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
For those Nicene Bishops themselves who did understand best of any the secrets of the Arian Faction and which way it should especially be oppugned aimed at nothing else in their Confession of Faith but only to establish that Equality of Essence Dignity and Eternity between them This does the word Homoousios it self declare it signifying rather Equality than SINGVLARITY of Essence as we have before showed And the like do those other Passages in the same Decree as That there was no time when the Son was not and That he was not made of nothing Nor of a different Hypostasis or Essence Thus does Petavius clearly confess that this Same Singularity of Numerical Essence was not asserted by the Nicene Council nor the most Ancient Fathers but only an Equality or Sameness of Generical Essence or else that the Father and Son agreed only in One Common Essence or Substance of the Godhead that is the Eternal and Vncreated Nature But the truth of this will more fully appear from these following Particulars First because these Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers did all of zealously condemn Sabellianism the Doctrine whereof is no other than this that there was but one Hypostasis or Singular Individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but Three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Father's Begetting the Son was nothing but one Name Notion or Mode of the Deities Begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion Begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been Incarnated and to have suffered death for us upon the Cross that it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was Incarnate and Suffered or else the whole Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only But should it be averred notwithanding that this Trinity which we now speak of was not a Trinity of meer Names and Notions as that of the Sabellians but of distinct Hypostases or Persons then must it needs follow since every Singular Essence is an Hypostasis according to the sence of the Ancient Fathers that there was not a Trinity only but a Quaternity of Hypostases in the Deity Which is a thing that none of those Fathers ever dream'd of Again the word Homoousios as was before intimated by Petavius was never used by Greek writers otherwise than to signifie the Agreement of things Numerically differing from one another in some Common Nature or Vniversal Essence or their having a Generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given Nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under Humane Conception viz. Several Things having one and the same Singular Essence And accordingly St. Basil interprets the force of this word thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it plainly takes away the Sameness of Hypostasis that is of Singular Numerical Essence this being that which the ancient Fathers meant by the word Hypostasis For the same thing is not Homoousios Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with it self but always One thing with Another Wherefore as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used by Plotinus as Synonymous in these words concerning the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is full of Divine things by reason of its being Cognate or Congenerous and Homoousious with them so doth Athanasius in like manner use them when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Branches are Homoousious Co-essential or Con-substantial and Con-generous with the Vine or with the Root thereof Besides which the same Father uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sundry places None of which words can be thought to signifie an Identity of Singular Essence but only of Generical or Specifical And thus was the word Homoousios plainly used by the Council of Chalcedon they affirming that our Saviour Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the Father as to his Divinity but Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with us Men as to his Humanity Where it cannot reasonably be suspected that one and the same word should be taken in two different sences in the same Sentence so as in the first place to signifie a Numerical Identity but in the second a Generical or Specifical only But Lastly which is yet more Athanasius himself speaketh in like manner of our Saviour Christ's being Homoousious with us men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Son be Coessential or Consubstantial or of the same Essence or Substance with us Men he having the very same Nature with us then let him be in this respect a stranger to the Essence or Substance of the Father even as the Vine is to the Essence of the Husbandman And again a little after in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or did Dionysius think you when he affirmed the Word not to be Proper to the Essence of the Father suppose him therefore to be Coessential or Consubstantial with us Men From all which it is unquestionably evident that Athanasius did not by the word Homoousios understand That which hath the Same Singular and Numerical Essence with another but the same Common Generical or Specifical only and consequently that he conceived the Son to be Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father after that manner Furthermore the true meaning of the Nicene Fathers may more fully and thoroughly be perceived by considering what that Doctrine of Arius was which they Opposed and Condemned Now Arius maintained the Son or Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature Made in Time and Mutable or Defectible and for that reason as Athanasius tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence or Substance from the Father That which is Created being supposed to differ Essentially or Substantially from that which is Vncreated Wherefore the Nicene Fathers in way of Opposition to this Doctrine of Arius determined that the Son or Word was not thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father that is not a Creature but God or agreeing with the Father in that Common Nature or Essence of the Godhead So that this is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance of the ancient Fathers which is said to be the Same in all the Three Hypostases of the Trinity as they are called God not a Singular Existent Essence but the Common General or Vniversal Essence of the Godhead or of the Vncreated Nature called by S. Hilary Natura Vna non Vnitate Personae sed Generis One Nature not by Vnity of Person
not merely Fortuitous but Regular Orderly and Methodical the Stoical excluding all Chance and Fortune universally because they subject all things to One Plastick Nature ruling over the whole Universe but the Stratonical doing it in part only because they derive things from a Mixture of Chance and Plastick Nature both together And thus we see that there is a Double Notion of Nature amongst Atheists as well as Theists which we cannot better express than in the words of Balbus the Stoick personated by Cicero Alii Naturam censent esse Vim quandam sine Ratione cientem motus in corporibus necessarios Alii autem Vim participem Ordinis tanquam Viâ progredientem Cujus Solertiam nulla Ars nulla Manus nemo Opifex consequi potest imitando Seminis enim Vim esse tantam ut id quanquam perexiguum nactumque sit Materiam quâ ali augerique possit ita fingat efficiat in suo quidque genere partim ut per stirpes alantur suas partim ut movere etiam possint ex se similia sui generare Some by Nature mean a certain Force without Reason and Order exciting Necessary Motions in Bodies but others understand by it such a Force as participating of Order proceeds as it were Methodically Whose exquisiteness no Art no Hand no Opificer can reach to by Imitation For the Force of Seed is such that though the Bulk of it be very small yet if it get convenient Matter for its nourishment and increase it so Forms and Frames things in their several kinds as that they can partly through their Stocks and Trunks be nourished and partly Move themselves also and Generate their like And again Sunt qui omnia Naturae Nomine appellent ut Epicurus Sed nos cum dicimus Naturâ constare administrarÃque Mundum non ita dicimus ut Glebam aut Fragmentum Lapidis aut aliquid ejusmodi nulla cohaerendi Natura Sed ut Arborem ut Animalia in quibus nulla Temeritas sed Ordo apparet Artis quaedam Similitudo There are some who call all things by the name of Nature as Epicurus But we when we say that the World is administred by Nature do not mean such a Nature as is in Clods of Earth and Pieces of Stone but such as is in a Tree or Animal in whose Constitution there is no Temerity but Order and Similitude of Art Now according to these Two different Notions of Nature the Four forementioned Forms of Atheism may be again Dichotomized after this manner into such as derive all things from a mere Fortuitous and Temerarious Nature devoid of all Order and Methodicalness and such as deduce the Original of things from a certain Orderly Regular and Artificial though Sensless Nature in Matter The former of which are the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheisms the latter the Stoical and Stratonical It hath been already observed that those Atheisms that derive all things from a mere Fortutious Principle as also suppose every thing besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare Substance of Matter or Extended Bulk to be Generated and Corrupted though they asserted the Eternity of Matter yet they could not agreeably to their own Hypothesis maintain the Eternity and Incorruptibility of the World And accordingly hereunto both the Anaximandrian and Democritick Atheists did conclude the World to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as was at first Made and should be again Corrupted And upon this accompt Lucretius concerns himself highly herein to prove both the Novity of the World and also its Future Dissolution and Extinction that Totum Nativum Mortali Corpore constat But instead of the Worlds Eternity these Two sorts of Atheists introduced another Paradox namely an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Infinity of Worlds and that not only Successive