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
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
know that it is apparent they contain'd not the subject of the Three Principles like an infinite of others which they have known how to express in an even clear and elegant manner The Second thing we should observe is That in so difficult a Matter we must content our selves with what they say positively without attempting to draw far-fetch'd Consequences from their Principles which we cannot understand but by halves otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them such Notions as they never had Neither must we endeavour to reconcile in so abstracted a Subject the Contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrine nor conclude that they could not mean things in such a manner because then they must contradict themselves It was the Custom of these Philosophers to affect certain apparent Contradictions in using the same Terms in divers Sences Besides its obvious enough to imagine that they may have sometimes contradicted themselves on a Subject whereof they had no distinct Idea These two Remarks were necessary to prevent the Questions which might be offer'd on these Matters and to shew that in writing the History of these Doctrines one should keep wholly to Facts and the Terms of the Authors we treat of A Second Opinion of the Platonists which has made a great noise in the World is that of the Prae-existence of Souls in places above the Moon * See Plato's Timoens of the Faults which they may have there committed of their banishments from these happy Abodes to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bodies according to the different Merits of these Souls in fine of their return into places whence they drew their Original We shall not trouble our selves to explain this Doctrine because it belongs not to the Relation in hand having only made mention of it for a particular Reason which will appear in its place The Kings of Egypt and Syria having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia the Jews who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms and who were obliged to converse with them learn'd of them their Opinions and made no difficulty of embracing those which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonick Doctrines they believed therefore that these Doctrines might be true and receiv'd them so much the more easily in that they thought they might hereby defend their Religion against the Pagans and make them relish it the better Plato every where affirm'd the Unity of the Supreme Being yet without denying that there are other Beings which may be called Gods to wit the Angels which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Testament And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews better relish the Opinions of this Philosopher But we should give some particular Proofs of this The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon was plainly of the Opinion of the Prae-existence of Souls as it appears from these words of chap. 8. ver 19 20. For I was a witty Child and had a good Spirit Yea rather being good I came into a Body undefiled The same Author has used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason in some places where Plato would have used it were he to have said the same thing Thus in chap. 18. ver 15 16. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites he says Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up fill'd all things with Death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth In chap. 9. ver 1. he says That God has made all things by his Reason It cannot be alledg'd that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner seeing that Philo who liv'd a little while after Our Saviour is full of the like Expressions as several of the Learned have observed It s known that this Author has so well imitated Plato that he has been call'd the Jewish Plato He believ'd that there was One only Supreme God as all the rest of the Jews do whom he calls TO ON the Being through Excellency But he further acknowledg'd a Divine Nature which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ the Reason as well as Plato And another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World His Writings are so full of these manner of speaking that there is no nead of offering * Vid. Defens Fid. Nicen. §. 1. c. 1. §. 