us to understand that when the Platonic Fathers applied these losty Expressions of Solomon to their Eternal Word they did not or could not do it but by the way of an Accommodation or Allusion The same Bishop having related the Opinion of some Fathers a little lower who apply the same Expressions of Solomon to the Man Jesus Christ afterwards goes on thus pag. 63. But this saith he not being the sense of the Words which Solomon first intended I shall not build my Paraphrase upon it but take Wisdom here as it signifies in other Places of this Book and hath been hitherto described whom Solomon now celebrates for her most venerable Antiquity and introduces like a most beautiful Person no less than a Queen or rather some Divine Being infinitely to be preferred before that base Strumpet spoken of in the foregoing Chapter Indeed Solomon hath made her speak by introducing her as a Person and exborts young People to give ear to her She speaks of herself that God created her or that she comes to us from God that she was before the World was made because God who is the source of her and communicates her to Men did make use of her in framing this Universe Also that Kings reign by her because Prudence and good Counsels are the Soul of a good Government Notwithstanding this clear and natural sense Prejudice hath abused these Words to apply them to Jesus Christ but there are many other that cannot at all agree to him 'T is true that the Platonick Fathers are alledg'd here who understood this Chapter literally of a Personal Wisdom I own it but the same Fathers have also and that with no less Pomp quoted that Passage of the 45th Psalm My Heart is inditing a good Matter Word to prove the Eternal Generation of J. C. We justly laugh now adays at so ridiculous an Interpretation as well as of that Psal 110. From the Womb of the Morning thou hast the Dew of thy Youth Which the antient Interpreters did endeavour to make subservient to the same purpose Let us then I pray mistrust them as to this Text in the Proverbs they having so grosly deceiv'd us in those two of the Psalms which they made use of for the same ends as frequently and with as much Confidence But after all tho their Testimonies should be produc'd in shoals we can produce better Interpreters of Prov. 8. I mean the Books of the Old Testament it self the Wisdom and Ecclesisticus which tho they are Apocryphal yet are of greater Authority than the Writings of the Fathers who were the Disciples of Plato the Authors of these two having probably known better the Mind of Solomon and the Sentiments of the Jews The Author of the Wisdom having made use of the same Prosopopeia with him in the Proverbs calls Wisdom The Breath Spirit of the Power of God a pure Stream flowing from the Glory of the Almighty the Brightness of the everlasting Light the unspotted Mirrour of the Power of God the Image of his Goodness and that she sits on the Throne of God He goes on like the Author of the Proverbs that when God created the World Wisdom was with him knew his Works was present then knoweth and understandeth all things But to let you see that he speaks only of a Quality or Virtue he adds That he loved her sought her out from his Youth desired to have her for a Spouse was a Lover of her Beauty He desires of God in his ardent Prayers to give her to him to send her out of the Heavens to assist him to teach him that his Works might be acceptable For saith he we hardly guess aright at things that are upon the Earth but the things that are in Heaven who can search out unless God gives Wisdom and send his Holy Spirit from above See Chap. 7 8 9. The same Author speaking further of this Divine Perfection saith That God made all things by his Word form'd Man by his Wisdom Chap. 9. 1 2. taking the Word and Wisdom for one and the same thing viz. for that Power which created the World and whereof Wisdom is but an Emanation Can you imagine now this Author meant that God did create the World by his Son the second Person of the Trinity Can such a Thought enter into a rational Creature Let us come now to the Author of the Ecclesiasticus who expresseth better the Sense we ought to give to the Words of Solomon He introduceth Wisdom speaking thus of her self I came out of the Mouth of the most High he created me from the beginning before the World Hitherto he seems to speak of a Person but explains himself clearly Ch. 24. Ver. 23. where he declares that he meant by this nothing else but the Law of Moses which the Jews name Wisdom by way of Excellency For having spoken of Wisdom under other Figures than that of a Person I mean under the Figure of a Palm-tree an Olive-tree a Vine c he sums up what he had said in these words All these things are the Book of the Covenant of the most High even the Law which Moses gave Can the Law given by Moses be call'd more expresly not only an Olive-tree or a Vine but also the Word which came out of the Mouth of the most High and Wisdom which God created before the World Which are Expressions visibly figurative the which under the Fiction of a Person or the Figure of a Vine represent the Wisdom of God to us sometimes as revealing it self in the Creation of the World and again as replenishing Men with the Fruits of its Knowledg in the Dispensation of the Law This kind of Fictions was familiar to the Moralist Jews and to all the Oriental Philosophers You must be purblind if you discern not immediately the Genius of that People accustom'd to a figurative and parabolick Stile St. John imitates the Moralist Jews and according to the same Ideas hath at one view represented to us the Word or Wisdom of God manifesting himself to Men in two of the greatest of his Dispensations viz. in the Old and the New Creation The Method is the same absolutely you need only put the Gospel or the Author of the Gospel instead of Moses and the Law You may really see him join these two things together viz. The Wisdom of God residing in God himself and presiding at the Creation of the World and the same Wisdom descending upon J. C. in whom it was as it were incarnated and ordering the New World For if according to the Hebrews the Law was the Wisdom or the Word or Precept by way of Excellency much more doth this great Elogium belong to the Gospel namely to be the Word the Wisdom the Truth the Light and the Life by way of excellency An Elogium consequently belonging to J. C. who brought the Word and the Life and was the great Teacher of Truth Whatever the Scripture saith of the First Creation
most commonly in the Shape and Figure of a Man Some of the Antients were bold enough to say that this Word shew'd himself to the Patriarchs in the same shape of Face with which Jesus Christ should one day appear and they suppos'd as Servetus has well explain'd it lib. 3. p. 108 seq That the Word was no other than God's Person that is to say the Image whereby God manifested himself and that that Image was the very shape of Jesus Christ Man there being according to them but one only Divine Person one only Face one only Representation which has always been the same whether in God's immediately shewing himself in created Light or in Angels or in the Messiah who spake to us in his Name And 't is in this sense that we may say that the Person of the Son is Eternal 'T is easy to apprehend the Mind of the Fathers They meant that the Word was no other than the Idea of Jesus Christ Man who being in God's Understanding from all Eternity was put forth in a visible Form God who designed to manifest himself in time by his Messiah having from the beginning even in the Creation of the Universe given Preludes of his great Design in shewing himself to either Angels or Men only under the visible Form which his Son was in time to have which he describ'd in the Symbol of the Manifestation and of his Presence whether by an Angel by Light or by a Cloud So that to speak properly the Word was made Flesh because the same Power which made the World became the Power of Jesus Christ and the same shape of Face which appear'd to the Patriarchs was made the shape of his Face and the Figure of his Flesh I do not defend this Opinion of the Fathers I only shew what it was without obliging my self to maintain it and this ought likewise to be understood of all their other Hypotheses Be that as it will the Patriarchs being by those kind of Apparitions accustom'd to represent God to themselves in humane Shape God was also pleas'd to speak to them of his Perfections in a manner suted to the Idea of his Person which they had fram'd to themselves Whereon Maimonides observ'd that the Chaldean Paraphrast to rectify that Idea of the Deity uses the Term Word to signify in a less familiar manner the several Dispensations of Providence which the Scripture calls the Eyes Hands and Affections of God It is true that the Paraphrast intending to soften all those Expressions which seem to attribute to God corporeal Parts and human Passions unworthy of his Majesty did in their stead use this Term The Word of God which seems to bring into our Minds more Spiritual Ideas of the supreme Deity But he did not consider that if 't is unworthy of God to have Eyes Hands and Ears attributed to him it will not be less so to give him a Mouth Breath a Voice and Speech So that it must be granted that if by a kind of Figure the Scripture mentions the Eyes of God the Hands of God c. it is by the same Figure that we say the Breath of God and the Word of God Whereby all the Mystery pretended to be found in this latter Expression must vanish and we learn not to philosophize so nicely on the Oeconemies wherein God takes various Forms to make himself the better known to us or on manners of speaking which he has suted to our weak Conceptions CHAP. V. How the Philosophers and particularly Plato attain'd the Knowledg of the three Principles A right understanding of the three Principles IT has been said of the most famous Philosophers Pythagoras Socrates and Plato that they heard the Voice of God Which rightly understood signifies no more than that they had heard that silent Language of the Heavens which publish the Glory of God and declare the Works of his Hands Clemens Alexandr Strom. l. 5. p. 547. who so explains it say further That those Philosophers considering the Structure of the Universe heard Moses himself saying God spake and things were made and teaching them that the Word was the Work of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in truth after throughly philosophizing on the Principles of the World they always came thence to conclude and say that it was the Production of an Universal Reason and of an infus'd Spirit which animated it And they held these first Causes to be the Properties of one only Maker I mean the most perfect Being in philosophizing it was natural first to