in that space which this World of ours is conceived now to occupy in respect of the Infinity of Past and Future Time but also a Contemporary Infinity of Coexistent Worlds at all times throughout Endless and Unbounded Space However it is certain that some Persons Atheistically inclined have been always apt to run out another way and to suppose that the Frame of things and System of the World ever was from Eternity and ever will be to Eternity such as now it is dispensed by a certain Orderly and Regular but yet Sensless and Vnknowing Nature And it is Prophesied in Scripture that such Atheists as these should especially abound in these latter days of ours There shall come in the last days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atheistical Scoffers walking after their own Lusts and saying Where is the promise of his Coming For since the Fathers fell asâ—eep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation Which latter words are spoken only according to the received Hypothesis of the Jews the meaning of these Atheists being quite otherwise that there was neither Creation nor Beginning of the World but that things had continued such as now they are from all Eternity As appears also from what the Apostle there adds by way of Confutation That they were wilfully Ignorant of this that by the word of God the Heavens were of old and the Earth standing out of the Water and in the Water and that as the World that then was overflowing with Water perished so the Heavens Earth which now are by the same word are kept in store and reserved unto Fire against the day of Judgment Perdition of Vngodly men And it is evident that some of these Atheists at this very day march in the garb of Enthusiastical Religionists acknowledging no more a God than a Christ without them and Allegorizing the day of Judgment and future Conflagration into a kind of seemingly Mystical but really Atheistical Non-sence These if they did Philosophize would resolve themselves into one or other of those Two Hypotheses before mentioned either that of One Plastick Orderly and Methodical but Sensless Nature ruling over the whole Universe or else that of the Life of Matter making one or other of these two Natures to be their only God or Numen It being sufficiently agreeable to the Principles of both these Atheistick Hypotheses and no others to maintain the Worlds both Antè and Post-Eternity yet so as that the latter of them namely the Hylozoists admitting a certain Mixture of Chance together with the Life of Matter would suppose that though the main Strokes of things might be preserved the same and some kind of constant Regularity always kept up in the World yet that the whole Mundane System did not in all respects continue the same from Eternity to Eternity without any Variation But as Strabo tells us that Strato Physicus maintained the Euxine Sea at first to have had no Out-let by Byzantium into the Mediterranean but that by the continual running in of Rivers into it causing it to overflow there was in length of time a passage opened by the Propontis and Hellespont As also
of a Wooden Hand For thus these Physiologers declare the Generations and Causes of Figures only or the Matter out of which things are made as Air and Earth Whereas no Artificer would think it sufficient to render such a Cause of any Artificial Fabrick because the Instrument happened to fall so upon the Timber that therefore it was Hollow here and Plane there but rather because himself made such strokes and for such Ends c. Now in the close of all this Philosopher at length declares That there is another Principle of Corporeal things besides the Material and such as is not only the Cause of Motion but also acts Artificially in order to Ends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is such a thing as that which we call Nature that is not the Fortuitous Motion of Sensless Matter but a Plastick Regular and Artificial Nature such as acts for Ends and Good declaring in the same place what this Nature is namely that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul or Part of Soul or not without Soul and from thence inferring that it properly belongs to a Physiologer to treat concerning the Soul also But he concludes afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the whole Soul is not Nature whence it remains that according to Aristotle's sence Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either part of a Soul or not without Soul that is either a lower Part or Faculty of some Conscious Soul or else an Inferiour kind of Life by it self which is not without Soul but Suborditate to it and dependent on it 22. As for the Bodies of Animals Aristotle first resolves in General that Nature in them is either the whole Soul or else some part of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature as the Moving Principle or as that which acts Artificially for Ends so far as concerns the Bodies of Animals is either the whole Soul or else some Part of it But afterward he determines more particularly that the Plastick Nature is not the whole Soul in Animals but only some part of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Nature in Animals properly so called is some Lower Power or Faculty lodged in their respective Souls whether Sensitive or Rational And that there is Plastick Nature in the Souls of Animals the same Aristotle elsewhere affirms and proves after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is that which in the Bodies of Animals holds together such things as of their own Nature would otherwise move contrary ways and flie asunder as Fire and Earth which would be distracted and dissipated the one tending upwards the other downwards were there not something to hinder them now if there be any such thing this must be the Soul which is also the Cause of Nourishment and Augmentation Where the Philosopher adds that though some were of Opinion that Fire was that which was the Cause of Nourishment and Augmentation in Animals yet this was indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only the Concause or Instrument and not simply the Cause but rather the Soul And to the same purpose he philosophizeth elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is Concoction by which Nourishment is made in Animals done without the Soul nor without Heat for all things are done by Fire And certainly it seems very agreeable to the Phaenomena to acknowledge something in the Bodies of Animals Superiour to Mechanism as that may well be thought to be which keeps the more fluid parts of them constantly in the same Form and Figure so as not to be enormously altered in their Growth by disproportionate nourishment that which restores Flesh that was lost consolidates dissolved Continuities Incorporates the newly received Nourishment and joyns it Continuously with the preexistent parts of Flesh and Bone which regenerates and repairs Veins consumed or cut off which causes Dentition in so regular a manner and that not only in Infants but also Adult persons that which casts off Excrements and dischargeth Superfluities which makes things seem ungrateful to an Interiour Sense that were notwithstanding pleasing to the Taste That Nature of Hippocrates that is the Curatrix of Diseases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Archeus of the Chymists or Paracelsians to which all Medicaments are but Subservient as being able to effect nothing of themselves without it I say there seems to be such a Principle as this in the Bodies of Animals which is not Mechanical but Vital and therefore since Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity we may with Aristotle conclude it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain part of the Soul of those Animals or a Lower Inconscious Power lodged in them 23. Besides this Plastick Nature which is in Animals forming their several Bodies Artificially as so many Microcosms or Little Worlds there must be also a general Plastick Nature in the Macrocosm the whole Corporeal Universe that which makes all things thus to conspire every where and agree together into one Harmony Concerning which Plastick Nature of the Universe the Author de Mundo writes after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Power passing thorough all things ordered and formed the whole World Again he calls the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit and a Living and Generative Nature and plainly declares it to be a thing distinct from the Deity but Subordinate to it and dependent on it But Aristotle himself in that genuine Work of his before mentioned speaks clearly and positively concerning this Plastick Nature of the Universe as well as that of Animals in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth that as there is Art in Artificial things so in the things of Nature there is another such like Principle or Cause which we our selves partake of in the same manner as we do of Heat and Cold from the Vniverse Wherefore it is more probable that the whole World was at fiâ—st made by such a Cause as this if at least it were made and that it is still conserved by the same than that Mortal Animals should be so For there is much more of Order and determinate Regularity in the Heavenly Bodies than in our selves but more of Fortuitousness and inconstant Regularity among these Mortal things Notwithstanding which some there are who though they cannot but acknowledge that the Bodies of Animals were all framed by an Artificial Nature yet they will needs contend that the System of the Heavens sprung merely from Fortune and Chance although there be not the least appearance of Fortuitousness or Temerity in it And then he sums up all into this Conclusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore it is manifest that there is some such thing as that which we call Nature that is that there is not only an Artificial Methodical and Plastick Nature in Animals by which their respective Bodies are Framed and Conserved but also that there is such a General Plastick Nature likewise in the Vniverse by which the Heavens
