whole is of one and the same Species of the same Nature and Co essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this does not happen in the case proposed by Porphyry One may see hereby the Subtilty with which the Platonists handled these Matters and the Terms they used But we should take notice of two things in endeavouring to form to our selves an Idea of their Sentiments The first that we must not always suppose they had a clear and distinct knowledge of what they would say themselves and that they saw all the consequences of their Opinions So that it would be perhaps in vain to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment touching the three Principles of all things because perhaps they themselves conceiv'd not clearly what they said at least their Style is so different on this Occasion from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings wherein they speak of things which they may know that it is apparent they contain'd not the subject of the three Principles like an infinite of others which they have known how to express in an even clear and elegant manner The second thing we should observe is That in so difficult a matter we must content our selves with what they say positively without attempting to draw far-fetch'd Consequences from their Principles which we cannot understand but by halfs otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them such Notions as they never had Neither must we endeavour to reconcile in so abstracted a subject the contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrin nor conclude that they could not mean things in such a manner because then they must contradict themselves It was the custom of these Philosophers to affect certain apparent Contradictions in using the same Terms in divers Senses Besides its obvious enough to imagine that they may have sometimes contradicted themselves on a subject whereof they had no distinct Idea These two Remarks were necessary to prevent the questions which might be offer'd on these matters and to shew that in writing the History of these Doctrins one should keep wholly to Facts and the Terms of the Authors we treat of A second Opinion of the Platonists which has made a great noise in the World is that of the Prae existence of Souls in places above the Moon (b) Vid. Plato's Timoeus of the faults which they may have there commited of their banishment from these happy Abodes to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bodies according to the different merits of these Souls in fine of their return into places whence they drew their Original We shall not trouble our selves to explain this Doctrin because it belongs not to the Relation in hand having only made mention of it for a particular Reason which will appear in its Place The Kings of Egypt and Syria having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia the Jews who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms and who were oblig'd to converse with them learnt of them their Opinions and made no difficulty of embracing those which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonic Doctrins they believ'd therefore that these Doctrins might be true and receiv'd them so much the more easily in that they thought they might hereby defend their Religion against the Pagans and make them rellish it the better Plato every where affirm'd the Unity of the supream Being yet without denying that there are other Beings which may be called Gods to wit the Angels which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Testament And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews better rellish the Opinions of this Philosopher But we should give some particular Proofs of this The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon was plainly of the Opinion of the Prae existence of Souls as it appears from these Words of the viii Ch. 19 20 verses For I was a witty Child and had a good Spirit Yea rather being good I came into a Body undefiled The same Author has used the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason in some places where Plato would have used it were he to have said the same thing Thus in the 18 ch 15 16 v. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites he says Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up fill'd all things with Death and it touched the Heav'n but it stood upon the Earth In the ix Ch. 1 v. He says that God has made all things by his Reason It cannot be alledg'd that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner seeing that Philo who liv'd a little while after our Saviour is full of the like Expressions as several of the learned have observ'd It 's known that this Author has so well imitated Plato that he has been call'd the Jewish Plato He believ'd that there was one only supream God as all the rest of the Jews do whom he calls TO ON the being through Excellency But he farther acknowledged a Divine Nature which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ the Reason as well as Plato and another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World His Writings are so full of these manners of speaking that there is no need of offering Instances The Jews were of these Opinions when our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World and this is perhaps the Reason why we find accordingly as it has been observ'd by several learned Men several Platonic Phrases in the New Testament especially in the Gospel of St. John It 's well known that Amelius the Platonic Philosopher having read the beginning of this Gospel remarked that this Apostle spake like Plato In effect this Philosopher might have said according to his Principles The Reason was in the beginning with God and was God She it is who hath made all things who is life and the light of Men c. We find several Passages in Philo like to this This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason the Priest the Mediator between God and Men the eldest Son of God c. wherein it is observable that he mixes his Jewish Notions with the manners of speaking of Plato He has likewise used in one Place the Term Paraclete (a) De Vit Mos p. 521. Edit Gen. Graeco Lat Intercessour in speaking of the Reason It was necessary said he that the High Priest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World should have for Intercessour him of his Sons whose Vertue is the most perfect for to obtain the pardon of Sins and abundant Graces He had said (b) â—uod det pot insid p. 137. that Moses denoted by the Manna and by the Rock of the Desert the same Reason The
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
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