suspicable that it was really a Design or Policy of the Devil by imitating the Miracles of our Saviour Christ both in Apollonius and Vespasian to counter-work God Almighty in the Plot of Christianity and to keep up or conserve his own Usurped Tyranny in the Pagan World still Nevertheless we shall here show Apollonius all the favour we can and therefore suppose him not to have been one of those more foul and black Magicians of the common sort such as are not only grosly sunk and debauched in their Lives but also knowingly do Homage to Evil Spirits as such for the gratification of their Lusts but rather one of those more refined ones who have been called by themselves Theurgists such as being in some measure freed from the grosser Vices and thinking to have to do only with good Spirits nevertheless being Proud and Vainglorious and affecting Wonders and to transcend the Generality of Mankind are by a Divine Nemesis justly exposed to the illusions of the Devil or Evil Spirits cunningly insinuating here and aptly accommodating themselves to them However concerning this Apollonius it is undeniable that he was a zealous Upholder of the Pagan Polytheism and a stout Champion for The Gods he professing to have been taught by the Samian Pythagoras his Ghost how to Worship these Gods Invisible as well as Visible and to have converse with them For which cause he is stiled by Vopiscus Amicus verus Deorum A true Friend of the Gods that is a hearty and sincere Friend to that old Pagan Religion now assaulted by Christianity in which not One only True God but a Multiplicity of Gods were Worshipped But notwithstanding all this Apollonius himself was a clear and undoubted Asserter of One Supreme Deity as is evident from his Apologetick Oration in Philostratus prepared for Domitian in which he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God who is the Maker of the whole Vniverse and of all things And as he elsewhere in Philostratus declares both the Indians and Egyptians to have agreed in this Theology insomuch that though the Egyptians condemn'd the Indians for many other of their Opinions yet did they highly applaud this Doctrine of theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God was the Maker both of the Generation and Essence of all things and that the cause of his making them was his Essential Goodness So doth he himself very much commend this Philosophy of Jarchas the Indian Brachman viz. That the whole World was but One Great Animal and might be resembled to a Vast Ship wherein their are many Inferiour subordinate Governours under One Supreme the Oldest and Wisest as also expert Mariners of several sorts some to attend upon the Deck and others to climb the Masts and order the Sails 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which the first and highâ—st seat is to be given to That God who is the Generatour or Creator of this great Animal and the next under it to those Gods that govern the several parts of it respectively so that the Poets were to be approved of here when they affirm that there are Many Gods in the Heavens Many in the Seas Many in the Rivers and Fountains Many also upon the Earth and some under the Earth Wherein we have a true representation of the old Paganick Theology which both Indians and Egyptians and European Poets Greek and Latin all agreed in That there is One Supreme God the Maker of the Universe and under him Many Inferiour Generated Gods or Understanding Beings Superiour to Men appointed to govern and preside over the several parts thereof who were also to be religiously honoured and worshipped by Men. And thus much for Apollonius Tyanaeus The first Pagan Writer against Christianity was Celsus who lived in the times of Adrian and was so professed a Polytheist that he taxes the Jews for having been seduced by the Frauds of Moses into this Opinion of One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those silly Shepherds and Herdsmen following Moses their Leader and being seduced by his Rustick frauds came to entertain this Belief that there was but One only God Nevertheless this Celsus himself plainly acknowledged amongst his Many Gods One Supreme whom he sometimes calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greatest God and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supercelestial God and the like and he doth so zealously assert the Divine Omnipotence that he casts an imputation upon the Christians of derogating from the same in that their Hypothesis of an Adversary Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Christians are erroneously led into most wicked Opinions concerning God by reason of their great ignorance of the Divine Enigms whilst they make a certain Adversary to God whom they call the Devil and in the Hebrew Language Satan And affirm contrary to all Piety that the Greatest God having a mind to do good to men is disabled or withstood by an Adversary resisting him Lastly where he pleads most for the worship of Demons he concludes thus concerning the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But God is by no means any where to be laid aside or left out neither by Day nor by Night neither in Publick nor in Private either in our Words or Actions but in every thing our Mind ought constantly to be directed towards God A Saying that might very well become a Christian. The next and greatest Champion for the Pagan Cause in Books and Writings was that Famous Tyrian Philosopher Malchus called by the Greeks Porphyrius who published a Voluminous and elaborate Treatise containing Fifteen Books against the Christians and yet He notwithstanding was plainly as zealous an Assertor of One Supreme Deity and One Onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnmade or Self-existent Principle of all things as any of the Christians themselves could be he strenuously opposing that forementioned Doctrine of Plutarch and Atticus concerning Three Unmade Principles a Good God an Evil Soul or Demon and the Matter and endeavouring to demonstrate that all things whatsoever even Matter it self was derived from One Perfect Understanding Being or Self-originated Deity The Sum of whose Argumentation to which purpose we have represented by Proclus upon the Timaeus Page 119. After Porphyrius the next eminent Antagonist of Christianity and Champion for Paganism was Hierocles the Writer of that Book entituled in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Lover of the Truth which is noted to have been a Modester Inscription than that of Celsus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or True Oration For if Eusebius Pamphili were the Writer of that Answer to this Philalethes now Extant as we both read in our Copies and as Photius also read then must it needs be granted that Hierocles the Author of it was either contemporary with Porphyrius or else but little his Junior Moreover this Hierocles seems plainly to be the person intended by Lactantius in
these following words Alius eandem matâ—riam mordaciùs scripsit qui erat tum è numero Judicum qui auctor in primis faciendae persecutionis fuit quo scelere non contentus etiam scriptis eos quos afflixerat insecutus est Composuit enim Libellos Duos non Contrà Christianos nè inimicè insectari videretur sed Ad Christianos ut humanè ac benignè consulere videretur In quibus ita falsitatem Scripturae Sacrae arguere conatus est tanquam sibi esset tota contraria Praecipuè tamen Paulum Petrúmque laceravit caeterósque Discipulos tanquam fallaciae seminatores quos eosdem tamen rudes indoctos fuisse testatus est Another hath handled the same matter more smartly who was First himself one of the Judges and a chief Author of the Persecution but being not contented with that wickedness he added this afterwards to persecute the Christians also with his Pen He composing Two Books not inscribed Against the Christians lest he should seem plainly to act the part of an enemy but To the Christians that he might be thought to counsel them humanely and benignly in which he so charges the holy Scripture with Falshood as if it were all nothing else but contradictions but he chiefly lashes Paul and Peter as divulgers of lyes and deceits whom notwithstanding he declares to have been rude and illiterate Persons I say though Hierocles for some cause or other be not named here by Lactantius in these Cited words or that which follows yet it cannot be doubted but that he was the Person intended by him for these Two Reasons First because he tells us afterward that the main business of that Christiano-mastix was to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ. Cùm facta Christi mirabilia destrueret nec tamen negaret voluit ostendere Apollonium vel paria vel etiam majora fecisse Mirum quòd Apuleium praetermiserit cujus solent multa mira memorari Et ex hoc insolentiam Christi voluit arguere quòd Deum se constituerit ut ille verecundior fuisse videretur qui cùm majora faceret ut hic putat tamen id sibi non arrogaverit That he might obscure the Miracles of our Saviour Christ which he could not deny he would undertake to show that Equal or greater Miracles were done by Apollonius And it was a wonder he did not mention Apuleius too of whose many and wonderful things the Pagans use to brag likewise Moreover he condemns our Saviour Christ of Insolency for making himself a God affirming Apollonius to have been the modester Person who though he did as he supposes greater miracles yet arrogated no such thing to himself The Second Reason is because Lactantius also expresly mentions the very Title of Hierocles his Book viz. Philalethes Cùm talia ignorantiae suae deliramenta fudisset cùmque Veritatem peniâ—ùs excidere connixus est ausus est Libros suos nefarios ac Dei hostes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annotare Though pouring out so much folly and madness professedly fighting against the Truth yet he presumed to call these his wicked Books and Enemies of God Philaletheis or Friends to Truth From which words of Lactantius and those foregoing where he affirms this Christiano-mastix to have writen Two Books the Learned Prefacer to the late Edition of Hierocles probably concludes that the whole Title of Hierocles his Book was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I conceive that the First of those Two Books of Hierocles insisted upon such things as Porphyrius had before urged against the Christians but then in the Second he added this de novo of his own to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ which Eusebius only takes notice of Wherefore Epiphanius telling us that there was one Hierocles a Presect or Governour of Alexandria in those persecuting times of Diocletian we may probably conclude that this was the very Person described in Lactantius who is said to have been First of the Number of the Judges and a Principal Actor in the Persecution and then afterwards to have written this Philalethes against the Christians wherein besides other things he ventured to compare Apollonius Tyanaeus with our Saviour Christ. Now if this Hierocles who wrote the Philalethes in defence of the Pagan Gods against the Christians were the Author of those two other Philosophick Books the Commentary upon the Golden Verses and that De Fato Providentia it might be easily evinced from both of them that he was notwithstanding an Asserter of One Supreme Deity But Photius tells us that that Hierocles who wrote the Book concerning Fate and Providence did therein make mention of Jamblichus and his Junior Plutarchus Atheniensis from whence Jonsius taking it for granted that it was one and the same Hierocles who wrote against the Christians and de Fato infers that it could not be Eusebius Pamphili who Answered the Philalethes but that it must needs be some other Eusebius much Junior But we finding Hierocles his Philalethes in Lactantius must needs conclude on the contrary that Hierocles the famous Christiano-mastix was not the same with that Hierocles who wrote de Fato Which is further evident from Aenaeas Gazeus in his Theophrastus where first he mentions one Hierocles an Alexandrian that had been his Master whom he highly extols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tell me I pray you are there yet left amongst you in Aegypt any such Expounders of the Arcane Mysteries of Philosophy as Hierocles our Master was And this we suppose to be that Hierocles who wrote concerning Fate and Providence if not also upon the Golden Verses But afterward upon occasion of Apollonius the Cappadocian or Tyanaean he mentions another Hierocles distinct from the former namely him who had so boasted of Apollonius his Miracles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Apollonius is convinced of falshood but Hierocles not our Master but he that boasts of the Miracles of Apollonius adds another incredible thing And though it be probable that one of these was the Author of that Commentary upon the Golden Verses for that it should be written by a Christian is but a dream yet we cannot certainly determine which of them it was However that this Hierocles who was the Mastix of Christianity and Champion for The Gods was notwithstanding a professed asserter of one Supreme Deity is clearly manifest also from Lactantius in these following words Quam tandem nobis attulisti Veritatem nisi quod Assertor Deorum eos ipsos ad ultimum prodidisti Prosecutus enim Summi Dei laudes quem Regem quem Maximum quem Opificem rerum quem Fontem bonorum quem Parentem omnium quem Factorem Altorémque viventium confessus es ademisti Jovi tuo Regnum eúmque Summa potestate depulsum in Ministrorum numerum redigisti Epilogus ergo te tuus arguit Stultitiae Vanitatis Erroris Affirmas Deos esse illos tamen subjicis mancipas