16 17. Instances The Jews were of these Opinions when Our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World And this is perhaps the Reason why we find accordingly as it has been observed by several learned Men several Platonick Phrases in the New Testament especially in the Gospel of St. John It 's well known that Amelius the Platonick Philosopher having read the beginning of this Gospel remarked that this Apostle spake like Plato In effect this Philosopher might have said according to his Principles The Reason was in the beginning with God She it is who hath made all things who is Life and the Light of Men c. We find several Passages in Philo like to this This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason the Priest the Mediator between God and Men the Eldest Son of God c. Wherein it is observable that he mixes his Jewish Notions with the manners of Speaking of Plato He has likewise used in one place the term Paraclete * De Vit. Mos p. 521. Edit Gen. Graeco-Lat Intercessor in speaking of the Reason It was necessary said he that the High-Priest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World should have for Intercessor him of his Sons whose Vertue is the most perfect for to obtain the Pardon of Sins and abundant Graces He had said * Quod Det. Pot. Insid p. 137. that Moses denoted by the Manna and by the Rock of the Desart the same Reason The Prophet says he calls elsewhere this Rock Manna a name which signifies the same thing to wit the Divine Reason the most Ancient of Beings Our Saviour Christ calls himself Paraclete in St. John chap. 14.16 when he promises his Apostles to send them another Paraclete He says likewise that he is the True Bread in opposition to the Manna which could be no more than a Shadow of it And St. Paul says that the Stone of the Desart was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 These ways of speaking which are found in St. John to be the True Bread the True Vine and which denote that he to whom they are applied is able to produce in Mens Spirits as much Efficacy in another kind of things as the Bread and Wine produce in the Body These ways of speaking I say were particular to the Platonists as has been observed elsewhere We might give several other Examples of Platonick Phrases to be met with in
they sent a Man to kill him who moved with repentance confest to him at the feet of his Bed that they had incited him to commit that Crime the Pardon of which he presently obtained As for the Revenues of the Church Gregory says that having not been able to find any Account of them neither among the Papers of those who had been Bishops of Constantinople before him nor among those to whom the care of gathering them was committed he would not meddle with them and took nothing out of them to avoid giving an account of them Theodosius called at that time a Council at Constantinople either to condemn several Heresies or to settle Gregory Canonically in the Episcopal See of that City But before I relate what past with respect to Gregory it will not be amiss to say something of the Orations he made whilst he was at Constantinople and which are extant Basil Bishop of Caesarea * Vid. Pagi ad An. 378. n. 1. being dead on the First Day of the Year 380 Gregory made an †Orat. 20. Oration in his Praise some time after having not been able to pay that last Duty to his Friend as soon as he could have wished He praises Basil's Ancestors who were Persons of Quality and besides Christians for a long time He says that ‖ Pag. 319. during Maximin's Persecution some of Basil's Ancestors having retired into a Forest of Pontus without any Provision and without Arms to go a Hunting they prayed to God that he would send them some of the Fowls or a little of the Venison which they saw in that Wood and God presently sent 'em a great number of the fattest Stags who seemed to be grieved because they had not called them sooner Gregory delights in that Subject according to the Custom of the Pagan Orators who did the same with respect to the Fables of Paganism The worst of all is that it makes one suspect the other Relations of Gregory 2. Afterwards he gives a short Account of Basil's Life and insists upon every Particular according to his custom with a great deal of Exaggeration many Figures and Moral Observations Speaking of the manner after which he himself had spent his Life he says that he wishes * Pag. 333. his Affairs may better prosper hereafter by the Intercessions of Basil 3. The manner of getting * Pag. ib. Church-Preferments in his time was not more Canonical than the Means which are now-a-days made use of for the same end if we believe Gregory Having said that in other Professions Men raised themselves only by degrees and according to their Capacity he assures That the Chief Dignity was got as much by Crimes as by Vertue and that Episcopal Sees were not for those who deserved them best but for the most Powerful c. No body takes the Name of a Physician or a Painter before he hath studied the Nature of Diseases well mixed his Colours and made several Pictures but a Bishop may be easily found not after he hath been carefully formed but upon the spot as the Fable feigneth That the Giants were no sooner sowed but they sprung out of the Earth We make †The Bishops were then called Saints as now-a-days Lords SAINTS in one day and we exhort to Wisdom those who have not learn'd to be Wise and who have brought nothing to perform well the Episcopal Duties but the Desire of being Bishops 4. Gregory ascribes to Basil ‖ Pag. 340 358. some