments taken out of History or Heathenish Fables nay he speaks sometimes of the later as the Pagan Philosophers did without openly rejecting them Thus speaking of the Flames of Mount Aetna he uses this Expression * Orat. iii. p. 86. whether it be something else or the blowing of a Giant in torment Elsewhere having spoken of the Torments of Tantalus Ixion †Orat. iv p. 132. and Tityus he adds whether it be True or a Eable which teaches us the Truth under a Fiction Yet there is no doubt but Gregory look'd upon all those things as meer Fables but the Greek Philosophers whom he had carefully read spoke after the same manner It seems that the custom of speaking as others did made Gregory say many things which he had read in Pagan Authors without being willing to examine ' em But he is far from equalling the Neatness Exactness and Elegancy of Isocrates whom they say he proposed to himself as his Model I thought my self obliged to set down here in a few words what may be said of Gregory's Style that I may forbear repeating it when I come to speak of his other Orations I shall only present the Reader with some Examples of what I have said when occasion offers I must also observe here once for all that Gregory with respect to Philosophy followed the Platonick from which he borrows several terms which can't be understood without the knowledge of it Thus he says ‖ Pag. 1â—8 That God is the most Excellent and Highest of all Beings if one had not rather place him above the Essence and put in him the Whole Being since he gives it to other things To understand the meaning of those words to be above the Essence we must know that the Platonicks establish'd some Chains of Beings as they worded it that is a Series of Beings placed one above another so that going up by degrees in that Chain more excellent Beings did still offer themselves and at last the Supreme Trinity which is above all the Essences of those Beings that is to say which can't be referred to any particular Species but contains in it self all their Essences and therefore can produce ' em * Vid. Proclum Theol Platon l. 3. c. 20. alibi Whence it is that those Philosophers say that the Gods have some Super-essential Qualities Without the knowledge of that Platonick Doctrine one can't know Gregory's meaning in the words which I have just now quoted He says in the same Page That Angels partake first of the Light That they are enlightned by the True Reason and that they are some Beams of that Perfect Light All those terms are taken from the bottom of Platonism as I could easily shew by explaining them were it not that I should too much enlarge To return to the Historical part The Arians being informed of the Division which happened at Nazianzum took advantage of it and laughed at the Orthodox Which gave occasion to Gregory to make the Homily which is the XIII amongst his Orations wherein he shews the Arians that the Division of Nazianzum having been only by a Mistake and having not lasted long they did unjustly insult over that Church Besides he shews the advantage which the Orthodox had over the Arians and Sabellians by comparing the Opinions of those three Societies one with
it concerning the Discipline which I shall not mention the Business of Gregory and Maximus was debated in it and they made a Creed Maximus's †Conc. C.P. c. 4. Ordination and all those which he might have conferred were judged Null and then ‖ Carm. de Vit. p. 14. they declared Gregory Bishop of Constantinople though he endeavoured to be excused from it They made him promise he would stay in it because he persuaded himself that being in that Station he could more easily reconcile the different Parties which divided Christianity Indeed it was said against Gregory's Promotion that having been Bishop of Sasime and Nazianzum he could not be transferred to Constantinople without breaking the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Nice which is Formal thereupon But Meletius Bishop of * Theodor. l. 5. c. 8. Antioch replied to that That the Design of that Canon was to bridle Pride and Ambition which had no share in that Business Besides it seems that that Canon was not observed in the East since †Carm. de Vit. sua p. 29. Gregory calls what they opposed to him Laws dead long since Furthermore he had exercised no Episcopal Function at Sasime and as to Nazianzum he had been only his Father's Coadjutor That Business being over they came to treat of the chief Subject for which they were met viz. Macedonius's Opinion who had been Bishop of Gonstantinople and believed that the Holy Spirit is but a Creature though all the Disciples of that Bishop agreed not about the Nature of that Divine Person as may be seen from a Passage of Gregory which I have quoted The Nicene Creed was presently confirmed in the Council and 't was thought fit ‖ Vid. Conc. Chalced. Act. 2. to make some Additions to it especially to what concerns the Holy Spirit That Addition is exprest in these words