consider whether the World had always existed or whether it had been made 'T is a Question which Clem. Rom. makes to himself Recognit l. 1. c. 27. Some chose to believe the World's Eternity but they were but few and they follow'd the System of Ocellus Lucanus Other who were wiser and more enlighten'd apprehended that it must have had a beginning and these last philosophiz'd according to the Principles of Time is Lacrus The Question was farther to know how and by whom the World had been made The whole System of the antientest Philosophy run upon this Question The Philosophers made their Enquiries on it and after Attention and Study the most knowing among them heard the Voice of God or the Voice of Nature which taught them that the World was the Workmanship of an infinitely good all-wise and omnipotent God Plato was the first who brought this System to Perfection Thales Hermotimus and Anaxagorus discover'd a Spirit which dispos'd Matter and cloth'd it with its several Forms Socrates added that this Spirit which govern'd the World was the Son of the most high God and then Plato philosophizing yet farther fram'd a kind of Trinity 〈◊〉 Pâ—tav l. 1. c. 1. For he conceiv'd a most good God whom he call'd the Father or the Good most wise whom he call'd the Reason or the Word most powerful whom he call'd the Spirit or Soul of the World But then after all as they are three Perfections which are inseparable from the Idea of the Creator he often confounded their Operations As then these three Properties Goodness Wisdom and Power make up the whole Idea which we have of God with respect to the Creation It 's not to be wonder'd that the soundest Philosophy fix'd on these three first Causes when 't was seeking the Origin of the World by studying and contemplating on the World it self The invisible Grandeurs of God says St. Paul Rom. 1.20 as well his Eternal Power as the other Attributes of his Godhead become as 't were visible in being clearly understood by his Works from the Creation of the World 'T is therefore certain that 't was by beholding these Works that the Author of them was found out and that it was discover'd that they were the effect of Infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power And they went no farther because the System of good Philosophy with respect to the Creation proves compleat with these three Principles as has been already
but that Demon was nothing else but his Attention on the Present Reflection on the Past and Penetration into the Future grounded on Conjectures which the Study of the World furnish'd him with The same Author quotes pag. 215. this good Saying of Diogenes Those who have Vnderstanding need not trouble the Oracles And indeed those Men of Parts like Socrates have a living Oracle and familiar Demon. Thus the Antients lov'd to theologize the commonest things and to find Gods every where CHAP. VII A Continuation of the Doctrine of the Three Principles AFter this Digression concerning the Demon of Socrates we 'll return to Plato That Philosopher had attained to a perfect Knowledg of these three Principles Goodness Wisdom and Power and understood thereby 1. That the World was not Eternal and Vnbegotren but that the supreme Father thereto inclined by a Disposition of Goodness had begotten it by his Wisdom and filled it with his Power three Principles which he call'd the Good the Reason and the Soul of the World 2. That the Production of the World was not an effect of Chance or of any blind Principle but of a most good and most wise Cause of an intelligent and rational Power The Author of the Recognitions l. 8. c. 19. informs us that this was Plato's meaning For arguing against those who attributed the World's Origin to the fortuitous jumbling together of Atoms he applies himself to prove that 't is the effect of profound Wisdom and not forgetting one rational Property comes thence to say that 't is the Work of Reason which Reason says he I call the Word and God It is apparent that Plato had no other thought than that of this Author Nevertheless fearing Socrates's Fate he veil'd these great Truths under a Cloud of Fictions and Enigma's which prov'd a Snare to his Disciples and not having Courage enough to oppose common Error made of these three Properties of the Creator so many Gods or Divine Persons complying with the Theology of that Age wherein Powers Passions Properties c. Fortune Fate Justice Love Vertue Honour Safety Concord c. were not otherwise conceiv'd than under the Idea of so many Deitys so much was the Plurality of Gods the Philosophy a la mode even among the Wisest It is difficult said Plato apud Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 5. to find the Father of this Universe and when you have found him 't is not permitted to speak of him to the People Meaning that it was dangerous to declare a Truth which gave offence to the received Opinion of the Plurality of Gods and which consequently could not be declared otherwise than under the Veil of Allegory and under the Fiction of many Hypostases So he explains himself in his second Letter to Dionysius I will speak to you says he by Enigma that if by accident this Letter happen to fall into other hands he may not in reading understand it Minutius Felix made the same Observation after Clemens Plato says he spake more clearly of God than any other Philosopher and his Doctrine would be perfectly Divine if he had not spoil'd it by a mixture of the Religion establish'd by the Laws of his Country For according to Plato in Timaeus God is the Father of the World even by his being God He is Creator of the Soul and of all things as well Celestial as Terrestrial But that Philosopher does previously advertise that 't is difficult to find him because of his infinite Power and that when he is found it is impossible to explain one's self concerning him to the common People Why impossible Because dangerous These few Words contain an Abridgment of our whole System That Plato spake of God only with respect to the Creation That he believ'd him to be the Father of the World and consequently that the World is his Son That he knew him better than other Philosophers and that nevertheless he has spoil'd that Knowledg by mixing with it the Errors of his Country because he thought it too dangerous to speak his thoughts of it openly That is he had not liberty to speak his Mind and to please a superstitious Populacy he was forc'd to make as many Hypostases and Gods as he had discover'd Perfections in the World's Creator In a word to philosophize on the Origin of the World securely he was oblig'd subtilly to feign a Genealogy of Gods a Father a Begotten Son a third proceeding from those two and to turn the whole Cosmogony into a mere Theogony We know Proclus one of Plato's Disciples maintain'd that his Master plac'd a Supreme God above this Trinity of Principles whereof we have been now speaking which plainly enough shews that under these three feign'd Essences or Persons he design'd to hide the several Perfections of the most High God whom he believ'd to be but one Essence and one Person but he multiply'd him after the manner of the Heathens to shelter himself from the Rigour of the Laws It is not to be doubted but all the Philosophers had the same aim of preserving the Vnity of God under a multitude of feign'd Personalities without any danger to themselves Unless any will suppose it to have been a witty Invention which they fram'd for the better instructing and fixing the Minds of the common People who are pleas'd with Wonders and Mysteries One may indeed believe that they did it with a good intention designing to place instead of gross Polytheism the several Properties of the True and most High God that the People might insensibly receive an exchange which was so advantageous to them And so much the worse for Christians who have been bubl'd by this Eastern Philosophy in taking literally a Method which was merely Allegorical I will conclude this Reflection on the three Platonick Principles with this Observation of Origen agreeing with the Doctrine of St. Paul Lib. 6. contra Cels That Philosophers having in the Creation of the World beheld what is invisible in God which this Father calls the Divine Ideas and being rais'd from sensible to Spiritual things did plainly enough perceive his Eternal Power and Godhead But what are these invisible Excellencies which appear in the Creation They are the three Principles whereof Plato was pleas'd to make three Hypostases or Persons Dr. Cudworth saw the Contrivance of this Mystery Pag. 590. of his Intellectual System The three Hypostases of the Platonists says he do not seem to be really any thing else than Infinite Goodness infinite Wisdom and infinite Power and Love Irenaeus l. 3. c. 46. owns the same Truth Vlato says he having given the Name of Good to the Supreme Maker of all things hath herein laid down the Goodness of God as the Principle and Cause of the Creation of the World This Reflection of Irenaeus takes place with respect to the other two Divine Propertys which Plato ranks among the Causes of the World So that we may say that Plato having call'd the first Author of all things the Good
denied when it is only their irresistible Grace that is rejected which they have been pleas'd to conceit as such Sandius who maintain'd a Word brought forth and stood for the Hypostases yet owns Nucl Hist Eccl. lib. 1. that Marcellus Photinus Sabellius Paul of Samosata and even Ebion who believ'd only an Hypostasis of the Father held notwithstanding that in that Hypostasis alone there were two Energies or Divine Operations to wit the Word and the Holy Spirit and that by these two Operations God created the World and manifested himself in J. C. Petavius acknowledges the same De Trinit lib. 1. c. 13. as to Paul of Samosata and Marcellus Dr. Pearson agrees with him That the last Vind. Ignat. Par. 2. c. 3. believ'd an existent Word in the Hypostasis of the Father and which came forth thence as a single Operation to create the Universe Dr. Bull Judic Eccles c. p. 67. recounting the Opinion of Paul of Samosata attributes to him constantly that he believ'd an efficacious Word descended from Heaven on J. C. And by the Word saith he Paul did not intend that Hypostasis which we call the Son of God but a Power and a Divine Virtue which form'd him in the Virgin and which was closely united to him to work the Miracles he did Neither can it be denied that this was the Opinion of Beryllus Those Expressions of Eusebius that have given so much trouble to the Learned are not difficult to be understood provided you supply them with some Particle and add a word or two as you must sometimes in all other Authors In my opinion Eusebius intends nothing else Lib. 6. c. 33. but that this Bishop maintain'd that the Man