able to beget the Father nor the Holy Ghost to Produce either Father or Son and therefore neither of these two Latter is absolutely the Cause of all things but only the First And upon this account was that First of these Three Hypostases who is the Original Fountain of all by Macrobius styled Omnipotentissimus Deus the Most Omnipotent God he therein implying the Second and Third Hypostases Nous and Psyche to be Omnipotent too but not in a perfect Equality with him as within the Deity they are compared together however ad Extra or Outwardly and to Us they being all One are Equally Omnipotent And Plotinus writeth also to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If the First be absolutely Perfect and the First Power then must it needs be the Most Powerful of all Beings other Powers only imitating and partaking thereof And accordingly hereunto would the Platonick Christian further pretend that there are sundry places in the Scripture which do not a little favour some Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Persons of the Holy Trinity of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Christ My Father is greater than I which to understand of his Humanity only seemeth to be less reasonable because this was no news at all that the Eternal God the Creator of the whole World should be Greater than a Mortal Man born of a woman And thus do divers of the Orthodox Fathers as Athanasius himself St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostome with several others of the Latins interpret the same to have been spoken not of the Humanity but the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. Insomuch that Petavius himself expounding the Athanasian Creed writeth in this manner Pater Major Filio ritè catholicè pronuntiatus est à plerisque Veterum Origine Prior sine reprehensione dici solet The Father is in a right Catholick manner affirmed by most of the ancients to be Greater than the Son and he is commonly said also without reprehension to be Before him in respect of Original Whereupon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this that no Person of the Trinity is Greater or Less than other in respect of the Essence of the Godhead common to them all Quia Vera Deitas in nullo esse aut Minor aut Major potest because the true Godhead can be no where Greater or Less but that notwithstanding there may be some Inequality in them as they are Hic Deus and Haec Persona This God and That Person It is true indeed that many of those ancient Fathers do restrain and limit this Inequality only to the Relation of the Persons one to another as the Father's Begetting and the Son 's being Begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from both they seeming to affirm that there is otherwise a perfect Equality amongst them Nevertheless several of them do extend this Difference further also as for example St. Hilary a zealous Opposer of the Arians he in his Book of Synods writing thus Siquis Vnum dicens Deum Christum autem Deum ante secula Filium Dei Obsecutum Patri in Creatione omnium non consitetur Anathema sit And again Non exaequamus vel conformamus Filium Patri sed Subjectum intelligimus And Athanasius himself who is commonly accounted the very Rule of Orthodoxality in this Point when he doth so often resemble the Father to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun or the Original Light and the Son to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Splendour or Brightness of it as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the Scripture it self he seems hereby to imply some Dependence of the Second upon the First and Subordination to it Especially when he declareth that the Three Persons of the Trinity are not to be look'd upon as Three Principles nor to be resembled to Three Suns but to the Sun and its Splendour and its Derivative Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it appears from the similitude used by us that we do not introduce Three Principles as the Marcionists and Manicheans did we not comparing the Trinity to Three Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour So that we acknowledge only one Principle As also where he approves of this of Dionysius of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is an Eternal Light which never began and shall never cease to be wherefore thâ—re is an Eternal Splendour also coexistent with him which had no beginning neither but was Alwayes Generated by him shining out before him For if the Son of God be as the Splendour of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Always Generated then must he needs have an Essential Dependence upon the Father and Subordination to him And this same thing further appears from those other resemblances which the same Dionysius maketh of the Father and the Son approved in like manner also by Athanasius viz. to the Fountain and the River to the Root and the Branch to the Water and the Vapour for so it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appeareth from his Book of the Nicene Synod where he affirmeth the Son to have been begotten of the Essence or Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendour of the Light and as the Vapour of the Water adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither the Splendour nor the Vapour is the very Sun and the very Water nor yet is it Aliene from it or a stranger to its nature but they are both Effluxes from the Essence or Substance of them as the Son is an Efflux from the Substance of the Father yet so as that he is no way diminished or lessened thereby Now all these similitudes of the Fountain and the River the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour as well as that of the Sun and the Splendour seem plainly to imply some Dependence and Subordination And Dionysius doubtless intended them to that purpose he asserting as Photius informeth us an Inferiority of Power and Glory in the Second as likewise did Origen before him both whose Testimonies notwithstanding Athanasius maketh use of without any censure or reprehension of them Wherefore when Athanasius and the other Orthodox Fathers writing against Arius do so frequently assert the Equality of all the Three Persons this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only who made the Son to be Unequal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence from him One being God and the other a Creature they affirming on the contrary that he was Equal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with him that is as God and not a Creature Notwithstanding which Equality there might be some Subordination in them as Hic Deus and Haec Persona to use Petavius
but of Kind Which Vnity of the Common or General Essence of the Godhead is the same thing also with that Equality which some of the Ancient Fathers so much insist upon against Arius namely An Equality of Nature as the Son and Father are both of them alike God that Essence of the Godhead which is Common to all the Three Persons being as all other Essences supposed to be Indivisible From which Equality it self also does it appear that they acknowledged no Identity of Singular Essence it being absurd to say that One and the self same thing is Equal to it self And with this Equality of Essence did some of these Orthodox Fathers themselves imply that a certain Inequality of the Hypostases or Persons also in their mutual Relation to one another might be consistent As for example St. Austin writing thus against the Arians Patris ergo Filii Spiritus Sancti etiamsi disparem cogitant Potestatem Naturam saltem confiteantur Aequalem Though they conceive the Power of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Vnequal yet let them for all that confess their Nature at least to be Equal And St. Basil likewise Though the Son be in Order Second to the Father because produced by him and in Dignity also forasmuch as the Father is the Cause and Principle of his being yet is he not for all that Second in Nature because there is One Divinity in them both And that this was indeed the meaning both of the Nicene Pathers and of Athanasius in their Homoousiotes their Coessentiality or Con-substantiality and Coequality of the Son with the Father namely their having both the same Common Essence of the Godhead or that the Son was No Creature as Arius contended but truly God or Vncreated likewise will appear undeniably from many passages in Athanasius of which we shall here mention only some few In his Epistle concerning the Nicene Council he tells us how the Eusebian Faction subscribed the Form of that Council though afterward they recanted it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the rest subscribing the Eusebianists themselves subscribed also to these very words which they now find fault with I mean Of the Essence or Substance and Coessential or Consubstantial and that the Son is no Creature or Facture or any of the Things Made but the Genuine Off-spring of the Essence or Substance of the Father Afterwards he declareth how the Nicene Council at first intended to have made use only of Scripture Words and Phrases against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As that Christ was the Son of God and not from nothing but from God the Word and Wisdom of God and consequently no Creature or thing Made But when they perceived that the Eusebian Faction would evade all those Expressions by Equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They conceived themselves necessitated more plainly to declare what they meant by being From God or Out of him and therefore added that the Son was Out of the Substance of God thereby to distinguish him from all Created Beings Again a little after in the same Epistle he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synod perceiving this rightly declared that the Son was Homoousious with the Father both to cut off the Subterfuges of Hereticks and to show him to be different from the Creatures For after they had decreed this they added immediately They who say that the Son of God was from things that are not or Made or Mutable or a Creature or of another Substance or Essence all such does the Holy and Catholick Church Anathematize Whereby they made it Evident that these Words Of the Father and Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father were opposed to the Impiety of those expressions of the Arians that the Son was a Creature or thing Made and Mutable and that he was not before he was Made which he that affirmeth contradicteth the Synod but whosoever dissents from Arius must needs consent to these Forms of the Synod In this same Epistle to cite but one passage more out of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brass and Gold Silver and Tin are alike in their shining and colour nevertheless in their Essence and Nature are they very different from one another If therefore the Son be such then let him be a Creature as we are and not Coessential or Consubstantial but if he be a Son the Word Wisdom Image of the Father and his Splendour then of right should he be accounted Coessential and Consubstantial Thus in his Epistle concerning Dionysius we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son 's being one of the Creatures and his not being Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father put for Synonymous expressions which signifie one and the samething Wherefore it semeeth to be unquestionably evident that when the Ancient Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church maintained against Arius the Son to be Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father though that word be thus interpreted Of the same Essence or Substance yet they Universally understood thereby not a Sameness of Singular and Numerical but of Common or Vniversal Essence only that is the Generical or Specifical Essence of the Godhead that the Son was no Creature but truly and properly God But if it were needful there might be yet more Testimonies cited out of Athanasius to this purpose As from his Epistle De Synodis Arimini Seleuciae where he writeth thus concerning the Difference betwixt those Two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Like Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Same Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For even your selves know that Similitudes is not Predicated of Essences or Substances but of Figures and Qualities only But of Essences or Substances Identity or Sameness is affirmed and not Similitude For a man is not said to be Like to a man in respect of the Essence or Substance of Humanity but only as to Figure or Form they being said as to their Essence to be Congenerous of the same Nature or Kind with one another Nor is a man properly said to be Vnlike to a Dog but of a Different Nature or Kind from him Wherefore that which is Congenerous of the same Nature Kind or Species is also Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial of the same Essence or Substance and that which is of a different Nature Kind or Species is Heterousion of a different Essence or Substance Again Athanasius in that Fragment of his Against the Hypocrisie of Meletius c. concerning Consubstantiality writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He that denies the Son to be Homoousion Consubstantial with the Father affirming him only to be like to him denies him to be God In like manner he who reteining the word Homousion or Consubstantial interprets it notwithstanding only of Similitude or Likeness in