Monastical Laws and written Prayers We have the former still without any great alteration but the Liturgy which bears his Name hath been very much alter'd since 5. He not only praises his Friend but also makes his Apology against those who accused him of Pride of which notwithstanding he himself accuses him in several places * Pag. 364. and suspected he did not believe the Divinity of the Holy Spirit because he had not stiled him God in his Book Gregory says that Basil did so for fear of exasperating the Hereticks who could not abide that that Title should be bestowed upon the Holy Spirit because the Scripture doth not ascribe it to him but that he had said something equivalent to it which was the same thing since Words do not save us but Things 6. Lastly Having described Basil's Funeral he goes on thus †Pag. 372. He is now in Heaven where he offers as I think Sacrifices for us and prayeth for the People for when he left us he did not altogether forsake us c. He advises me still and chides me in Night-Visions when I depart in something from my Duty At the end of his Oration he addresses himself to him and asks his Help in energick terms as if he heard him though he seemed to doubt whether he was in Heaven that is in the Place of greatest Bliss into which the Antients believed no body went except Martyrs but after the Resurrection as we have already seen by another Passage of Gregory There is some likelyhood that he composed at Constantinople most of the other Orations which are extant which I have not mention'd yet especially those which he made against the Arians wherein he hath been thought to have so well defended the Doctrine of the Council of Nice as well as in his other Writings that for that reason they have given him the Title of Theologue One may read especially his Thirty third Oration and the Four following upon that Subject In order to give an Idaea of those Five Orations I shall observe that the Design of the First is to shew that it doth not belong to All to dispute about Religion and that it ought not to be done before every body neither at all times nor with too great a heat He censures the Hereticks as if they had no regard to any of those things and preaches some common places which all Parties have always equally made use of He complains * Orat. 33. p 535. That they make Saints the very same day they go about it That they chuse Divines as if they had inspired them with Learning and That they make a great many Assemblies of Ignoramus's and Babblers Forasmuch as he knew that some Men can't forbear Disputing he tells 'em to satisfie their Desire that he will give them a large Field in which they may exercise themselves without danger * Ib. p. 536. Philosophize says he about the World or Worlds the Soul Rational Creatures less or more Excellent about the Resurrection the Judgments the Rewards the Sufferings of Christ 'T is not an useless thing to succeed in those Matters as there is no great danger in being mistaken about them Christians have been since of a very different Opinion and 't is certain that one may fall into dangerous Errors and that there hath been real Mistakes about those Articles In the †Orat. 34. Second Oration he comes to the Matter in hand and doth chiefly enlarge to prove
it is disliked because no Body follows it at present For Example * Paed. l. 1. p. 101. Clemens believed that Angels had Bodies And it was also the Opinion of †Vid. Origeniana Huetii l. 2. c. 2 5. Origen and most of the Fathers Yet that Opinion is branded as an Error without any Reason For although the Scripture teaches us that Spirits have neither Flesh nor Bones and that Angels are Intelligences yet it says no where that they are not cloathed with Bodies There hath been no Revelation since upon that Matter nor have we found out any convincing Reason that can persuade us the contrary Notwithstanding t is commonly said that 't is an Error because the School-Men have said so I confess that the Fathers who have ascribed Bodies to the Angels have alledged no evident Reason to prove it But all that could be concluded from thence is that They affirmed a thing which They knew not no more than We. Thus we should have suspended our Judgment and affirmed nothing concerning a Subject which was equally unknown to us Such a Suspension suited not with the Dogmaticks who can hardly confess that they know not all things and believe 't is the part of a Witty Man to Determine himself speedily upon all sorts of Questions Indeed without this 't is not possible to frame a System as compleat as it ought to be to be accounted a Learned Man And it would be a shameful thing to confess that a Thousand Questions might be askt upon every Article which could not be answered if one should say nothing but what one knows The same Principle may be applied to several other Doctrines of Clemens concerning which 't were better ingeniously to confess one's Ignorance than to condemn some Opinions about which we are in the dark Hence it