Though sometimes the Egyptians added to the Serpent also a Hawk thus complicating the Hieroglypick of the Deity according to that of a famous Egyptian Priest in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the First and Divinest Being of all is Symbolically represented by a Serpent having the head of an Hawk And that a Hawk was also sometimes used alone for a Hieroglyphick of the Deity appeareth from that of Plutarch That in the Porch of an Egyptian Temple at Sais were ingraven these Three Hieroglyphicks a Young man an Old man and an Hawk to make up this Sentence That both the Beginning and End of humane Life dependeth upon God or Providence But we have Two more remarkable Passages in the forementioned Horus Apollo concerning the Egyptian Theology which must not be pretermitted the first this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to them there is a Spirit passing through the Whole World to wit God And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth to the Egyptians that nothing at all consists without God In the next place Jamblichus was a person who had made it his business to inform himself thoroughly concerning the Theology of the Egyptians and who undertakes to give an account thereof in his Answer to Porphyrius his Epistle to Anebo an Egyptian Priest whose Testimony therefore may well seem to deserve credit And he first gives us a Summary account of their Theology after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is the Cause of Generation and the whole Nature and of all the Powers in the Elements themselves is Separate Exempt Elevated above and expanded over all the Powers and Elements in the World For being above the World and transcending the same Immaterial and Incorporeal Supernatural Vnmade Indivisible manifested wholly from himself and in himself he ruleth over all things and in himself conteineth all things And because he virtually comprehends all things therefore does he impart and display the same from himself According to which excellent Description of the Deity it is plain that the Egyptians asserting One God that Comprehends All things could not possibly suppose a Multitude of Self-existent Deities In which place also the same Jamblichus tells us that as the Egyptian Hieroglyphick for Material and Corporeal things was Mud or floating Water so they pictur'd God in Loto arbore sedentem super Lutum sitting upon the Lote-tree above the Watery Mud Quod innuit Dei eminentiam altissimam qua fit ut nullo modo attingat Lutum ipsum Demonstratque Dei imperium intellectuale quia Loti arboris omnia sunt rotunda tam frondes quà m fructus c. Which signifies the transcendent Eminency of the Deity above the Matter and its intellectual Empire over the World because both the Leaves and Fruit of that tree are Round representing the Motion of intellect Again he there adds also that the Egyptians sometime pictured God sitting at the Helm of a Ship But afterward in the same Book he sums up the Queries which Porphyrius had propounded to the Egyptian Priest to be resolved concerning them in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You desire to be resolved What the Egyptians think to be the first Cause of all Whether Intellect or something above Intellect And that Whether alone or with some other Whether Incorporeal or Corporeal Whether the first Principle be the same with the Demiurgus and Architect of the World or before him Whether all things proceed from One or Many Whether they suppose Matter or Qualified Bodies to be the first and if they admit a First Matter Whether they assert it to be Vnmade or Made In answer to which Porphyrian Quaeries Jamblichus thus begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall first reply to that you first demand That according to the Egyptians before all Entities and Principles there is One God who is in order of nature before him that is commonly called the first God and King Immoveable and always remaining in the solitariety of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else complicated with him c. In which words of Jamblichus and those others that there follow after though there be some obscurity and we may perhaps have occasion further to consider the meaning of them elsewhere yet he plainly declares that according to the Egyptians the first Original of all things was a perfect Unity above Intellect but intimating withall that besides this First Unity they did admit of certain other Divine Hypostases as a Perfect Intellect and Mundane Soul subordinate thereunto and dependent on it concerning which he thus writeth afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians acknowledge before the Heaven and in the Heaven a Living Power or Soul and again they place a pure Mind or Intellect above the World But that they did not acknowledge a Plurality of Coordinate Independent Principles is further declared by him after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus the Egyptian Philosophy from first to last begins from Vnity and thence descends to Multitude the Many being always governed by the One and the Infinite or Vndeterminate nature every where mastered and conquered by some finite and determined measure and all ultimately by that highest Vnity that is the first Cause of all things Moreover in answer to the last Porphyrian Question concerning Matter whether the Egyptians thought it to be Vnmade and Selfexistent or Made Jamblichus thus replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That according to Hermes and the Egyptians Matter was also Made or produced by God ab Essentialitate succisa ac subscissâ Materialitate as Scutellius turns it Which Passage of Jamblichus Proclus upon the Timaeus where he asserts that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uneffable cause of Matter takes notice of in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Tradition of the Egyptians agreeth herewith That Matter was not Vnmade or Self-existent but produced by the Deity For the Divine Jamblichus hath recorded that Hermes would have Materiality to have been produced from Essentiality that is the Passive Principle of Matter from that Active Principle of the Deity And it is very probable from hence that Plato was also of the same opinion concerning Matter viz. because he is supposed to have followed Hermes and the Egyptians Which indeed is the more likely if that be true which the same Proclus affirmeth concerning Orpheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Orpheus also did after the same manner deduce or derive Matter from the First Hypostasis of Intelligibles that is from the Supreme Deity We shall conclude here in the last place with the Testimony of Damascius in his Book of Principles writing after this manner concerning the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eudemus hath given us no exact account of the Egyptians but the Egyptian Philosophers that have been in our times have declared the hidden truth of their Theology having found in certain Egyptian Writings that there was according to them One
But that notwithstanding he asserted One Supreme and only Vnmade or Self-existent Deity is also manifest from that other Apothegm of his in Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the Oldest of all things because he is Vnmade From whence it may be concluded that all Thales his other Gods were Generated and the Off-spring of One sole Unmade Deity Pherecydes Syrus was Thales his contemporary of whom Aristotle in his Metaphysicks hath recorded that he affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the First Principle from whence all other things were Generated was the Best or an Absolutely Perfect Being So as that in the Scale of Nature things did not ascend upwards from the most Imperfect to the more Perfect Beings but on the contrary descend downwards from the most Perfect to the less Perfect Moreover Laertius informs us that this was the Beginning of one of Pherecydes his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter and Time and the Earth always were Where notwithstanding in the following words he makes the Earth to be dependent upon Jupiter Though some reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem to understand him thus that Jupiter and Saturn really one and the same Numen was always from Eternity However there is in these words an acknowledgment of One Single and Eternal Deity Pythagoras was the most eminent of all the ancient Philosophers who that he was a Polytheist as well as the other Pagans may be concluded from that Beginning of the Golden Verses though not written by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein men are exhorted in the first place to worship the Immortal Gods and that accordingly as they were appointed by Law after them the Heroes and last of all the Terrestrial Demons And accordingly Laertius gives this account of Pythagoras his Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he conceived men ought to worship both the Gods and the Heroes though not with equal honour And who these Gods of Pythagoras were the same Writer also declareth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they were in part at least the Sun and Moon and Stars Notwithstanding which that Pythagoras acknowledged One Supreme and Universal Numen which therefore was the Original of all those other Gods may partly appear from that Prayer in the Golden Verses which whether written by Philolaus or Lysis or some other Follower of Pythagoras were undoubtedly ancient and agreeable to his Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter alme malis jubeas vel solvier omnes Omnibus utantur vel quonam daemone monstra Upon which Hierocles thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the manner of the Pythagoreans to honour the Maker and Father of this whole Vniverse with the name of Dis and Zen it being just that he who giveth Being and Life to all should be denominated from thence And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This very name Zeus is a convenient symbol or image of the Demiurgical Nature And they who first gave names to things were by reason of a certain wonderful Wisdom of theirs a kind of excellent Statuaries they by those several Names as Images lively representing the natures of things Moreover that this Pythagorick Prayer was directed to the Supreme Numen and King of Gods Jamblichus thus