Trinity was doubtless Anti-Arian or else the Arian Trinity Anti-Platonick the Second and Third Hypostases in the Platonick Trinity being both Eternal Infinite and Immutable And as for those Platonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gradations so much spoken of these by St. Cyril's leave were of a different Kind from the Arian there being not the Inequality of Creatures in them to the Creator Wherefore Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historian not without Cause wonders how those Two Presbyters Georgius and Timotheus should adhere to the Arian Faction since they were accounted such great Readers of Plato and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me wonderful how those Two Persons should persist in the Arian Perswasion one of them having always Plato in his hands and the other continually breathing Origen Since Plato no where affirmeth his First and Second Cause as he was wont to call them to have had any beginning of their Existence and Origen every where confesseth the Son to be Coeternal with the Father Besides which Another Reason for this Apology of the Christian Platonist was because as the Platonick Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian Doctrine concerning the Logos as that which was exactly agreeable with their own so did the Generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Council represent the Genuine Platonick Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian or as approaching so near to it that they differed chiefly in Circumstances or the manner of Expression The Former of these is Evident from that famous Passage of Amelius Contemporary with Plotinus recorded by Eusebius St. Cyril and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the Logos or Word by whom Existing from Eternity according to Heraclitus all things were made and whom that Barbarian also placeth in the rank and dignity of a Principle affirming him to have been with God and to be God and that all things were made by him and that whatsoever was made was Life and Being in him As also that he descended into a Body and being cloathed in Flesh appeared as a Man though not without demonstration of the Divinity of his Nature But that afterwards being Loosed or Separated from the same he was Deified and became God again such as he was before he came down into a Mortal Body In which words Amelius speaks favourably also of the Incarnation of that Eternal Logos And the same is further manifest from what St. Austin writeth concerning a Platonist in his time Initium Sancti Evangelii cui nomen est secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus sicut à sancto Sene Simpliciano qui posteà Mediolanensi Ecclesiae praesedit Episcopus solebamus audire aureis Literis conscribendum per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat We have often heard from that holy man Simplicianus afterward Bishop of Millain that a certain Platonist affirmed the beginning of St. John 's Gospel deserved to be writ in Letters of Gold and to be set up in all the most Eminent places throughout the Christian Churches And the latter will sufficiently appear from these following Testimonies Justin Martyr in his Apology affirmeth of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he gave the Second place to the Word of God and the Third to that Spirit which is said to have moved upon the waters Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of that Passage in Plato's Second Epistle to Dionysius concerning the First Second and Third writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I understand this no otherwise than that the Holy Trinity is signified thereby the Third being the Holy Ghost and the Second the Son by whom all things were made according to the Will of the Father Origen also affirmeth the Son of God to have been plainly spoken of by Plato in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus who pretendeth to know all things and who citeth so many other passages out of Plato doth purposely as I suppose dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of God in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus where he calls him the God of the whole Vniverse and the Prince of all things both present and future afterwards speaking of the Father of this Prince and Cause And again elsewhere in that Book he writeth to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither would Celsus here speaking of Chistians making Christ the Son of God take any notice of that passage in Plato 's Epistle before mentioned concerning the Framer and Governour of the whole world as being the Son of God lest he should be compelled by the Authority of Plato whom he so often magnifieth to agree with this Doctrine of ours that the Demiurgus of the whole World is the Son of God but the First and Supreme Deity his Father Moreover St. Cyprian or who ever were the Author of the Book inscribed De Spiritu Sancto affirmeth the Platonists First and Vniversal Psyche to be the same with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Theology in these words Hujus Sempiterna Virtus Divinitas cum in propria natura ab Inquisitoribus Mundi antiquis Philosophis propriè investigari non posset Subtilissimis tamen intuiti conjecturis Compositionem Mundi distinctis Elementorum affectibus praesentem omnibus Animam adfuisse dixerunt quibus secundum genus ordinem singulorum vitam praeberet motum intransgressibiles figeret Metas Stabilitatem assignaret Vniversam hanc Vitam hunc motum hanc rerum Essentiam Animam Mundi vocaverunt In the next place Eusebius Caesariensis gives a full and clear Testimony of the Concordance and Agreement of the Platonick at least as to the main with the Christian Trinity which he will have to have been the Cabala of the ancient Hebrews thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Oracles of the Hebrews placing the Holy Ghost after the Father and the Son in the Third Rank and acknowledging a Holy and Blessed Trinity after this manner so as that this Third Power does also transcend all Created Nature and is the First of those Intellectual Substances which proceed from the Son and the Third from the First Cause see how Plato Enigmatically declareth the same things in his Epistle to Dionysius in these words c. These things the Interpreters of Plato refer to a First God and to a Second Cause and to a Third the Soul of the World which they call also The Third God And the Divine Scriptures in like manner rank the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the place or degree of a Principle But it is most observable what Athanasius himself affirmeth of the Platonists that though they derived the Second Hypostasis of their Trinity from the First and the Third from the Second yet they supposed both their Second and Third Hypostases to be Vncreated and therefore does he send the Arians to
First Principle or Self-existent Vnmade thing That according to this Notion of the word God there can be no such thing as an Atheist no man beâ—ng able to perswade himself that all things sprung from Nothing 6. In order to the more punctual Declaration of the Divine Idea the Opinion of those taken notice of who suppose Two Self-existent Vnmade Principles God and Matter and so God not to be the Sole but only the Chief Principle 7. That these are but Imperfect and Mistaken Theists Their Idea of God declared with its Defectivenâ—ss A Latitude in Theism None to be condemned for Absolute Atheists but â—uch as deny an Eternal Vnmade Mind ruling over the matter 8. The most Compendious Idea of God An Absolutely Perfect Being â—hat this includes not only Conscious Intellectuality and Necessary Existence but also Omni-causality Omnipotence and Infinite Power and therâ—fore God the sole Principle of all and Cause of Matter The true Notion of Infinite Power Pagans acknowledged the Divine Omnipotence And that the Atheists supposed Infinite Power to be included in the Idea of God proved from Lucretius 9. That absolute Perfection implies something more than Power and Knowledge A Vaticination in mens minds of a Higher Good than either That God is Better than Knowledge according to Aristotle and that there is Morality in the Nature of God wherein his chief Happiness consisâ—eth This borrowed from Plato who makes the Highest Perfection and Supreme Deity to be Goodness it self above Knowledge and Intellect God and the Supreme Good according to the Scripture Love God no soft or fond Love but an Impartial Law and the Measure of all things That the Atheists supposed Goodness also to be included in the Idea of God The Idea of God more Explicate and Vnfolded A Being absolutely Perfect Infinitely Good Wise and Powerful Necessarily Existent and not only the Framer of the World but also the Cause of all things 10. That this Idea of God Essentially includes Unity or Onelyness in it since there can be but One Supreme One Cause of all things One Omnipotent and One Infinitely Perfect This Vnity or Onelyness of the Deity supposed also by Epicurus and Lucretius who professedly denyed a God according to this Idea 11. The Grand Prejudice against the Naturality of this Idea of God as it Essentially includes Vnity and Solitariety from the Polytheism of all Nations formerly besides the Jewes and of all the wisest men and Philosophers from whence it is inferred that this Idea of God is but Artificial and owes its Original to Laws and Institution An Enquiry to be made concerning the true sence of the Pagan Polytheism That the Objectors take it for granted that the Pagan Polytheists universally asserted Many Self-existent Intellectual Beings and Independent Deities as so many Partial Causes of the World 12. First the Irrationality of this Opinion and its manifest Repugnancy to the Phaenomena which render it less probable to have been the Belief of all the Pagan Polytheists 13. Secondly That no such thing at all appears as that ever any Intelligent Pagans asserted a Multitude of Eternal Vnmade Independent Deities The Hesiodian Gods The Valentinian Aeons The nearest Approach made thereunto by the Manichean Good and Evil Gods This Doctrine not generally asserted by the Greek Philosophers as Plutarch affirmeth Questioned whether the Persian Evil Daemon or Arimanius were a Self-existent Principle Essentially Evil. Aristotle's Confutation and Explosion of Many Principles or Independent Deities Faustus the Manichean his Conceit that the Jews and Christians Paganized in the Opinion of Monarchy with St. Austin's Judgment concerning the Pagans thereupon 14. Concluded that the Pagan Polytheism must be understood according to another Equivocation in the word Gods as used for Created Intellectual Beings superiour to Men that ought to be Religiously Worshipped That the Pagans held both Many Gods and One God as Onatus the Pythagorean declares himself in different Sences Many Inferiour Deities Suberdinate to One Supreme 15. Further Evidence of this that the Intelligent Pagan Polytheists held only a Plurality of Inferiour Deities Subordinate to one Supreme First because after the Emersion of Christianity and its contest with Paganism when occasion was offered not only no Pagan asserted a Multiplicity of Independent Deities but also all Vniversally disclaim'd it and professed to acknowledge One Supreme God 16. That this was no Refinement or Interpolation of Paganism as might possibly be suspected but that the Doctrine of the most Ancient Pagan Theologers and greatest Promoters of Polytheism was agreeable hereunto which will be proved not from suspected Writings as of Trismegist and the Sibyls but such as are Indubitate First That Zoroaster the chief Promoter of Polytheism in the Eastern Parts acknowledged one Supreme Deity the Maker of the World proved from Eubulus in Porphyry besides his own words cited by Eusebius 17. That Orpheus commonly called by the Greeks The Theologer and the Father of the Grecanick Polytheism clearly asserted one Supreme Deity proved by his own words out of Pagan Records 18. That the Aegyptians themselves the most Polytheistical of all Nations had an acknowledgement amongst them of one Supreme Deity 19. That the Poets who were the greatest Depravers of the Pagan Theology and by their Fables of the Gods made it look more Aristocratically did themselves notwithstanding acknowledge a Monarchy one Prince and Father of Gods That famous Passage of Sophocles not to be suspected though not found in any of these Tragedies now extant 20. That all the Pagan Philosophers who were Theists universally asserted a Mundane Monarchy Pythagoras as much a Polytheist as any and yet his First Principle of Things as well as Numbers a Monad or Unity Anaxagoras his One Mind ordering all things for Good Xenophanes his One and All and his One God the Greatest among the Gods 21. Parmenides his Supreme God One Immoveable Empedocles his both Many Gods Junior to Friendship and Contention and his One God called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior to them Zeno Eleates his Demonstration of One God in Aristotle 22. Philolaus his Prince and Governour of all God always One Euclides Megarensis his God called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One the Very Good Timaeus Locrus his Mind and Good above the Soul of the World Antisthenes his One Natural God Onatus his Corypheus 23. Generally believed and true that Socrates acknowledged One Supreme God but that he disclaimed all the Inferiour Gods of the Pagans a Vulgar Error Plato also a Polytheist and that Passage which some lay so great stress upon That he was serious when he began his Epistles with God but when with Gods jocular Spurious and Counterfeit and yet he was notwithstanding an undoubted Monotheist also in another sence an Asserter of One God over all of a Maker of the World of a First God of a Greatest of the Gods The First Hypostasis of the Platonick Trinity properly the King of all things for whose sake are all things Tâ—e Father of the Cause and