his Book Of the Soul after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Verses that are called Orphical Besides which Cicero tells us that some imputed all the Orphick Poems to Cercops a Pythagorean and it is well known that many have attributed the same to another of that School Onomacritus who lived in the times of the Pisistratidae Wherefore we read more than once in Sextus Empiricus of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onomacritus in the Orphicks Suidas also reports that some of the Orphick Poems were anciently ascribed to Theogneius others to Timocles others to Zopyrus c. From all which Grotius seems to have made up this Conclusion That the Pythagoricks entitled their own Books to Orpheus and Linus just in the same manner as Ancient Christians entitled theirs some to the Sibyls and others to Hermes Trismegist Implying therein that both the Orphick Poems and Doctrine owed there very Being and First Original only to the Pythagoreans But on the other side Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth that Heraclitus the Philosopher borrowed many things from the Orphick Poems And it is certain that Plato does not only very much commend the Orphick Hymns for their Suavity and Deliciousness but also produce some Verses out of them without making any Scruple concerning their Author Cicero himself notwithstanding what he cites out of Aristotle to the contrary seems to acknowledge Orpheus for the most ancient Poet he writing thus of Cleanthes In Secundo Libro De Natura Deorum vult Orphei Musaei Hesiodi Homeri que Fabellas accomdare ad ea quae ipse de Diis Immortalibus scripserat ut etiam Veterrimi Poetae qui haec ne suspicati quidem sint Stoici fuisse videantur Cleanthes in his Second Book of the Nature of the Gods endeavours to accommodate the Fables of Orpheus Musaeus Hesiod and Homer to thâ—se very things which himself had written concerning them so that the most ancient Poets who never dream'd of any such matter are made by him to have been Stoicks Diodorus Siculus affirmeth Orpheus to have been the Author of a most excellent Poem And Justin Martyâ— Clâ—mens Alexandrinus Athenagoras and others take it for granted that Homer borrowed many Passages of his Poems from the Orphick Verses and particularly that very Beginning of his Iliads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly Jamblichus testifieth that by Most Writers Orpheus was represented as the ancientest of all the Poets adding moreover what Dialect he wrote in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Most of the Historiographers declare that Orpheus who was the ancientest of all the Poets wrote in the Dorick Dialect Which if it be true then those Orphick Fragments that now we have preserved in the Writings of such as did not Dorize must have been transformed by them out of their Native Idiom Now as concerning Herodotus who supposing Homer and Hesiod to have been the ancientest of all the Greek Poets seemed therefore to conclude the Orphick Poems to have been Pseudepigraphous himself intimates that this was but a Singular Opinion and as it were Paradox of his own the contrary thereunto being then generally received However Aristotle probably might therefore be the more inclinable to follow Herodotus in this because he had no great kindness for the Pythagorick or Orphick Philosophy But it is altogether Irrational and Absurd to think that the Pythagoricks would entitle their Books to Orpheus as designing to gain credit and authority to them thereby had there been no such Doctrine before either conteined in some ancient Monument of Orpheus or at least transmitted down by Oral Tradition from him Wherefore the Pythagoricks themselves constantly maintain that before Pythagoras his time there was not only an Orphick Cabala Extant but also Orphick Poems The Former was declared in that ancient Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Holy Oration if we may believe Proclus upon the Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timaeus being a Pythagorean follows the Pythagorick Principles and these are the Orphick Traditions for what things Orpheus deliver'd Mystically or in arcane Allegories these Pythagoras learn'd when he was initiated by Aglaophemus in the Orphick Mysteries Pythagoras himself affirming as much in his Book called The Holy Oration Where Proclus without any doubt or scruple entitles the Book inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The Holy Oration to Pythagoras himself Indeed several of the ancients have resolved Pythagoras to have written nothing at all as Fla. Josephus Plutarch Lucian and Porphyrius and Epigenes in Clemens Alex. affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Holy Oration was written by Cercops a Pythagorean Nevertheless Diogenes Laertius thinks them not to be in good earnest who deny Pythagoras to have written any thing and he tells us that Heraclides acknowledged this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Holy Oration for a genuine and indubitate Foetus of Pythagoras Jamblichus is also of the same opinion as the most received though confessing some to have attributed that Book to Telauges Pythagoras his Son But whoever was the Writer of this Hieros Logos whether Pythagoras himself or Telauges or Cercops it must needs be granted to be of great antiquity according to the Testimony whereof Pythagoras derived much of his Theology from the Orphick Traditions Moreover Ion Chius in his Trigrammi testified as Clemens Alexandrinus informeth us that Pythagoras himself referred some Poems to Orpheus as their Author which is also the General sence of Platonists as well as Pythagoreans Wherefore upon all accounts it seems most probable That either Orpheus himself wrote some Philosophick or Theologick Poems though certain other Poems might be also father'd on him because written in the same strain of Mystical and Allegorical Theology and as it were in the same Spirit with which this Thracian Prophet was inspired Or else at least that the Orphick Doctrine was first conveyed down by Oral Cabala or Tradition from him and afterwards for its better Preservation expressed in Verses that were imputed to Orpheus after the same manner as the Golden Verses written by Lysis were to Pythagoras And Philoponus intimates this Latter to have been Aristotle's Opinion concerning the Orphick Verses He glossing thus upon those words of Aristotle before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle calls them the Reputed Orphick Verses because they seem not to have been written by Orpheus himself as the same Aristotle affirmeth in his Book of Philosophy The Doctrine and Opinions of them indeed were his but Onomacritus is said to have put them into Verse However there can be no doubt at all made but that the Orphick Verses by whomsoever Written were some of them of great antiquity they being much older than either Aristotle Plato or Herodotus as they were also had in great esteem amongst the Pagans and therefore we may very well make a judgment of the Theology of the ancient Pagans from them Now that Orpheus the Orphick Doctrine and Poems were Polytheistical is a thing
That Perfect Happiness is a Speculative or Contemplative Energy maybe made manifest from hence because we account the Gods most of all Happy Now what Moral Actions can we attribute to them Whether those of Justice amongst one another as if it were not ridiculous to suppose the Gods to make Contracts and Bargains among themselves and the like Or else those of Fortitude and Magnanimity As if the Gods had their Fears Dangers and Difficulties to encounter withal Or those of Liberality as if the Gods had some such thing as Money too and there were among them Indigent to receive Alms. Or Lastly shall we attribute to them the Actions of Temperance but would not this be a Reproachful Commendation of the Gods to say that they conquer and master their vitious Lusts and appetites Thus running through all the Actions of Moral Virtue we find them to be small and mean and unworthy of the Gods And yet we all believe the Gods to live and consequently to Act unless we should suppose them perpetually to sleep as Endymion did Wherefore if all Moral Actions and therefore much more Mechanical Operations be taken away from that which Lives and Vnderstands what is there left to it besides Contemplation To which he there adds a further Argument also of the same thing Because other Animals who are depriv'd of Contemplation partake not of Happiness For to the Gods all their Life is Happy to men so far forth as it appoacheth to Contemplation but brute Animals that do not at all contemplate partake not at all of Happiness Where Aristotle plainly acknowledges a Plurality of Gods and that there is a certain Higher Rank of Beings above Men. And by the way we may here observe how from those words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All men suppose the Gods to live and from what follows in him that Opinion of some late Writers may be confuted that the Pagans generally worshipped the Inanimate Parts of the World as true and proper Gods Aristotle here telling us that they Universally agreed in this that the Gods were Animals Living and Understanding Beings and such as are therefore capable of Contemplation Moreover Aristotle in his Politicks writing of the means to conserve a Tyranny as he calls it sets down this for one amongst the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a Prince or Monarch to seem to be always more than ordinarily sedulous about the Worship of the Gods because men are less afraid of suffering any Injustice from such Kings or Princes as they think to be Religiously disposed and devouâ—ly affected towards the Gods Neither will they be so apt to make conspiracies against such they supposing that the Gods will be their Abettors and Assistants Where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken in a good sence and in way of Commendation for a Religious Person though we must confess that Aristotle himself does not here write so much like a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Meer Politician Likewise in his First Book De Coelo he writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All men have an Opinion or Perswasion That there are Gods And they who think so as well Bvrbarians as Greeks attribute the Highest place to that which is Divine as supposing the Immortal Heavens to be most accommodate to Immortal Gods Wherefore if there be any Divinity as unquestionably there is the Body of the Heavens must be acknowledged to be of a different kind from that of the Elements And in the following Book he tells us again That it is most agreeable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Vaticination which all men have in their minds concerning the Gods to suppose the Heaven to be a Quintessence distinct from the Elements and therefore Incorruptible Where Aristotle affirmeth that men have generally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Vaticination in their Minds concerning Gods to wit that Themselves are not the Highest Beings but that there is a Rank of Intellectual Beings superiour to men the chief of which is the Supreme Deity concerning whom there is indeed the Greatest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vaticination of all We acknowledge it to be very true that Aristotle does not so much insist upon Demons as Plato and the generality of Pagans in that Age did and probably he had not so great a Belief of their Existence though he doth make mention of them also as when in his Metaphysicks speaking of Bodies compounded of the Elements he instanceth in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animals and Demons and elsewhere he insinuates them to have Airy Bodies in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some perhaps would demand a Reason why the Soul that is in the Air is better and more immortal than that in Animals However whether Aristotle believed these Lower Demon-Gods or no it is certain that he acknowledged a Higher kind of Gods namely