J. C. did not pre-exist in another Essence or another Nature that was proper to him before he liv'd among Men And consequently that the Deity which dwelt since he liv'd among Men was not an Hypostasis of his own but the Divinity and Virtue of the Father This is a right Notion the Word is nothing else but a Divine Power distinct from the Son and a Heavenly Wisdom descended on J. C. Beryilus Paul and Marcellus had it perhaps from Ignatius who calls J. C. Epist ad Magnes The Eternal Word that came not forth out of silence i. e. that he was not a Word brought forth and be otten with its proper Hypostasis but the Operation and the essential Virtue of God manifesting himself outwardly For I frankly agree that this Passage of Ignatius which hath given so much trouble to the Abettors of his Epistles is not intended against Valentine but I say it attacks those Platonick Doctors who asserted a Generation of the Word a little before the Beginning of the World and who believ'd that it was brought forth and consequently proceeded out of Silence This was the Opinion of Tertullian and many of the Fathers who preceded him that the Word that was brought forth which they believ'd to be the only that was begotten and the only one that might be call'd the Son did come forth in time of another mute Word which they call'd Reason or Wisdom eternal Tertullian teacheth us positively adv Prax. that before the Word that was brought forth came out of the Wisdom or the Divine Reason God had it in himself in his Thought as a silent Word habebat intra semetipsum tacitè cogitando You cannot express more clearly that the Word brought forth came out of Silence This Opinion no doubt began to glide in at the time of Ignatius who laughs at it and refutes it rejecting this Word brought forth and proceeding out of Silence which receiv'd its Hypostasis a little before the Creation as being a Word merely Flatonick and he admits no other Word to be real but that essential Virtue which was eternally in God which is God himself which created the World and was as it were incorporated in J. C. And this Ignatius's way of speaking that J. C. is the eternal Word is grounded on the Words of St. John that the Word was made Flesh that is to say that the same Virtue which created the World is become the proper Virtue of J. C. in such a manner that you may say rightly that J. C. made the Ages by his Power and consequently by himself for that which is done by my Power is done by my self When therefore the Apostles say that all things â—ere made by J. C. or by the Son their meaning is no other but that they were made by the immense Power of the Father which was in J.C. he becoming that Power that Spirit that Wisdom of the Father because all the Miracles effected by that Power are said to be done by J. C. in whom it resided In this sense Simon Magus call'd himself the great Power of God and boasted that he had made the Ages not that he believ'd himself as the Antients would have it to be a Divine Hypostasis sometimes the Father sometimes the Son and sometimes the Holy Ghost He was not so extravagant but only aping J. C design'd to say that the Divine Power which actuated him was the Power of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost the same Power that created the World J. C. is in the same sense call'd the Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 We may enforce the Explication we have given of Ignatius his Words by the manner how Irenaeus disputes against the Valentinians Lib. 2. c. 47. seq It is true saith he that in regard to Man he is sometimes silent sometimes speaks sometimes he takes his rest and sometimes acts But it is not so with God who being all Understanding all Reason all Spirit is not liable to such like Changes Meaning that God is always a Reason an internal Word but never a Word brought faith as he explains himself afterwards saying That God being all Reason thinking in him is speaking and speaking nothing else but thinking For his Thought is his Speech and his Speech is his Vnderstanding and this Vnderstanding which comprehends all things is the Father himself Further to make us the better comprehend that he speaks thus against the Word brought forth or begotten he accosts the Valentinians with this smart Raillery The Valentinians saith he speak of the bringing forth and Generation of the Son as if they had assisted the Father at his Birth I shall leave you to consider whether this Raillery spares our Scholasticks He that would be at the pains about it needs only make a Parallel of their System concerning the Generation of the Son with that of the Valentinians and he might soon see whether those Hereticks only were ridiculous herein CHAP. XII Plato speaks but aenigmatically His Word is not that of St. John Several Systems of the Platonists explain'd I Could produce many more Platonists but to be brief I come now to Plato himself See then what Clement of Alexandria saith of him Strom. lib. 5. p. 592. of the Paris Edition When Plato saith that it
Resemblances tho it continued the same at the bottom But the second Method fix'd on the Number Three which were always reckoned in the same Order and had almost always the same Names given them could not be liable to the same Confusion especially among Christians who applied it constantly to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Besides they could explain themselves clearly in this last Method and speak of it distinctly whereas the other in its very rise was a politick Method prudentially invented and which was understood either ill or not at all because it kept secret and allegorical Furthermore the same distinction of gross and subtil Platonism ought to take place in reference to the other two Systems viz. in relation to the Creator Matter and Form and with respect to the Father the intelligible World and the sensible World If you distinguish not well between the Allegory and the Letter nothing will prove more intricate or unintelligible Lastly the principal Cause of this Confusion is these two Methods being so often intermix'd for if you mind it the Fathers sometime philosophizing according to the spurious Platonism insist rigidly on the sense of the three Hypostases and sometimes treading in the Footsteps of the true and antient Platonism do only allegorize and by their Emanations seem rather to mean the Powers of the supreme Being than Spirits subsisting Sometimes nothing will serve their turn but Subsistences Substances a true Generation and a real Procession At other times 't is a quite different thing they mean only the Powers and different Oeconomies of God manifesting himself in the Creation of the World to which they seem to give improperly the Name of a generated Son and Wisdom brought forth which doubtless is the Cause why so much Sabellianism overspreads their Writings We need not wonder henceâ—â—â—th if their Trinity is sometimes so inconsistent with the Vnity of God this proceeds from their gross Platonism Whereas in other Places their Three Principles suffer the Vnity to remain intire which proceeds from their refin'd Platonism CHAP. XIII The Christians have contriv'd a twofold Word grounded upon the two Words of Plato They meant only by Generation the Prolation of the second Word which happened a little before the Creation of the World SOCRATES reduc'd Philosophy to Morality his Disciple Plato advanced it further even to Theology by making three Persons or three Divine Hypostases of the three Divine Properties by whose concurrence the World was created or rather by conceiving a Creator infinitely Good with an Vnderstanding drawing the Plan of the World and an Energy that performs it These Theologic Philosophers allegorizing after their wonted manner changed the intelligible World into the Word and the sensible World into a Son The one is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers in like manner distinguish'd the two Words whereof the one is internal the other brought forth and consider'd only the second as a Son because properly speaing they called Generation only that which was perform'd at the beginning of the World They say When God wil'ed to create the World he brought forth or generated the Word May you not easily perceive that such Modes of Speech owe their rise to the Mystic Philosophy which consider'd the whole World as the Son of God and as a Son generated by his Word or Command Yes these Turns of Expression owe their birth to some Poetical ones of the Heathens like those of Orpheus related by Justin in Protrep ad Gentil I swear saith the Poet by that Voice which the Heavenly Father uttered when he formed the whole Creation Then it was according to Justin that God generated his Word because he brought it forth in order to create the World All this is well meant and grounded upon the Words of Moses The only difference I remark in the System about these two Words is seeing Allegory is arbitrary some have fix'd it on the sensible World which they made to be the Son of God as many of the Philosophers we quoted have done because they consider'd it as the Production of the Divine Speech or Power but others fixed their Allegory upon the intelligible or Ideal World even on the Speech it self as thrust forth which they considered as a Production of the Divine Vnderstanding This last System was followed by the Christians when they personalized either the Word brought forth as the first Fathers and the Arians or the Internal and Mental Word as the Fathers of the Council of Nice and the Athanasians did Dr. Bull being forc'd to own this Truth pretends to clear the difficulty by distinguishing a twofold Generation of the Word the one Eternal and the other Temporal and maintaining that the Fathers consider'd the first as Real the second as Metaphorical but just the contrary hereof is true Theophilus of Antioch distinguisheth carefully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Thought of God from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Word generated Athenagoras and Tatian tell us of a Son who was in God in Idea and potentially before he actually existed as a Person Tertullian saith There was a time when the Son was not a Son and that the Father was not always a Father that the Word which he distinguisheth from Reason was not from the beginning Novatian declares expresly chap. 31. that the Procession of the Son which was done when the Father willed it that is to say when he resolved to create the World That this Prolation say I made the Son a second Person Origen and Clement make a difference between the Word which was God and the Word which was made Flesh meaning that the former was the internal Word which is the Divine Vnderstanding and God himself and by the latter the Word brought forth which is only an Emanation from the former Prudentius calls J. C. Verbigena begotten of the Word where you may see manifestly the two Words the one generating and the other generated the one being the essential Wisdom of God the other is its Production And the first Word is so far from being the Son that Prudentius considers it as the Father Lastly not to be redicus Marius Victorinus makes to great a difference between the Word speaking and the Word silent that he calls the former the Son and the latter the Father All these Fathers generally tell us that before the Word was generated it was in the Heart of God in the Womb of his Vnderstanding in his Bowels whence it came forth as it were from its Seed and Bud. Either all these Terms mean nothing or they denote that the Son did not then exist otherwise than in the Design and Intent of the Father that he came forth thence when by the virtue of the Divine Prolation he did receive a real Existence Now it is not the first Existence but the second which the Fathers constantly and properly call the Generation of the Son or in other words