Polytheists and Theogonists also and asserting besides the One Supreme Vnmade Deity other Inferiour Mundane Gods Generated together with the World the Chief whereof were the Animated Stars they must needs according to the Tenor of that Tradition suppose them as to their Corporeal Parts at least to have been Juniors to Night and Chaos and the Off-spring of them because they were all made out of an Antecedent Dark Chaos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mus Araneus being blind is said to have been deified by the Egyptians because they thought that Darkness was older than Light And the Case was the same concerning their Demons likewise they being conceived to have their Corporeal Vehicula also for which Cause as Porphyrius from Numenius writeth the ancient Egyptians pictured them in Ships or Boats floating upon the Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians therefore represented all their Demons as not standing upon firm Land but in Ships upon the Water But as for the Incorporeal Part or Souls of those Inferiour Gods though these Divine Theogonists could not derive their Original from Chaos or Matter but rather from that other Principle called Love as being Divinely Created and so having God for their Father yet might they notwithstanding in another sence phancy Night to have been their Mother too inasmuch as they were all made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from an antecedent Non-existence or Nothing brought forth into Being For which Cause there seems to have been in Orpheus a Dialogue betwixt the Maker of the World and Night For that this ancient Cabala which derived the Cosmogonia from Chaos and Love was at first Religious and not Atheistical and Love understood in it not to be the Off-spring of Chaos may be concluded from hence because this Love as well as Chaos was of a Mosaical Extraction also and plainly derived from that Spirit of God which is said in the Scripture To have moved upon the waters that is upon the Chaos whether by this Spirit be to be meant God Himself as acting immediatly upon the Matter or some other Active Principle derived from God and not from Matter as a Mundane Soul or Plastick Nature From whence also it came that as Porphyrius testifieth the ancient Pagans thought the Water to be Divinely inspired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They thought that Souls attended upon the Water or resorted thereunto as being Divinely Inspired as Numenius writeth adding the Prophet also therefore to have said That the Spirit of God moved upon the Water And that this Cabala was thus understood by some of the ancient Pagan Cosmogonists themselves appears plainly not only from Simmias Rhodius and Parmenides but also from these following Verses of Orpheus or whoever was the Writer of those Argonauticks undoubtedly ancient where Chaos and Love are thus brought in together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this Sence We will first sing a pleasant and delightful Song concerning the ancient Chaos how Heaven Earth and Seas were framed out of it as also concerning that Much-wise and Sagacious Love The Oldest of all and Self-perfect which actively produced all these things separating one thing from another Where this Love is not only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Much-counsel or Sagaciousness which implies it to have been a Substantial and Intellectual Thing but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Oldest of all and therefore Senior to Chaos as likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-perfect or Self-originated From whence it is manifest that according to the Orphick Tradition this Love which the Cosmogonia was derived from was no other than the Eternal Vnmade Deity or an Active Principle depending on it which produced this whole Orderly World and all the Generated Gods in it as to their Material part out of Chaos and Night Accordingly as Aristotle determines in his Metaphysicks not only in the place before-cited but also afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others besides the Material Cause of the World assign an Efficient or Cause of Motion namely whosoever make either Mind and Intellect or Love a Principle Wherefore we conclude that that other Atheistick Cabala or Aristophanick Tradition before-mentioned which accordingly as Aristotle also elsewhere declareth concerning it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate all things whatsoever even the Gods themselves universally out of Night and Chaos making Love it self likewise to have been produced from an Egg of the Night I say that this was nothing else but a mere Depravation of the ancient Mosaick Cabala as also an Absolutely Impossible Hypothesis it deriving all things whatsoever in the Universe besides the Bare Substance of Sensless Matter in another Sence then that before-mentioned out of Non-entity or Nothing as shall be also farther manifested afterwards We have now represented the Sence and generally received Doctrine of the ancient Pagan Theologers that there was indeed a Multiplicity of Gods but yet so that One of them only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ingenerate or Vnmade by whom all the other Gods together with the World were Made so as to have had a Novity of Being or a Temporary Beginning of their Existence Plato and the Pythagoreans here only differing from the rest in this that though they acknowledged the World and all the Mundane Gods to have been Generated together in Time yet they supposed certain other Intelligible and Supramundane Gods also which however produced from one Original Deity were nevertheless Eternal or without Beginning But now we must acknowledge that there were amongst the Pagan Theists some of a different perswasion from the rest who therefore did did not admit of any Theogonia in the sence before declared that is any Temporary Generation of Gods because they acknowledged no Cosmogonia no Temporary Production of the World but concluded it to have been from Eternity That Aristotle was one of these is sufficiently known whose Inferior Gods therefore the Sun Moon and Stars must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ingenerate in this sence so as to have had no Temporary Production because the Whole World to him was such And if that Philosopher be to be believed himself was the very First at least of all the Greeks who asserted this Ingenerateness or Eternity of the World he affirming that all before him did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generate or Make the World that is attribute a Temporary Production to it and consequently to all those Gods also which were a Part thereof Notwithstanding which the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum and Stobaeus impute this Dogma of the Worlds Eternity to certain others of the Greek Philosophers before Aristotle besides Ocellus Lucanus who is also acknowledged by Philo to have been an assertor thereof And indeed Epicharmus though a Theist seems plainly to have been of this Perswasion that the World was Vnmade
pass for a general Observation here that the Pagan Theology was all along Confounded with a certain Mixture of Physiology and Herology or History blended together Nevertheless it is unquestionable that the more intelligent of the Greekish Pagans did frequently understand by Zeus that Supreme Vnmade Deity who was the Maker of the World and of all the Inferiour Gods Porphyrius in Eusebius thus declares their sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Zeus the Greeks understand that Mind of the World which framed all things in it and containeth the whole World Agreeable whereunto is that of Maximus Tyrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Jupiter you are to understand that most Ancient and Princely Mind which all things follow and obey And Eusebius himself though not forward to grant any more than needs he must to Pagans concludes with this acknowledgment hereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Jupiter therefore be no longer that Fiery and Ethereal Substance which the ancient Pagans according to Plutarch supposed him to be but that Highest Mind which was the Maker of all things But Phornutus by Jupiter understands the Soul of the World he writing thus concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As we our selves are governed by a Soul so hath the World in like manner a Soul that containeth it and this is called Zeus being the Cause of Life to all things that live and therefore Zeus or Jupiter is said to reign over all things However though these were two different Conceptions amongst the Pagans concerning God some apprehending him to be an Abstract Mind separate from the World and Matter but others to be a Soul of the World only yet nevertheless they all agreed in this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jupiter was the Supreme Moderator or Governour of all And accordingly Plato in his Cratylus taking these Two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both together etymologizeth them as one after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Two words compounded together declare the Nature of God for there is nothing which is more the Cause of Life both to our selves and all other Animals than He who is the Prince and King of all things so that God is rightly thus called He being that by whom all things Live And these are really but one Name of God though divided into Two Words But because it was very obvious then to object against this Position of Plato's that Zeus or Jupiter could not be the Prince of all things and First Original of Life from the Theogonia of Hesiod and other ancient Pagans in which himself was made to have been the Son of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Saturn therefore this Objection is thus preoccupated by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever shall hear this saith he will presently conclude it to be contumelious to this Zeus or Jupiter as he hath been described by us to be accounted the Son of Cronos or Saturn And in answer hereunto that Philosopher stretcheth his Wits to salve that Poetick Theogonia and reconcile it with his own Theological Hypothesis and thereupon he interprets that Hesiodian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jupiter into a Compliance with the Third Hypostasis of his Divine Triad so as properly to signifie the Superiour Soul of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nevertheless it is reasonable to suppose Zeus or Jupiter to be the Off-spring of some Great Mind and Chronos or Saturn signifieth a pure and Perfect Mind Eternal who again is said to be the Son of Uranus or Coelius Where it is manifest that Plato endeavours to accommodate this Poetick Trinity of Gods Vranus Chronos and Zeus or Coelius Saturn and Jupiter to his own Trinity of Divine Hypostases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First Good a Perfect Intellect and the Highest Soul Which Accommodation is accordingly further pursued by Plotinus in several places as Enn. 5. l. 1. c. 4. and Enn. 5. l. 8. c. 13. Nevertheless these Three Archical Hypostases of the