the Intelligences of all the Several Spheres if not also the Souls of them and the Stars which Spheres being according to the Astronomy then received Forty Seven in number he must needs acknowledge at least so many Gods Besides which Aristotle seems also to suppose another sort of Incorporeal Gods without the Heavens where according to him there is neither Body nor Place nor Vacuum nor Time in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who exist there are such as are neither apt to be in a Place nor to wax old with Time nor is there any change at all in those things above the Highest Sphere but they being impassible and unalterable lead the best and most self-sufficient Life throughout all Eternity But this Passage is not without suspicion of being Supposititious Notwithstanding all which that Aristotle did assert One Supreme and Vniversal Numen is a thing also unquestionable For though it be granted that he useth the Singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times Indefinitly for a God in General or any Divine Being and that such places as these have been oftentimes mistaken by Christian Writers as if Aristotle had meant the Supreme God in them yet it is nevertheless certain that he often useth those words also Emphatically for One only Supreme God As in that of his Metaphysicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seemeth to be a Cause and certain Principle to all things And also in his De Anima where he speaks of the Soul of the Heavens and its Circular Motion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is that a good Cause of the Circular Motion of the Heavens which they that is the Platonists call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is Better that it should be so than otherwise as if God therefore ought to have made the Soul of the World such as to move the Heaven circularly because it was better for it to move so than otherwise but this being a Speculation that properly belongs to some other Science we
and whole World are thus Artificially Ordered and Disposed 24. Now whereas Aristotle in the forecited Words tells us that we partake of Life and Understanding from that in the Universe after the same manner as we partake of Heat and Cold from that Heat and Cold that is in the Universe It is observable that this was a Notion borrowed from Socrates as we understand both from Xenophon and Plato that Philosopher having used it as an Argumentation to prove a Deity And the Sence of it is represented after this manner by the Latin Poet Principio Coelum ac Terram Campósque Liquentes Lucentémque Globum Lunae Titaniáque Astra Spiritus intus alit totósque Infusa per Artus Mens agitat Molem Magno se Corpore miscet Inde Hominum Pecudúmque Genus Vitaeque Volantûm From whence it may be collected that Aristotle did suppose this Plastick Nature of the Vniverse to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Either Part of some Mundane Soul that was also Conscious and Intellectual as that Plastick Nature in Animals is or at least some Inferiour Principle depending on such a Soul And indeed whatever the Doctrine of the modern Peripateticks be we make no doubt at all but that Aristotle himself held the Worlds Animation or a Mundane Soul Forasmuch as he plainly declares himself concerning it elsewhere in his Book De Coelo after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we commonly think of the Heavens as nothing else but Bodies and Monads having only a certain Order but altogether inaâ—imate whâ—râ—as we ought on the contrary to conceive of them as partaking of Life and Action that is as being endued with a Rational or Intellectual Life For so Simplicius there rightly expounds the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we ought to think of the Heavens as Animated with a Rational Soul and thereby partaking of Action and Rational Life For saith he though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be affirmed not only of Irrational Souls but also of Inanimate Bodies yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does only denominate Rational Beings But further to take away all manner of scruple or doubt concerning this business that Philosopher before in the same Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Heaven is Animated and hath a Principle of Motion within it self Where by the Heaven as in many other places of Aristotle and Plato is to be understood the Whole World There is indeed One Passage in the same Book De Coelo which at first sight and slightly considered may seem to contradict this again and therefore probably is that which hath led many into a contrary Perswasion that Aristotle denied the Worlds Animation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not reasonable neither to think that the Heavens continue to Eternity moved by a Soul necessitating or violently compelling them Nor indeed is it possible that the Life of such a Soul should be pleasurable or happy Forasmuch as the continual Violent Motion of a Body naturally inclining to move another way must needs be a very unquiet thing and void of all Mental Repose especially when there is no such Relaxation as the Souls of Mortal Animals have by sleep and therefore such a Soul of the World as this must of necessity be condemned to an Eternal Ixionian Fate But in these Words Aristotle does not deny the Heavens to be moved by a Soul of their own which is positively affirmed by him elsewhere but only by such a Soul as should Violently and Forcibly agitate or drive them round contrary to their own Natural Inclination whereby in the mean time they tended downwards of themselves towards the Centre And his sence concerning the Motion of the Heavens is truly represented by Simplicius in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole World or Heaven being as well a natural as an Animalish Body is moved properly by Soul but yet by means of Nature also as an Instrument so that the Motion of it is not Violent But whereas Aristotle there insinuates as if Plato had held the Heavens to be moved by a Soul violently contrary to their Nature Simplicius though sufficiently addicted to Aristotle ingenuously acknowledges his Error herein and vindicating Plato from that Imputation shews how he likewise held a Plastick Nature as well as a Mundane Soul and that amongst his Ten Instances of Motion the Ninth is that of Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which always moves another being it self changed by something else as the Tenth that of the Mundane Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which originally both moves it self and other things as if his Meaning in that place were That though Nature be a Life and Internal Energy yet it acts Subserviently to a Higher Soul as the First Original Mover But the Grand Objection against Aristotle's holding the Worlds Animation is still behind namely from that in his Metaphysicks where he determines the Highest Starry Heaven to be moved by an Immoveable Mover commonly supposed to be the Deity it self and no Soul of the World and all the other Spheres likewise to be moved by so many Separate Intelligencies and not by Souls To which we reply that indeed Aristotle's First Immoveable Mover is no Mundane Soul but an Abstract Intellect Separate from Matter and the very Deity it self whose manner of moving the Heavens is thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It Moveth only as being Loved wherefore besides this Supreme Vnmoved Mover that Philosopher supposed another Inferiour Moved Mover also that is a Mundane Soul as the Proper and Immediate Efficient Cause of the Heavenly Motions of which he speaks after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which it self being moved objectively or by Appetite and Desire of the First Good moveth other things And thus that safe and sure-footed Interpreter Alex. Aphrodisius expounds his Masters Meaning That the Heaven being Animated and therefore indeed Moved by an Internal Principle of its own is notwithstanding Originally moved by a certain Immoveable and Separate Nature which is above Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by its contemplating of it and having an Appetite and Desire of assimilating it self thereunto Aristotle seeming to have borrowed this Notion from Plato who makes the Constant Regular Circumgyration of the Heavens to be an Imitation of the Motion or Energy of Intellect So that Aristotle's First Mover is not properly the Efficient but only the Final and Objective Cause of the Heavenly Motions the Immediate Efficient Cause thereof being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul and Nature Neither may this be Confuted from those other Aristotelick Intelligences of the Lesser Orbs that Philosopher conceiving in like manner concerning them that they were also the Abstract Minds or Intellects of certain other inferiour Souls which moved their several Respective Bodies or Orbs Circularly and Uniformly in a kind of Imitation of them For this plainly appears from hence in that he
is the Cause of those other things that are Made something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was Self-originated and Self-existing and which is as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incorruptible and Vndestroyable as Ingenerable whose Existence therefore must needs be Necessary because if it were supposed to have happened by Chance to exist from Eternity then it might as well happen again to Cease to Be. Wherefore all the Question now is what is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Ingenerable and Incorruptible Self-originated and Self-existent Thing which is the Cause of all other things that are Made IV. Now there are Two Grand Opinions Opposite to one another concerning it For first some contend that the only Self-existent Vnmade and Incorruptible Thing and First Principle of all things is Sensless Matter that is Matter either perfectly Dead and Stupid or at least devoid of all Animalish and Conscious Life But because this is really the Lowest and most Imperfect of all Beings Others on the contrary judge it reasonable that the First Principle and Original of all things should be that which is Most Perfect as Aristotle observes of Pherecydes and his Followers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they made the First Cause and Principle of Generation to be the Best and then apprehending that to be endewed with Conscious Life and Vnderstanding is much a Greater Perfection than to be devoid of both as Balbus in Cicero declares upon this very occasion Nec dubium quin quod Animans sit habeátque Mentem Rationem Sensum id sit melius quà m id quod his careat they therefore conclude That the only Vnmade thing which was the Principle Cause and Original of all other things was not Sensless Matter but a Perfect Conscious Vnderstanding Nature or Mind And these are they who are strictly and properly called Theists who affirm that a Perfectly Conscious Vnderstanding Being or Mind existing of it self from Eternity was the Cause of all other things and they on the contrary who derive all things from Sensless Matter as the First Original and deny that there is any Conscious Vnderstanding Being Self-existent or Vnmade are those that are properly called Atheists Wherefore the true and genuine Idea of God in general is this A Perfect Conscious Vnderstanding Being or Mind Existing of it self from Eternity and the Cause of all other things V. But it is here observable that those Atheists who deny a God according to this True and Genuine Notion of him which we have declared do often Abuse the Word calling Sensless Matter by that Name Partly perhaps as indeavouring thereby to decline that odious and ignominious name of Atheists and partly as conceiving that whatsoever is the First Principle of things Ingenerable and Incorruptible and the Cause of all other things besides it self must therefore needs be the Divinest Thing of all Wherefore by the word God these mean nothing else but that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnmade or Self-existent and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or First Principle of things Thus it was before observed that Anaximander called Infinite Matter devoid of all manner of Life the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God and Pliny the Corporeal World endewed with nothing but a Plastick Vnknowing Nature Numen as also others in Aristotle upon the same account called the Inanimate Elements Gods as Supposed First Principles of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these are also Gods And indeed Aristotle himself seems to be guilty of this miscarriage of Abusing the word God after this manner when speaking of Love and Chaos as the two first Principles of things he must according to the Laws of Grammar be understood to call them both Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning these two Gods how they ought to be ranked and which of them is to be placed first whether Love or Chaos is afterwards to be resolved Which Passage of Aristotle's seems to agree with that of Epicharmus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Chaos is said to have been made the first of the Gods unless we should rather understand him thus That Chaos was said to have been made before the Gods And this Abuse of the Word God is a thing which the learned Origen took notice of in his Book against Celsus where he speaks of that Religious Care which ought to be had about the use of Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that hath but the least consideration of these things will take a Religious care that he give not improper names to things left he should fall into a like miscarriage with those who attribute the name of God to Inanimate and Sensless matter Now according to this false and spurious Notion of the word God when it is taken for any Supposed First Principle or Self-existent Unmade Thing whatsoever that be there neither is nor can be any such things as an Atheist since whosoever hath but the least dram of Reason must needs acknowledge that Something or other Existed from Eternity Vnmade and was the Cause of those other things that are Made But that Notion or Idea of God according to which some are Atheists and some Theists is in the strictest sence of it what we have already declared A Perfect Mind or Consciously Vnderstanding Nature Self-existent from Eternity and the Cause of all other things The genuine Theists being those who make the First Original of all things Universally to be a Consciously Vnderstanding Nature or Perfect Mind but the Atheists properly such as derive all things from Matter either perfectly Dead and Stupid or else devoid of all Conscious and Animalish Life VI. But that we may more fully and punctually declare the true Idea of God we must here take notice of a certain Opinion of some Philosophers who went as it were in a middle betwixt both the Former and neither made Matter alone nor God the Sole Principle of all things but joyned them both together and held Two First Principles or Self-existent Vnmade Beings independent upon one another God and the Matter Amongst whom the Stoicks are to be reckoned who notwithstanding because they held that there was no other Substance besides Body strangely confounded themselves being by that means necessitated to make their Two First Principles the Active and the Passive to be both of them really but One and the self-same Substance their Doctrine to this purpose being thus declared by Cicero Naturam dividebant in Res Duas ut Altera esset Efficiens Altera autem quasi huic se praebens ex qua Efficeretur aliquid In eo quod Efficeret Vim esse censebant in eo quod Efficeretur Materiam quandam in Vtroque tamen Vtrumque Neque enim Materiam ipsam ohaerere potuisse si nullâ Vi contineretur neque Vim sine aliqua Materia
upon this accompt in remembrance of whom the First Moneth of the Year was called by that Name Which Thoth is generally supposed to have lived in the times of the Patriarchs or considerably before Moses Moses himself being said to have been instructed in that Learning which owed its Original to him Again besides this Thoth or Theuth who was called the First Hermes the Egyptians had also afterwards another eminent Advancer or Restorer of Learning who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second Hermes They perhaps supposing the Soul of Thoth or the First Hermes to have come into him by Transmigration but his proper Egyptian Name was Siphoas as Syncellus out of Manetho informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Siphoas who is also Hermes the Son of Vulcan This is he who is said to have been the Father of Tat and to have been Surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ter Maximus he being so styled by Manetho Jamblichus and others And he is placed by Eusebius in the Fiftieth year after the Israelitish Exitus though probably somewhat too Early The Former of these Two Hermes was the Inventor of Arts and Sciences the Latter the Restorer and Advancer of them the First wrote in Hieroglyphicks upon Pillars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Valesius conjectures it should be read instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Syringes what they were Am. Marcellinus will instruct us The Second Interpreted and Translated those Hieroglyphicks composing many Books in several Arts and Sciences the Number whereof set down by Jamblichus must needs be Fabulous unless it be understood of Paragraphs or Verses Which Trismegistick or Hermetick Books were said to be carefully preserved by the Priests in the Interiour Recesses of their Temples But besides the Hieroglyphicks written by the First Hermes and the Books composed by the Second who was called also Trismegist it cannot be doubted but that there were Many other Books written by the Egyptian Priests successively in several Ages And Jamblichus informs us in the beginning of his Mysteries That Hermes the God of Eloquence and President or Patron of all true Knowledge concerning the Gods was formerly accounted Common to all the Priests insomuch that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they dedicated the Inventions of their Wisdom to him entitling their own Books to Hermes Trismegist Now though One Reason hereof might probably have been thought to have been this because those Books were supposed to have been written according to the Tenour of the Old Hermetick or Trismegistick Doctrine yet Jamblichus here acquaints us with the chief Ground of it namely this that though Hermes was once a Mortal Man yet he was afterward Deified by the Egygtians which is testified also by Plato and made to be the Tutelar God and Fautor of all Arts and Sciences but especially Theology by whose Inspiration therefore all such Books were conceived to have been written Nay further we may observe that in some of the Hermaick or Trismegistick Books now extant Hermes is sometimes put for the Divine Wisdom or Vndâ—rstanding it self And now we see the true Reason Why there have been many Books called Hermetical and Trismegistical Some of which notwithstanding cannot possibly be conceived to have been of such great Antiquity nor written by Hermes Trismegist himself viz. because it was customary with the Egyptian Priests to entitle their own Philosophick and Theologick Books to Hermes Moreover it is very probable that several of the Books of the Egyptian Priests of Latter times were not Originally written in the Egyptian Language but the Greek because at least from the Ptolemaick Kings downward Greek was become very familiar to all the learned Egyptians and in a manner vulgarly spoken as may appear from those very Words Hermes Trismegist and the like so commonly used by them together with the Proper Names of Places and because the Coptick Language to this very day hath more of Greek than Egyptian Words in it nay Plutarch ventures to etymologize those Old Egyptian Names Isis Osiris Horus and Typhon from the Greek as if the Egyptians had been anciently well acquainted with that Language Now that some of those ancient Hermaick Books written by Hermes Trismegist himself or believed to be such by the Egyptians and kept in the custody of their Priests were still in being and extant amongst them after the times of Christianity seems to be unquestionable from the testimony of that Pious and Learned Father Clemens Alexandrinus he giving this particular Accompt of them after the mentioning of their Opinion concerning the Transmigration of Souls The Egyptians follow a certain peculiar Philosophy of their own which may be best declared by setting down the Order of their Religious Procession First therefore goes the Precentor carrying Two of Hermes his Books along with him the One of which conteins the Hymns of the Gods the Other Directions for the Kingly Office After him follows the Horoscopus who is particularly instructed in Hermes his Astrological Books which are Four Then succeeds the Hierogrammateus or Sacred Scribe with Feathers upon his head and a Book and Rule in his hands to whom it belongeth to be thoroughly acquainted with the Hieroglyphicks as also with Cosmography Geography the Order of the Sun and Moon and Five Planets the Chorography of Egypt and Description of Nile In the next place cometh the Stolistes who is to be thoroughly instructed in those Ten Books which treat concerning the honour of the Gods the Egyptian Worship Sacrifices First-fruits Prayers Pomps and Festivals And last of all marcheth the Prophet who is President of the Temple and Sacred things and ought to be thoroughly versed in those other Ten Books called Sacerdotal concerning Laws the Gods and the whole Discipline of the Priests Wherefore amongst the Books of Hermes there are Forty Two accounted most necessary of which Thirty Six conteining all the Egyptian Philosophy were to be learned by those Particular Orders before-mentioned but the other Six treating of Medicinal things by the Pastophori From which place we understand that at least Forty Two Books of the ancient Hermes Trismegist or such reputed by the Egyptians were still extant in the time of Clemens Alexandrinus about Two Hundred years after the Christian Epocha Furthermore that there were certain Books really Egyptian and called Hermaical or Trismegistical whether written by the ancient Hermes Trismegist himself or by other Egyptian Priests of latter times according to the Tenour of his Doctrine and only entitled to him which after the times of Christianity began to be taken notice of by other Nations the Greeks and Latins seems probable from hence because such Books are not only mentioned and acknowledged by Christian Writers and Fathers but also by Pagans and Philosophers In Plutarch's Discourse de Iside Osiride we read thus of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Books called Hermes 's or Hermaical it is reported to have been written concerning Sacred Names that the Power appointed to preside
over the Motion of the Sun is called by the Egyptians Horus as by the Greeks Apollo and that which presides over the Air and Wind is called by some Osiris by others Sarapis and by others Sothi in the Egyptian Language Now these Sacred Names in Plutarch seem to be Several Names of God and therefore whether these Hermaick Books of his were the same with those in Clemens Alexandrinus such as were supposed by the Egyptians to have been written by Hermes Trismegist himself or other Books written by Egyptian Priests according to the Tenour of this Doctrine We may by the way observe that according to the Hermaical or Trismegistick Doctrine One and the same Deity was worshipped under Several Names and Notions according to its Several Powers and Vertues manifested in the World which is a thing afterwards more to be insisted on Moreover it hath been generally believed that L. Apuleius Madaurensis an eminent Platonick Philosopher and zealous Asserter of Paganism was the Translator of the Asclepian Dialogue of Hermes Trismegist out of Greek into Latin which therefore hath been accordingly published with Apuleius his Works And Barthius affirms that St. Austin does somewhere expresly impute this Version to Apuleius but we confess we have not yet met with the place However there seems to be no sufficient reason why Colvius should call this into Question from the Stile and Latin Again it is certain that Jamblichus doth not only mention these Hermaick Books under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Books that are carried up and down as Hermes 's or vulgarly imputed to him but also vindicate them from the imputation of Imposture Not as if there were any suspicion at all of that which Casaubon is so confident of that these Hermaick Books were all forged by Christians but because some might then possibly imagine them to have been counterfeited by Philosophers Wherefore it will be convenient here to set down the whole Passage of Jamblichus concerning it as it is in the Greek MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things being thus discussed and determined the Solution of that difficulty from those Books which Porphyrius saith he met withal namely the Hermaicks and those Writings of Chaeremon will be clear and easie For the Books vulgarly imputed to Hermes do really contain the Hermaick Opinions and Doctrines in them although they often speak the language of Philosophers the reason whereof is because they were translatâ—d out of the Egyptian tongue by men not unacquainted with Philosophy But Chaeremon and those others c. Where it is First observable that Jamblichus doth not affirm these Hermaick Books to have been written by Hermes Trismegist himself he calling them only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Books