declares in his Protrepticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is an excellent exhortation of these Golden Verses to the pursuit of Divine Felicity mingled together with Prayers and the Invocation of the Gods but especially of that Jupiter who is the King of them Moreover the same might further appear from those Pythagorick Fragments that are still extant as that of Ocellus Lucanus and others who where Moralists in which as Gods are sometimes spoken of plurally so also is God often singularly used for that Supreme Deity which conteineth the whole But this will be most of all manifest from what hath been recorded concerning the Pythagorick Philosophy and its making a Monad the First Principle It is true indeed that the Writer de Placitis Philosophorum doth affirm Pythagoras to have asserted Two Substantial Principles Self-existent a Monad and a Dyad by the former of which as God is confessed to have been meant so the latter of them is declared with some uncertainty it being in one place interpreted to be a Daemon or a Principle of Evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pythagoras his First Principle is God and Good which is the Nature of Vnity and a perfect Mind but his other Principle of Duality is a Demon or Evil But in another place expounded to be Matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pythagoras his Principles were a Monad and Infinite Duality The former of them an Active Principle Mind or God the latter Passive and Matter And Plutarch in some other Writings of his declares that the First Matter did not exist alone by it self Dead and Inanimate but acted with an irrational Soul and that both these together made up that wicked Daemon of his And doubtless this Book De Placitis Philosophorum was either written by Plutarch himself or else by some Disciple and Follower of his according to his Principles Wherefore this accompt which is therein given of the Pythagorick Doctrine was probably infected with that private Conceit of Plutarch's That God and a wicked Demon or else Matter together with an Irrational Soul Self-existent were the First Principles of the Vniverse Though we do acknowledge that others also besides Plutarch have supposed Pythagoras to have made Two Self-existent Principles God and Matter but not animate nor informed as Plutarch supposed with any Irrational or wicked Soul Notwithstanding which it may well be made a Question Whether Pythagoras by his Dyad meant Matter or no because Malchus or Porphyrius in the Life of Pythagoras thus interprets those Two Pythagorick Principles of Vnity and Duality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cause of that Sympathy Harmony and Agreement which is in things and of the conservation of the Whole which is always the same and like it self was by Pythagoras called Vnity or a Monade that Vnity which is in the things themselves being but a participation of the First Cause But the reason of Alterity Inequality and unconstant Irregularity in things was by him called a Dyad Thus acording to Porphyrius by the Pythagorick Dyad is not so much meant Matter as the Infinite and Indeterminate Nature and the Passive Capability of Things So that the Monade and Dyad of Pythagoras seem to have been the same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Finite and Infinite in his Philebus the Former of which Two only is Substantial that First most simple Being the cause of all Unity and the Measure of all things However if Pythagoras his Dyad be to be understood of a Substantial Matter it will not therefore follow that he supposed Matter to be Self-existent and
Dico igitur Providentiâ Deorum Mundum omnes Mundi partes initio constitutas esse omni tempore administrari yet unquestionably Cicero forgat himself herein and rather spake the Language of some other Pagans who together with the Generation of the World held indeed a Plurality of Eternal though not Independent Deites than of the Stoicks who asserted One only Eternal God and supposed in the Reiterated Conflagrations all the Gods to be Melted and Confounded into One so that Jupiter being then left alone must needs make up the World again as also all those other Gods out of himself And thus does Zeno in Laertius describe the Cosmopoeia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God at First being alone by himself converted the Fiery Substance of the World by degrees into Water that is into a Crasser Chaos out of which Water himself afterwards as the Spermatick Reason of the World formed the Elements and whole Mundane System And Cicero himself elsewhere in his De Legibus attributes the first Original of Mankind cautiously not to the Gods in Common but to the Supreme God only Hoc Animal Providum c. quem vocamus Hominem praeclara quadam conditione Generatum esse à SVMMO DEO and this rather according to the Sence of the Stoicks than of the Platonists whose Inferiour Generated Gods also being first made were supposed to have had a stroke in the Fabrefaction of Mankind and other Animals Thus Epictetus plainly ascribes the making of the whole World to God or the One Supreme Deity where he mentions the Galileans that is the Christians their Contempt of Death though imputing it only to Custom in them and not to right Knowledge as M. Antoninus likewise ascribes the same to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer Obstinacy of Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can some be so affected out of Madness and the Galileans out of Custom and can none attain thereunto by Reason and true Knowledge namely because God made all things in the World and the whole World it self Perfect and Vnhinderable but the parts thereof for the use of the Whole so that the Parts ought therefore to yield and give place to the whole Thus does he again elsewhere demand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who made the Sun Who the Fruits of the Earth Who the Seasons of the Year Who the agreeable Fitness of things Wherefore thou having received all from another even thy very self dost thou murmur and complain against the Donor of them if he take away any one thing from thee Did he not bring thee into the World shew thee the Light bestow Sense and Reason upon the Now the Sun was the chief of the Inferiour Stoical Gods and therefore he being made by another all the Rest of their Gods must needs be so too And thus is it plainly expressed in this following Citation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one could be throughly sensible of this that we are all made by God and that as Principal Parts of the World and that God is the Father both of Men and Gods he would never think meanly of himself knowing that he is the Son of Jupiter also Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plainly put for the Supreme God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Inferiour Gods only Again he thus attributes the Making of Man and Government of the whole World to God or Jupiter only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God made all men to this End that they might be happy and as became him who had a Fatherly care of us he placed our Good and Evil in those things which are in our own power And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things would not be well governed if Jupiter took no care of his own Citizens that they also might be happy like himself And that these Stoicks did indeed Religiously Worship and Honour the Supreme God above all their other Gods may appear from sundry Instances As first from their acknowledging him to be the Soveraign Legislator and professing Subjection and Obedience to his Laws accounting this to be their Greatest Liberty Thus Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man hath power over me I am made free by God by becoming his Subject I know his Commandments and no man can bring me under bondage to himself And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things would I be found employing my self about that I may be able to say to God Have I transgressed any of thy Commandments have I used my Faculties and Anticipations or Common Notions otherwise than thou requiredst Again from their acknowledging Him to be the Supreme Governour of the whole World and the Orderer of all things in it by his Fate and Providence and their professing to submit their Wills to his Will in every thing Epictetus somewhere thus bespeaks the Supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did I ever complain of thy Government I was sick when thou wouldst have me to be and so are others but I was so willingly I was poor also at thy appointment but Rejoycing I never bore any Magistracy or had any Dignity because thou wouldst not have me and I never desired it Didst thou ever see me the more Dejected or Melancholy for this Have I appeared before thee at any time with a Discontented Countenance Was I not always prepared and ready for whatsoever thou requiredst Wilt thou now have me to depart out of this Festival Solemnity I am ready to go and I render thee all thanks for that thou hast honoured me so far as to let me keep the Feast with thee and behold thy works and observe thy Oeconomy of the world Let Death seize upon me no otherwise employed than thus thinking and writing of such things He likewise exhorts others after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dare to lift up thine eyes to God and say Vse me hereafter to whatsoever thou pleasest I agree and am of the same mind with thee indifferent to all things I refuse nothing that shall seem good to thee Lead me whither thou pleasest Let me act what part thou wilt either of a Publick or Private person of a Rich man or a Begger I will apologize for thee as to all these things before men And I will also shew the Nature of every one of them The same is likewise manifest from their Pretensions to look to God and referr all to him expecting aid and assistance from him and placing their Confidence in him Thus also Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My design is this to render you free and undisturbed always looking at God as well in every small as greater Matter Again the same Stoick concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man will never be able otherwise to expel Grief Fear Desire Envy c. than by looking to God alone
