An Historical VINDICATION OF THE Naked Gospel Recommended to the Vniversity of Oxford Printed in the Year 1690. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Design of this Work is of no less Importance than to discover the Naked Truth as far as 't is possible after the Destruction of such infinite Numbers of Volumes by the Barbarity of former Ages The little Fragments and Gleanings whereof that accidentally escap'd the Flames and Fury of those Times tho' dispers'd up and down yet do still afford some Light to a perspicacious Erquirer and indeed give such a Landskip of things as the Ruins now at Athens Carthage and Rome do of those Majestick Cities We may still plainly see how the simple Primitive Chastity of the Gospel was defil'd with the Ceremonies and the vain Philosophy of the Pagans How Platonic Enthusiasm was impos'd upon the World for Faith Mystery and Revelation by cloyster'd Ecclesiasticks Qui omnia quae putabant Christianismo conducere Biblijs interseruerunt as any one may collect from Erasmus Scaliger Grotius Cappellus and F. Simons who had compar'd Manuscripts Their dogmatical Contradictions in Councils their silly Quarrels their frequent changes in Opinion their childish trifling in Words their Inconstancy Pride and other Passions are laid open as the Source of publick Troubles and common Calamities We may justly lament with Joseph Scaliger the cruel Suppression of the old Books that were in the hands of the Fathers for if we had them now in our Libraries Nous verrions des belles choses says that Prodigy of Learning who in another place complains Nihil fuit erga bonas literas injuriosius veteribus Christianis si voluissent haberemus tam praeclara But considering how they handed things down to us Je ne me ferois jamais Chrestien a lire les Peres Ils ont tant de Fadaises Scalig. In our own time we have seen the same Phrenzy acted over again Academick Inquisitors like supream infallible Tribunals burning Articles and Books afterwards embracing and practising the very same expelling and recalling canting and recanting after the manners of their Fore-fathers who veer'd about with every Wind and were very angry that the Laity would not believe things against their Sense and Reason as the Woman would have had her Husband against his own Eyes What! Believe your Eyes before your own sweet Wife The most considerable Parts of the present Vindication are I. The History of Plato's Trinity II. The Arian Controversie III. Of the Nicene Council IV. Of the Athanasian Creed V. Of the Quarrels and Divisions of the Churches Which take as follows A Modest and Historical VINDICATION c. THat this work may be clear and instructive 't is thought necessary to observe Method and Order of Time which are the chief lights in Historical Controversies Therefore we will begin with the most learned Bishop of the Primitive Church Eusebius was born in Palestine and perhaps at Caesarea (a) Ap. Socrat. lib. v. c. 8. for he says in the beginning of his Letter to the Christians of that City That he was there baptized and instructed in the Christian Faith 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 Books and that all the Christian Writings whether Greek or Latin were well known to him He had the advantage of the curious Library which the Martyr Pamphilius his particular Friend had collected at Caesarea (b) Hieron Ep. ad Chron Heliod Antipater Bostrensis in concil Nicaen 11. Act. 5. It 's affirm'd 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 called 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 Phenicia 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 Emperour Decius and where Eusebius did not forsake him He could write only the first five Books having been hindred from finishing (a) Photius cod CXVIII this Work by the Death which he suffered 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 Pierius (b) Id. Cod. CXIX Priest of Alexandria who likewise suffered 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 ac-cording to the Custom of the Anoients Yet he speaks after a pious manner of the Father and the Son excepting that he assures us 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 sense of the Arians But he speaks of the Holy Spirit in a dangerous 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 (a) Lib. 8. c. 7. as he tells us 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 Cesarea after the
cap. 3. ad 8. but especially in the Book which is intitled of the three Hypostases which are the three Principles of all things Here 's whereunto his Doctrin may be reduced I. There are three Principles The Being the Spirit or the Reason of the Being and the Soul of the World which is the Reason of the Spirit There is also according to him a Reason of the Soul of the World but it is a Reason obscure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. The Being has begotten the Reason not by an act of his will or by a decree but by his nature as fire begets heat or as the sun produces light The Reason has also begotten the Soul of the World and perhaps termed Father in this respect III. These three Hypostases differ in number altho' there be a most strict union between them which makes that one may say at the same time that they are different and that they are the same thing The first is more excellent than the second and the second more excellent than the third IV. 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 Timaeus 4. Plotinus says that the Father and the Reason are one and the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they coexist and for sake not one another He says that the Supream 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 Supream 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. However Porphyry's Master whom we have already cited seems (a) Ennead V. lib. 8. c. 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 beg at 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 supream Son of the Divinity and as in an Image one may see what the Father is and the Brethren which have remained 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 xix He speaks of the manner after which the Superiour Gods are united to the Inferiour according to the Platonic 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 Vnion What we call Vnion 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 Vnion I say happens to 'em from superiour things and destroys it self at a certain time But the more we elevate our selves to superiour 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 Vnion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is eternal and the more we see what is the Vnion 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 Jamblichus (a) Sect. 3. c. 21. answer'd no and gives this reason for it which is that when one only thing is form'd of two the