that were carried about as Hermes ' s. But that which he affirmeth of them is this That they did really contain the Hermaical Opinions and derive their Original from Egypt Again whereas some might then possibly suspect that these Hermaick Books had been counterfeited by Greek Philosophers and contained nothing but the Greek Learning in them because they speak so much the Philosophick Language Jamblichus gives an accompt of this also that the reason hereof was because they were translated out of the Egyptian Language by men skilled in the Greek Philosophy who therefore added something of their own Phrase and Notion to them It is true indeed that most of these Hermaick Books which now we have seem to have been written originally in Greek notwithstanding which others of them and particularly those that are now lost as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like might as Jamblichus here affirmeth have been translated out of the Egyptian Tongue but by their Translators disguised with Philosophick Language and other Grecanick things intermixed with them Moreover from the forecited Passage of Jamblichus we may clearly collect that Porphyrius in his Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian Priest of which Epistle there are only some small fragments left did also make mention of these Hermaick Writings and whereas he found the Writings of Chaeremon to be contradictious to them therefore desired to be resolved by that Egyptian Priest whether the Doctrine of those Hermaick Books were genuine and truly Egyptian or no. Now Jamblichus in his answer here affirmeth that the Doctrine of the ancient Hermes or the Egyptian Theology was as to the Substance truly represented in those Books vulgarly imputed to Hermes but not so by Chaeremon Lastly St. Cyril of Alexandria informs us that there was an Edition of these Hermaick or Trismegistick Books compiled together formerly made at Athens under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fifteen Hermaick Books Which Hermaicks Casaubon conceiving them to have been published before Jamblichus his time took them for those Salaminiaca which he found in the Latin Translations of Jamblichus made by Ficinus and Scutellius Whereas indeed he was here abused by those Translators there being no such thing to be found in the Greek Copy But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not understood by them being turned into Salaminiaca Casaubon therefore conjectur'd them to have been those Hermaick Books published at Athens because Salamin was not far distant from thence Now it cannot be doubted but that this Edition of Hermaick Books at Athens was made by some Philosopher or Pagans and not by Christians this appearing also from the words of St. Cyril himself where having spoken of Moses and the agreement of Hermes with him he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of which Moses he also who compiled and published the Fifteen Hermaick Books at Athens makes mention in his own discourse annexed thereunto For thus we conceive that place is to be understood that the Pagan Publisher of the Hermaick Books himself took notice of some agreement that was betwixt Moses and Hermes But here it is to be noted that because Hermes and the Hermaick Books were in such great credit not only amongst the Christians but also the Greek and Latin Pagans therefore were there some counterfeit Writings obtruded also under that specious Title such as that Ancient Botanick Book mentioned by Galen and those Christian Forgeries of later times the Paemander and Sermon on the Mount Which being not cited by any ancient Father or Writer were both of them doubtless Later than Jamblichus who discovers no suspicion of any Christian Forgeries in this kind But Casaubon who contends that all the Theologick Books imputed to Hermes Trismegist were counterfeited by Christians affirms all the Philosophy Doctrine and Learning of them excepting what only is Christian in them to be merely Platonical and Grecanical but not at all Egyptian thence concluding that these Books were forged by such Christians as were skilled in the Platonick or Grecanick Learning But First it is here considerable that since Pythagorism Platonism and the Greek Learning in general was in great part derived from the Egyptians it cannot be concluded that whatsoever is
this Land of Egypt formerly the most holy seat of the Religious Temples of the Gods shall be every where full of the Sepulchers of Dead men The sence whereof is thus expressed by St. Austin Hoc videtur dolere quod Memoriae Martyrum nostrorum Templis eorum Delubrisque succederent ut viz. qui haec legunt animo à nobis averso atque perverso putent à Paganis Deos cultos fuisse in Templis à nobis autem coli Mortuos in Sepulchris He seems to lament this that the Memorials of our Martyrs should succeed in the place of their Temples that so they who read this with a perverse mind might think that by the Pagans the Gods were worshipped in Temples but by us Christians Dead men in Sepulchers Notwithstanding which this very thing seems to have had its accomplishment too soon after as may be gather'd from these Passages of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the Martyrs have utterly abolished and blotted out of the minds of men the memory of those who were formerly called Gods And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Lord hath now brought his Dead that is his Martyrs into the room and place that is the Temples of the Gods whom he hath sent away empty and bestowed their honour upon these his Martyrs For now in stead of the Festivals of Jupiter and Bacchus are celebrated those of Peter and Paul Thomas and Sergius and other holy Martyrs Wherefore this being so shrewd and plain a Description in the Asclepian Dialogue of what really happened in the Christian World it may seem suspicious that it was rather a History written after the Event than a Prophecy before it as it pretends to be It very much resembling that complaint of Eunapius Sardianus in the Life of Aedesius when the Christians had demolished the Temple of Serapis in Egypt seizing upon its Riches and Treasure That instead of the Gods the Monks then gave Divine honour to certain vile and flagitious persons deceased called by the name of Martyrs Now if this be granted this Book must needs be Counterfeit and supposititious Nevertheless St. Austin entertained no such Suspicion concerning this Asclepian Passage as if it had been a History written after the Fact that is after the Sepulchers and Memorials of the Martyrs came to be so frequented he supposing this Book to be unquestionably of greater Antiquity Wherefore he concludes it to be a Prophecy or Prediction made instinctu fallacis Spiritûs by the Instinct or Suggestion of some Evil Spirit they sadly then presaging the ruine of their own Empire Neither was this Asclepian Dialogue only ancienter than St. Austin but it is cited by Lactantius Firmianus also under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Perfect Oration as was said before and that as a thing then reputed of great Antiquity Wherefore in all probability this Asclepian Passage was written before that described Event had its accomplishment And indeed if Antoninus the Philosopher as the forementioned Eunapius writes did predict the very same thing that after his decease that magnificent Temple of Serapis in Aegypt together with the rest should be demolished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Temples of the Gods turned into Sepulchers why might not this Egyptian or Trismegistick Writer receive the like Inspiration or Tradition Or at least make the same Conjucture But there is yet another Objection made against the Sincerity of this Asclepian Dialogue from Lactantius his citing a Passage out of it for the Second Person in the Trinity the Son of God Hermes in eo Libro saith Lactantius qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inscribitur his usus est verbis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which we find in Apuleius his Latin Translation thus rendered Dominus omnium Conformator quem rectè Deum dicimus à se Secundum Deum fecit qui videri sentiri possit quem Secundum Deum sensibilem ita dixerim non ideo quod ipse sentiat de hoc enim an ipse sentiat annon alio dicemus tempore sed eo quod videntium sensus incurrit Quoniam ergo hunc fecit ex se Primum à se Secundum visusque est ei pulcher utpote qui est omnium bonitate plenissimus amavit eum ut Divinitatis suae Prolem for so it ought to be read and not Patrem it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek The Lord and Maker of all whom we rightly call God when he had made a Second God Visible and Sensible I say sensible not actively because himself hath Sense for concerning this whether he have Sense or no we shall speak elsewhere but passively because he incurrs into our Senses this being his First and Only Production seemed both beautiful to him and most full of all good and therefore he loved him dearly as his own Offspring Which Lactantius and after him St. Austin understanding of the Perfect Word of God or Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of it as a Testimony against the Pagans for the Confirmation of Christianity they taking it for granted that this Hermaick Book was genuinely Egyptian and did represent the Doctrine of the ancient Hermes Trismegist But Dionysius Petavius and other later Writers understanding this place in the same sence with Lactantius and St. Austin have made a quite different use of it namely to inferr from thence that this Book was Spurious and Counterfeited by some Christian. To which we reply First that if this Hermaick Writer had acknowledged an Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of God and called it a Second God and the Son of God he had done no more in this than Philo the Jew did who speaking of this same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Second God and the First Begotten Son of God Notwithstanding which those Writings of Philo's are not at all suspected And Origen affirms that some of the Ancient Philosophers did the like Multi Philosophorum Veterum Vnum esse Deum qui cuncta crearit dixerunt atque in hoc consentiunt Legi Aliquanti autem hoc adjiciunt quod Deus cuncta per Verbum suum fecerit regat Verbum Dei sit quo cuncta moderentur in hoc non solùm Legi sed Evangelio quoque consona scribunt Many of the old Philosophers that is all besides a few Atheistick ones have said that there is One God who created all things and these agree with the Law but some add further that God made all things by his Word and that it is the Word of God by which all things are governed and these write consonantly not only to the Law but also to the Gospel But whether Philo derived this Doctrine from the Greek Philosophers or from the Egyptians and Hermes Trismegist he being an Alexandrian may well be a Question For St. Cyril doth indeed cite several Passages