ingenuously in Joan. 1.1 they only meant that the Word was not created in the beginning of all things when God created the Heavens and the Earth after the manner of other Creatures or that of the other generated Spirits because it had a Being then already the Father having begotten it before by an immediate Generation For this Reason the Author of the Recognitions lib. 3. cap. 11. denies formally that the Holy Spirit may be called Son because there is saith he but one ungenerated and but one generated it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit is a Son having been made by another who was likewise made Eusebius delivers this Doctrine as a * Such is the Argument of that Chapter Tradition of the Church De Eccles Theol. lib. 3. cap. 6. The Spirit the Paraclet saith he is neither God nor Son because he took not his Origin from the Father after the same manner as the Son did being of the Number of those things that were made by the Son for whom all things were made All things saith the Evangelist consequently then the Holy Spirit also Origen's Doctrine is the source of all this who maintains in his 1 Tom. upon St. John that the Holy Spirit is a Creature of the Son relying with Eusebius upon this Expression that all 〈◊〉 not excepting the Holy Spirit were made by the Son This Theology of the Antients â—â—â—hing the immediate Generation of the Word at the time of the World's Creation was follow'd by many other Doctors even after the Council of Nice Marius Victorinus is of this Number who would have it in his first Book that the Generation of the Word is only an Effusion and Manifestation of that Power which created the World and which was hid in God before You may join Zeno of Verona with him de aeterna Filii Generatione Serm. 3. who moreover explains this Generation by referring it to the Creation of the World For as he saith it was then that the Word which was as it were buried in the Abyss of the Divine Understanding in profundo sacrae Mentis Serm. 1. was thrust forth and begotten Would Valentine have expressed himself otherwise about his Word which came forth out of the Understanding than this Man doth of his come out of the Deep and Silence But we ought not to forget Rupert who unfolds admirably this Philosophic Cabala saying That the Father actually begot the Word which contain'd potentially all things when he created the Heavens and the Earth Yes he goes on the Father thrust forth this good Word out of his Heart and before the Morning-Star begot him out of his Bosom viz. out of the Bottom of his Substance when he said Let there be Light Nothing can be more like to Origen's Expression That the Generation of the Light is the Generation of the Son Mr. Huel excuseth Origen alledging that he spoke allegorically we do not doubt it all this Theology is Allegorick The Word or Command which God utter'd to the Creature is the Son of God but improperly so and in the same sense that my Thought or my Speech are the Sons of my Understanding which both conceives and brings them forth This is too evident and for this Cause Dr. Ball had reason to retrench out of his Quotation Desen Fidei Nic. p. 395. these last Words of Rupert's Passage That the Father beget the Son when he â—â—id Let there be Light But Lactartius goes beyond all these Doctors I quoted for he allows not to the Word so much as the Advantage of an immediate Generation above the other generated Spirits He finds no difference between them but only in the different manner of their Prolation and in the different Design God had in the begetting of them The Holy Scriptures teach us saith he Lib. 4. c. 8. that the Son of God is the Word of God even as also the other Angels are the Spirits of God For the Word is a Spirit which was brought forth with a significative Voice But because the Spirit Breath and Speech are thrust forth by different Organs the Spirit proceeding out of the Nostrils and the Speech out of the Mouth consequently there is a great difference between this Son of God and the other Angels caeteros Angelos these being come forth out of God as silent and mute Spirits because they were not created to preach the Doctrine of God but only for the executing of his Orders But the Son notwithstanding he is a Spirit yet he came forth of the Mouth of God with a Sound and a Voice like unto Speech because God was to make use of his Voice to instruct the People c. You see manifestly how he confounds the Angel who is called the Word with the other Angels that he makes them all to proceed out of God equally by an immediate Prolation and that the only difference he makes here consists in this that the common Angels proceeded out of the Nostrils of God as mute Spirits design'd only to execute his Orders by Deeds whereas this chief Angel whom he calls the Son doth proceed out of the Mouth of God as a vocal and sounding Speech design'd to deliver his Oracles and to reveal his Will Lastly Origen or some body else under his Name goes beyond even Lactantius himself in that he confounds the Generation of the Word with that of common Creatures Homil. 2. in diversos For tho on the one hand he seems to say That the Word was born before all things and that all things were made by him yet he advanceth at the same time that these Words all things were made by him signify only that at his being born of the Father all things were likewise born together with him the Generation of the Word-God being the same with the Creation of all things And tho he saith That the Son is of a different Substance from the Creature that he hath the same Nature with the Father and that he had a beginning before Time was He seems to destroy all this by adding That the Substance of the Father is the Cause of the Son's Substance and that Jesus Christ intended so much when he said that his Father was greater than he which asserts evidently that the Substance of the Father is greater than that of the Son As also when he goes on To exist before Time is to exist not in Time but with Time His Conclusion will tell us his Meaning We ought then saith he to believe three things the Father bringing forth the Son begotten and the things that were made by the Word the Father speaks the Word is begotten and all things are made Conformably to what he was saying viz. that the Father bringeth forth the Word that is to say begetting his Wisdom all things were then made It is not difficult to sound the Depth of this Philosophy The Word is of the same Substance with the Father because it is the proper Power of the Father but it is less than
Mr. How Amongst the Nominal the Bishop of Salisbury is of one Opinion Dr. Wallis of another Dr. South differs from them both Range them by Hundreds there will not be one that will keep to the precise Point that forms this Chimerical Orthodoxy which is boasted of by every one but attained to by none for they treat one another as Hereticks Here is a large Field for you to scour about and raise a thousand nice Questions in which the most acute can't perceive and to find Heresies in those that have had the Misfortune to displease you Must an overgrown Bishop be depos'd whose See lies convenient for me or a Competitor stopt in his Career I have no more to do but only examine them about these two Points in question if they have not found the indivisible Point precisely and who can do it They are undone I will prove demonstratively that their Opinion is Heretical Impious and Blasphemous I shall call both the East and West to my Aid and what is more I shall have the Pleasure to see three or four hundred Bishops assembled in a General Council who shall unanimously vote for me for the accused is always in the wrong the Thunderbolts and Anathemas shall follow Thus the whole World will be in a Flame for a Trifle Alas the Memory of such a Number of vain Disputes between Nestorius and Eutyches cannot be renewed without making the Christian World to blush But whoever could give us the secret History of all the antient Councils like to that of the Council of Trent would certainly infinitely oblige the Christian World But lastly perhaps the Defender did not perceive my having answer'd his trifling Difficulty before hand let us then make him sensible of it Let us examine the Relish of the Antients and see what Books they have preserved for us what Character they bear and of what Stamp they are I told you already that they have not left us any Father of the Christians of the Circumcision but only some Gentiles brought up in the School of Plato We have indeed a Justin Athenagoras Theophilus Tatian Irenaeus Clement of Alexand Origen Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and some others of the same sort Fathers indeed who breathe nothing but Platonism This is the precious Relick Antiquity has left us It is easy then to draw the consequence What Books hath it destroyed All those that shocked Plato that spake not as Plato We do the Defender Justice if from the Books that Antiquity chose we point out those it rejected He hath then lost his Cause for the Collection we have could not be such by Chance the Caprice of the Times or such like Accidents No it is too uniform Choice presided here at least as to the Character of these Books but Time and the Fate of Libraries may have had a share in the rest I return to my Subject and must observe here that if the Allegories of Barnabas are very evident because they are so frequent and characteriz'd by the Terms of Spirit and Figure which he makes use of to denote them to be so yet this happens not always The Fathers speak them out often so absolutely that it is only the Matter it self that can make us discern them Thus the Allegories of Origen have often deceived his Readers For this Father