is that notwithstanding those Opinions some Antients have bestowed many Encomium's upon him * Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 13. Eusebius says That his Books are full of Useful Learning †Cat. Scrip. Eccles in Ep. ad Magnum Orat. T. 2. St. Jerom says That he hath writ very fine Works full of Learning and Eloquence which he took out of the Holy Scripture and Profane Authors And elsewhere Clemens says he Priest of the Church of Alexandria the most Learned of our Authors in my judgment wrote Eight Books of Stromata as many of Hypotyposes a Book against the Pagans and Three Volumes entituled the Paedagouge Is there any thing in his Books but what is full of Learning and taken from the bottom of Philosophy Cyril of Alexandria affirms in his VIth and VIIth Books against Julian That he was a Man of wonderful Learning who dived to the bottom of Greek Learning with such an Exactness as few before him could attain to * Haeret. Fab. l. 1. c. 6. Theodoret says That that Holy Man surpassed all others by the extent of his Learning What hath been said is sufficient to have a Notion of the Doctrine of Clemens I shall only add a word concerning the Cologne Edition 1688. Two sorts of Faults may be observed in it whereof some are Common to it with many other Editions of the Books of the Antients and the other are Particular to it As to the First one may observe That the Editions wherein there is no Distinctions and Paragraphs want a thing which seems not to be of great moment in it self but yet doth very much conduce to the understanding of an Author The Beginning of a new Section is as it were an Advertisement to the Reader who only by casting his Eye upon a Page sees how many Arguments and what Matter it contains Else the want of distinct Paragraphs doth somewhat confound the Mind and forces the Reader to be more attentive to understand what he reads and to look for a Connexion where there is none or confound two Arguments Now one should always endeavour to lessen as much as can be the Trouble of the Reader who takes Pains enough to understand the Things themselves Paragraphs produce in some respects the same effect as the Distinction of Chapters which cannot be neglected without breeding Confusion 'T is true the Antients often neglected to divide their Books or Discourses into certain Parts But if it be well consider'd the want of Order in many of their Writings was the true cause of that Neglect 'T was easier to pass from one subject to another by reason of some small Connexion that was between 'em or confusedly to write down a crowd of Thoughts than to reduce 'em into a certain Order as it would be more easie to heap up the Materials of a House than to give every one of them its due place Those who desire some Examples of Books without Order need only cast their Eyes upon Seneca or Tertullian who both said with a great deal of Enthusiasm whatever came into their Mind scarce ever having a Notion of any Order which they design'd to follow If those Authors were printed so as to divide their Reasonings by Paragraphs they might be much better understood The other Fault which those that take care of the Editions of Ancient Authors often commit is that they do not distinguish in a different Character the Quotations from the Words of the Author From whence it comes to pass that those who do not read them attentively ascribe to one Author what belongs to another This Dr. Cave hath done in his English Life of Clemens Alexandrinus which hath been very useful to me in the writing of this Clemens in the above-mention'd place concerning the Philosophy which he approves cites Socrates who in Phaedo applies to the Philosophers this Proverb which was used in the Mysteries There are many who carry the Thyrsus but few that are truly filled with the Spirit of Bacchus * P. 380. Ed. Ficin Socrates adds immediately after These as I believe are only those who applied themselves to Philosophy as they ought to do OF the Number whereof I have endeavoured to be as much as I could c. The whole Passage being in Roman Characters Dr. Cave thought that those words Of the Number whereof c. were Clemens's whereas they are Socrates's as may be seen in Plato and even by reading the rest of the Page wherein Clemens cites ' em If the whole Passage had been printed in Italick Letters Dr. Cave would not have mistaken it Which ought not to seem strange to those who know that to write the Life of an Author collected out of several places so many things must be heeded all at once that 't is a hard matter not to confound one's self Besides by distinguishing the Matters by Paragraphs and Quotations by different Characters those who have read an Author may more easily find out again such places as they want which is no small Advantage As to the Edition of Cologne there are Three Index's the first of the Places cited by Clemens the second of the Contents and a
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
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