him be Deus Consus as giving Counsel and Dea Sentia as inspiring men with Sense let him be the Goddess Juventas which has the Guardianship of young men and Fortuna Barbata which upon some more than others liberally bestoweth beards let him be Deus Jugatinus which joyns man and wife together and Dea Virginensis which is then invoked when the Girdle of the Bride is loosed Lastly let him be Mutinus also which is the same with Priapus amongst the Greeks if you will not be ashamed to say it Let all these Gods and Goddesses and many more which I have not mentioned be One and the same Jupiter whether as Parts of him which is agreeable to their opinion who hold him to be the Soul of the world or else as his Vertues only which is the sence of many and great Pagan Doctors But that the Authority and Reputation of a late Learned and Industrious Writer G. I. Vossius may not here stand in our way or be a Prejudice to us we think it necessary to take notice of one passage of his in his Book De Theologia Gentili and freely to censure the the same where treating concerning that Pagan Goddess Venus he writeth thus Ex Philosophica de Diis Doctrina Venus est vel Luna ut vidimus vel Lucifer sive Hesperus Sed ex Poetica ac Civili supra hos coelos statuuntur Mentes quaedam â Syderibus diversae quomodò Jovem Apollinem Junonem Venerem caeterosque Deos Consentes considerare jubet Apuleius Quippe eos inquit Natura Visibus nostris denegavit necnon tamen Intellectu eos mirabundi contemplamur acie mentis acrius contemplantes Quid apertius hic quam ab eo per Deos Consentes intelligi non Corpora Coelestia vel Subcoelestia sed sublimiorem quandam Naturam nec nisi animis conspicuam According to the Philosophick Doctrine concerning the Gods Venus is either the Moon or Lucifer or Hesperus but according to the Poetick and Civil Theology of the Pagans there were certain Eternal Minds placed above the Heavens distinct from the Stars accordingly as Apuleius requires us to consider Jupiter and Apollo Juno and Venus and all those other Gods called Consentes he affirming of them that though Nature had denied them to our sight yet notwithstanding by the diligent contemplation of our Minds we apprehend and admire them Where nothing can be more plain saith Vossius than that the Dii consentes were understood by Apuleius neither to be Celestial nor Subcelestial Bodies but a certain higher Nature perceptible only to our Minds Upon which words of his we shall make these following Remarks First that this Learned Writer seems here as also throughout that whole Book of his to mistake the Philosophick Theology of Scaevola and Varro and others for that which was Physiological only which Physiological Theology of the Pagans will be afterwards declared by us For the Philosophick Theology of the Pagans did not Deifie Natural and Sensible Bodies only but the Principal part thereof was the Asserting of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen from whence all their other Gods were derived Neither was Venus according to this Philosophick and Arcane Theology taken only for the Moon or for Lucifer or Hesperus as this Learned Writer concieves but as we have already proved for the Supreme Deity also either according to its Universal Notion or some Particular Consideration thereof Wherefore the Philosophick Theology both of Scaevola and Varro and others was called Natural not as Physiological only but in another sence as Real and True it being the Theology neither of Cities nor of Stages or Theaters but of the World and of the Wise men in it Philosophy being that properly which considers the Absolute Truth and Nature of things Which Philosophick Theology thereof was opposed both to the Civil and Poetical as consisting in Opinion and Phancy only Our Second Remark is That Vossius does here also seem incongruously to make both the Civil and Poetical Theology as such to Philosophize whereas the First of these was properly nothing but the Law of Cities and Commonwealths together with Vulgar Opinion and Errour and the Second nothing but Phancy Fiction and Fabulosity Poetarum ista sunt saith Cotta in Cicero nos autem Philosophi esse volumus Rerum authores non Fabularum Those things belong to Poets but we would be Philosophers authors of Things or Realities and not of Fables But the main thing which we take notice of in these words of Vossius is this that they seem to imply the Consentes and Select and other Civil and Poetical Gods of the Pagans to have been generally accounted so many Substantial and Eternal Minds or Vnderstanding Beings Supercelestial and Independent their Jupiter being put only in an equality with Apollo Juno Venus and the rest For which since Vossius pretends no other manner of Proof than only from Apuleius his De Deo Socratis who was a Platonick Philosopher we shall here make it evident that he was not rightly understood by Vossius neither which yet ought not to be thought any Derogation from this Eminent Philologer whose Polymathy and Multifarious Learning is readily acknowledged by us that he was not so well versed in all the Niceties and Punctilio's of the Platonick School For though Apuleius do in that Book besides those Visible Gods the Stars take notice of another kind of Invisible ones such as the Twelve Consentes and others which he faith we may animis conjectare per varias Vtilitates in vita agenda animadversas in iis rebus quibus eorum singuli curant make a conjecture of by our minds from the various Vtilities in humane life perceived from those things which each of these care of yet that he was no Bigot in this Civil Theology is manifest from hence because in that very place he declares as well against Superstition as Irreligious Prophaneness And his design there was plainly no other than to reduce the Civil and Poetical Theologies of the Pagans into some handsome conformity and agreement with that Philosophical Natural and Real Theology of theirs which derived all the Gods from One Supreme and Vniversal Numen but this he endeavours to do in the Platonick way himself being much addicted to that Philosophy Hos Deos in sublimi aetheris vertice locatos Plato existimat veros incorporales animales sine ullo neque fine neque exordio sed prorsus ac retro aeviternos corporis contagione suâ quidem naturâ remotos ingenio ad summam beatitudinem porrecto c. Quorum Parentem qui omnium rerum Dominator atque Auctor est solum ab omnibus nexibus patiendi aliquid gerendive nulla vice ad alicujus rei mutua obstrictum cur ego nunc dicere exordiar cum Plato coelesti facundia praeditus frequentissimè praedicet hunc solum majestatis incredibili quadam nimietate ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modicà comprehendi All these
Hope Virtue Honour Victory Health Concord and the like we see them to have the Force of Things but not of Gods Because they either exist in us as Mind Hope Virtue Concord or else they are desired to happen to us as Honour Health Victory that is they are nothing but meer Accidents or Affections of Things and therefore how they can have the Force of Gods in them cannot possibly be understood And again afterwards he affirmeth Eos qui Dii appellantur Rerum Naturas esse non Figuras Deorum That those who in the Allegorical Mythology of the Pagans are called Gods are really but the Natures of Things and not the True Figures or Forms of Gods Wherefore since the Pagans themselves acknowledged that those Personated and Deified Things of Nature were not True and Proper Gods the meaning of them could certainly be no other than this that they were so many Several Names and Partial Considerations of One Supreme God as manifesting himself in all the Things of Nature For that Vis or Force which Cicero tells us was that in all these things which was called God or Deified is really no other than Something of God in Every Thing that is Good Neither do we otherwise understand those following words of Balbus in Cicero Quarum Rerum quia Vis erat tanta ut sine Deo regi non posset ipsa Res Deorum Nomen obtinuit Of which things because the Force is such as that it could not be Governed without God therefore have the Things themselves obteined the Names of Gods that is God was acknowledged and worshipped in them all which was Paganically thus signified by Calling of them Gods And Pliny though no very Divine Person yet being ingenious easily understood this to be the meaning of it Fragilis laboriosa Mortalitas in Partes ista digessit Infirmitatis suae memor ut Portionibus quisque coleret quo maximò indigeret Frail and toilsom Mortality has thus broken and crumbled the Deity into Parts mindful of its own Infirmity that so every one by Parcels and Pieces might worship that in God which himself most stands in need of Which Religion of the Pagans thus worshipping God not entirely all together at once as he is One most Simple Being Unmixed with any thing but as it were brokenly and by piece-meals as he is severally Manifested in all the Things of Nature and the Parts of the World Prudentius thus perstringeth in his Second Book against Symmachus Tu me praeterito meditaris Numina mille Quae simules parere meis Virtutibus ut me Per varias partes minuas cui nulla recidi Pars aut Forma potest quia sum Substantia Simplex Nec Pars esse queo From which words of his we may also conclude that Symmachus the Pagan who determined That it was One Thing that all worshipped and yet would have Victory and such like other things worshipped as Gods and Goddesses did by these and all those other Pagan Gods before mentioned understand nothing but so many Several Names and Partial Considerations of One Supreme Deity according to its several Vertues or Powers so that when he sacrificed to Victory he sacrificed to God Almighty under that Partial Notion as the Giver of Victory to Kingdoms and Commonwealths It was before observed out of Plutarch that the Egyptian Fable of Osiris being mangled and cut in pieces by Typhon did Allegorically signifie the same thing viz. the One Simple Deity 's being as it were divided in the Fabulous and Civil Theologies of the Pagans into many Partial Considerations of him as so many Nominal and Titular Gods which Isis notwithstanding that is True Knowledge and Wisdom according to the Natural or Philosophick Theology unites all together into One. And that not only such Gods as these Victory Vertue and the like but also those other Gods Neptune Mars Bellona c. were all really but one and the same Jupiter acting severally in the world Plautus himself seems sufficiently to intimate in the Prologue of his Amphitryo in these words Nam quid ego memorem ut alios in Tragaediis Vidi Neptunum Virtutem Victoriam Martem Bellonam commemorare quae bona Vobis fecissent Queis Benefactis meus Pater Deûm Regnator Architectus omnibus Whereas there was before cited a Passage out of G. I. Vossius his Book De Theolog. Gent. which we could not understand otherwise than thus that the generality of the Pagans by their Political or Civil Gods meant so many Eternal Minds Independent and Self-Existent we now think our selves concerned to do Vossius so much right as to acknowledge that we have since met with another place of his in that same Book wherein he either corrects the former Opinion or else declares himself better concerning it after this manner that the Pagans generally conceived their Political Gods to be so many Substantial Minds or Spirits not Independent and Self-existent nor indeed Eternal neither but Created by One Supreme Mind or God and appointed by him to preside over the Several Parts of the World and Things of Nature as his Ministers Which same thing he affirmeth also of those Deified Accidents and Affections that by them were to be understood so many Substantial Minds or Spirits Created presiding over those several Things or dispensing of them His words in the beginning of his Eighth Book where he speaks concerning these Affections and Accidents Deified by the Pagans are as followeth Hujusmodi Deorum propè immensa est copia Ac in Civili quidem Theologia considerari solent tanquam Mentes quaedam hoc honoris à Summo Deo sortitae ut Affectionibus istis praeessent Nempe crediderunt Deum quem Optimum Max. vocabant non per se omnia curare quo pacto ut dicebant plurimum beatitudini ejus decederet sed instar Regis plurimos habere Ministros Ministras quorum singulos huic illive curae prefecisset Sic Justitia quae Astraea ac Themis praefecta erat actibus cunctis in quibus Justitia attenderetur Comus curare creditus est Comessationes Et sic in caeteris id genus Diis nomen ab ea Affectione sortitis cujus cura cuique commissa crederetur Quo pacto si considerentur non aliter different à Spiritibus sive Angelis bonis malisque quam quòd hi reverà à Deo conditi sint illae verò Mentes de quibus nunc loquimur sint Figmentum Mentis humanae pro numero Assectionum in quibus Vis esse major videretur comminiscentis Mentes Affectionibus Singulis praefectas Facilè autem Sacerdotes suà Commenta persuadere simplicioribus potuerunt quia satis videretur verisimile summae illi Menti Deorum omnium Regi innumeras servire mentes ut eò perfectior sit Summi Dei beatitudo minusque curis implicetur inque tot Famulantium numero Summi Numinis Majestas magis eluceat Ac talis quidem Opinio erat Theologiae Civilis Of such Gods