Platonick Trinity though look'd upon as Substances distinct from each other and Subordinate yet are they frequently taken all together by them for the Whole Supreme Deity However the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Plato severally attributed to each of them which Proclus thus observed upon the Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say therefore that there are several Orders Ranks or Degrees of Zeus or Jupiter in Plato for sometimes he is taken for the Demiurgus or Opificer of the World as in Cratylus sometimes for the First of the Saturnian Triad as in Gorgias sometimes for the Superiour Soul of the World as in Phaedrus and lastly sometimes for the Lower Soul of the Heaven Though by Proclus his lieve that Zeus or Jupiter which is mentioned in Plato's Cratylus being plainly the Superiour Psyche or Soul of the World is not properly the Demiurgus or Opificer according to him that Title rather belonging to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Intellect which is the Second Hypostasis in his Trinity As for the Vulgar of the Greekish Pagans whether they apprehended God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mind or Intellect separate from the World or else to be a Soul of the World only it cannot be doubted but that by the word Zeus they commonly understood the Supreme Deity in one or other of those sences the Father and King of Gods he being frequently thus stiled in their solemn Nuncupations of Vows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Jupiter Father and O Jupiter King As he was invoked also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that excellent Prayer of an ancient Poet not without cause commended in Plato's Alcibiades 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Jupiter King give us good things whether we pray or pray not for them but with-hold evil things from us though we should pray never so earnestly for them But the Instances of this kind being innumerable we shall forbear to mention any more of them Only we shall observe that Zeus Sabazius was a name for the Supreme God sometime introduced amongst the Greeks and derived in all probability from the Hebrew Sabaoth or Adonai Tsebaoth the Lord of Hosts that is of the Heavenly Hosts or the Supreme Governour of the World Which therefore Aristophanes took notice of as a strange and foreign God lately crept in amongst them that ought to be banish'd out of Greece these several Names of God being then vulgarly spoken of as so many distinct Deities as shall be more fully declared afterwards We shall likewise elsewhere show that besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also was used by the Greeks as a Name for that God who is the supreme Moderator and Governour of the whole World That the Latins did in like manner by Jupiter and Jovis frequently denote the Supreme Deity and Monarch of the Vniverse is a thing unquestionable and which does sufficiently appear from those Epithets that were commonly given
the First and Last of them to be suspected We shall here repeat none of Casaubon's condemned Passages but add one more to them out of the Thirteenth Book or Sermon in the Mount which however omitted by him seems to be more rankly Christian than any other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell me this also Who is the Cause or Worker of Regeneration The Son of God One Man by the will of God Wherefore though Ath. Kircherus contend with much zeal for the sincerity of all these Trismegistick Books yet we must needs pronounce of the Three forementioned at least the Paemander properly so called and the Sermon in the Mount that they were either wholly forged and counterfeited by some pretended Christians or else had many spurious Passages inferted into them Wherefore it cannot be solidly proved from the Trismegistick Books after this manner as supposed to be all alike Genuine and sincere that the Egyptian Pagans acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen Much less can the same be evinced from that pretended Aristotelick Book De secretiore parte Divinae Sapientiae secundùm Aegyptios greedily swallowed down also by Kircherus but unquestionably pseudepigraphous Notwithstanding which we conceive that though all the Trismegistick Books that now are or have been formerly extant had been forged by some pretended Christians as that Book of the Arcane Egyptian Wisdom was by some Philosopher and imputed to Aristotle yet would they for all that upon another accompt afford no inconsiderable Argument to prove that the Egyptian Pagans asserted One Supreme Deity viz. Because every Cheat and Imposture must needs have some Basis or Foundation of Truth to stand upon there must have been something truly Egyptian in such counterfeit Egyptian Writings and therefore this at least of One Supreme Deity or else they could never have obtained credit at first or afterwards have maintain'd the same The rather because these Trismegistick Books were dispersed in those ancient times before the Egyptian Paganism and their Succession of Priests were yet extinct and therefore had that which is so much insisted upon in them been dissonant from the Egyptian Theology they must needs have been presently exploded as meer Lyes and Forgeries Wherefore we say again that if all the Hermaick or Trismegistick Books that are now extant and those to boot which being mentioned in ancient Fathers have been lost as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like had been nothing but the Pious Frauds and Cheats of Christians yet must there needs have been some Truth at the bottom to give subsistence to them This at least that Hermes Trismegist or the Egyptian Priests in their Arcane and True Theology really acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen But it does not all follow that because some of these Hermaick or Trismegistick Books now extant were counterfeit or supposititious that therefore all of them must needs be such and not only so but those also that are mentioned in the Writings of ancient Fathers which are now lost Wherefore the Learned Casaubon seems not to have reckoned or concluded well when from the detection of Forgery in Two or Three of those Trismegistick Books at most he pronounces of them all universally that they were nothing but Christian Cheats and Impostures And probably he was lead into this mistake by reason of his too securely following that vulgar Errour which yet had been confuted by Patricius that all that was published by Ficinus under the name of Hermes Trismegist was but one and the same Book Poemander consisting of several Chapters whereas they are all indeed so many Distinct and Independent Books whereof Poemander is only placed First However there was no shadow of reason why the Asclepius should have fallen under the same condemnation nor several other Books superadded by Patricius they being unquestionably distinct from the Poemander and no signs of Spuriousness or Bastardy discovered in them Much less ought those Trismegistick Books cited by the Fathers and now lost have been condemned also Unseen Wherefore notwithstanding all that Casaubon has written there may very well be some Hermetick or Trismegistick Books Genuine though all of them be not such that is according to our after-declaration there may be such Books as were really Egyptian and not counterfeited by any Christian though perhaps not written by Hermes Trismegist himself nor in the Egyptian Language And as it cannot well be conceived how there should have beeen any counterfeit Egyptian Books had there been none at all Real so that there were some Real and Genuine will perhaps be rendered probable by these following Considerations That there was anciently amongst the Egyptians such a man as Thoth Theuth or Taut who together with Letters was the First Inventor of Arts and Sciences as Arithmetick Geometry Astronomy and of the Hieroglyphick Learning therefore called by the Greeks Hermes and by the Latins Mercurius cannot reasonably be denied it being a thing confirmed by general Fame in all Ages and by the Testimonies not only of Sanchuniathon a Phenician Historiographer who lived about the times of the Trojan War and wrote a Book concerning the Theology of the Egyptians and Manethos Sebennyta an Egyptian Priest contemporary with Ptol. Philadelphus but also of that grave Philosopher Plato who is said to have sojourned Thirteen years in Egypt that in his Philebus speaks of him as the First Inventor of Letters who distinguished betwixt Vowels and Consonants determining their several Numbers there calling him either a God or Divine Man but in his Phaedrus attributeth to him also the Invention of Arithmetick Geometry and Astronomy together with some ludicrous Recreations making him either a God or Demon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard saith he that about Naucratis in Egypt there was one of the ancient Egyptian Gods to whom the Bird Ibis was sacred as his Symbol or Hieroglyphick the name of which Demon was Theuth In which place the Philosopher subjoyns also an Ingenious Dispute betwixt this Theuth and Thamus then King of Egypt concerning the Convenience and Inconvenience of Letters the Former boasting of that Invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Remedy for Memory and great Help to Wisdom but the Latter contending that it would rather beget Oblivion by the neglect of Memory and therefore was not so properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Remedy for Memory as Reminiscence or the Recovery of things forgotten adding that it would also weaken and enervate Mens Natural Faculties by slugging them and rather beget 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Puffy Conceit and Opinion of Knowledge by a Multifarious Rabble of Indigested Notions than the Truth thereof Moreover since it is certain that the Egyptians were famous for Literature before the Greeks they must of necessity have some One or More Founders of Learning amongst them as the Greeks had and Thoth is the Only or First Person celebrated amongst them
into Hades that is does not utterly perish but only disappears to our sight it being either translated into some other Place or changed into another Form And accordingly it is said of Animals in the Twelfth Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they are dissolved by Death not that they might be destroyed but made again anew As it is also there affirmed of the World that it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make all things out of it self and again unmake them into it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that dissolving all things it doth perpetually renew them For that nothing in the whole World utterly perisheth as it is often declared elsewhere in these Trismegistick Writings so particularly in this Twelfth Book of Ficinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole World is unchangeable only the parts of it being alterable and this so as that none of these neither utterly perisheth or is absolutely destroyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For how can any part of that be Corrupted which is Incorruptible or any thing of God perish or go to nothing All which by Casaubon's lieve we take to have been originally Egyptian Doctrine and thence in part afterwards transplanted into Greece Moreover when in the Poemander God is styled more than once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light and Life this seems to have been Egyptian also because it was Orphical In like manner the Appendix to the Sermon in the Mount called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Occult Cantion hath some strains of the Egyptian Theology in it which will be afterwards mentioned The result of our present Discourse is this that though some of the Trismegistick Books were either wholly counterfeited or else had certain supposititious Passages inserted into them by some Christian hand yet there being others of them originally Egyptian or which as to the substance of them do contain Hermaical or Egyptian Doctrines in all which One Supreme Deity is every where asserted we may well conclude from hence that the Egyptians had an acknowledgment amongst them of One Supreme Deity And herein several of the Ancient Fathers have gone before us as first of all Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ammon in his Books calleth God Most Hidden and Hermes plainly declareth That it is hard to conceive God but impossible to express him Neither doth it follow that this latter Passage is counterfeit as Casaubon concludes because there is something like it in Plato's Timaeus there being doubtless a very great agreement betwixt Platonism and the Ancient Egyptian Doctrine Thus again St. Cyprian Hermes quoque Trismegistus Vnum Deum loquitur eumque ineffabilem inaestimabilem confitetur Hermes Trismegist also