I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver of Life who proceedeth from the Father who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified and who spake by the Prophets The Council did also Anathematize the Opinions of Sabellius Marcellus Photinus Eunomius Apollinaris and Macedonius but I shall not enlarge upon those Errors because they have no essential relation with the Life of Gregory For the same reason I shall omit what concerns the Discipline All things went quietly enough with respect to Gregory till there arose a Storm which deprived him of the Episcopal See of Constantinople when he least expected it The Spirit of Vengeance of a Party which he opposed was the cause of that Disturbance which Gregory who was not courageous enough to sustain the shock of his Adversaries could not get himself rid of but by running away There happen'd some time before a mischievous Schism in the Church of Antioch where there were Two Orthodox Bishops at the same time Meletius being dead at Constantinople before the Council was ended 't was proposed to give him a Successor Thereupon Gregory proposed an Expedient to put an end to that Schism viz. That Paulinus who was the other Orthodox Bishop * Carm. de Vit. p. 25. and had been Ordained by Lucifer of Cagliari should govern alone the Church of Antioch during the rest of his life and afterwards those of Melelius's Party being reunited with those of Paulinus's should chuse a Bishop by common Votes Lest it should be thought he had some Interest in favouring Paulinus and that he designed to make a Party he offered the Counsel to leave the Episcopal Throne of Constantinople on which he was just setled But the Ambitious Men and Incendiaries as Gregory calls 'em who began to move to give a Successor to Meletius would not hearken to that Proposal * Ib. p. 27. A company of Young Men fell a crying like Mag-pies and made so great a Noise that they drew in even the Old Bishops who should have resisted them and brought to a second Examination the Business of Gregory which was just before ended Gregory describes admirably well their Ambition Ignorance and their other Defects in the Poem he made concerning his Life One had better read it in the Author himself than here In the mean time the People having heard that Gregory began to be weary of the Council and was talking of retiring fell a crying that they would not take their Pastor from them and desired him that he would not leave his Flock Thereupon Timothy Bishop of Alexandria who had succeeded Peter and was of a violent and quarrelsom Temper arrived with several Egyptian Bishops The old Grudge they bore Gregory on the account of Maximus the Cynick had inflam'd them to such a degree against our Bishop that the first thing they did was to complain that they had broke the Canons by transferring Gregory from one Bishoprick to another This caused a great stir in the Council and on that occasion Gregory made his Oration concerning Peace which is the Fourteenth wherein he describes at large the Advantages of Concord and the Mischiefs which arise from Divisions He severely censures the Inconstancy of the Bishops who had other Thoughts of him without any reason and suffered themselves to be imposed upon by the Calumnies of his Adversaries He says that the ill Reports which are commonly spread against Moderate Men ought to be despised Lastly One may easily perceive by all that he says that 't is not only in our time that Men have cover'd their most shameful Passions with the specious Name of Zeal for the Purity of the Faith Wherefore Gregory says * Ib. p 29. that he told 'em That they should not trouble themselves so much with what concerned him but that they should endeavour to be re-united That 't was time for 'em to expose themselves no longer to be laught at as Wild Men and such as have learned nothing but Quarrelling That provided they would agree he would willingly be the Jonas who should make the Storm to cease That he had accepted of the Episcopal See against his will and willingly parted with it and that his Body weakened with Old Age obliged him to 't But because notwithstanding they charged him with Ambition still he made a Discourse which is his Twenty seventh Oration whereby he protests that he had accepted the Bishoprick of Constantinople against his will and appeals to all the People for it He says * Ortt. 27. p. 465. he doth not know whether he ought to call the See of Constantinople the Throne of a Tyrant or a Bishop He complains of his Enemies Evil-speaking and the Envy they bore him †Pag. 466. because of his Eloquence and Learning in the Sciences of the Pagans That perhaps raised the Envy of some but the Station he was in raised without doubt the Envy of many more He might have made use of all his Rhetorick at Sasime without being put to any trouble upon that account Having declared a Full Council that he desired to leave the