as Mr. Huet observes it Origen Quaest 14. passing often from the Explication of the Letter to a Spiritual Sense imperceptibly his Readers took his Allegories for Dogmatical Assertions What he hath said of Origen may be applied to all the rest of the Fathers Irenaeus for example Lib. 4. cap. 37. speaks out in downright Terms without any hint of a Figure an Allegory he made upon the Spies sent by Joshua to Jericho Rahab the Harlot saith he in receiving the Spies conceal'd in her House the Father Son and Holy Ghost Who would not believe if you take this literally as the Trinitarians are wont but that these Spies were actually the Father Son and Holy Ghost in a human Shape there being nothing in the Words here to hint the Adaptation and Allegory Really if Irenaeus had said as he might very well at this rate that Abraham receiving the Angels that went to destroy Sodom gave a Dinner to the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Mystery would certainly have been found in these Words pretending that Abraham did entertain these three Persons of the Deity who appeared to him in the Form of three Angels or three Men What difference is there I pray between this way of speaking we now suppose and what Irenaeus really made use of None and you must grant that if you think you have good ground from such like Expressions to make a supreme God in three Persons of the three Angels you may likewise conclude the Spies of Jericho to have been the Father Son and Holy Ghost really and literally so For whatever may be said to the contrary it is as impossible that Angels should be God as for the Spies to be so Surely the Repugnancy in the Nature of the things themselves which Authors compare mutually ought always to determine us to look for a figurative and allegoric sense there especially when it appears to us that these Allegories are agreeable to the Genius and Custom of those Authors or at least of their Predecessors and Masters it being certain that tho the Disciples often alter the Method of their Masters yet there will still remain some Footsteps of the antient Doctrine betraying and discovering their Innovations This is the Lot of the Platonic Fathers as we shall show hereafter For the present the Example of Irenaeus is sufficient to inform us that according to the same way of speaking which calls the Spies the Father Son and Holy Ghost we may also say that J. C. was the Word which created the World and the Angel that appeared to the Patriarchs See what Annotator Feuerdentius saith on this Passage of Irenaeus An old Copy adds the Word Three to the Spies which would agree very well with the three Divine Hypostases had not the Scripture assured us that there were but Two and not Three Justin hath also much the same Allegory in his Dialogue It is likely that Irenaeus carried on his Allegory but to the Father and Son in relation to the two Spies but for fear the Holy Ghost should be thereby excluded some Knave put him in too and then the Word Three must be added to the Spies that so all might be adjusted to the three Divine Persons Thus various Readings proceed from the Boldness of the Orthodox but howeven it be you see the Allegory either reject it in this Place or acknowledg it every where else where there is the like necessity for it As the Father Son and Holy Ghost were allegorically in the Spies of Jericho in like manner J. C. was allegorically in all the Dispensations of old in the Word that created the World in the Angels and the Prophets that spake to
Men because if I may say so these Dispensations were the Figures of the great Oeconomy of J. C. or rather of God the Father manifesting himself in the Flesh of his Son Therefore Irenaeus calls it the Dispensation which was from the Beginning You may see what Vossius saith in his Notes concerning these Allegories of Barnabas and the other Fathers It is known by all saith he how these first Christians interpreted the Scriptures after a mystic and superstitious manner I was like to say childish and foolish Cotelier saith almost the same and shews their Absurdities But take this along with you that these dull Allegories did not by far so much Mischief as that Christianity in Masquerade which some other Fathers borrowed from Plato It is of these you may more justly say than of the Allegorists according to one of our Criticks that the Day these good Fathers were writing so many philosophic Visions they voided a Purge Purgamentum aliquod cacasse Let us now come to Hermas who is as well stored with Visions and Parables as Barnabas At least his Method is the same In his Parable or Similitude the 9th § 12. he saith That the Rock is the Son of God now the Rock is of old because the Son of God is more antient than any Creature inasmuch as he assisted in the Council of his Father in order to form the Creature All this is said in a mystic and an allegoric sense to explain that the Father did all in regard to his Son and the new Creation The Author having said as much in his first Vision § 4. concerning the Church for asking of the Angel Why the Church of God is an old Woman the Angel answers because she was the first thing that was created and that it was by reason of her the World was made It is likely in the Greek it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translator rendered not per illam but propter illam You see then that this Father saith no more of J. C. than he doth of the Church and that these Words antiquior omni Creatura mean the same thing with anus prima omnium creata which are true only in a mystic sense but false in the Letter Consequently then J. C. is from the Beginning in the same sense that the Church is so I mean in the Decree and Design of God which the Author expresseth by his being in the Council of the Father which he borrowed manifestly from the Author of the Book of Wisdom I shall now produce a remarkable Instance of the Alteration that ensued as to the Tenent it self notwithstanding the Terms remained the same You see that Hermas saith here the Son of God is more antient than any Creature and that he speaks so allegorically Let us get over one Age or two and you shall see Origen making use of the same Expression but in an Arian sense The Holy Scriptures saith he Lib. 5. contra Cels discover the Son of God to us as the most antient of all the Creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means that he was created a little before the World but let us return to our Subject Justin Martyr who first taught the Pre-existence of the Word imitating the Notion of Hermas did teach the Pre-existence of Christians no less than that of Christ himself whilst Apol. 2. he saith That all those who were Partakers of the Word or Reason as well Greeks as Barbarians were Christians and consequently Christians did not commence yesterday or to day but were always and every where a principio saith he from the beginning attributing to them the very Prerogative of the Word it self These good Men turn'd themselves every way to ward off the Reâ—roach of Novelty wherewith Christianity was charged In like manner Eusehius endeavouring to prove that the Christian Religion was not new maintains that the Patriarchs profest it and that it was instituted from the beginning Hist Eccles Lib. c. 4. Thus much he cannot advance but in a mystic sense as he observes it himself because all those who acted justly and served that God who is above all were Christians Consequently then Christ could not converse otherwise with them but in the same manner as they professed Christianity which cannot be true but by way of Analogy and Accommodation Christ then pre-existed as the Christian Religion and Christians did pre-exist Let us return to Hermas It is manifest that he allegoriz'd even by his entituling his third Book where he speaks of the Pre-existence of J. C. Similitudes or Parables which carry on throughout spiritual and mystic senses as is evident by Similitude 5. where he explains the Parable of the Father of a Family in a theological manner in relation to the Father the Holy Ghost and the Son The Father in the Plan of his Allegory is the Landlord the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Houshold and he who out of Allegory is called the Son is but a Servant in the Allegory The Landlord saith he is the same who created all things the Son is the Holy Ghost and the Son of God is the Servant He goes on and adds a little after The Holy Ghost insinuated himself into the Body wherein God was to dwell and this Body whereinto the Holy Ghost did insinuate himself having served the Holy Ghost and having been faithful to him always did obtain the Approbation of God by his Labours and Obedience By the Holy Ghost cannot be meant here the second Person which is called the Divine Nature of J. C. as Dr. Bull pretends for who sees not that Hermas speaks here of that Spirit of Sanctification which prepared the Body of J. C. for Prophecy and consecrated it for a Temple for God to dwell in And seeing this Idea of the Holy Spirit 's being infus'd into the Body of J. C. is so conformable to what the Holy Scriptures deliver concerning it you must be very extravagant if you think that Hermas differed from it Besides what could he mean if his sense were the same with that Dr. Bull attributes to him Would he introduce two Sons of God so opposite one to the other The one who serves and obeys and the other who is served and obeyed and what is yet more strange two Sons of God in the self-same Person of J. C. our Lord. The Son saith Hermas is the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is the Servant Now if the Divine Nature of J. C. be denoted by the Spirit and that the Servant signifies the Human Nature you will have two Sons according to the very Letter Thus the Orthodox embroil all things to fish for Mysteries in Troubled Water whereas nothing is more clear than the meaning of Hermas He allegorizeth and would say By him whom the Parable calls the Son I mean nothing else but the Holy Spirit and by him whom the Parable calls a Servant I mean J. C. our Lord who out of the Parable is the proper Son of