acknowledgeth One God confessing him to be ineffable and inestimable which Passage is also cited by St. Austin Lactantius likewise Thoth antiquissimus instructissimus omni genere Doctrinae adeò ut ei multarum rerum artium scientia Trismegisti cognomen imponeret Hic scripsit Libros quidem multos ad cognitionem Divinarum rerum pertinentes in quibus Majestatem Summi Singularis Dei asserit iisdemque nominibus appellat quibus nos Deum Patrem Ac nè quis nomen ejus requireret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dixit Thoth that is Hermes the most ancient and most instructed in all kind of Learning for which he was called Trismegist wrote Books and those many belonging to the Knowledge of Divine things wherein he asserts the Majesty of One Supreme Deity calling him by the same names that we do God and Father but lest any one should require a Proper name of him affirming him to be Anonymous Lastly St. Cyril hath much more to the same purpose also And we must confess that we have the rather here insisted so much upon these Hermaick or Trismegistick Writings that in this particular we might vindicate these Ancient Fathers from the Imputation either of Fraud and Imposture or of Simplicity and Folly But that the Egyptians acknowledged besides their Many Gods One Supreme and All-comprehending Deity needs not be proved from these Trismegistick Writings concerning which we leave others to judge as they find Cause it otherwise appearing not only because Orpheus who was an undoubted Asserter of Monarchy or One First Principle of All things is generally affirmed to have derived his Doctrine from the Egyptians but also from plain and express Testimonies For besides Apollonius Tyanaeus his Affirmation concerning both Indians and Egyptians before cited Plutarch throughout his whole Book De Iside Osiride supposes the Egyptians thus to have asserted One Supreme Deity they commonly calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God Thus in the beginning of that Book he tells us that the End of all the Religious Rites and Mysteries of that Egyptian Goddess Isis was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Knowledge of that First God who is the Lord of all things and only intelligible by the Mind whom this Goddess exhorteth men to seek in her Communion After which he declareth that this First God of the Egyptians was accounted by them an Obscure and Hidden Deity and accordingly he gives the reason why they made the Crocodile to be a Symbol of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they say the Crocodile is the only Animal which living in the water hath his Eyes covered by a thin transparent membrane falling down over them by reason whereof it sees and is not seen which is a thing that belongs to the First God To see all things himself being not seen Though Plutarch in that place gives also another reason why the Egyptians made the Crocodile a Symbol of the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither were the Egyptians without a plausible reason for worshipping God Symbolically in the Crocodile that being said to be an Imitation of God in that it is the only Animal without a Tongue For the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reason standing not in need of Speech and going on through a silent path of Justice in the World does without noise righteously govern and dispense all humane affairs In like manner Horus-Apollo in his Hieroglyphicks tells us that the Egyptians acknowledging a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Omnipotent Being that was the Governour of the whole World did Symbolically represent him by a Serpent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they picturing also a great House or Palace within its circumference because the World is the Royal palace of the Deity Which Writer also gives us another reason why the Serpent was made to be the Hieroglyphick of the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because the Serpent feeding as it were upon its own Body doth aptly signifie that all things generated in the World by Divine Providence are again resolved into him And Philo Byblius from Sanchuniathon gives the same reason why the Serpent was Deified by Tant or the Egyptian Hermes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is immortal and resolved into it self
Being before his Will but his Will is Himself or he Himself the first Will. So that he is as he would himself and such as he would and yet his will did not Generate or Produce any thing that was not before And now we may in all Probability conclude that Lactantius derived this Doctrine from Plato and Plotinus which how far it is to be either allowed of or excused we leave others to judge only we shall observe that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently attributed to God by Christians as well as Pagans seems to imply as much so the Scope and Drift of Plotinus in all this was plainly no other than partly to set forth the Self-existence of the Supreme Deity after a more lively manner and partly to confute that odd Conceit which some might possibly entertain of God as if he either Happened by Chance to be what he is or else were such by a Certain Necessity of Nature and had his Being imposed upon him whereas he is as much every way what he would Will and Chuse to be as if he had Made himself by his own Will and Choice Neither have we set down all this only to give an account of that one Expression of Plato's That God causeth Himself and all things but also to show how punctually precise curious and accurate some of these Pagans were in there Speculations concerning the Deity To return therefore to Plato Though some have suspected that Trinity which is commonly called Platonick to have been nothing but a meer Figment and Invention of some later Platonists yet the contrary hereunto seems to be unquestionably evident that Plato himself really asserted such a Trinity of Vniversal and Divine Hypostases which have the nature of Principles For first whereas in his Tenth Book of Laws he professedly opposing Atheists undertakes to prove the Existence of a Deity he does notwithstanding there ascend no higher than to the Psyche or Vniversal Mundane Soul as a Self-moving Principle and the immediate or proper Cause of all that Motion which is in the World And this is all the God that there he undertakes to prove But in other places of his Writings he frequently asserts above the Self-moving Psyche an Immovable and Standing Nous or Intellect which was properly the Demiurgus or Architectonick Framer of the whole World And lastly above this Multiform Intellect he plainly asserts yet a higher Hypostasis One most Simple and most absolutely Perfect Being which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to that Multiplicity which speaks something of Imperfection in it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goodness it self as being above Mind and Vnderstanding the First Intelligible and an Infinite Fecundity together with overflowing Benignity And accordingly in his Second Epistle to Dionysius does he mention a Trinity of Divine Hypostases all together Now the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and the Divinity in Plato seem sometimes to comprehend this whole Trinity of Divine Hypostases as they are again sometimes severally applied to Each of them accordingly as we have already observed that Zeus or Jupiter in Plato is not always taken for the First and Highest Hypostasis in his Trinity but sometimes the Second Hypostasis of Mind or Intellect is meant thereby and sometimes again his Third Hypostasis of the Universal and Eternal Psyche nevertheless the First of these Three Hypostases is that which is properly called by the Platonists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Godhead and by Plato himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The King of All things about whom are All things and for whose sake are All things and the Cause of all Good and Excellent Things And this First Divine Hypostasis which in Plato's Theology is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Original Deity is largely insisted upon by that Philosopher in the Sixth of his Politicks under the Name and Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Good but principally there illustrated by that Resemblance of the Sun called by that Philosopher also a Heavenly God and said to be the Off-spring of this Highest Good and something Analogous to it in the Corporeal World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the same in the Intelligible World to Intellect or Knowledge and Intelligibles that the Sun is in the Sensible World to Sight and Visibles For as the Sun is not Sight but only the Cause of it nor is that Light by which we see the same with the Sun it self but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sun-like Thing so neither is the Supreme and Highest Good properly Knowledge but the Cause of Knowledge nor is Intellect precisely considered as such the Best and Most Perfect Being but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Boniform Thing Again As the Sun gives to things not only their Visibility but also their Generation so does that the Highest Good not only cause the Cognoscibility of things but also their very Essences and Beings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Highest Good being not it self properly Essence but above Essence transcending the same both in respect of Dignity and Power Which Language and Conceit of Plato's some of the Greek Fathers seem to have entertained yet so as to apply it to the whole Trinity when they call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Super-essential But the meaning of that Philosopher was as we conceive no other than this that this Highest Good hath no Particular Characteristick upon it limiting and determining of it it being the Hidden and Incomprehensible Sourse of all things In the Last place we shall observe that this First Divine Hypostasis of the Platonick Trinity is by that Philosopher called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father of the Prince and Cause of All things Wherein we cannot but take notice of an Admirable Correspondency betwixt the Platonick Philosophy and Christianity in that the Second Hypostasis of both their Trinities called also sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Platonists as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to be the Immediate Cause of All things and the Demiurgus the Architect Maker or Artificer of the Whole World Now to Plato we might here joyn Xenophon because he was his Equal and a Socratick too though it seems there was not so good Correspondence betwixt them which Xenophon however in sundry places of his Writings he acknowledge a Plurality of Gods yet doth he give plain Testimony also of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen as this particularly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that both agitates all things and establisheth the Frame of the whole world though he be manifest to be great and powerful yet is he as to his Form Inconspicuous XXIV In the next place we come to Aristotle Who that he acknowledged more Gods than One as well as the other Pagans appears from his using the word so often Plurally As particularly in this Passage of his Nicomachian Ethicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and being devoted to him and the observance of his Commandments And he affirmeth of Hercules that this great piece of Piety was so long since observed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that as he called Jupiter or the Supreme God his Father so did he whatsoever he did looking at him Thus M. Antoninus speaketh of a Double Relation that we all have One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that live with us and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Divine Cause from which all things happen to all As likewise he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no Humane thing is well done without a Reference to God And he excellently exhorteth men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be delighted and satisfied with this one thing in doing one action after another tending to a Common Good or the good of Humane Society together with the Remembrance of God Lastly he declareth his own Confidence in the Supreme Deity in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust and rely upon the Governour of the whole World This may be concluded also from their Thanking the One Supreme God for all as the Authour of all good and delightfully Celebrating his Praises Epictetus declares it to be the Duty of a Good man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To thank God for all things And elsewhere he speaketh thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had we understanding