Angels that were in Love with Women Clemens * Pad l. 3. p. 222. Strom. l. 3. p. 450. l. 5. p. 550. says in more than one place that he thought the same thing and most of the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers have explained so the Beginning of the Sixth Chapter of Genesis Photius cannot blame that Opinion without censuring at the same time all Antiquity but 't is his Custom to treat ill the most Ancient Authors when he finds in them some Opinions that were not received in his time or some Expressions which he doth not think energick enough to express such Thoughts as in his judgment the Antients should have had because 't would have been an Heresie not to think so in his time 7. The Incarnation being a Mystery which we do not comprehend and Clemens's Style not being for the most part very clear he might have exprest himself so as not to be well understood by Photius which is so much the more easie to believe because that Patriarch commonly explains the Thoughts of the Antients agreeably to the Opinions and Ways of Speaking of his time The Writings of the Antients are full of Equivocal Terms which they use in such a sence as they had no more in the following Ages Terms which signifying Spiritual and Obscure Things and very compounded Idea's must necessarily be difficult to understand because they took no care to Define them and make an exact Enumeration of the Idea's which they fixed to them Perhaps it did not so much as come into their Mind that this was very necessary to be well understood At least One may observe that when they endeavour to explain themselves about those Obscure Matters they use Terms as Obscure as the fore-going 8. One may observe an Example of it concerning the Two Reasons mention'd by Photius Those who will carefully read the Second Tome of Origen upon St. John may observe that he establishes a First or Supreme Reason which is Christ's Divinity and many Inferior Reasons which are made according to the Image of the Precedent It might be said in that sence that None but the Second Reasons became Flesh because none but they animate Humane Bodies for although the First was united to the Humane Nature of Christ it did not supply the Place of a Soul So that although Clemens had said what Photius pretends yet he could not be charged with Heresie upon that account But he did not say so as appears by the Passage which Photius himself quotes out of him The Son is called Reason as well as the Paternal Reason but 't is not that which was made Flesh Nor is it the Paternal Reason neither but a Divine Power which is as it were an Emanation of that same Reason which became Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is come into the Hearts of Men. By those Terms The Son we must not understand the Only Begotten Son of God but the Man as it clearly appears by what follows Clemens perhaps call'd him only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he might have before clearly enough denoted whom he meant by that word Photius who did not well apprehend the Meaning of that Passage might easily mistake the Series of that Discourse As the Jesuite Schottus otherwise a Learned Man was altogether mistaken in the Latin Translation of those Words as one may presently observe by comparing it with mine Lastly We have a Latin Work * In Bibliot Pat. ascribed to Clemens and intituled Commentariola in Primam Canonicam S. Petri in Epistolam Judae Tres Epistolas S. Joannis Apostoli There is indeed several things in those Notes which do not differ from Clemens's Doctrine but we can't know whether they are an entire Translation of part of the Hypotypoles or only some Extracts corrected according to the Interpreter's mind 'T is well known that when the Latins translated some Greek Writings they were very apt to make such Alterations in them as they thought fit as Ruffinus hath been upbraided with it Nay there is no need to look so far for Examples of that ill Custom since we have one with relation to part of Clemens's Hypotyposes of which Cassiodorus speaks thus * Lib. 1. de Just Div. Script Clemens Alexandrinus explained in the Athenian Language the Canonical Epistles that is the First Epistle of St. Peter the First and Second of St. John and that of St. James wherein there is many subtle things but also some unwarily spoken which we have caused to be so translated into Latin as to take away what might give scandal that his Doctrine thus purified might be more safely read Vbi multa quidem subtiliter sed aliqua incautè loquutus est quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Latinum ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis purificata doctrina ejus securior posset hauriri Clemens also composed Five Tracts which are lost 1. The Rule or Canon of the Church against those that followed the Opinions of the Jews 2. Concerning Easter 3. Concerning III Speaking 4. Some Disputes about Fasting 5. An Exhortation to Patience directed to the Neophytes Having thus made some Particular Remarks upon every