we invoke c. And as the Supreme Deity was thus considered only as a Perfect Mind Superiour to Soul so was the Mundane Soul and whole Animated World called by these Pagans frequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second God Thus in the Asclepian Dialogue or Perfect Oration is the Lord and Maker of all said to have made a Second God Visible and Sensible which is the World But for the most part they who asserted a God Superiour to the Soul of the World did maintain a Trinity of Vniversal Principles or Divine Hypostases subordinate they conceiving that as there was above the Mundane Soul a Perfect Mind or Intellect so that Mind and Intellect as such was not the First Principle neither because there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order of nature before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Intelligible before Intellect Which First Intelligible was called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The One and The Good or Vnity and Goodness it self Substantial the Cause of Mind and All things Now as the Tagathon or Highest of these Three Hypostases was sometimes called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Intellect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second God so was the Mundane Soul and Animated world called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Third God Thus Numenius in Proclus upon Plato's Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numenius praising Three Gods calls the Father the First God the Maker the Second and the Work the Third For the World according to him is the Third God as he supposes also Two Opificers the First and the Second God Plotinus in like manner speaks of this also as very Familiar language amongst those Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the World as is commonly said is the Third God But neither they who held the Supreme Deity to be an Immovable Mind or Intellect superiour to the Mundane Soul as Aristotle and Xenocrates did suppose that Mundane Soul and the whole World to have depended upon Many such Immovable Intellects Self-existent as their First Cause but only upon One nor they who admitting a Trinity of Divine Hypostases made the Supreme Deity properly to be a Monad above Mind or Intellect did conceive that Intellect to have depended upon Many such Monads as First Principles Co-ordinate but upon One only From whence it plainly appears that the Pagan Theologers did always reduce things under a Monarchy and acknowledge not Many Independent Deities but One Vniversal Numen whether called Soul or Mind or Monad as the Head of all Though it hath been already declared that those Pagans who were Trinitarians especially the Platonists do often take those their Three Hypostases subordinate a Monad Mind and Soul all together for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or One Supreme Numen as supposing an extraordinary kind of Vnity in that Trinity of Hypostases and so as it were a certain Latitude and Gradation in the Deity Where by the way Two things may be observed concerning the Pagan Theologers First that according to them generally the whole Corporeal System was not a Dead Thing like a Machin or Automaton Artificially made by men but that Life and Soul was mingled with and diffused thorough it All insomuch that Aristotle himself taxes those who made the World to consist of nothing but Monads or Atoms altogether Dead and Inanimate as being therefore a kind of Atheists Secondly That how much soever some of them supposed the Supreme Deity and First Cause to be Elevated above the Heaven and Corporeal World yet did they not therefore conceive either the World to be quite Cut off from that or that from the World so as to have no commerce with it nor influence upon it but as all proceeded from this First Cause so did they suppose that to be closely and intimately united with all those Emanations from it self though without Mixture and Confusion and all to subsist in it and be pervaded by it Plutarch in his Platonick Questions propounds this amongst the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why Plato called the Highest God the Father and Maker of All To which he answers in the First place thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That perhaps he was called the Father of all the Generated Gods and of men but the Maker of the Irrational and Inanimate things of the World But afterward he adds That this Highest God might therefore be styled the Father of the whole Corporeal World also as well as the Maker because it is no Dead and Inanimate thing but endued with Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generation is the making or production of something Animate And the work of an Artificer as an Architect or Statuary as soon as it is produced departeth and is removed from the Maker thereof as having no Intrinsick dependance upon him Whereas from him that begetteth there is a Principle and Power infused into that which is begotten and mingled therewith that conteineth the whole nature thereof as being a kind of Avulsion from the Begetter Wherefore since the World is not like to those works that are Artificially made and compacted by men but hath a participation of Life and Divinity which God hath inserted into it and mingled with it God is therefore rightly stiled by Plato not only the Maker but also the Father of the whole World as being an Animal To the same purpose also Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The World being made as a large and stately Edifice was neither cut off and separated from its Maker nor yet mingled and confounded with him Forasmuch as he still remaineth above Presiding over it The World being so animated as rather to be possessed by Soul than to possess it it lying in that great Psyche which sustaineth it as a net in the waters all moistned with Life Thus Plotinus supposing the whole Corporeal World to be Animated affirmeth it neither to be cut off from its Maker by which Maker he here understands the Mundane Soul nor yet that Mundane Soul it self to be Immersed into its Body the World after the same manner as our humane Souls are into these Bodies but so to preside over it and act it as a thing Elevated above it And though according to him that Second Divine Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect be in like manner Elevated above this Mundane Soul and again that First Hypostasis or Supreme Deity called by him Vnity and Goodness above Intellect yet the Corporeal World could not be said to be cut off from these neither they being all three Monad Mind and Soul closely and intimately united together XXX The Hebrews were the only Nation who before Christianity for several ages professedly opposed the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Pagan World Wherefore it may be probably concluded that they had the right Notion of this Pagan Polytheism and understood what it consisted in viz. Whether in
Pagans but what had Life Sense and Understanding Wherefore those Personated Gods that were nothing but the Natures of Things Deified as such were but Dii Commentitii Fictitii Counterfeit and Fictitious Gods or as Origen calls them in that place before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Figments of the Greeks and other Pagans that were but Things turned into Person and Deified Neither can there be any other sence made of these Personated and Deified Things of Nature than this that they were all of them really so many Several Names of One Supreme God or Partial Considerations of him according to the Several Manifestations of himself in his Works Thus according to the old Egyptian Theology before declared God is said to have both No Name and Every Name or as it is expressed in the Asclepian Dialogue Cum non possit Vno quamvis è Multis composito Nomine nuncupari potius Omni Nomine vocandus est siquidem sit Vnus Omnia ut necesse sit aut Omnia Ipsius Nomine aut Ipsum Omnium Nomine nuncupari Since he cannot be fully declared by any one Name though compounded of never so many therefore is he rather to be called by Every Name he being both One and All Things so that either Every Thing must be called by His Name or He by the Name of Every thing With which Egyptian Doctrine Seneca seemeth also fully to agree when he gives this Description of God Cui Nomen Omne convenit He to whom every Name belongeth and when he further declares thus concerning him Quaecunque voles illi Nomina aptabis and Tot Appellationes ejus possunt esse quot Munera You may give him whatsoever Names you please c. and There may be as many Names of him as there are Gifts and Effects of his and lastly when he makes God and Nature to be really One and the same Thing and Every thing we see to be God And the Writer De Mundo is likewise consonant hereunto when he affirmeth that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or may be denominated from Every Nature because he is the Cause of all things We say therefore that the Pagans in this their Theologizing of Physiology and Deifying the Things of Nature and Parts of the World did accordingly Call Every Thing by the Name of God or God by the Name of Every Thing Wherefore these Personated and Deified Things of Nature were not themselves Properly and Directly worshipped by the Intelligent Pagans who acknowledged no Inanimate thing for a God so as to terminate their worship ultimately in them but either Relatively only to the Supreme God or else at most in way of Complication with him whose Effects and Images they are so that they were not so much themselves worshipped as God was worshipped in them For these Pagans professed that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look upon the Heaven and World not slightly and superficially nor as meer Bruit Animals who take notice of nothing but those sensible Phantasms which from the objects obtrude themselves upon them or else as the same Julian in that Oration again more fully expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not view and contemplate the Heaven and World with the same eyes that Oxen and Horses do but so as from that which is Visible to their outward senses to