what should we do else but both publickly and privately praise God bless him and return thanks to him Ought not they who dig plow and eat continually sing such a Hymn to God as this Great is that God who gave us these Organs to cultivate the earth withal Great is that God who gave us hands c. who enabled us to grow undiscernibly to breath in our sleep But the Greatest and Divinest Hymn of all is this to praise God for the Faculty of Vnderstanding all these things What then if for the most part men be blinded ought there not to be some One who should perform this office and sing a Hymn to God for all If I were a Nightingale I would perform the office of a Nightingale or a Swan that of a Swan but now being a Reasonable Creature I ought to celebrate and sing aloud the praises of God that is of the Supreme Deity Lastly the same is evident from their Invoking the Supreme God as such addressing their Devotions to him alone without the Conjunction of any other Gods and particularly imploring his Assistance against the Assaults of Temptations called by them Phancies To this purpose is that of Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a great Conflict or Contention a Divine Enterprize it is for Liberty and for a Kingdom Now remember the Supreme God call upon him as thy Helper and Assistant as the Mariners do upon Castor and Pollux in a Tempest He commends also this Form of Devotional Address or Divine Ejaculation which was part of Cleanthes his Litany to be used frequently upon occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lead me O Jupiter and Thou Fate whithersoever I am by you destin'd and I will readily and chearfully follow who though I were never so reluctant yet must needs follow Where Jupiter and Fate are really but one and the same Supreme Deity under two several Names And therefore the Sence of this Devotional Ejaculation was no less truly and faithfully than Elegantly thus rendered by Seneca Duc me Parens Celsique Dominator Poli Quocunque placuit nulla parendi est mora Assum impiger fac nolle comitabor Gemens Malusque patiar quod pati licuit bono But because many are so extremely unwilling to believe that the Pagans ever made any Religious Address to the Supreme God as such we shall here set down an Excellent and Devout Hymn of the same Cleanthes to him the rather because it hath been but little taken notice of And the more to gratifie the Reader we shall subjoyn an Elegant Translation thereof into Latin Verse which he must owe to the Muse of my Learned Friend Dr. Duport 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magne Pater Divûm cui Nomina Multa sed Vna Omnipotens semper Virtus Tu Jupiter Autor Naturae certâ qui singula lege gubernas Rex salve Te nempe licet Mortalibus aegris Cunctis compellare omnes tua namque propago Nos sumus aeternae quasi Imago vocis Echo Tantum quotquot humi spirantes repimus Ergo Te cantabo tuum robur sine fine celebrans Quippe tuo hic totus terram qui circuit orbis Paret quoquo agis imperio ac obtemperat ultrò Invictis Telum manibus tibi tale ministrum Anceps ignitum haud moriturum denique fulmen Ictu etenim illius tota natura tremiscit Illo Communem Rationem dirigis quae Mundi agitat Molem magno se corpore miscens Tantus Tu rerum Dominus Rectorque Supremus Nec sine Te factum in terris Deus aut opus ullum Aethere nec dio fit nec per caerula ponti Errore acta suo nisi quae gen impia patrat Confusa in sese Tu dirigis ordine certo Auspice Te ingratis inest sua gratia rebus Foelice harmonia Tu scilicet omnia in Vnum Sic Bona mixta Malis compingis ut una resurgat Cunctorum Ratio communis usque perennans Quam refugit spernitque hominum mens laeva malorum Heu Miseri bona qui quaerunt sibi semper optant Divinam tamen hanc Communem denique Legem Nec spectare oculis nec fando attendere curant Cui si parerent poterant traducere vitam Cum ratione mente bonam nunc sponte feruntur In mala praecipites trahit sua quemque voluptas Hunc agit ambitio laudisque immensa cupido Illum avarities amor vesanus habendi Blanda libido alium Venerisque licentia dulcis Sic aliò tendunt alii in diversa ruentes At
that Highest Principle and that there is a certain providence descending down from these upon the Vniverse all Sects do not believe the reason whereof is because The One or Vnity appears more clearly and plainly to them than The Many or a Multitude Moreover we learn from Arianus his Epictetus that that very Form of Prayer which hath been now so long in use in the Christian Church Kyrie Eleeson Lord have mercy upon us was anciently part of the Pagans Litany to the Supreme God either amongst the Greeks or the Latins or Both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 invoking God we pray to him after this manner Lord have mercy upon us Now this Epictetus lived in the times of Adrian the Emperour and that this Passage of his is to be understood of Pagans and not of Christians is undeniably manifest from the context he there speaking of those who used Auguria or Divination by Birds Moreover in the writings of the Greekish Pagans the Supreme God is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. For not to urge that passage of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Asclepian Dialogue cited by Lactantius where we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord and Maker of all Menander in Just. Martyr stileth the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most Vniversal Lord of all And Osiris in Plutarch is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord of all things And this is also done Absolutely and without any Adjection and that not only by the Seventy and Christians but also by Pagan Writers thus in Plutarch's de Iside Osiride we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The knowledge of the first Intelligible and the Lord that is of the Supreme God And Oromasdes is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord in Plutarch's Life of Alexander as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Aristotle that is the Supreme Ruler over all Thus likewise Plato in his Sixth Epistle ad Hermiam c. styles his First Divine Hypostasis or the Absolutely Supreme Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father of the Prince and Cause of the World that is of the Eternal Intellect The LORD Again Jamblichus writeth thus of the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is confessed that every Good thing ought to be asked of the Lord that is the Supreme God which words are afterwards repeated in him also p. 129. but depraved in the printed Copy thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly Clemens Alexandrinus tells us that the Supreme God was called not by one only name but by divers diversly namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Either the One or the Good or Mind or the very Ens or the Father or the Demiurgus or the Lord. Wherefore we conclude that this Kyrie Eleeson or Domine Miserere in Arrianus was a Pagan Litany or Supplication to the Supreme God Though from Mauritius the Emperors Stratagemata it appears that in his time a Kyrie Eleeson was wont to be sung also by the Christian Armies before Battel And that the most Sottishly Superstitious and Idolatrous of all the Pagans and the Worshippers of never so many Gods amongst them did notwithstanding generally acknowledge One Supreme Deity over them all One Vniversal Numen is positively affirmed and fully attested by Aurelius Prudentius in his Apotheosis in these words Ecquis in Idolio recubans inter sacra mille Ridiculosque Deos venerans sale caespite thure Non putat esse Deum Summum super omnia Solum Quamvis Saturnis Junonibus Cytheraeis Portentisque aliis sumantes consecret aras Attamen in Coelum quoties suspexit in Vno Constituit jus omne Deo cui serviat ingens Virtutum ratio Variis instructa Ministris We are not ignorant that Plato in his Cratylus where he undertakes to give the Etymologies of words and amongst the rest of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writeth in this manner concerning the First and most Ancient Inhabitants of Greece That they seemed to him like as other Barbarians at that time to have acknowledged no other Gods than such as were Visible and Sensible as the Sun and the Moon and the Earth and the Stars and the Heaven Which they perceiving to run round perpetually therefore called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies to run But that when afterward they took notice of other Invisible Gods also they bestowed the same name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon them likewise Which Passage of Plato's Eusebius somewhere would make use of to prove that the Pagans universally acknowledged no other Gods but Corporeal and Inanimate plainly contrary to that Philosophers meaning who as he no where affirms that any Nation ever was so barbarous as to worship Sensless and Inanimate Bodies as such for Gods but the contrary so doth he there distinguish from those First Inhabitants of Greece and other Barbarians the afterward Civilized Greeks who took notice of Invisible Gods also However if this of Plato should be true that some of the ancient Pagans worshipped none but Visible and Sensible Gods they taking no notice of any Incorporeal Beings yet does it not therefore follow that those Pagans had no Notion at all amongst them of One Supreme and Vniversal Numen The contrary thereunto being manifest that some of those Corporealists looked upon the whole Heaven and Ether Animated as the Highest God according to that of Euripides cited by Cicero Vides Sublime fusum immoderatum aethera Qui tenero terram circumvectu amplectitur Hunc Summum habeto Divum hunc perhibeto Jovem As also that others of them conceived that Subtil Fiery Substance which permeates and pervades the whole World supposed to be Intellectual to be the Supreme Diety which governs all this Opinion having been entertained by Philosophers also as namely the Heracliticks and Stoicks And lastly since Macrobius in the Person of Vettius Praetextatus refers so many of the Pagan Gods to the Sun this renders it not improbable but that some of these Pagans might adore the Animated Sun as the Sovereign Numen and thus perhaps invoke him in that Form of Prayer there mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Omnipotent Sun the Mind and Spirit of the whole World c. And even Cleanthes himself that Learned Stoick and Devout Religionist is suspected by some to have been of this Perswasion Nevertheless we think it opportune here to observe that it was not Macrobius his Design in those his Saturnalia to defend this either as his own opinion or as the opinion of the Generality of Pagans That the Animated Sun was Absolutely The Highest Deity as some have conceived nor yet to reduce that Multiplicity of Pagan Gods by this device of his into a seeming Monarchy and nearer compliance with Christianity he there plainly confining his Discourse to the Dii duntaxat qui sub Coelo