one of his Works and some General Ones on that Occasion what remains is only to take notice of Three Things 1. He often cites Suppositious Writings as if they had been acknowledged by every Body as one may observe by that Place of St. Peter's Preaching which I have alledg'd and another of St. Paul which seems to have been taken out of the Book of his Travels upon which Eusebius and St. Jerome may be consulted Which may make one believe that the great Reading of that Learned Man gave him no refined Palate One need not be a great Master of this sort of Learning to perceive that what he cites out of them doth not suit the Style of the Apostles and is not agreeable to their Principles It cannot be doubted but that they believed that the God whom the Jews worshipped was the True God Maker of Heaven and Earth and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ who says so himself Nor can the Jews be charged with having served the Angels the Month and the Moon with any probability and the Reason which the Author of St. Peter's Preaching gives for it is so ridiculous that none but such as will be deceived can be deceived by it 'T is true that some * Huet in Orig. T. 2. p. 212. Learned Men have otherwise explained that Accusation which that Author lays upon them but one may easily see by what follows that he understood it in a more simple manner than they do However that Book being manifestly Supposititious †Ibid. T. 14. in Joan. Origen dealt much more prudently than his Master since being to refute Heracleon a Valentinian who drew some Consequences against the Old Testament from those pretended words of St. Peter he begins with saying That one should enquire whether that Book is truly St. Peter ' s
against the Eunomians the Incomprehensibility of God which he doth often He shews that there is an infinite number of things in Nature which we do not comprehend to conclude from thence that 't is no good Reasoning to deny that something is in God only because we do not comprehend it Having thus prepared the Mind of his Reader or Hearer he proposes his Opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son ‖ Orat. 35. p. 562. and the Holy Trinity in general which he doth in these remarkable terms That which we worship is a Monarchy I don't call Monarchy what is possest by one Person only for it may happen that a Person not agreeing with himself produces the same effect as if there were many but what is grounded upon the Equality of Nature the Consent of the Will the same Motion and the same Design with respect to the things which that Monarchy produces which is not possible in Created Natures so that although those that compose that Monarchy differ in Number yet they differ not in Power Had Gregory believed the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence he would have spoken very weakly and obscurely since instead of the Equality of the Nature he should should have said the Identity and not mention'd the Consent of Will but One only Will in Number In that Oration Gregory answers the Objections which the Arians raised against the Eternal Generation of the Son which are often very weak either because they are not well propounded or because the Arians argued not better However as one might Personate an Arian better so so one might perhaps maintain with greater advantage the Sentiments of the Council of Nice Among the Arian Objections which Gregory proposes to himself this is one of them which is the Eighth viz. * Pag. 569. That if the Son is as to the Essence altogether as the Father is it will follow that the Son is not Begotten as the Father is not Gregory answers not as the School-men do That the Son is not Begotten as to the Essence which is the same in Number with the Fathers as he should have said according to the Principles of the Modern Schools but that not to be Begotten is not a thing Essential to the Deity To which he adds Are you the Father of your Father that you may not be inferiour to him in any thing because you are the same thing as to the Essence If any one should doubt still whether the Vnity which our Orator speaks of is a Specifick or a Numerical one he needs only read these words which are at the bottom of the following Page †Pag. 570. This is our Doctrine As we judge alike of things which are under the same Species as a Horse an Oxe and a Man and every thing is properly called by the Name which suits the Nature of which it partakes whereas that which doth not partake of it doth not go by that Name or hath it but improperly so there is but One Essence and Nature in God which hath the same Name though the Persons and Names are distinguished by the Thoughts In the * Orat. 36. Fourth Oration Gregory resolves according to his way the Objections of the Arians by which they pretend to shew the Unequality of the Father and the Son In the †Orat. 37. Fifth he disputes about the Consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians Some of those who believed