discern and discover another Invisible Nature under it That is they professed to behold all things with Religious Eyes and to see God in Every Thing not only as Pervading all things and Diffused thorough all things but also as Being in a manner All things Wherefore they looked upon the whole World as a Sacred Thing and as having a kind of Divinity in it it being according to their Theology nothing but God himself Visibly Displayed And thus was God worshipped by the Pagans in the whole Corporeal World taken all at once together or in the Universe under the Name of Pan. As they also commonly conceived of Zeus and Jupiter after the same manner that is not Abstractly only as we now use to conceive of God but Concretely together with all that which Proceedeth and Emaneth from him that is the Whole World And as God was thus described in that old Egyptian Monument to be All that Was Is and Shall be so was it before observed out of Plutarch that the Egyptians took the First God and the Vniverse for One and the same Thing not only because they supposed the Supreme God Vertually to contain all things within himself but also because they were wont to conceive of him together with his Outflowing and all the extent of Fecundity the whole World displayed from him all at once as one entire thing Thus likewise do the Pagans in Plato confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greatest God and The Whole World together as being but one and the same thing And this Notion was so Familiar with these Pagans that Strabo himself writing of Moses could not conceive of his God and of the God of the Jews any otherwise than thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely That which containeth us all and the Earth and the Sea which we call the Heaven and World and the Nature of the Whole By which notwithstanding Strabo did not mean the Heaven or World Inanimate and a Sensless Nature but an Understanding Being framing the whole World and containing the same which was conceived together with it of which therefore he tells us that according to Moses no wise man would go about to make any Image or Picture resembling any thing here amongst us From whence we conclude that when the same Strabo writing of the Persians affirmeth of them that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take the Heaven for Jupiter and also Herodotus before him that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Call the Whole Circle of the Heaven Jupiter that is the Supreme God the meaning of neither of them was that the Body of the Heaven Inanimate was to them the Highest God but that though he were an Understanding Nature yet framing the whole Heaven or World and containing the same he was at once conceived together with it Moreover God was worshipped also by the Pagans in the Several Parts of the wrorld under Several Names as for example in the Higher and Lower Aether under those Names of Minerva and Jupiter in the Air under the name of Juno in the Fire under the name of Vulcan in the Sea under the name of Neptune c. Neither can it be reasonably doubted but that when the Roman Sea-Captains Sacrificed to the Waves they intended therein to worship that God who acteth in the Waves and whose Wonders are in the Deep But besides this the Pagans seemed to apprehend a kind of necessity of worshipping God thus in his works and in the Visible things of this World because the generality of the Vulgar were then unable to frame any notion or conception at all
Powers of One God Personated and Deified by the Pagans though they had an appearance also of Many Distinct Gods yet were they really nothing but Several Denominations of One Supreme God who as yet is considered as a Thing distinct from the World and Nature But Lastly as God was supposed by these Pagans not only to Pervade All things and To Fill All things but also he being the Cause of All things to be Himself in a manner All things so was he called also by the Name of Every thing or Every thing called by His Name that is the several Things of Nature and Parts of the World were themselves Verbally Deified by these Pagans and called Gods and Goddesses Not that they really accounted them such in themselves but that they thought fit in this manner to acknowledge God in them as the Author of them all For thus the Pagans in St. Austin Vsque adeone inquiunt Majores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est ut haec nescirent Munera Divina esse non Deos Can you think that our Pagan Ancestors were so sottish as not to know that these Things are but Divine Gifts and not Gods themselves And Cicero also tells us that the meaning of their thus Deifying these Things of Nature was only to signifie that they acknowledged The Force of all things to be Divine and to be Governed by God and that whatsoever brought any great Vtility to Mankind was not such Without the Divine Goodness They conceiving also that the Invisible and Incomprehensible Deity which was the Cause of All things ought to be worshipped in All its Works and Effects in which it had made it self Visible accordingly as they declare in that place of Eusebius before cited in part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they did not Deifie those Visible Bodies of the Sun and Moon and Stars nor the other Sensible Parts of the World themselves but those Invisible Powers of the God over all that were displayed in them For they affirm that that God who is but One but yet Filleth all things with his various Powers and passes through all things forasmuch as he is Invisibly and Incorporeally present in all is reasonably to be worshipped in and by those Visible Things Athanasius B p. of Alexandria in his Book against the Greeks reduces all the False Gods of the Pagans under Two general Heads the First Poetical Fictitious or Phantastical Gods the Second Creatures or Real Things of Nature Deified by them His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Since this Reason or Discourse of ours hath sufficiently convinced both the Poetical Gods of the Pagans to be no Gods at all and also that they who Deifie the Creatures are in a great Errour and so hath confuted the whole Pagan Idolatry proving it to be meer Vngodliness and Impiety there is nothing now but the True Piety left he who is worshipped by us Christians being the only True God the Lord of Nature and the Maker of all Substances From whence we may observe that according to Athanasius the Pagan Poetick Gods were no Real Things in Nature and therefore they could be no other than the Several Notions and Powers of the One Supreme God Deified or Several Names of him So that Athanasius his Poetick Gods or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods fabulously devised by the Poets were chiefly those Two Kinds of Pagan Gods first mentioned by us that is the Various Considerations of the One Supreme Numen according to its general Notion expressed by so many Proper Names and Secondly his Particular Powers diffused thorough the World severally Personated and Deified Which considered as so many distinct Deities are nothing but meere Fiction and Phancy without any Reality And this do the Pagans themselves in Athanasius acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They say that the names of those Gods are meerly Fictitious and that there does no where Really Exist any such Jupiter or Saturn or Juno or Mars but that the Poets have feigned them to be so many persons Existing to the deception of their Auditors Notwithstanding which that Third Sort of Pagan Gods also mentioned by us which were Inanimate Substances and the Natures of Things Deified may well be accounted Poetical Gods likewise because though those things themselves be Real and not Feigned yet is their Personation and Deification meer Fiction and Phancy and however the first occasion thereof sprung from this Theological Opinion or Perswasion That God who is In All Things and is the Cause of All Things ought to be worshipped In All Things especially he being himself Invisible yet the making of those things themselves therefore to be so many Persons and Gods was nothing but Poetick Fiction and Phantastry accordingly as their old Mythology and Allegorical Fables of the Gods run much upon this strain XXXIV Hitherto have we declared the Sence of the Pagans in General those also being included who supposed God to be a Being Elevated above the World That they agreed in these Two Things First the Breaking and Crumbling as it were of the Simple Deity and Parcelling out of the same into Many Particular Notions and Partial Considerations according to the Various Manifestations of its Power and Providence in the world by the Personating and Deifying of which Severally they made as it were so Many Gods of One. The chief Ground whereof was this because they considered not the Deity according to its Simple Nature and Abstractly only but Concretely also with the World as he Displayeth himself therein Pervadeth all and Diffuseth his Vertues thorough all For as the Sun reflected by Grosser Vapours is sometimes Multiplied and the same Object beheld through a Polyedrous Glass by reason of those many Superficies being represented in several places at once is thereby rendred Manifold to the Spectator So One and the same Supreme God considered Concretely with the World as Manifesting his Several Powers and Vertues in it was multiplied into Several Names not without the Appearance of so Many Several Gods Whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with those ancient Pagans was the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which hath Many Names all one with that which hath Many Powers According to this of Callimachus concerning Diana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this of Virgil concerning Alecto Tibi Nomina Mille Mille nocendi Artes. And accordingly the Many Pagan Gods are in Plato's Cratylus interpreted as the Many Powers of One God Diffused through the World And the Pagan Theologers seemed to conceive this to be more sutable to the Pomp State and Grandeur of the Supreme God for him to be considered Diffusively and called by Many Names signifying his Many Several Vertues and Powers Polyonymy being by them accounted an Honour rather than to be contracted and shrunk all up into One General Notion of a Perfect Mind the Maker or Creator of the whole World The Second Thing in which the Pagans agreed