Egyptian Inscription in the Temple of this God I am all that Was Is and Shall be And accordingly Athenagoras tells us that Athena of the Greeks was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom passing and diffusing it self through all things as in the Book of Wisdom it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artifex of all things and is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pass and move through all things Wherefore this Athena or Minerva of the Pagans was either the First Supreme Deity a Perfect and Infinite Mind the Original of all things or else a Second Divine Hypostasis the immediate Off-spring and First-begotten of that First Original Diety Thus Aristides in his Oration upon Minerva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore all the most excellent things are in Minerva and from her but to speak briefly of her this is the only immediate off-spring of the only Maker and King of all things For he had none of equal honour with himself upon whom he should beget her and therefore retiring into himself he begot her and brought her forth from himself So that this is the only Genuine Off-spring of the First Father of all And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pindar also affirmeth concerning Minerva that sitting at the Right hand of her Father she there receiveth commands from him to be delivered to the Gods For she is greater than the Angels and commandeth them some one thing and some another accordingly as she had first received of her Father she performing the office of an Interpreter and Introducer to the Gods when it is needful Where we may observe by the way that this word Angel came to be in use amongst the Pagans from Jews and Christians about this very age that Aristides lived in after which we meet with it frequently in the writings of their Philosphers Lastly Aristides thus concludeth his Oration upon Minerva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that from what we have said will determine that Minerva is as it were the Power and Vertue of Jupiter himself will not err Wherefore not to enumerate all the minute things belonging to Minerva we conclude thus concerning her that all the works of Jupiter are common with Jupiter and Minerva Wherefore that conceit which the Learned and Industrious Vossius somewhere seems to favour that the Pagans Vniversal Numen was no other than a Sensless Nature or Spermatick Reason of the whole World undirected by any Higher Intellectual Principle which is indeed no better than downright Atheism is plainly confuted from hence they making Wisdom and Vnderstanding under these Names of Neith Athena and Minerva to be either the Absolutely Supreme Deity or the First-begotten Off-spring of it To Minerva may be added Apollo who though often taken for the Sensible Sun Animated and so an Inferiour Deity yet was not always understood in this sence nor indeed then when he was reckoned amongst the Twelve Consentes because the Sun was afterwards added to them in the number of the Eight Select Gods And that he was sometimes taken for the Supreme Vniversal Numen the Maker of the Sun and of the whole World is plainly testified by Plutarch who is a competent Witness in this Case he being a Priest of this Apollo writing thus concerning him in his Defect of Oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether Apollo be the Sun or whether he be the Lord and Father of the Sun placed far above all sensible and Corporeal Nature it is not likely that he should now deny his Oracles to them to whom himself is the cause of Generation and Nourishment of Life and understanding Moreover Vrania Aphrodite the Heavenly Venus or Love was a Vniversal Numen also or another name of God according to his more General Notion as Comprehending the whole World it being the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love which Orpheu◠and others in Aristotle made to be the First Original of all things For it is certain that the Ancients distinguished concerning a double Venus and Love Thus Pausanias in Plato's Symposium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are Two Venuses and therefore two Loves one the Older and without a Mother the Daughter of Uranus or Heaven which we call the Heavenly Venus another younger begotten from Jupiter and Dione which we call the Vulgar Venus and accordingly are there of necessity two Loves answering to these two Venuses the one Vulgar and the other Heavenly The Elder of these two Venuses is in Plato said to be Seniour to Japhet and Saturn and by Orpheus the Oldest of all things and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Begetter of all Upon which account perhaps it was called by the Oriental Nations Mylitta or Genitrix as being the Fruitful Mother of all This was also the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Fair the Cause of all Pulchritude Order and Harmony in the World And Pausanias the Writer tells us that there were Temples severally erected to each of these Venusses or Loves the Heavenly and the Vulgar and that Vrania or the Heavenly Venus was so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Love belonging to it was pure and free from all corporeal affection which as it is in men is but a participation of that First Vrania or Heavenly Venus and Love God himself And thus is Venus described by Euripides in Stobaeus as the Supreme Numen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To this sence Do you not see how great a God this Venus is but you are never able to declare her Greatness nor to measure the Vast extent thereof For this is she which nourisheth both Thee and Me and all Mortals and which makes Heaven and Earth friendly to conspire together c. But by Ovid this is more fully expressed in his Fastorum Illa quidem Totum dignissima temperat Orbem Illa tenet Nullo regna minora Deo Juraque dat Coelo Terrae Natalibus Vndis Perque suos initus continet omne genus Illa Deos omnes longum enumerare creavit Illa Satis Causas Arboribusque dedit Where all the Gods are said to have been Created or Made by Venus that is by the One Supreme Deity But lastly this is best of all performed by Severinus Boetius a Christian Philosopher and Poet in this manner Quod Mundus Stabili fide Concordes variat vices Quod Pugnantia Semina Foedus perpetuum tenent Quos Phoebus roseum diem Curru provehit aureo c. Hanc rerum seriem ligat Terras ac pelagus regens Et Coelo imperitans AMOR. c. Hic si sroena remiserit Quicquid nunc amat invicem Bellum continuò geret Hic sancto populos quoque Junctos foedere continet Hic Conjugii Sacrum Castis nectit Amoribus c. O felix hominum genus Si vestros animos AMOR Quo Coelum regitur regat And to this
which also was the Demiurgus the Maker both of other Souls and of the whole World As Plato had before expresly affirmed him to be the Inspirer of all Life and Creator of Souls or the Lord and Giver of Life And likewise declared that amongst all those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congenerous and Cognate with our Humane Souls there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing any where to be found at all like unto it So that Plato though he were also a Star-worshipper and Idolater upon other grounds yet in all probability would he not at all have approved of Plotinus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Souls being of the same Species with that Third Hypostasis of the Divine Triad but rather have said in the Language of the Psalmist It is he that hath made us and not we our selves we are his People and the Sheep of his Pasture Notwithstanding all which a Christian Platonist or Platonick Christian would in all probability Apologize for Plato himself and the ancient and most Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans after this manner First That since they had no Scriptures Councils nor Creeds to direct their steps in the Darkness of this Mystery and to confine their Language to a Regular Uniformity but Theologized all Freely and Boldly and without any Scrupulosity every one according to his own private apprehensions it is no wonder at all if they did not only speak many times unadvisedly and inconsistently with their own Principles but also plainly wander out of the Right Path. And that it ought much rather to be wondred at that living so long before Christianity as some of them did they should in so Abstruse a Point and Dark a Mystery make so near an approach to the Christian Truth afterwards revealed than that they should any where fumble or fall short of the Accuracy thereof They not only extending the True and Real Deity to Three Hypostases but also calling the Second of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or Word too as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect and likewise the Son of the First Hypostasis the Faâ—her and affirming him to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer and Cause of the whole World and Lastly describing him as the Scripture doth to be the Image the Figure or Character and the Splendour or Brightness of the First This I say our Christian Platonist supposes to be much more wonderful that this so Great and Abstruse a Mystery of Three Eternal Hypostases in the Deity should thus by Pagan Philosophers so long before Christianity have been asserted as the Principle and Original of the whole World it being more indeed than was acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers themselves they then not so much as determining that the Holy Ghost was an Hypostasis much less that he was God But Particularly as to their Gradual Subordination of the Second Hypostasis to the First and of the Third to the First and Second our Platonick Christian doubtless would therefore plead them the more excusable because the Generality of Christian Doctors for the First Three Hundred years after the Apostles times plainly asserted the same as Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus the Author of the Recognitions Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Gregorius Thaumaturgus Dionysius of Alexandria Lactantius and many others All whose Testimonies because it would be too tedious to set down here we shall content our selves only with one of the last mentioned Et Pater Filius Deus est Sed Ille quasi exuberans Fons Hic tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus Ille tanquam Sol Hic tanquam Radius à Sole porrectus Both the Father and the Son is God But he as it were an Exuberant Fountain this as a Stream derived from him He like to the Sun This like to a Ray extended from the Sun And though it be true that Athanasius writing against the Arians does appeal to the Tradition of the Ancient Church and amongst others cites Origen's Testimony too yet was this only for the Eternity and Divinity of the Son of God but not at all for such an Absolute Co-equality of him with the Father as would exclude all Dependence Subordination and Inferiority those Ancients so Unanimously agreeing therein that they are by Petavius therefore taxed for Platonism and having by that means corrupted the Purity of the Christian Faith in this Article of the Trinity Which how it can be reconciled with those other Opinions of Ecclesiastick Tradition being a Rule of Faith and the Impossibility of the Visible Churches Erring in any Fundamental Point cannot easily be understood However this General Tradition or Consent of the Christian Church for Three Hundred years together after the Apostles Times though it cannot Justifie the Platonists in any thing discrepant from the Scripture yet may it in some measure doubtless plead their excuse who had no Scripture Revelation at all to guide them herein and so at least make their Error more Tolerable or Pardonable Moreover the Platonick Christian would further Apologize for these Pagan Platonists after this manner That their Intention in thus Subordinating the Hypostases of their Trinity was plainly no other than to exclude thereby a Plurality of Co-ordinate and Independent Gods which they supposed an absolute Co-equality of them would infer And that they made only so much Subordination of them as was both necessary to this purpose and unavoidable the Juncture of them being in their Opinion so close that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing Intermedious or that could possibly be Thrust in between them But now again on the otherhand whereas the only ground of the Co-Equality of the Persons in the Holy Trinity is because it cannot well be conceived how they should otherwise all be God since the Essence of the Godhead being Absolute Perfection can admit of no degrees these Platonists do on the contrary contend that notwithstanding that Dependence and Subordination which they commonly suppose in these Hypostases there is none of them for all that to be accounted Creatures but that the General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature truly and properly belongeth to them all according to that of Porphyrius before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence of the Godhead proceedeth to Three Hypostases Now these Platonists conceive that the Essence of the Godhead as common to all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity consisteth besides Perfect Intellectuality in these Following things First In Being Eternal which as we have already showed was Plato's Distinctive Character betwixt God and the Creature That whatsoever was Eternal is therefore Vncreated and whatsoever was not Eternal is a Creature He by Eternity meaning the having not only no Beginning but also a Permanent Duration Again In having not a Contingent but Necessary Existence and therefore being Absolutely Vndestroyable which perhaps is included also in the Former Lastly In being not Particular but