Son by reason of his faithful Resignation to his Fathers Will and that he does nothing nor ever did do any thing unless what the Father has will'd or commanded him We may read farther the vi Ch. of the iv Book which begins thus God who has conceiv'd 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 has he vouchsafed to give the Name of Son to his only 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 (a) Lib. 2. c. 9. in Ed. Betuleij 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 fancied that some sly Heretick has corrupted Lactantius 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 likelihood 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 favoring the Arian Sentiments whilst other learned Men have maintain'd that they have been far from them Each of them cites his Passages which examin'd a-part 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 oblig'd 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 farther 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 Ch. xxi That the Nature of Reason is spiritual adds Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus prolatione Generatum idcirco Filium Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae nam Deus Spiritus est But what means Prolatum 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 spiritual and equally perfect And what he adds seems to favour this last sense 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 then 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 Errour 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 farther 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 senses 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 Specificals and sometimes from the Unity and Plurality Numericals have caus'd great Controversies among the Fathers as divers learned Men have a a Petavius
him out of Alexandria because he could not grant him that the Father and the Son are coeternal that the Son coexists with the Father without generation having been always begotten and not begotten at the same time without letting it be imagined that the Father has existed so much as one moment before the Son He added that Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea Theodotus of Laodicea Paulinus of Tyre Athanasius of Anazarba Gregory of Beryta and Aetius of Lydia condemning the sentiments of Alexander had been likewise struck with an Anathema as well as all the eastern People who were of the same opinions except Philogonius Bishop of antiach Hellanicus of Tripoly and Macarias of Jerusalem one of which said that the Son was an Eruclation the other a 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 (a) 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 entreats Paulinus to interceed 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 it 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 possess'd me in the beginning of his Ways before his 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 into 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 want 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 (a) Apud Epiph. II. and written from Nicodemia which contains a Confession of Faith according to the Doctrin 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 called 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 Doctrin 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 Establisht at Alexandria Alexander (a) Socrat. lib. 1. c. 6. wrote on his side circular Letters wherein he sharply censures Eusebius of Nicomedia in that he protected Arius and recomended him to others He joyns to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated and explains their Doctrin wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius 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 knows not himself what is his proper substance 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 an hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers by reason of his Opinions He afterwards comes to prove his 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 45. Ps 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 extreamly ill treated shockt this Bishop to the utmost Point and having great access to the Court because Constantine made then his abode at Nicomedia this occasion'd divers Bishops to be at his Devotion but
reckoned three numerical Essences It seems that Sabellius wou'd acknowledge but one whom he call'd the Father the Son or Holy Spirit in divers regards It 's said that some others had maintain'd the same thing before and after him as Noet and Beryllus of Botsra A while after Sabellius appear'd Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch who was as we have said of the Ebionites Sentiment in relation to our Savior's Divinity Altho' the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used in the Platonic Philosophy to signifie what is of the same kind as has been observ'd already and as may be seen in Bull 's Defence Nicene Council Sect. 2. ch 1. Yet the Council which met at Antioch to condemn Paul of Samosatia condemn'd likewise this term But it 's hard to find in what sense it was taken because the Acts of this Council are lost and we know nothing of them but by what St. Athanasius and some others extreamly 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 sense wherein we say that two pieces of Mony made of the same Metal are consubstantial because that these pieces suppose a praeexistent matter of which they have been both form'd whereas the Father and the Son do not suppose the like substance Paulus Somosatenus said that if the Son had not been made God we must suppose that he is of the same kind of effence 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 (a) In lib. de Syn. Arim. c. Seleue. II. 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 Supream 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 'em believe that the Father and Son are two Hypostases two Natures two Essences as appears from the Passage of Pierius related by (a) 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 Bulls Book which we have already cited If it be demanded at present what Ideas they fixt 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 express'd 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 acknowledged 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 Ancients touching this Mystery seeing the Dispute doth not so much lie on the Terms they have used as the Ideas they have fastned 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 (a) Instit lib. 4. cap. 29. pag. 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 VNAVTRIQVE MENS VNVS SPIRIT VS VNASVBSTANTIA 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 Sense (a) Ib. p. 404. 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 Unanimes 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