says there was a time when he was not * L. 2. c. 9. in Ed. Betuleii Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit auctorem suum sic ineffabiliter Pater genuisse credendus est Co-aeternum De Matre natus est qui ante jam fuit de Patre qui aliquando non fuit Hoc fides credat intelligentia non requirat ne aut non inventum putet incredibile aut repertum non credat singulare It 's true this Passage is not to be found in some Manuscripts and that several learned Men have fancy'd that some fly Heretick has corrupted Lactantius's Works But in other places wherein all the Manuscripts do agree Lactantius expresses himself after the same manner And it may be replied with as much likelyhood that it has been the Orthodox Revisors who have cut off what they thought not fit to be made publick Lactantius has been long since charg'd with Heterodoxy but in this respect he has been no more faulty than other Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice whose Expressions are as different as those of the Platonists in matter of the Trinity And this has made Father Peteau and Mr. Huet to charge them with favouring the Arian Sentiments whil'st other learned Men have maintain'd that they have been far from them Each of them cites his Passages which examin'd apart seem to decide for him But when one comes to compare these Passages with one another it cannot be comprehended how the same Persons could speak so differently In this comparison their Expressions are found so obscure and so full of apparent Contradictions or real ones that a Man feels himself obliged to believe that the Fathers had done a great deal better in keeping themselves to the Terms of the Apostles and to have acknowledged that they understood them not than to throw themselves into such Labyrinths by endeavouring to explain them To shew further That the Expressions of the Fathers are only fit to produce confused Notions and such as are contrary to those which all Christians at this day hold we need only read Tertullian who having said in his Apology chap. 21. That the Nature of Reason is Spiritual adds Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus prolatione Generatum idciro Filium Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae nam Deus Spiritus est But what means Prolatione Genitus The Terms of Vnity of Substance may signifie not only of the same Substance in Number but moreover of a like Substance that is to say spiritually and equally perfect And what he adds seems to favour this last sence Etiam cum radius ex sole porrigitur portio ex summa sed Sol erit in radio quia Solis est radius nec separatur substantia sed extenditur The Substance of a Ray after what manner soever we conceive it is not the same in Number as that of the Sun And Tertullian says that it is the same of the Son Ita de Spiritu Spiritus de Deo Deus Thus a Spirit is born of a Spirit and a God of a God Vt Lumen de lumine accenditur manet integra indefecta materiae matrix etsi plures inde traduces qualitatum mutueris As when we light one Torch by another the Light which has lighted the other remains entire and without being wasted although we light several Torches who have the same qualities Ita quod de Deo profectum est Deus est Dei Filius unus ambo Ita de Spiritu Spiritus de Deo Deus modulo alternum numerum gradu non statu fecit à matrice non recessit sed excessit So what proceeds from God is God and Son of God and both are but one so the Spirit which is born of a Spirit and the God who is born of a God makes Two in respect of Degree but not in respect of his State he has not been separated from the Womb or from his Original but is gone out of it These Words of Tertullian do not appear at first sight agreeable with Arius's Opinion but at most they contain nothing that is clear for one might have demanded of Tertullian whether by this Prolation he speaks of the Reason has existed as Light from a Torch lighted by another Torch exists as soon as it is lighted Should he allow it he might have been told that to speak strictly there must have been Two Gods seeing that in fine two Spirits though exactly equal and strictly united are two Spirits If this be so the second Spirit being not form'd of the same Numerical Substance as that of the first one might say with Arius that he has been extracted from nothing and there would be in this regard nothing but a Dispute about Words between Arius and Tertullian But if it be answer'd for Tertullian That his Comparison is not good it will be ask'd Why he made use of a Comparison which may lead into Error especially having said before that he was of Plato's Opinion touching the Reason If he meant that the Father has produced in his proper Substance without multiplying it a Modification in respect of which one may call the Substance of the Father Son why does he say Spiritus ex Spiritu ex Deo Deus For to speak properly the Father has produced neither a Spirit nor a God but a new manner of Being