Vniversal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and all things or that which Comprehends the whole which is all one as to say in being Infinite and Omnipotent and the Creator of the whole World Now say these Platonists if any thing more were to be added to the General Essence of the Godhead besides this then must it be Self-existence or to be Vnderived from any other and the First Original Principle and Cause of all but if this be made so Essential to the Godhead or Vncreated Nature as that whatsoever is not thus Originally of it Self is therefore ipso facto to be detruded and thrust down into the rank of Creatures then must both the Second and Third Hypostases as well in the Christian as the Platonick Trinity upon this Supposition needs be Creatures and not God the Second deriving its whole Being and Godship from the First and the Third both from the First and Second and so neither First nor Second being the Cause of all things But it is unquestionable to these Platonists that whatsoever is Eternal Necessarily Existent Infinite and Omnipotent and the Creator of All things ought therefore to be Religiously Worshipped and Adored as God by all Created Beings Wherefore this Essence of the Godhead that belongeth alike to all the Three Hypostases being as all other Essences Perfectly Indivisible it might well be affirmed according to Platonick Grounds that all the Three Divine Hypostases though having some Subordination in them yet in this sence are Co-Equal they being all truly and alike God or Vncreated And the Platonists thus distinguishing betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Essence of the Godhead and the Distinct Hypostases or Personalities thereof and making the First of them to be Common General and Vniversal are not without the consent and approbation of the Orthodox Fathers herein they determining likewise that in the Deity Essence or Substance differs from Hypostasis as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is Common and General differs from that which is Singular and Individual Thus besides many others St. Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence or Substance of the Deity differs from the Hypostasis after the same manner as a Genus or Species differs from an Individuum So that as well according to these Fathers as the Platonists that Essence or Substance of the Godhead which all the Three Persons agree in is not Singular but Generical or Vniversal they both supposing each of the Persons also to have their own Numerical Essence Wherefore according to this Distinction betwixt the Essence or Substance of the Godhead and the Particular Hypostases approved by the Orthodox Fathers neither Plato nor any Intelligent Platonist would scruple to subscribe that Form of the Nicene Council that the Son or Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial and Co-Equal with the Father And we think it will be proved afterwards that this was the very Meaning of the Nicene Council it self that the Son was therefore Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the Father meerly because he was God and not a Creature Besides which the Genuine Platonists would doubtless acknowledge also all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity to be Homoousian Co-Essential or Con-Substantial yet in a further sence than this namely as being all of them One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity For thus besides that passage of Porphyrius before cited may these words also of St. Cyril be understood concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to them the Essence of God extendeth to Three Hypostases or comprehendeth Three Hypostases in it that is not only so as that each of these Three is God but also that they are not so many Separate and Divided Gods but all of them together One God or Divinity For though the Platonists as Pagans being not so Scrupulous in their Language as we Christians are do often call them Three Gods and a First Second and Third God yet notwithstanding as Philosophers did they declare them to be One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity and that as it seems upon these several accounts following First Because they are Indivisibly conjoyned together as the Splendour is Indivisible from the Sun And then Because they are Mutually Inexistent in each other the First being in the Second and both First and Second in the Third And Lastly Because the Entireness of the whole Divinity is made up of all these Three together which have all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the same Energy or Action ad extra And therefore as the Centre Radious Distance and Movable Circumference may be all said to be Co-Essential to a Sphere and the Root Stock and Bows or Branches Co-Essential to an entire Tree so but in much a more perfect sence are the Platonick Tagathon Nous and Psyche Co-Essential to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Divinity in the whole Vniverse Neither was Athanasius a stranger to this Notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also he affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Branches are Co-Essential with and Indivisible from the Vine and Illustrating the Trinity by that Similitude Neither must it be thought that the Whole Trinity is One after the very same manner that each Single Person thereof is in it self One for then should there be a Trinity also in each Person Not that it is so called Vndivided as if Three were not Three in it which were to make the Mystery Contemptible but because all the Three Hypostases or Persons are Indivisibly and Inseparably united to each other as the Sun and the Splendour and really but One God Wherefore though there be some Subordination of Hypostases or Persons in Plato's Trinity as it is commonly represented yet is this only ad intrà within the Deity it self in their Relation to one another and as compared amongst themselves but ad extrà Outwardly and to Vs are they all One and the same God concurring in all the same Actions and in that respect without any Inequality because in Identity there can be no Inequality Furthermore the Platonick Christian would in favour of these Platonists urge also that according to the Principles of Christianity it self there must of necessity be some Dependence and Subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their Relation to one another a Priority and Posteriority not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Dignity as well as Order amongst them First because that which is Originally of it self and Underived from any other must needs have some Superiority and Preheminence over that which derives its whole Being and Godship from it as the Second doth from the First alone and the Third from the First with the Second Again though all those Three Hypostases or Persons be alike Omnipotent ad Extra or Outwards yet ad Intra Inwards or within the Deity it self are they not so the Son being not
Temple Thus Plutarch though disliking the Deifying of Inanimate Things did notwithstanding approve of Worshipping God in the Whole World as his most Sacred Temple And the Persian Magi allowing of no Artificial Temples made with mens hands Worshipped God sub Dio and upon the Tops of Mountains as conceiving the Whole World to be his Natural Temple For the same Reason did they condemn also Artificiall Statues and Images concluding Fire Earth and Water and the like Parts of the World to be the Natural Images of the Deity Thus Dino in Clemens Alexandrinus This Difference amongst the Pagan Theologers noted by Macrobius Thus were all the Pagans World-Worshippers in different Senses but not as a Dead and Inanimate Thing but either as the Body of God or else as his Temple or Image Page 537 539 Furthermore the Pagans Vniversally acknowledging the World to be an Animal those of them who supposed it not to be the First and Highest God conceived it to be either a Second or else a Third God and so Worshipped it not onely as a Temple or Image but also as the Son of the First God Celsus pretended the Christians to have called their Jesus the Son of God in Imitation of these Pagans who styled the World so Page 539 540 Thus have we made it fully to appear That according to the Saying of Antisthenes the Many Popular Gods of the Pagans were but One and the Same Natural God or according to that of Euclides their Many Gods were but Many Names So that neither their Poetical nor yet their Political Theology was lookt upon by them as True and Natural Page 540 Nevertheless the Wiser Pagans generally concluded that there ought to be another Theology besides the Natural fitly Calculated for the Vulgar and having a Mixture of Falsehood and Fabulosity in it Varro and Scaevola agreed that the Vulgar being Vncapable of the True and Natural Theology it was expedient for them to be Deceived in their Religion Strabo also that the Vulgar cannot by Philosophick Reason and Truth be carried on to Piety but this must be done by Superstition and by the help of Fables and Prodigious Relations The same partly acknowledged by Synesius for true Plato also That it is Hard to find out God but Impossible to declare him to the Vulgar and therefore a necessity of a Civil Theology distinct from the Natural and Philosophical Page 540 542 XXXV We come now to the next thing Proposed That besides this Seeming and Phantastick Polytheism of the Pagans which was nothing but the Polyonymy of One God they had another Reall Polytheism even in their Natural and Philosophick Theology it self But this not of Self-existent Gods but Generated or Created ones onely Thus according to Plutarch One Highest Unmade God is the Maker and Father of all the other Gods Generated or Derived from him And Proclus concludes All the Gods to derive their Godship from the First God who therefore is the Fountain of the God-head Page 542 543 These Inferiour Pagan Gods styled by Ammianus Marcellinus Substantiall Powers in way of opposition to those other Poetical and Political Gods that were not Substantiall or Reall but onely several Names or Notions of One Supreme God Those Substantiall Powers as Divination and Prophecy was by them imparted to men said to be all Subject to that One Sovereign Deity called Themis placed by Pagan Theologers in the Throne of Jupiter This Themis also another Name or Notion of the Supreme God besides those before mentioned Poetry and Phantastry intermingled by the Pagans with their Natural or Philosophick Theology Page 543 544 Thus the Pagans held both One God and Many Gods in different Senses Onatus and Plotinus That the Majesty of the Supreme God consisteth in haveing Multitudes of Gods Dependent on him and Ruled by him and that the Honour done to them redounds to him The Gods of the Oriental Pagans not meer Dead Statues and Images but Living Understanding Beings Represented by them That Christians asserted no Solitary Deity as Pagans pretended but agreed with this of Seneca That God hath Generated or Created innumerable Understanding Beings Superiour to Men Ministers of his Kingdom The onely difference being this that they gave them no Religious Worship Out of Lactantius Page 544 546 XXXVI That besides the Inferiour Gods generally received by all the Pagans namely Animated Stars Demons and Heroes the more refined of them who accounted not the Animated World the Supreme Deity acknowledged a Trinity of Divine Hypostases Superiour to them all Which Doctrine affirmed by Plotinus to have been very Ancient and no Invention of Plato's Page 546 Parmenides an Asserter of a Trinity long before Plato This imputed to the Pythagoreans by Moderatus in Simplicius and Iamblichus in Proclus Before Pythagoras Orpheus had his Trinity Phanes Uranus and Chronus the same with Plato's Three Kings or Principles Probable that Pythagoras and Orpheus derived the same from the Theology of the Egyptian Hermes Some Footsteps of such a Trinity in the Mithraick Mysteries amongst the Persians and the Zoroastrian Cabala The same expresly declared in the Magick or Chaldaick Oracles A Trinity of Gods worshipped Anciently by the Samothracians and called by an Hebrew name Cabiri the Mighty Gods From thence the Roman Capitoline Trinity derived The Second whereof Minerva or the Divine Wisedom The Ternary a Number used by the Pagans in their Religious Rites as Mysterious Page 546 547 It being no way Probable that such a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should have sprung from Humane Wit we may reasonably assent to what Proclus affirmeth that it was at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Theology of Divine Tradition or Revelation As having been first Imparted to the Hebrews and from them communicated to other Nations Nevertheless as this Divine Cabbala was but little understood by these Pagans so was it by many of them Depraved and Adulterated Page 547 548 This called Vniversally by them a Trinity of Gods or a First Second and Third God by some a Trinity of Causes and of Principles and of Opificers The Tradition of the Three Gods in Proclus Ancient and Famous Numenius his Three Gods called by him the Father the Son and the Nephew or Grandson Nous or Intellect to Plotinus a Second God as also the World an Image of all the Three Gods Plotinus and Porphyrius their supposed Ecstatick Union with the First of these Three Gods Page 548 549 That Philo a Religious Jew and Zealous Opposer of the Pagan Polytheism called notwithstanding the Divine Word also a Second God This not agreeable to the Principles of Christianity Nevertheless S. Austin partly excuses this Language in the Pagans Page 549 550 And They perhaps the more excusable because they sometimes called also those Three Hypostases taken all together the First God Page 551 Nor was this Trinity of Divine Hypostases Ill-Languaged onely by the Pagans but also the Cabbala thereof much Depraved and Adulterated by some Platonists and Pythagoreans As First