invoked God the Father thro his Everlasting High Priest Jesus Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit Who sees not that he gave Glory to J. C. and that he deified him by stiling him the everlasting High Priest If he could have said any thing greater he would have said it Rusticus Praefect of Rome demanded of Justin Martyr what was the Christian Religion This Confessor answered we believe one only God who is the Creator of all things visible and invisible and we confess that J. C. our Lord is the Son of God foretold by the Prophets and who shall come one day to judg the World Observe here such a Son of God whose whole Pre-existence consists in his being foretold by the Prophets and whose real Greatness is not his having created but because he will judg the World This Creed is Apostolic and has the Air and Simplicity of the first Ages One may dextrously philosophize upon the Christian Religion and speak in the Platonic way in ones Closet as Justin has often done but when he was to make a sincere Consession before the Magistrate and to seal it with his own Blood Plato has nothing to do with it the Confession is made with Simplicity and in conformity to the Holy Scriptures then 't is no longer Justin the Philosopher but Justin the Confessor and the Martyr Lastly Hegesippus acquaints us in Euseb-Eccles Hist lib. 2. c. 23. that James the Just being conjur'd by the Jews to declare to them what he thought of Jesus Why says he do you put this Qacst'en to me concerning Jesus the Since Mâ—n He sits in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Power of God and he must come again in the Clouds of Heaven This Holy Man says the Historian was a Witness very credible both with Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was really the Christ His Confession is not long however it comprehends that which may be said to be the most august and considerable and confirms all the Theology which concerns the Persons of Christ To these Testimonies of antient Martyrs give me leave to add another Instance which is not much from the purpose Eusebius tells us in his Eccles Hist lib. 1. c. 13. That Thaddeus going to see King Agbarus he preached to the King J. C. our Lord and our God the Messias or the Sent of God Valesius remarks in his Notes that the Word God is wanting in good Copies which are in other Passages confirmed by Nicephorus and Ruffinus And I don't think says Mons Valois any one dares deny but that the Reading wherein the Word God is wanting is more agreeable to the Text For 1st the Antients us'd not that Word but of the Father only 2ly If Thaddeus speaking to a King who was a new Convert to and weak in the Faith had call'd J. C. God this might have perplexed him and made him to think that two Gods were preached to him 'T is plain and fair dealing to affirm the Antients by no means gave the Name of God to J. C. but 't is mincing to say that they did it not in the case of weak Christians this is a mere Evasion For why was not the like Tenderness us'd towards others in the following Ages Is it because there was less danger of spreading Polytheism Were not the Catechumens both weak and Novices too whom the Pantaenusses the Clements Alexandrinusses the Origens and the Cyrils taught the second God of Plato with all the Niceties of the mystic Theology Be that as it will it appears from this Passage and many others that one has not good ground to trust much to the Testimonies of the Antients where the Name of God is given to J. C. The Word God has been inserted in such Places by Trinitarian Copists and without doubt many other Terms have been retrench'd as they thought fit What an Abyss of Uncertainty is here then Besides Mons Du Pin believes this History of Thaddeus to be fabulous See his Biblioth Tom. 1. p. 1. Eusebius has amassed all sorts of Memoirs without much Judgment He often misunderstands the Authors he cites sometimes he corrupts them to reconcile them to the Arian Scheme What endless Uncertainties must this occasion Mons Valois himself falls under the same Guilt he taxes in others and we must not only be upon our Guard against the Fraud of Copists but of Translators too Observe how he reads the Text in the eleventh Chapter of the eighth Book of Euseb Eecles Hist The Martyrs of Phrygia as he makes the Historian word it called upon Jesus Christ who is God over all Now these Words God over all are not found in the Greek of Christopherson nor in the Latin Version of Ruffinus nor in Cousin's French Version And Valois takes no notice whence he had this Reading which in other Places is so contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius himself and to other Invocations to be met with in great Numbers in his History the ordinary Form thereof is to invoke him who is God over all by or through J. C. our Lord and in short is contrary to the Usage and constant Practice of the Primitive Church as we are going to shew in our third Proof CHAP. III. A Continuation of the Proofs that the first Fathers did not deify Christ upon any other account but that of his miraculous Birth and Exaltation I Affirm in the third Place that the Antients grounded their Deification of J. C. upon nothing beyond his being born of a Virgin and his Exaltation in the highest Heavens and that for this decisive Reason because they held all those were Hereticks who gave J. C. the Title of God over all To this purpose speaks the Author of the Apostolic Constitutions lib. 6. c. 26. There are some says he who have the Impiety or are so impious as to say that J. C. is God over all fancying that he is the Father himself and at the same time both Son and Paraclet Can any thing be conceived more execrable Upon this Passage Mons Daille in his Pseudepigr Apost blesses himself and says Then was St. Paul an Heretick and the whole Church is heretical which constantly maintain'd against the Arians that J. C. was God over all So that heretofore 't was Heresy to affirm J. C. to be God over all tho now-a-days 't is Orthodoxy But that Christ was the Father himself and the Son and Paraclet too is a consequence drawn from their Doctrine which they rejected without doubt as 't is disavowed by others in these days The distinction of Persons was not then in fashion which is nothing but three different Names for the same thing as that word is now understood For it must signify with some nothing but a Mode a Relation a nescio qâ—â—d which are words that signify nothing less than what we commonly call a Person Wherefore If the consequence above be good against the antient Hereticks 't is e'en as good against the modern Sabellians After the Author of the
by his own Son This would be to no purpose But if on the contrary we understand by the Word a Divine Manifestation either by an Angel or by his Son the words of Clement will produce an excellent Sense He means therefore of old an Angel was the Word that is to say the Presence and the Oracle of God and this Manifestation being surprizing and illustrious was an Oeconomy of Fear But now a Man like unto us is the Word of God that is to say his Presence and his Oracle and this Manifestation being more adapted to our State becomes a Dispensation of Condescendence and Love So that if these words of Clement The Word was an Angel do signify that God did manifest himself then by Angels these words of St. John the Word was Flesh will signify likewise that God doth now manifest himself to Men by the Flesh or which is all one by a Man This is the best Notion we can have of the Word if we consult the Scriptures without troubling our selves with Platonick Visions Clement had the same Notion and his Words are remarkable since they give us a Definition of the Word and at the same time the true Meaning of it The Word saith he is nothing else but the Face of God by the which he makes himself known Three great Men amongst the Reformers have had the same Notion The first is Bucer who translates thus the words of St. John Et Deus erat Verbum illud conformably to the Syriac Version which hath it thus Deus erat ipsum verbum God was the very Word This Translation doth sufficiently declare the Sentiment of this Divine touching the Word He means that God speaking then without a Medium or the Organ of a Man or the Ministry of an Angel was himself the Word he put forth his Power by himself He explains these words thus I would saith he translate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Oracle and if it were lawful go off a little from its first Signification and render it the Divine Love and Will Vis illa Numenve The reason is as he adds that we ought not to borrow the Meaning of this Word from the Platonists but of the Hebrews it being the same with their Davar which the Greeks have translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Assertion is sufficient we desire no more let us but understand this Word without the Platonick Notions of Hypostasis a Son begotten before all Ages c. let us hold fast the Notion of the Hebrews who never understood their Davar to be a Person or a Son Justin was the first of the Platonick Fathers that made an Hypostasis of a Power or a Manifestation having alter'd the Ideas of the Scripture by the Prejudices he brought from the School of Plato Bucer observes that the Greeks viz. the Version of the LXX render the word Davar by that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In effect these Interpreters meant nothing else by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only what the Hebrews understood by their Davar 1. That Virtue and Power which God thrust forth that I may so say out of himself when he was about to create the World Verbo Domini Coeli firmati sunt c. And 2. That holy Breathing which animated the Prophets Verbum Domini factum est ad Prophetam Now this twofold Power is found in J. C. both that which created the World and also that which inspir'd the Prophets You see in the very working of his Miracles this Sermo or this Jussus Divinus which said Let there be Light and there was Light His single Word suffic'd he needed not say any more than I will it Say only the word said the Centurion to him and my Servant shall be healed You see moreover by the Unction receiv'd from the Father this Sermo Propheticus by the means whereof he hath declar'd to us the whole Will of God is also to be seen For God who spake at other times to the Fathers by the Prophets hath spoke to us in these last Times by his own Son In these two regards J. C. shews to the Jews that he is the Son of God or the Messiah putting himself into the number of the Gods whom God sanctified and to whom the Word of God came John 10. viz. his Word of Authority and Power and his Word of Revelation and Prophecy 'T is in these two Senses that St. John calls him the Word and to put a Metaphysical Signification upon this Word is a piece of Philosophical Extravagancy Let us come now to Beza the second Interpreter I design to produce on John 1.1 This Author having related the subtile and Metaphysical Thoughts of the Fathers touching the Word 'T is not likely saith he that St. John would speak so subtilly on this Subject we ought rather have regard to the Hebrew than to the Greek Phraseology For altho St. John writ in Greek yet it may be said that in teaching of Divinity and above all in revealing his Mysteries he never departed from the usual ways of speaking used in the Holy Writings and in the Synagogues and such as were understood by the People Now according