in his proper Substance It is further to be observed That this Comparison is not of Tertullian alone but of Justin Martyr and a great number of Fathers besides before and after the Council of Nice and that there is no Passage which appears of greater force than that yet the Equivocation of it is apparent The Fathers have likewise used the term Hypostasis as well as the Platonists in two sences sometimes for the Existence taken in an abstracted manner and sometimes for the thing it self which exists The Equivocation of this Term and that of the Words One and Many which as has been shew'd are taken sometimes from the Unity and the Plurality Specificials and sometimes from the Unity and Plurality Numericals have caus'd great Controversies among the Fathers as divers learned Men have * Petavius Curcellaeus Huetius c. observed But it is sit we should take notice of one thing which is that Bull who has writ prolixly on this Matter has not a word of the Numerical and Specifick Vnity without which a Man cannot comprehend what the Fathers mean nor draw any Conclusions from them against the Hereticks Yet when they say there are three Hypostases or three Essences or three Natures he constantly takes it as if they said there are three Modifications in one only Numerical Essence He supposes that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature signifie Manners of Existing of one Numerical Essence only because that without this those who have thus spoken of it would not have been Orthodox or of the Opinion at present
embraced That they admired among themselves what they sharply censured in another Party That there was nothing to be seen amongst 'em but Disputes like Night-Fights wherein Friends are not distinguished from Enemies That they wrangled about Trifles on the specious Pretence of defending the Faith Lastly That they were abhorred by the Heathens and despised by good Men among the Christians This is a true Picture of the Lives of the Ecclesiasticks in his time as it doth but too plainly appear by the History of that time It 's an unlucky thing that those of our time are so much like them that were it not known from whence those Complaints come one would be apt to look upon them as a Picture of our Modern Divines Another Difficulty which attended the Exercise of Episcopacy consisted in discoursing well of the Mysteries of Christianity and especially of the * Pag. 16. Holy Trinity concerning which according to Gregory a medium ought to be kept between the Jews who acknowledge but One God and the Pagans who worship Many A Medium which Sabellius did not keep by making the same God considered under several Relations Father Son and Holy Spirit nor Arius by maintaining that they are of different Natures As for him he believed as we have already seen and as he repeats it here and in many other places that he kept that wished for Medium by establishing Three Principles Equal in Perfection though the Father be the Principle of the Son and Holy Spirit It seems that Gregory had not been long his Father's Coadjutor when his Brother Caesarius died 'T was not long after the Earthquake which happen'd in Bithynia in October in the Year 368. He was then at * Orat. x. p. 169. Nice where he exercised the Office of Questor or the Emperor's Treasurer That City was almost altogether ruined and he was the only Officer of Valens who saved himself from that Danger Gregory made a Funeral Oration in his Praise which is the Tenth of those that are extant He makes a short Description of his Life the chief Circumstances of which I have related describes the Vanity of whatever we enjoy here and makes several Observations upon Death and the manner of comforting one's self upon the Death of one's Relations He wishes that his Brother may be in †Pag. 168. Abraham's Bosom whatever it may be And towards the ‖ Pag. 173. end describing the Happiness of Good Men after Death he says that according to Wise Men their Souls are full of Joy in the Contemplation of their future Happiness until they are received into the Heavenly Glory after the Resurrection Caesarius had given his Estate to the Poor at his Death yet notwithstanding they had much ado to save it those who were at his death having feized the greatest part of it as Gregory complains in his Eighteenth Letter whereby he desires Sophronius Governor of Bithynia to use his Authority in it Basil Gregory's Friend having been made Bishop of Caesarea * Vid. Pagi Crit. ad hunc ann in the Year 370 had some difference with Valens which I shall not mention here because it doth not at all relate to the Life of his Friend This was perhaps the reason that moved that Emperor to divide Cappadocia into Two Provinces and to make Tyane the Metropolis of the Second Cappadocia Forasmuch as the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitans reached as far as the extent of the Province several Bishops who were before Suffragan of Caesarea became Suffragan of Tyane so that Basil saw himself at the