immovably and unchangeably Good always fixed in the same Happiness and never indigent of Good or falling from it because they are all Essentially Goodnesses Where afterward he adds something concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also that though these were a Rank of Lower Beings and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Essentially Goodnesses but only by Participation yet being by their own Nature also Immovable they can never degenerate nor fall from that Participation of Good Notwithstanding which we must confess that some of these Platonists seem to take the word Henades sometimes in another sence and to understand nothing else thereby but the Intelligible Ideas before mentioned though the ancient Platonists and Pythagoreans were not wont to call these Vnities but Numbers And now have we discovered more of the Pagans Inferiour Gods Supermundane and Eternal viz. besides those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Intelligible Gods Troops of Henades and Autoagathotetes Vnities and Goodnesses and also of Noes Immovable Minds or Intellects or as they frequently call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Henadical or Monadical Gods and Intellectual Gods But since these Noes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are said to be all of them in their own nature a Rank of Beings above Souls and therefore Superiour to that First Soul which is the Third Hypostasâ—s of this Trinity as all those Henades or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Simple Monadical Gods are likewise yet a higher Rank of Beings above the Noes and therefore Superiour to the Second Hypostasis also the First Mind and yet all these Henades and Noes however supposed by these Philosophers to be Eternal forasmuch as they are Particular Beings only and not Vniversal cannot be placed higher than in the Rank of Creatures it follows from hence unavoidably that both the Second and Third Hypostasis of this Trinity as well the First Mind as the First Soul must be accounted Creatures also because no Created Being can be Superiour to any thing Vncreated Wherefore Proclus and some others of those Platonists plainly understood this Trinity no otherwise than as a certain Scale or Ladder of Beings in the Universe or a Gradual Descent of things from the First or Highest by steps downward lower and lower so far as to the Souls of all Animals For which cause Proclus to make up this Scale complete adds to these three Ranks and Degrees below that Third of Souls a Fourth of Natures also under which there lies nothing but the Passive Part of the Universe Body and Matter So that their Whole Scale of all that is above Body was indeed not a Trinity but a Quaternity or Four Ranks and Degrees of Beings one below another the First of Henades or Vnities the Second of Noes Minds or Intellects the Third of Souls and the Last of Natures these being as it were so many Orbs and Spheres one within and below another In all which several Ranks of Being they supposed One First Vniversal and Vnparticipated as the Head of each respective Rank and Many Particular or Participated Ones as One First Vniversal Henade and Many Secondary Particular Henades One First Universal Nous Mind or Intellect and Many Secondary and Particular Noes or Minds One First Vniversal Soul and Many Particular Souls and Lastly One Vniversal Nature and Many Particular Natures In which scale of Beings they Deified besides the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and Good not only the First Mind and the First Soul but also those other Particular Henades and Noes universally and all Particular Souls above Humane leaving out besides them and Inferiour Souls that Fourth Rank of Natures because they conceived that nothing was to be accounted a God but what was Intellectual and Superiour to Men. Wherein though they made Several Degrees of Gods one below another and called some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Eternal and some Generated or Made in time yet did they no where clearly distinguish betwixt the Deity properly so called and the Creature nor shew how far in this Scale the True Deity went and where the Creature began But as it were melting the Deity by degrees and bringing it down lower and lower they made the Juncture and Commissure betwixt God and the Creature so smooth and close that where they indeed parted was altogether undiscernible They rather implying them to differ only in Degrees or that they were not Absolute but Comparative Terms and consisted but in More and Less All which was doubtless a gross Mistake of the ancient Cabbala of the Trinity This is therefore that Platonick Trinity which we oppose to the Christian not as if Plato's own Trinity in the very Essential Constitution thereof were quite a Different Thing from the Christian it self in all probability having been at first derived from a Divine or Mosaick Cabbala but because this Cabbala as might well come to pass in a thing so Mysterious and Difficult to be conceived hath been by divers of these Platonists and Phytagoreans Misunderstood Depraved and Adulterated into such a Trinity as Confounds the Differences between God and the Creature and removes all the Bounds and Land-marks betwixt them sinks the Deity lower and lower by Degrees still multiplying of it as it goes till it have at length brought it down to the Whole Corporeal World and when it hath done this is not able to stop there neither but extends it further still to the Animated Parts thereof Stars and Demons The Design or Direct Tendency thereof being nothing else but to lay a Foundation for Infinite Polytheism Cosmolatry or World-Idolatry and Creature-Worship Where it is by the way observable that these Platonick Pagans were the only Publick and Professed Champions against Christianity for though Celsus were suspected by Origen to have been indeed an Epicurean yet did he at least Personate a Platonist too The reason whereof might be not only because the Platonick and Pythagorick Sect was the Divinest of all the Pagans and that which approached nearest to Christianity and the Truth however it might by accident therefore prove the worst as the Corruption of the Best thing and by that means could with greatest confidence hold up the Bucklers against Christianity and encounter it but also because the Platonick Principles as they might be understood would of all other serve most plausibly to defend the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry Concerning the Christian Trinity we shall here observe only Three Things First that it is not a Trinity of meer Names or Words nor a Trinity of Partial Notions and Inadequate Conceptions of One and the Same Thing For such a kind of Trinity as this might be conceived in that First Platonick Hypostasis it self called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The One and The Good and perhaps also in that First Person of the Christian Trinity namely of Goodness and Vnderstanding or Wisdom and Will or
Energy This is the Immediate and as it were Manuary Opificer of the whole World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which actually Governs Rules and Presideth over all Amelius in that Passage of his before cited out of Proclus calling these Three Divine Hypostases Three Minds and Three Kings styles the First of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that is The Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that Hath and the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him that Beholds In which Expressions though Peculiar to himself he denotes an Essential Dependence and Gradual Subordination in them Now that which is most liable to exception in this Platonick Scale or Gradâ—tion of the Deity sâ—ems to be the Difference betwixt the First and the Second For whereas the Essential Character of the Second is made to be Vnderstanding Reason and Wisdom it seems to follow from hence that either the First and the Second are really nothing else but two different Names or Inadequate Conceptions of One and the same thing or else if they be distinct Hypostases or Persons that the First of them must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devoid of Mind Reason and Wisdom which would be very absurd To which all the reply we can make is as follows First that this is indeed one Peculiar Arcanum of the Platonick and Pythagorick Theology which yet seems to have been first derived from Orpheus and the Egyptians or rather from the Hebrews themselves that whereas the Pagan Theologers generally concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mind and Vnderstanding properly so called was the Oldest of all things the Highest Principle and First Original of the World those others placed something above it and consequently made it to be not the First but the Second Which they did chiefly upon these Three following Grounds First Because Vnderstanding Reason Knowledg and Wisdom cannot be conceived by us mortals otherwise than so as to contain something of Multiplicity in them whereas it seems most reasonable to make the First Principle of all not to be Number or Multitude but a perfect Monad or Vnity Thus Plotinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Intellection as well as Vision is in its own nature an Indefinite thing and is determined by the Intelligible therefore it is said that Ideas as Numbers are begotten from Infinite Duality and Vnity And such is Intellect which consequently is not Simple but Many it contemplating Many Ideas and being compounded of Two That which is Vnderstood and that which Vnderstands And again elswhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Principle of every thing is more Simple than the thing it self Wherefore the Sensible World was made from Intellect or the Intelligible and before this must there needs be something more Simple still For Many did not proceed from Many but this Multiform thing Intellect proceeded from that which is not Multiform but Simple as Number from Vnity To this purpose does he argue also