to the First God and to the Second Cause and to the Third the Soul of the World they calling this also the Third God Wherefore we think there is good reason to conclude that those Eternal or Vncreated Gods of Plato in his Timaeus whose Image or Statue this whole Generated or Created World is said by him to be were no other than his Trinity of Divine Hypostases the Makers or Creators thereof And it was before as we conceive rightly guessed that Cicero also was to be understood of the same Eternal Gods as Platonizing when he affirmed A Diis omnia à Principio facta That all things were at first made by the Gods and à Providentiâ Deorum Mundum omnes Mundi partes constitutas esse That the World and all its Parts were constituted by the Providence of the Gods But that the Second Hypostasis in Plato's Trinity viz. Mind or Intellect though said to have been Generated or to have Proceeded by way of Emanation from the First called Tagathon The Good was notwithstanding unquestionably acknowledged to have been Eternal or without Beginning might be proved by many express Testimonies of the most Genuine Platonists but we shall here content our selves only with Two one of Plotinus writing thus concerning it Enn. 5. L. 1. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let all Temporal Generation here be quite banished from our thoughts whilst we treat of things Eternal or such as alwayes are we attributing Generation to them only in respect of Causality and Order but not of Time And though Plotinus there speak particularly of the Second Hypostasis or Nous yet does he afterwards extend the same also to the Third Hypostasis of that Trinity called Psyche or the Mundane Soul which is there said by him likewise to be the Word of the Second as that Second was the Word of the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is Generated from what is better than Mind can be no other than Mind because Mind is the Best of all things and every thing else is after it and Junior to it as Psyche or Soul which is in like manner the Word of Mind and a certain Energy thereof as Mind is the Word and Energy of the First Good The other Testimony is of Porphyrius cited by S. Cyril out of the Fourth Book of his Philosophick History where he sets down the Doctrine of Plato after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore we ought not to entertain any other Principles but having placed First the Simple Good to set Mind or the Supreme Intellect next after it and then the Vniversal Soul in the third place For this is the right order according to Nature neither to make More Intelligibles or Universal Principles nor yet Fewer than these three For he that will contract the number and make fewer of them must of necessity either suppose Soul and Mind to be the same or else Mind and the First Good But that all these three are divers from one another hath been often demonstrated by us It remains now to consider that if there be more than these three Principles what Natures they should be c. Thirdly as all these three Platonick Hypostases are Eternal and Necessarily Existent so are they plainly supposed by them not to be Particular but Vniversal Beings that is such as do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contain and comprehend the whole World under them and preside over all things which is all one as to say that they are each of them Infinite and Omnipotent For which reason are they also called by Platonick Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Principles and Causes and Opificers of the whole World First as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Vnderstanding Whereas the Old Philosophers before Plato as Anaxagoras Archelaus c. and Aristotle after him supposed Mind and Vnderstanding to be the very First and Highest Principle of all which also the Magick or Caldee Oracles take notice of as the most Common opinion of mankind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mind is generally by all men look'd upon as the First and Highest God Plato considering that Vnity was in order of Nature before Number and Multiplicity and that there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Intelligible before Intellect so that Knowledge could not be the First and Lastly that there is a Good transcending that of Knowledge made One most Simple Good the Fountain and Original of all things and the First Divine Hypostatis and Mind or Intellect only the Second next to it but Inseparable from it and most nearly Cognate with it For which cause in his Philebus though he agree thus far with those other Ancient Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Mind alwayes rules over the whole Vniverse yet does he add afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Mind is not absolutely the First Principle but Cognate with the Cause of all things and that therefore it rules over all things with and in a kind of subordination to that First Principle which is Tagathon or the Highest Good Where when Plato affirms that Mind or his Second Divine Hypostasis is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the First it is all one as if he should have said that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it all which words are used by Athanasius as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial So that Plato here plainly and expresly agrees or Symbolizes not with the Doctrine of Arius but with that of the Nicene Council and Athanasius that the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity whether called Mind or Word or Son is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the First and therefore not a Creature And then as for the Third Hypostasis called Psyche or the Superiour Mundane Soul Plato in his Cratylus bestowing the name of Zeus that is of the Supreme God upon it and etymologizing the same from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adds these words concerning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is nothing which is more the Cause of Life to us and all other Animals than this Prince and King of all things And that therefore God was called by the Greeks Zeus because it is by him that all Animals live And yet that all this was properly meant by him of the Third Hypostasis of his Trinity called Psyche is manifest from those words of his that follow where he expounds the Poetick Mythology before mentioned making Zeus to be the Son of Chronos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is agreeable to reason that Zeus should be the Progeny or Off-spring of a certain great Mind Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are equivalent Terms
Power One Will and One Energy be much rather called One God But though it be true that Athanasius in this place if at least this were a Genuine Foetus of Athanasius may Justly be thought to attribute too much to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Common Nature Essence or Substance of all the Three Persons as to the making of them to be truly and properly One God and that those Scripture-passages are but weakly urged to this purpose yet is it plain that he did not acquiesce in this only but addeth other things to it also as their having not only One Will but also One Energy or Action of which more afterwards Moreover Athanasius elsewhere plainly implieth that this Common Essence or Nature of the Godhead is not sufficient alone to make all the Three Hypostases One God As in his Fourth Oration against the Arians where he tells us that his Trinity of Divine Hypostases cannot therefore be accounted Three Gods nor Three Principles because they are not resembled by him to Three Original Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour and the Light from both Now Three Suns according to the Language of Athanasius have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Nature Essence and Substance and therefore are Coessential or Consubstantial and since they cannot be accounted one Sun it is manifest that according to Athanasius this Specifick Identity or Unity is not sufficient to make the Three Divine Hypostases One God Again the same Athanasius in his Exposition of Faith writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither do we acknowledge Three Hypostases Divided or Separate by themselves as is to be seen corporeally in men that we may not comply with the Pagan Polytheism From whence it is Evident that neither Three Separate Men though Coessential to Athanasius were accounted by him to be One Man nor yet the Community of the Specifick Nature and Essence of the Godhead can alone by it self exclude Polytheism from the Trinity Wherefore the true reason why Athanasius laid so great a stress upon this Homoousiotes or Coessentially of the Trinity in order to the Vnity of the Godhead in them was not because this alone was sufficient to make them One God but because they could not be so without it This Athanasius often urges against the Arians as in his Fourth Oration where he tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they must needs introduce a Plurality of Gods because of the Heterogeneity of their Trinity And again afterwards determining that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Species of the Godhead in Father Son and Spirit he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus do we acknowledge one only God in the Trinity and maintain it more Religiously than those Hereticks do who introduce a Multiform Deity consisting of divers Species we supposing only One Vniversal Godhead in the whole For if it be not thus but the Son be a Creature made out of nothing however called God by these Arians then must He and his Father of necessity be Two Gods one of them a Creator the other a Creature In like manner in his Books Of the Nicene Council he affirmeth concerning the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they make in a manner Three Gods dividing the Holy Monad into Three Heterogeneous Substances Separate from one another Whereas the right Orthodox Trinity on the contrary is elsewhere thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy and perfect Trinity Theologized in the Father Son and Spirit hath nothing Aliene Foreign or Extraneous intermingled with it nor is it compounded of Heterogeneous things the Creator and Creature joyned together And whereas the Arians interpreted that of our Saviour Christ I and my Father are One only in respect of Consent or Agreement of Will Athanasius shewing the insufficiency hereof concludeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore besides this Consent of Will there must of necessity be another Vnity of Essence or Substance also acknowledged in the Father and the Son Where by Vnity of Essence or Substance that Athanasius did not mean a Vnity of Singular and Individual but of General or Vniversal Essence only appears plainly from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those things which are Made or Created though they may have an Agreement of Will with their Creator yet have they this by Participation only and in a way of Motion as he who retaining not the same was cast out of Heaven But the Son being begotten from the Essence or Substance of the Father is Essentially or Substantially One with him So that the Opposition here is betwixt Vnity of Consent with God in Created Beings which are Mutable and Vnity of Essence in that which is Vncreated and Immutably of the same Will with the Father There are also many other places in Athanasius which though some may understand of the Vnity of Singular Essence yet were they not so by him intended but either of Generick or Specifick Essence only or else in such other sence as shall be afterwards declared As for Example in his Fourth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We acknowledge only One Godhead in the Trinity where the following words plainly imply this to be understood in part at least of One Common or General Essence of the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because if it be not so but the Word be a Creature made out of Nothing he is either not truly God or if he be called by that name then must they be two Gods one a Creator the other a Creature Again when in the same Book it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son and the Father are One thing in the Propriety of Nature and in the Sameness of one Godhead it is evident from the Context that this is not to be understood of a Sameness of Singular Essence but partly of a Common and Generical One and partly of such another Sameness or Unity as will be hereafter expressed Lastly when the Three Hypostases are somewhere said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Essence or Substance this is not to be understood neither in that place as if they had all Three the same Singular Essence but in some of those other Sences before mentioned But though Athanasius no where declare the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have only One and the same Singular Essence but on the contrary denies them to be Monoousian and though he lay a great stress upon their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Specifick or Generick Vnity and Coessentiality in order to their being One God for as much as without this they could not be God at all yet doth he not rely wholly upon this as alone sufficient to that purpose but addeth certain other considerations thereunto to make it out in manner as followeth First that this Trinity is not a Trinity of Principles but that there is only One Principle