to him the Jews were wont to call the Messiah the Word as if it were said He of whom God had spoken or whom God had promis'd the blessed Seed whereof God spake so often to the Patriarchs and whom we may call the Word or the Promise of God by way of excellence Unless it be said as he goes on that this Name was given him because he is the only Interpreter of the Father by whom he hath manifested himself to the World But altho this last Interpretation doth not please him so much as the former yet he repeats continually that all the rest of those which the Greek and Latin Divines embrac'd so greedily do in no way agree with the Hebrew Tongue This is manifest and hath no need of Proof If we discard the Ideas of the Greeks and Platonists as Beza pretends that we ought farewel then eternal Emanations and Generations farewel internal Word and Word brought forth farewel Trin-Vnity and Hypostases with all that Theological Jargon which is pretended to be form'd upon the Stile of St. John And if on the contrary we go up to the Source and search into the Stile of the Hebrews themselves what this Evangelist meant the Word will then be only the so often promis'd and so long expected Messiah of whom God spake to the Patriarchs or if you please that Prophet who was to interpret to us the Word of the Father and that King of Glory in whom the whole Power of God was to be manifested Mr. Witsius may also be one of those Interpreters of the Logos of St. John who discards the Platonick Notions He doth not so much as believe that St. John borrow'd this Word from either the Cabala of the Jews or the Chaldee Paraphrasts but from the Sacred Writers And since his Explications
the Reason and Soul of the World hath thereby laid down as the Principle of the Creation of the Vniverse the Goodness Wisdom and Power of God But the best Interpreter of this Platonick Trinity is Galen in his third Book de Vsu Partium his Words are plain and may be call'd the right Key of Platonism I do not says he make true Religion and Piety towards God to consist in sacrificing Hecatombs or in sending up the Smoke of much Incense but in knowing and making known to others what God's Wisdom Power and Goodness are For in my opinion that God has been pleas'd to fill the World with so many good things is a Mark of his Goodness which deserves our unmost Praise That he has found the way of putting it into so good Order is the highest pitch of Wisdom and that he could execute so vast a design is the effect of Almighty Power Nothing is plainer than this Comment He fully explains the Doctrine of the Three Principles without mixing any Philosophical Subtleties or Cabalistick Mysteries with it Here all refers to the Creation of the World and shews no more than a natural Trinity which all may read in these three admirable Properties which God has if I may so speak made visible in his Works And lastly Clem. Alexan. Lib. 5. Strom. p. 547. Edit Lutet 1629. fully shews Plato's mind in the Definition he gives of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Word of the Father of all things says he is not that which was utter'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a most evident Wisdom and Goodness of God with an Almighty and truly Divine Power This is plain here you have the Wisdom Goodness and Power whereof Plato made his Three Principles and whereof Clemens makes only the internal Word the Word of the Father in opposition to the utter'd Word So free and unlimited is this Allegorical Philosophy Observe farther That the words most evident refer to what appears of God in the Creation of the World which is properly the Word of God according to all the Platonical Allegorists As to the Begotten Word which is not that Wisdom nor that Goodness nor that Power which was manifested in the Creation of the World what can it be but the World it self Nevertheless the Fathers believ'd the Prolation of this Word to be the true Generation and consequently when they spake of a Begotten Son understood it of this World without thinking of it Plato then having so personaliz'd the several Operations of the Godhead spake of many Gods to please the People Populo ut placerent quas secisset fabulas reserving to himself the liberty of owning but one God when he convers'd with the Learned or as appears by his Epistles when he wrote to his Friends CHAP. VIII That the Pleroma of the Valentinians was an Allegorical Theology With a Digression concerning the Fanaticism of both the Antient and Modern Gnosticks I Pass from the Philosophers to the Hereticks who imitated them It is certain that there was a hidden and mystical Theology in the Pleroma of the Valentinians That prodigious number of Emanations which seems so monstrous an Opinion to us was at bottom but either a System of the several Orders of Angels who are often call'd Aeons I mean such a Celestial Hierarchy as that of Dionysius was or that Collection of Ideas those different Properties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Valentin calls them apud Iren. l. 1. c. 5. those several Dispensations which they conceiv'd in one and the same God For they did consider him 1. without regard to the Creature as incomprehensible and retir'd into a profound Silence that is as not having yet spoken that efficacious Word which was to make the Creature and then he call'd him the Profound and the Silence that was the first Order of Aeons 2. They consider'd God with respect to the intelligible World as having his Vnderstanding fill'd with Ideas Ideas being the Essence and the Truth of things according to the Platonists and then they call'd him the Vnderstanding and the Truth that was their second Syzigy 3. They consider'd God with respect to the sensible World as executing his Design and speaking that powerful Word which gave Life and Being to all Creatures and then they call'd him the Word and the Life that was their third Syzigy 4. They consider'd God with respect to the Spiritual and Evangelical World as working Redemption and there they found the Mediator Jesus Christ Man with the new Church which he made by his Preaching and Death and then they call'd him the Man and the Church that was their fourth Alliance But after all these several Emanations rightly taken are but the several Respects in which they conceived one and the same God who having been hid in an Abyss of Light did outwardly manifest himself in these two admirable Works of the Old and New Creation That is the Testimony which Irenaeus l. 2. c. 15. gives of them The Valentinians says he after having divided their Emanations did however return to the Unity holding that all together made but one And in Lib. 1. c. 6. the same Father's relating that Ptolomy gave the most High God two Wives Vnderstanding and Will which they called the Father's two Powers apparently shews that Ptolomy fell into Plato's Allegory in ascribing Wisdom and Power as two Properties inseparable from one and the same Spirit to the Good or Creator of all things And I don't see why Ptolomy might not as well Allegorically say that the supreme Father had two Wives as Philo in the like case that the World had God for its Father and Knowledg for its Mother But if all these several Powers of the Valentinians did not destroy the Unity of God whence then comes it you 'l say that their Doctrine was so abhor'd The reason is apparent viz. That in avoiding the Christian Simplicity they run the Faith into terrible Confusion exposing God's Unity to Peril by their idle Speculations As for the Basilidians they did also allegorize on the word Abraxes whereby they understood that Supreme Power from which all the other Aeons or Spirits proceeded This Name has in its Greek Letters the Number 365 which is that of the Days of the Year or according to Basilides of the Celestial Orbs. And he intended to signify that Abraxas or the most High God was the Father of the Celestial Orbs Ages or Aeons and Creator of the Universe 'T is probable that this is a Hebrew Word and that it comes from Ab Ben Rouach Father Son and Spirit Menage would with his Etymological Sagacity find no difficulty in proving this to be its Derivation thus Ab Ben Rouach Abenrach Aberach Abrach and adding a Greek Termination Abrachas Abraxas Serenus the Physician of the Sect of the Basilidians lengthening the Word fram'd Abracadabra of it which is another mysterious Name which he made use of as an Amulet or Preservative for the Cure of all intermitting
because they have suffer'd themselves to be surpriz'd and their eyes to be dazled with cheir Platonick Philosophy The Wonderful and the Sublime are very tempting Schemes These Platonists are a sort of Philosophers or rather of Divines who have made a Voyage to the World of Ideas and some Christians are so weak as to swallow all their Visions for Mysteries But let us always remember for the honour of the Fathers that how far soever they wander'd in their large Field of Platonick Contemplation they never advanc'd so far as to equal the Divinity of the Word with that of his Father Origen who is one of them that went farthest never carried his Theology to that extreme Whatever lofty Idea he had of the Son he declares however in his 14th Tome on St. John That the Son was so much below the Father as he and the Holy Spirit were above the most noble Creatures Go we now after this and say that the Fathers held the necessity of believing that the Supreme God was incarnate and that Jesus Christ is that Supreme God Monsieur Huet had good reason to acknowledg upon this Passage of Origen that it could not be excus'd and to attempt to find an Orthodox Sense in it could not be consistent with Sincerity or Honesty CHAP. VII The same Proof continued together with an Examination of the Sense of Antient Creeds thereupon WE have no more to do but to consider the antient Creeds and to compare those which were form'd upon the Apostolick Theology with such as were fram'd according to the Platenick Scheme and we shall find in these latter that the Article of the Generation of the Word and of his Incarnation came in the room of that of the Conception of the Son of God which is found in the former Creeds The universal Church says Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 2. hath received this Faith from the Holy Apostles which is to believe in one God the Father c. and in Jesus Christ his only Son incarnate for our Salvation c. There 's nothing in this Confession of the Faith of the Catholick Church which is not in the very Creed of the Apostles excepting the word Incarnate But 't is clear that it stands in the very place of those other words conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary which are wanting in this Creed of Irenaeus He would say that the Spirit of God united it self to real and not to celestial