the Divinity of the Son denied that of the Holy Spirit and were even so bold as to call the Holy Spirit a Strange God because he is styled God no where in the Holy Scripture Gregory made his Fifth and last Theological Oration against them In that Discourse speaking of the several Opinions that have been about that he says amongst other things ‖ Orat. ib. p. 595. That the greatest Theologers among the Pagans and those who came nearest to us have an Idea of Him though they gave him another Name having called him The Soul of the World and The Soul which comes from without and used some other such Names As for the Wise Men of our times some believe that the Holy Spirit is a Faculty some that he is a Creature some that he is a God and some know not in what Order of Things they should place him by reason of the respect they have for the Scripture which is not clear upon that Point Gregory maintains That 't is a Person Consubstantial with the Two other And when he answers his Adversaries who ask'd him wherein the Generation and Procession differed he hath recourse to the Incomprehensibility But one of the chief Objections against the Orthodox was * Pag. 600. That they acknowledged Three Gods If there is said their Adversaries a God and a God and a God how comes it that there are not Three Gods c. This is replyes Gregory what is said by those whose Impiety is come to its height and even by those who are in the Second rank that is who have a right Belief concerning the Son I have a common Answer to both and another which concerns only the latter I ask therefore the latter why they call us Tritheists since they honour the Son and whether though they leave out the Holy Spirit they are not Ditheists How d' ye explain your Ditheism when they offer you this Objection Teach us how we ought to answer for the Answer by which you will clear your selves from Ditheism will serve us to vindicate our selves from Tritheism c. Thus we shall get the Victory and our Accusers will be our Defenders c. But we have a Dispute with those two sorts of Adversaries and a common Answer to both We have but One God because there is but One Godhead and that those who emaned from it refer to One only thing though we believe Three of them The one is not more God than the other the one is not Anterior and the other Posterior They are not divided in Will nor separate in Power and there is nothing in them that is found in things divided but to say all in a word the Godhead is without Division in Three Divided Persons as in Three Suns fastened one to another there would be but One Mixture of Light When we consider the Deity and the First Cause of the Monarchy we conceive but One Thing but when we consider those in whom the Deity and those who emaned from the First Cause before Time was and enjoy the same Glory we worship Three But it will be said Is there not One only Deity among the Pagans as their most learned Philosophers say All Mankind hath but One Humanity and yet there are Many Gods among the Pagans not One only as there are Many Men. I answer That in those things the Unity lies only in the Thought Every Man is divided from others by Time Passions and Power which is not in God Therein doth the UNITY of God consist as far
as I can conceive it If that Reason be Good let God be thanked for it if not we must look for a Better Afterwards Gregory proposes to himself an Arian Objection which shews more clearly still that the Orthodox placed not the Unity of God in the Numerical Vnity of the Divine Essence but in a Specifick Vnity of Distinct and Equal Essences and in a perfect Agreement of Wills * Pag. 602. Things which are of the same Essence say ye are ranked in the same Order of Things and those which are not Consubstantial are not so ranked From whence it follows that you cannot but confess that there are Three Gods according to your reckoning For as for us we are not in the same danger because we do not say that the Persons are Consubstantial The Arians meant That forasmuch as they admitted but of One Supreme God and who hath created all other things they might say in that respect that there is but One God because that God could not be ranked in the same Order and under the same Name with his Creatures but that the Orthodox acknowledging Three Beings of a perfectly like Nature they could not deny that they acknowledged Three Gods properly speaking Gregory answers only That Things which are not of the same Species are often reckoned in the same Rank 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he gives several Instances out of the Scripture That shews that the Arians might be accused of admitting of Many Gods as well as the Orthodox not that the Orthodox acknowledged not Three Eternal Minds though perfectly Equal and having the same Will A little lower in the same Oration * Pag. 611. Gregory says That having sought among Created Things something like the Holy Trinity he could find no satisfactory Comparison He