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 in St. John Paraclete ch xiv 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 cou'd be no more than a shadow of it and St. Paul says That the Stone of the Desert 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 Platonic Phrases to be met with in the New Testament but it will be sufficient to remark here that the Apostles apply to our Savior Christ Passages of the Old Testament which Philo had applied to the Reason and that this Jewish Philosopher has giv'n to this same Reason most of the Titles which the Apostles have giv'n to Jesus Christ The Pagans who had then embraced the Gospel and who were in some measure verst in the Heathen Philosophy remarking this resemblance of Terms perswaded themselves that the Apostles believ'd the same things in respect of these matters as the Platonic Jews and Pagans And this seems to be that which drew several Philosophers of this Sect into the Christian Religion and giv'n such a great esteem to the Primitive Christians for Plato Justin Martyr in his first Apology says that (a) P. 48. Ed. Col. An. 1686. Jesus Christ was known in part by Socrates for the Reason was and is still the same which is in every man It is she that has foretold the future by the Prophets and who being become subject to the same Infirmities as we has instructed us by her self He says moreover (b) P. 51. Ejus ed. That the Opinions of Plato are not remote from those of Jesus Christ And this has made likewise St. Austin to say That if the ancient Platonists were such as they were described and were to rise again they would freely embrace Christianity in changing (c) De Ver. Rel. c. 3. Vid. Ep. IVl. some few Words and Opinions which most of the late Platonists and those of his time have done paucis mutatis verbis atque sententiis Christiani fierent sicut plerique recentiorum nostrorumque temporum Platonici fecerunt Tertullian affirms in his Apology (a) C. XXI that when the Christians say That God has made the Vniverse by his Word by his Reason and by his Power they speak only after the sage Heathens who tell us That God has made the World by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word or Reason Clement Alexandrin has likewise believ'd that Plato held the Doctrin of the blessed Trinity Origen against Celsus does not deny but that Plato spake the truth in speaking of God (b) Lib. 6 p. 276 280. and of his Son he only maintains that he did not make such a just use as he ought of his Knowledge He does not say that the Foundation of the Christian Doctrin is different in this from that of Plato but that this Philosopher had learnt it from the Jews Constantin in his harangue to the Saints (c) Cap. IX after having prais'd Plato in that he was the first Philosopher who brought men to the contemplation of intellectual things thus goes on He has spoken of a first God who is above all Essences wherein he has done well He has likewise submitted to him a Second and has distinguisht two Essences in number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Perfection of the one being the same as that of the other and the Essence of the second God taking his Existence from the first For it is he who is the Author and the Director of all things being above all He that is after him having executed his Orders attributes to him as to the supream cause the production of the Vniverse There is then but one to speak properly who takes care and provides for all to wit the Reason who is God and who has set all things in their order This Reason being God is likewise the Son of God for who can call him otherwise without committing a great fault He that is the Father of all things is justly said to be the Father of his own proper Reason HITHERTO PLATO HAS SPOKE LIKE A WISE MAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he has varied from the truth in introducing a multiplicity of Gods and in giving to each of 'em his form We might cite several other such like Passages whereby one might see that several among the Fathers of the first three Centuries have believ'd that the Opinion of Plato and that of the Apostles was the same If we consider that the Question here is about things of which we have naturally no Idea and which is even incomprehensible supposing revelation and of which one can only speak in metaphorical and improper Language it will then appear to us no wonder if since the Apostles times there have arose several Opinions on this Subject Thus the Ebionites are charged to have denied the Prae-existence of our Savior's Divinity and to have held that he was only a meer Man These Ebionites have remain'd a long time seeing that not only Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus do mention them but St. Jerom seems to take notice that they were in his time It 's affirm'd That Artemon under the Emperor Severus and Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch under the Emperor Aurelius maintain'd the same Opinions Cerinthus on the contrary held the Prae-existence of the Reason which he call'd the Christ and affirm'd that she had descended on Jesus in the form of a Dove when he was Baptiz'd and that she ascended up into Heaven when he was crucifi'd It is indeed very difficult to affirm that this was precisely the Opinions of these Hereticks because we have nothing remaining to us of them and that we cannot fully trust those who speak of 'em only with detestation seeing it might easily be that their great Zeal has hindred them from well comprehending them And this is a Remark which we must make in respect of all the ancient Hereticks whose Opinions are denoted to us only from the Writings of their Adversaries About the middle of the third Century Sabellius produced a new Opinion which was condemned in Egypt and afterwards every where He was charg'd with (a) Synod Const ap Theod lib. 5. c. 9. Damascus apud cundem c. 11. confounding the Hypostasis and denying the Properties which distinguish the Father the Son and Holy Ghost and for having said that the Father is the same as the Son Whereas Plato and his followers