and aerial Flesh as some Hereticks imagin'd The turn is somewhat Platonizing but after all he did not intend to advance any thing but the antient Doctrine since he disputes against those men who held that Jesus Christ was pure Spirit clothed with celestial Flesh and he on the other hand supposed that Jesus Christ was a real Man true Flesh animated with a Divine Spirit a Man born of a Virgin truly born of the Substance of a Woman altho form'd by the Power of a Spirit Tertullian in one of his Tracts de veland Virg. in initio having given us this plain Rule of Faith which he calls the immutable and unchangeable Rule to this purpose That we must believe in one God alone c. and in his Son Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary c. in another Tract de Praescrip adv Haeres presents you with another Rule of the Platonizing Faith which is to believe that the same Word by which God created the World spoke to the Patriarchs and inspir'd the Prophets coming forth from the Spirit and the Power of the Father it lit upon the Virgin and was made Flesh and wrought in J.C. all sorts of Miracles Had he forgot that the Apostolick Faith is not to be changed or reformed No without doubt he does not pretend to change any thing but only gives the antient Opinion of the Conception of J. C. in Platonick Stile in Philosophick Jargon or to speak better he substitutes an Allegory manag'd with force and violence in the room of this Evangelical Expression born of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost which is plain and literal This Spirit as Tertullian says being an Emanation from the Spirit and the Power of the Father may be said in a mystick and sublime Sense to be the same Spirit who created the World and inspir'd the Prophets St. Cyril in his Catecheses explains a Creed purely Arian which Dr. Bull pretends to be the antient Creed of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches I believe it says in One God the Father c. and in One Lord Jesus Christ the only Son of God begotten of the Father before Ages true God by whom all things were made incarnate and made Man c. I said this Creed is Arian for 't is expressed in the same Terms as all the Arian Confessions that are now extant And if the Doctor pretends that 't is Orthodox at the best hand it can pass for no more than the Creed of Constantinople as Monfieur Le Vassor has observed Traité de 〈◊〉 Examen ch 6. p. 226. This Creed of St. Cyril says he is almost the same with that of Constantinople especially in the Article concerning the Holy Spirit If it be true that the Catecheses we have are those which Cyril made in his Youth as St. Jerom reports it this Prelate reviewed and augmented 'em after the Council of Constantinople whose Creed he explains almost word for word In this case it will not be certain that the Article concerning the Church was in the Creed of Jerusalem Cyril might have added it to his Catecheses after the Synod If this Conjecture holds as to the Article of the Church much more will it do so as to the Platonick Word We can but say in this case it will not be certain that the Article concerning a Son begotten before Ages was in the Creed of Jerusalem Cyril might add to his Catecheses after the Synod of Constantinople Let 's join with this Learned Proselyte the famous Mons du Pin who in his second Tom. of his Bibliotheque p. 413. inunuates the Novelty of Cyril's Creed upon this account 1. That it has the Article of Life Everlasting which is not in all the antient Creeds And in his 1 Tom. Paris Edit p. 30. he says that Cyril in his Catecheses makes a particular Creed which the Church of Jerusalem us'd at the time that this Father wrote his Catecheses That those who have made Commentaries upon the Creed have omitted among others these Words Life everlasting And that St. Jerom observes in his Letter to Pammachius that the Creed ended with these Words The Resurrection of the Flesh These Words of du Pin are remarkable He says Cyril made a Creed which was peculiar to him and that it cannot be ascribed to the Church of Jerusalem till the time when this Father wrote For 't is certain that this is the sense of their Words in an Author that professes to believe that the Creed is not antient But however
which comes not from his Vnderstanding by a necessary Emanation but by his Will by a free Operation That Power I say which may be called his Word or his Spirit according to the different respects wherein one considers it I will produce another Proof of this important Truth from Theophilus Antiochenus in his 2d Book to Autolycus Who says he speaking of the Word being the Spirit of God the Beginning the Wisdom the Power of the Highest came down into the Prophets by whom he spake What could he say more formal to make us understand that he took for one and the same thing the Spirit of God his Word his Wisdom and his Power His meaning cannot be mistaken when one considers that the Spirit and the Word whereof he speaks is the same that inspir'd the Prophets Words that very well agree with those of Justin which I now come to examine These two Fathers understood by the Word nothing but that prophetick Spirit the fulness whereof dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ and that St. Paul calls the fulness of the Godhead This is in effect the Explication that the Author of the Homilies ascrib'd to Origen has given in Diversos Homil. 2. St. Paul says he calls the fulness of the Godhead those mystick Senses or the truth of those legal Shadows which dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ that is to say truly and really because that he is the Fountain and Fulness of Grace the truth of the antient Symbols and the accomplishment of Prophetick Visions But according to the Fathers Jesus Christ was sill'd with this Prophetick Spirit not only when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a Dove and that God made him a Prophet but especially when he was conceived by the Power of the Highest and he was as I may say begotten a Prophet that is to say when by virtue of his Generation his Body was formed for the Office of a Prophet And 't is chiefly this last Consideration that is urg'd against the Josephites because this Privilege of his Birth makes us to regard him not only as a Man who was a Prophet but as a Prophet who was also the Son of God But to return to the Passage from Theophilus if it be read thruout one shall find a fine Allegory upon the Word and the Holy Spirit which he calls the Wisdom of God Sometimes he considers 'em as two Divine Emanations proceeding from the Bowels of God and which God us'd as his two Hands or two Ministers by whom he created the World And sometimes he makes 'em but one Operation and so both are the Spirit and the Word the Wisdom and the Power of God c. Why so If not because that this Spirit takes divers Names either for the diversity of its Prolation or for its different Operations For the Word is the Spirit or Breath prolated with a Sound and a Voice and the Spirit is a Word brought forth tacitely and in silence the one with the other without sound One acts inwardly in a hidden and secret manner and the other outwardly and openly 'T is thus the Fathers speak In my opinion 't is idle to look for any exactness in these sort of allegorical Discourses which are loose and where the Fancy taking its swing drives on in full Career Irendus one of those Fathers who was obliged to urge the miraculous Conception of our Saviour against the Epionites confounded the Holy Ghost with the Word These Hereticks would not own says Ireraeus lib. 5. cap. 1. the Vnion of God with Man Why Because says he they believed the Lord Jesus to be a mere Man How a mere Man Because they believed him to be the Son of Joseph and Mary like other Men and not of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost What says the Holy Father to this He laments that they would not consider how in the first Creation the Breath of God uniting it self to the Body of Adam animated the Man and made him a reasonable Creature So in the New Creation the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God being united to the old Substance of Adam hath form'd a living and perfect Man who contains in himself the perfect Father Dr. Bull in his Judic Eccles p. 10. having cited this Passage takes no notice of these words who contains in himself the perfect Father it may be because Irenaeus seems to say that 't was the Father who was incarnate or as 't is more probable because these Words expresly demonstrate that by the Word Irenaeus understood nothing but the very Power of God The living Man of whom he speaks containing in himself the perfect Father only because he was filled with God's Spirit and God's Word which were united to the Man But whatever he himself thought this is a truth that one perceives at first in reading the Text of Irenaeus 'T is at least most evident that he confounds the Spirit of God with the Word of the Father as one and the same Power which formed the New Adam and that he opposes it to the Divine Breath and Spirit of God which animated the first Adam His only aim being to oppose the Ebionites who denied that the Spirit of God interven'd in the Conception of Jesus Christ His only concern is also to establish firmly this miraculous Conception and to make 'em regard Jesus Christ as the most perfect Man whom the Father who is perfect had miraculously begotten by his Word and by his Spirit in the same manner as by the means of his Almighty Word he animated the first Man with the Breath of Life To make Irenaeus his Conception of the Word the same with the Moderns is to see and not perceive In short by reading his Text alone one shall be convinced that in his stating the Divinity of Jesus Christ he goes no farther than his miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghost He not only confounds the Word with the Spirit but calls the Word the Descent of the Holy Spirit into the Womb of Mary He calls it I say the Union and Mixture of God with Man He says the Father wrought at the Incarnation of his Son or at the new Generation with the same Hands excuse his Phrase as he did at the Generation of the Old Adam If we ask him what he means by Hands in this place he tells you in his 4th Book 37 Chap. that he understands thereby the Word of God his Son his Wisdom and his Spirit He means that powerful Command which God us'd in the Creation of things which is called his Spirit forasmuch as it is in God and is in a manner his Soul and which is also call'd his Word and his Son in regard that it came from his Mouth to form the Creation it was in a manner begotten That is to say by the same manner of speaking that the Wisdom and the Power of God are called his Hands by the same they are called his Son his Word