thought of an Eye a Fountain and a River but he found not those things proper enough to express his Thoughts I was afraid says he First that I should seem to introduce a cetain Fluxus of Divinity which should have no Consistency Secondly establish a Numerical Unity by those Comparisons For an Eye a Fountain and a Sun are One in Number though differently Modified I was thinking of the Sun the Beams and the Light but it was to be feared still on this occasion First That we should suppose a Composition in a Nature wherein there is none such as the Composition of the Sun and what is in the Sun Secondly That indeed we should give an Essence to the Father but should not ascribe a Distinct Existence to the other Persons by making them to be some Faculties which exist in God and have no distinct Existence The Rays or the Light are not other Suns as the Son and the Holy Spirit are other Minds distinct from the Father but some Emanations and Essential Properties of the Sun Lastly Gregory * Pag. 612 found nothing better than to lay aside those Images and Shadows as being Deceitful and very Remote from the Originals After all Gregory believes †Pag. 608 that the Holy Trinity was only revealed by degrees so that the Revelation manifested to Men first God the Father without speaking of God the Son but obscurely afterwards the Son without requiring from Men the Belief of the Holy Spirit and lastly the Holy Spirit after the Ascension of the Son One may judge from those places of the Doctrine of Gregory and the Orthodox of his time with whom the Orthodox of ours agree as well in Terms as they differ from them in Sence One may also observe in the Expressions of our Bishop a remarkable Effect of Disputing viz. when Men are afraid that their Adversaries will take advantage of certain Expressions they carefully forbear using them for fear of lying open to 'em though those Expressions are very proper to express the Doctrine they maintain 'T is manifest that Gregory to be well understood should have answered the Arians Yes 't is true we worship Three Gods since we acknowledge Three Eternal Minds who have Distinct Essences But those Gods are perfectly Equal and as perfectly United as Distinct Beings can be having the same Thoughts and the same Will hence it is that we commonly say that we acknowledge but One God But had he spoken thus the Arians who boasted of their studying and following the Scripture would have presently replied that the Scripture represents the Unity of the Supreme God as a Numerical Unity not as a Unity of Species and Agreement They would have said as they already did but with greater shew of Reason that the Homoousians introduced a New Paganism by acknowledging Three Collateral Gods So that they were obliged to avoid those Reproaches stoutly to maintain that there is but One God according to the Nicene Opinion The Platonicks who had the same Thought but were not confined to Expressions spoke it out and said that the Principles of All Things are Three Gods I cannot forbear quoting on this occasion some remarkable Words of St. Augustine which do admirably confirm what I have just now said * De Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 23. Liberis Verbis loquuntur Philosophi nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis offensionem Religiosarum aurium pertimescunt Nobis autem ad certam Regulam loqui fas est ne verborum licentia ETIAM in rebus quae in his SIGNIFICANTVR impiam gignat opinionem Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia cum de Deo loquimur sicuti nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere quamvis de unoquoque loquentes vel de Filio vel de Spiritu Sancto etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur The Philosophers do freely use any Words and are not afraid of offending Pious Ears in Matters very difficult to understand As for us we are not allowed to speak but according to a certain Rule lest some Words used with too great a licence should produce an impious Opinion if understood according to their Signification When we speak of God we neither mention Two nor Three Principles as we are not allowed neither to say that there are Two or Three Gods though speaking of every one of them either of the Son or Holy Spirit we say that each of 'em is God Such a Conduct was the Cause of departing by degrees from the ancient Notions because the word Vnity was taken in its ordinary Signification without minding that the Antients understood it in a particular Sence The same hath happen'd in several other Doctrines Having thus alledged so many Proofs of our Bishops Opinion concerning the Doctrines which then divided Christians 't is now time to return to his History The Council which I have already mention'd * Socrat. l. 5. c. 8. Sozom. l. 7. c. 7. met at Constantinople in May in the Year 381. It was made up of a CL. Orthodox Bishops and XXXVI Macedonians whom they hoped to bring to the Orthodox Faith Besides some Canons made in