head of a lesser number of Bishops than before †Orat. xx p. 456. The new Metropolitan drew to himself the Provincial Assemblies ceased the Revenues of his Diocess and omitted nothing to lessen the Authority and Revenues of Basil Anthimus such was the Bishop of Tyane's Name who was an Arian shelter'd himself under the pretence of Piety and said that he could not give up the Flocks to Basil's Instruction whose Opinions concerning the Son of God were not right nor suffer that any Tribute should be paid to Hereticks Gregory assures us that he got some Soldiers to stop Basil's Mules to hinder him from receiving his Rents Basil found no other remedy to it but to make new Bishops who should have a greater care of the Flocks than he could have and by whose means every Town should carefully receive what was due to them Sasime being one of those Towns in which he was resolved to put some Bishops he cast his Eyes upon his Friend Gregory to send him to it without considering that that Place was altogether unworthy of a Person of such Merit 'T was a * Greg. de Vita sua p. 7. little Town without Water and Grass and full of Dust a Passage for Soldiers and inhabited only by some few poor Men. The Income of that Bishoprick was very small and besides he must either resolve to defend it by Force against Anthymus or submit to that new Metropolitan Gregory refused that Employment but at length the Importunity and Dexterity of Basil who wrought upon Gregory's Father obliged him to accept of it It seems that about that time he made his Seventh Oration wherein he addresses himself to his Father and Basil and desires their Help and Instruction to govern his new Church at Sasime Notwithstanding he says freely enough to Basil that the Episcopal Throne had made a great Alteration in him and that he was much milder when he was among the Sheep than since he was a Pastor The next day he made * Orat. vi another Oration on the Arrival of Gregory Nyssen Basil's Brother to whom he further complains of the violence his Brother had done him and because 't was a Day of some Martyr's Feast he adds several things on that occasion concerning the Manner of Celebrating Holy-days not with Profane Rejoycing but Pious Exercises He says amongst other things That 't is then time to raise one's self and become God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if one may so say and that the Martyrs perform therein the Office of Mediators 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Expression to become God instead of to become a Good Man and despise Earthly things doth often occur in Gregory's Writings He says elsewhere That the Priests * Orat. i. p. 31. Orat. xxiii p. 410. are Gods and Deifie other Men †Orat. ii p. 46. That Solitude Deify's Introducing ‖ Orat. xx p. 349. Basil who refused to embrace Arianism he makes him say That he could not worship a Creature he who was a Creature of God too and had received a Commandment of being God It ought to be observed that that Expression was used among the Pythagoreans as may be seen by the last Golden Verse of Pythagoras upon which Hierocles may be consulted When Gregory came to Sasime the misery of that Place made him believe that Basil despised him and abused altogether his Friendship Though he took
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
Prudentius one ought also to remark how they behaved themselves towards them whilst they were alive In the * Ver. 333. Fifth Hymn which contains St. Vincent's Passion Prudentius represents the Christians going in Crowds to the Prison wiping and kissing the Wounds which he received when he was pinched with Tongs ungularum duplices sulcos licking his Blood or dipping a Cloth in it to keep it as a kind of Preservative for them and their Posterity It appears also from the †Ver. 75 c. Sixth Hymn that Fructuosus Bishop of Sarragoza was attended with many Friends of his as far as the burning Pile and that they desired him to remember them Afterwards they gathered carefully his Ashes and Bones and having sprinkled them with Wine they buried them magnificently enough In the Tenth Hymn ‖ Ver. 665 c. which contains the Passion of Romanus a Christian Woman being at his Execution with a Child delivers him to be ask'd whether 't is not better to worship One God than Many The Child answers Yes and says that his Mother taught him so Whereupon the Pagan Judge causes him to be whipt till the Blood runs before his Mother who exhorts him to suffer is angry with him because he calls for some Drink and afterwards carries him to be Beheaded If those Circumstances and many more are true it doth necessarily follow that they spared then in some measure the Blood of the Christians and put but few of them to death to terrifie others since they did not put to death such Persons as made a publick Declaration Yet if we believe those who wrote since the History of those Times 't was enough to shew that one was a Christian to suffer Martyrdom and the Rivers were red with