or Fountain of the Godhead in it from which the other are derived Thus does he write in his Fifth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but One Principle and accordingly but One God Again in his Book against the Sabellianists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are not Two Gods both because there are not Two Fathers and because that which is Begotten is not of a different Essence from that which Begat For he that introduceth Two Principles Preacheth Two Gods which was the Impiety of Marcion Accordingly the same Athanasius declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Essence or Substance of the Father is the Principle and Root and Fountain of the Son And in like manner doth he approve of this Doctrine of Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God the Father is the First Fountain of all Good things but the Son a River poured out from him To the same purpose is it also when he compareth the Father and the Son to the Water and the Vapour arising from it to the Light and the Splendour to the Prototype and the Image And he concludeth the Unity of the Godhead from hence in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Divine Trinity must needs be collected and gathered up together under that omnipotent God of the whole World as under One Head But the chief force of this Consideration is only to exclude the Doctrine of the Marcionists who made More Independent and Self-existent Principles and Gods Notwithstanding which it might still be objected that the Christian Trinity is a Trinity of Distinct Subordinate Gods in opposition whereunto this argument seems only to prepare the way to what follows namely of the close Conjuction of these Three Hypostases into One God forasmuch as were they Three Independent Principles there could not be any Coalescence of them into One. In the next place therefore Athanasius further addeth that these Three Divine Hypostases are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Separate and Disjoyned Beings but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indivisibly Vnited to one another Thus in his Fifth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father and the Son are both one thing in the Godhead and in that the Word being begotten from Him is Indivisibly and Inseparably conjoyned with him Where when he affirmeth the Father and the Son to be One in the Godhead it is plain that he doth not mean them to have One and the same Singular Essence but only Generical and Vniversal because in the following words he supposes them to be Two but Indivisibly and Inseparably United together Again in his Book De Sent. Dionys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son is Indivisible from the Father as the Splendour is from the Light And afterwards in the same Book he insisteth further upon this Point according to the sence of Dionysius after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Dionysius teacheth that the Son is Cognate with the Father and Indivisible from him as Reason is from the Mind and the River from the Fountain Who is there therefore that would go about to alienate Reason from the Mind and to separate the River from the Fountain making up a wall between them or to cut off the Splendour from the Light Thus also in his Epistle to Serapion that the Holy Ghost is not a Creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let these men first divide the Splendour from the Light or Wisdom from him that is Wise or else let them wonder no more how these things can be Elsewhere Athanasius calls the whole Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Trinity Vndivided and Vnited to it self Which Athanasian Indivisibility of the Trinity is not so to be understood as if Three were not Three in it but first of all that neither of these could be without the other as the Original Light or Sun could not be without the Splendour nor the Splendour without the Original Light and neither one nor t'other of them without a Diffused Derivative Light Wherefore God the Father being an Eternal Sun must needs have also an Eternal Splendour and an Eternal Light And Secondly that these are so Nearly and Intimately Conjoyned together that there is a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Continuity betwixt them which yet is not to be understood in the way of Corporeal Things but so as is agreeable to the Nature of things Incorporeal Thirdly Athanasius ascendeth yet higher affirming the Hypostases of the Trinity not only to be Indivisibly Conjoyned with one another but also to have a Mutual Inexistence in each other which Latter Greek Fathers have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Circuminsession To this purpose does he cite the Words of Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Reason is the Efflux of the Mind which in men is derived from the Heart into the Tongue where it is become another Reason or Word differing from that in the Heart and yet do these both Mutually Exist in each other they belonging to one another and so though being Two are One Thing Thus are the Father and the Son One thing they being said to Exist in each other And Athanasius further illustrates this also by certain Similitudes as that again of the Original Light and the Splendour he affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Original Light is in the Splendor and again the Splendor in the Sun and also that of the Prototype and the Image or the King and his Picture which he thus insisteth upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Picture is contained the Form and Figure of the King and in the King the Form and Figure of the Picture And therefore if any one when he had seen the Picture should afterward desire to see the King the Picture would by a Prosopopoeia bespeak him after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I and the King am One for I am in him and he is in me and what you take notice of in me the same may you observe in him also and what you see in him you may see likewise in me he therefore that worshippeth the Image therein worshippeth the King the Image being nothing but the Form of the King Elsewhere in the Fourth Oration he thus insisteth upon this Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son is in the Father as may be conceived from hence because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Essence of the Father he being derived from it as the Splendour from the Light and the River from the Fountain so that he who sees the Son sees that which is the Fathers own and proper Again the Father is in the Sun because that which is the Fathers own and proper that is the Son accordingly as the Sun is also in the Splendour the Mind in Reason and the Fountain in the River What Cavils the Arrians had against this Doctrine Athanasius also enforms us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here the Arians begin
School thither who because there is but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Self-Originated Being would unskilfully conclude that the Word or Son of God must therefore needs be a Creature Thus in his Book concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Arians borrowing the word Agennetos from the Pagans who acknowledge only One such make that a pretence to rank the Word or Son of God who is the Creator of all amongst Creatures or things Made Whereas they ought to have learn'd the right signification of that word Agennetos from those very Platonists who gave it them Who though acknowledging their Second Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect to be derived from the first called Tagathon and their Third Hypostasis or Psyche from the Second nevertheless doubt not to affirm them both to be Ageneta or Vncreated knowing well that hereby they detract nothing from the Majesty of the First from whom these Two are derived Wherefore the Arians either ought so to speak as the Platonists do or else to say nothing at all concerning these things which they are ignorant of In which words of Athanasius there is a plain distinction made betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbegotten and Vncreated and the Second Person of the Trinity the Son or Word of God though acknowledged by him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbegotten he being Begotten of the Father who is the only Agennetos yet is he here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncreated he declaring the Platonists thus to have affirmed the Second and Third Hypostases of their Trinity not to be Creatures but Vncreated Which Signal Testimony of Athanasius concerning the Platonick Trinity is a great Vindication of the same We might here further add St. Austin's Confession also that God the Father and God the Son were by the Platonists acknowledged in like manner as by the Christians though concerning the Holy Ghost he observes some difference betwixt Plotinus and Porphyrius in that the Former did Postponere Animae Naturam Paterno Intellectui the Latter Interponere Plotinus did Postpone his Psyche or Soul after the Paternal Intellect but Porphyrius Interponed it betwixt the Father and the Son as a Middle between both It was before observed that St. Cyril of Alexandria affirmeth nothing to be wanting to the Platonick Trinity but only that Homoousiotes of his and some other Fathers in that Age that they should not only all be God or Vncreated but also Three Coequal Individuals under the same Ultimate Species as Three Individual Men he conceiving that Gradual Subordination that is in the Platonick Trinity to be a certain tang of Arianism Nevertheless he thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Plato notwithstanding was not altogether ignorant of the Truth but that he had the knowledge of the Only begotten Son of God as likewise of the Holy Ghost called by him Psyche and that he would have every way expressed himself rightly had he not been afraid of Anitus and Melitus and that Poyson which Socrates drunk Now whether this were a Fault or no in the Platonists that they did not suppose their Hypostases to be Three Individuals under the same Ultimate Species we leave to others to judge We might here add the Testimony of Chalcidius because he is unquestionably concluded to have been a Christian though his Language indeed be too much Paganical when he calls the Three Divine Hypostases a Chief a Second and a Third God Istius rei dispositio talis mente concipienda est Originem quidem rerum esse Summum Ineffabilem Deum post Providentiam ejus Secundum Deum Latorem Legis utriusque Vitae tam Aeternae quam Temporariae Tertium esse porro Substantiam que Secunda Mens Intellectusque dicitur quasi quaedam Custos Legis Aeternae His Subjectas esse Rationabiles Animas Legi Obsequentes Ministras verò Potestates c. Ergo Summus Deus jubet Secundus ordinat Tertius intimat Animae verò Legem agâ—nt This thing is to be conceived after this manner That the First Original of Things is the Supreme and Ineffable God after his Providence a Second God the Establisher of the Law of Life both Eternal and Temporary And the Third which is also a Substance and called a Second Mind or Intellect is a certain Keeper of this Eternal Law Vnder these Three are Rational Souls Subject to that Law together with the Ministerial Powers c. So that the Sovereign or Supreme God Commands the Second Orders and the Third executes But Souls are Subject to the Law Where Chalcidius though seeming indeed rather more a Platonist than a Christian yet acknowledgeth no such Beings as Henades and Noes but only Three Divine Hypostases and under them Rational Souls But we shall conclude with the Testimony of Theodoret in his Book De Principio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plotinus and Numenius explaining Plato 's Sence declare him to have asserted Three Super-Temporals or Eternals Good Mind or Intellect and the Soul of the Vniverse he calling that Tagathon which to us is Father that Mind or Intellect which to us is Son or Word and that Psyche or a Power Animating and Enlivening all things which our Scriptures call the Holy Ghost And these things saith he were by Plato purloined from the Philosophy and Theology of the Hebrews Wherefore we cannot but take notice here of a Wonderful Providence of Almighty God that this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should find such Admittance and Entertainment in the Pagan World and be received by the wisest of all their Philosophers before the times of Christianity thereby to prepare a more easie way for the Reception of Christianity amongst the Learned Pagans Which that it proved successful accordingly is undeniably evident from the Monuments of Antiquity And the Juniour Platonists who were most opposite and adverse to Christianity became at length so sensible hereof that besides their other Adulterations of the Trinity before mentioned for the countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they did in all probability for this very reason quite innovate change and pervert the whole Cabala and no longer acknowledge a Trinity but either a Quaternity or a Quinary or more of Divine Hypostases They first of all contending that before the Trinity there was another Supreme and Highest Hypostasis not to be reckoned with the others but standing alone by himself And we conceive the first Innovator in this kind to have been Jamblichus who in his Egyptian Mysteries where he seems to make the Egyptian Theology to agree with his own Hypotheses writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before those things which truly are and the Principles of all there is One God Superiour to the First God and King Immovable and always remaining in the Solitude of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else mingled with him but he being the