the innocent Blood that was shed to confess the Name of Christ Those who have no great love for Truth and maintain it with the same Spirit that stirs those who defend a Faction have always done the same They never believed that simple Truth was sufficient to maintain it self but that it wanted to be adorned and upholden with Lyes A fatal Conduct and which hath done Truth so great a wrong as will never be repaired All that can be done by those who love it is to endeavour to disintangle it from Fables as much as they can and ingenuously to confess that an infinite number of Falshoods hath been mixed with some true Facts This we are obliged to do especially in the History of the Martyrs and Mr. Dodwell hath happily performed it in his Cyprianick Dissertations wherein he shews that there hath not been so many Martyrs as the Martyrologies reckon 5. Although the Heathenish Custom of filling the Churches with Images is not approved because it hath been found by Experience that they do more harm than good yet it must be confest that that Custom was practised in Italy in the beginning of the Fourth Century and perhaps before We learn it from Prudentius in the Ninth Hymn wherein he says * Ver. 9. That as he was going to Rome he went into a Church at Imola where St. Cassianus a Martyr was buried and that being upon his Knees before his Grave he saw there the Representation of his Martyrdom over-against him Erexi ad Coelum faciem stetit obvia contrà Fucis colorum picta imago Martyris c. The same thing may be observed in the Eleventh Hymn concerning †Ver. 123. St. Hyppolitus in whose Chappel Prudentius reports that the same thing may may be seen as in that of Cassianus Exemplar sceleris paries habet illitus in quo Multicolor fucus digerit omne nefas Picta super tumulum species liquidis viget umbris Effigians fracti membra cruenta viri It ought to be observed that upon that Grave there was a Table or an Altar on which they celebrated the * Ibid. ver 170. Eucharist so that that Image precisely upon the Altar where they are wont to place Images now in the Church of Rome Thus those who had but a confused Notion of Christian Piety believed that it could not maintain it self without the help of Outward Objects and I know not what Heathenish Pomp which hath at last extinguished the Spirit of the Gospel and substituted Paganism in its room Whatever hath an Outward Appearance of Piety and may be observed without having any Vertue in the Soul was always easily entertained amongst ignorant Nations who on the contrary did always neglect whatever requires some Vertue to be practised However we must acknowledge that Images were not yet permitted every where at that time witness St. Epiphanius's Action who tore a Vail in a Church of a Village in Palestine named Anablatha because there was a Picture upon it saying that it was against the Authority of the Scripture He himself relates that Action in a Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem which St. Jerom translated into Latin and speaks of it as of an Action which no body could blame and which was grounded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles However it apears from Prudentius that this was not the Opinion of the whole Christian Church and one may see thereby that the single Testimony of one Father is not sufficient to judge of the Opinions of all the Christians as 't is but too often practised III. Prudentius his Apotheosis is a Poem in Heroick Verses wherein he assaults several Errors either of some Hereticks or of the Jews He attacks 1. The Patripassians or Disciples of Noêtus who lived about the Year 240 who distinguished no Hypostases in the Deity and believing that it was united to Christ maintained that the Father had suffered as well as the Son 'T is a difficult thing to know whether the Opinion of that Heretick is faithfully related or whether they did not ascribe to him the Consequences which they drew from it However Prudentius endeavours to prove against him that the Father never made himself Visible and that consequently it cannot be said that he dwelt in Christ but it must be confest that this is a very weak Argument according to the Notions of our Modern Divines For if the Essence of the Son became in some respect Visible by being United to Christ that of the Father became Visible at the same time because 't is but One only Essence in Number 2. The next Hereticks against whom Prudentius writes are the Vnionites that is to say the Sabellians who began to appear about twenty Years after Noëtus They used the same Arguments with that Heretick to prove the Unity of a Divine Hypostasis and they were answered as Noëtus was as may be seen in * Haerēs 57 62. St. Epihanius Prudentius upbraids Sabellius with saying nothing that 's new because the Pagans especially the Philosopers acknowledged the Unity of a Supreme God as well as he although they did sometimes mention many Cum ventum tamen ad norman rationis artis Turbidulos sensus litigiosa