in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If that which understands be Many or contein Multitude in it then that which conteins no Multitude does not properly understand and this is the First thing but Intellection and Knowledge properly so called are to be placed among things which follow after it and are Second And he often concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Knowledge properly so called by reason of its Multiplicity belongs to the Second Rank of Being and not the First Another Ground or Reason is Because in order of Nature there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something Intelligible before Intellect and from hence does Plotinus conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That to Vnderstand is not the First neither in Essence nor in Dignity but the Second a thing in order of Nature after the First Good and springing up from thence as that which is moved with desire towards it Their Third and last Ground or Reason is Because Intellection and Knowledge are not the Highest Good that therefore there is some Substantial thing in order of Nature Superiour to Intellect Which Consideration Plato much insisteth upon in his sixth Book De Republica Now upon these several Accounts do the Platonists confidently conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Supreme Deity is more Excellent and Better than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or the Word Intellect and Sense he affording these things but not being these himself And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which was Generated from the First Principle was Logos Word or Reason Manifold But the First Principle it self was not Word If you demand therefore How Word or Reason should proceed from that which is not Word or Reason we answer as that which is Boniform from Goodness it self With which Platonick Pythagorick Doctrine exactly agreeth Philo the Jew also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God which is before the Word or Reason is better and more excellent than all the Rational Nature neither is it fit that any thing which is Generated should be perfectly like to that which is Originally from it self and above all And indeed we should not have so much insisted upon this had it not been by reason of a Devout Veneration that we have for all the Scripture-mysteries which Scripture seems to give no small Countenance to this Doctrine when it makes in like manner an Eternal Word and Wisdom to be the Second Hypostasis of the Divine Triad and the First-begotten Son or Off-spring of God the Father And Athanasius as was before observed very much complieth here also with the Platonick Notion when he denies that there was any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Reason or Wisdom before that Word and Son of God which is the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity What then Shall we say that the First Hypostasis or Person in the Platonick Trinity if not the Christian also is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensless and Irrational and altogether devoid of Mind and Vnderstanding Or would not this be to introduce a certain kind of Mysterious Atheism and under pretence of Magnifying and Advancing the Supreme Deity Monstrously to Degrade the same For why might not Sensless Matter as well be supposed to be the First Original of all things as a Sensless Incorporeal Being Plotinus therefore who rigidly and superstitiously adheres to Plato's Text here which makes the First and Highest Principle of all to be such a Being as by reason of its Absolute and Transcendent Perfection is not only above Vnderstanding Knowledge and Reason but also above Essence it self which therefore he can find no other names for but only Vnity and Goodness Substantial and consequently Knowledge and Wisdom to be but a Second or Post Nate Thing though Eternal but notwithstanding does seem to labour under this Metaphysical Prosundity he sometimes endeavours to solve the difficulty
only one General and Vniversal Essence of the Godhead belonging to them all they being all God but were also Three Individuals under One and the same Vltimate Species or Specifick Essence and Substance of the Godhead Just as Three Individual men Thomas Peter and John under that Vltimate Species of Man or that Specifick Essence of Humanity which have only a Numerical Difference from one another Wherefore an Hypostasis or Person in the Trinity was accordingly thus defined by some of these Fathers viz. Anastasius and Cyril to be Essentia cum suis quibusdam Proprietatibus ab iis quae sunt ejusdem Speciei Numero differens an Essence or Substance with its Certain Properties or Individuating Circumstances differing only Numerically from those of the same Species with it This Doctrine was plainly asserted and Industriously pursued besides several others both of the Greeks and Latins especially by Gregory Nyssen Cyril of Alexandria Maximus the Martyr and Damascen whose words because Petavius hath set them down at large we shall not here insert Now these were they who principally insisted upon the Absolute Co-Equality and Independent Co-Ordination of the Three Hypostases or Persons in the Trinity as compared with one another Because as Three Men though one of them were a Father Another a Son and the Third a Nephew yet have no Essential Dependence one upon another but are Naturally Co-Equal and Vnsubordinate there being only a Numerical Difference betwixt them so did they in like manner conclude that the Three Hypostases or Persons of the Deity the Father Son and Holy Ghost being likewise but Three Individuals under the same Vltimate Species or Specifick Essence of the Godhead and differing only Numerically from one another were Absolutely Co-Equal Vnsubordinate and Independent and this was that which was Commonly called by them their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality Wherefore it is observable that St. Cyril one of these Theologers finds no other fault at all with the Platonick Trinity but only this that such an Homoousiotes such a Co-Essentiality or Consubstantiality as this was not acknowledged therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There would have been nothing at all wanting to the Platonick Trinity for an Absolute agreement of it with the Christian had they but accommodated the right Notion of Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality to their Three Hypostases so that their might have been but one Specifick Nature or Essence of the Godhead not further distinguishable by any Natural Diversity but Numerically only and so no one Hypostasis any way Inferiour or Subordinate to another That is had these Platonists complied with that Hypothesis of St. Cyril and others that the Three Persons of the Trinity were but Three Independent and Co-Ordinate Individuals under the same Ultimate Species or Specifick Essence of the Godhead as Peter Paul and John under that Species or Common Nature of Humanity and so taken in this Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality of theirs then had they been completely Orthodox Though we have already shewed that this Platonick Trinity was in another sence Homoousian and perhaps it will appear afterwards that it was so also in the very sence of the Nicene Fathers and of Athanasius Again these Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity or Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three Men are Three Men these learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove That Three Men are but Abusively and Improperly so called Three they being really truly but One because there is but One the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Humane Nature in them all and seriously perswaded men to lay aside that kind of Language By which same Logick of theirs they might as well prove also that all the men in the world are but One Man and that all Epicurus his Gods were but one God neither But not to urge here that according to this Hypothesis there cannot possibly be any reason given why there should be so many as Three such Individuals in the Species of God which differ only Numerically from one another they being but the very same thing thrice repeated and yet that there should be no more than Three such neither and not Three Hundred or Three Thousand or as many as there are individuals in the Species of Man we say not to urge this it seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-Ordinate too And therefore some would think that the Ancient and Genuine Platonick Trinity taken with all its faults is to be preferred before this Trinity of St. Cyril and St. Gregory Nyssen and several other reputed Orthodox Fathers and more agreeable to the Principles both of Christianity and of Reason However it is evident from hence that these Reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same Singular Existent Essence they supposing them to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be One God than Three Individual Men have one Common Specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all One Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for Tritheistick so in the room thereof started there up that other Trinity of Persons Numerically the Same or having all One and the same Singular Existent Essence a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only And that no such thing was ever entertained by the Nicene Fathers and those First opposers of Arianism might be rendered probable in the First place from the free Confession and Acknowledgment of D. Petavius a Person well acquainted with Ecclesiastick Antiquity and for this reason especially because many are much led by such new Names and Authorities In eo praecipuam vim collocasse Patres ut Aequalem Patri Naturâ Excellentiâque Filium esse defenderent citra expressam SINGVLARITATIS mentionem licet ex eo conjicere Etenim Nicaeni isti Praesules quibus nemo melius Arianae Sectae arcana cognovit nemo qua re opprimenda maximè foret acrius dijudicare potuit nihil in Professionis suae formulâ spectarunt aliud nisi ut Aequalitatem illam Essentiae Dignitatis Aeternitatis astruerent Testatur hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vox ipsa quae arx quaedam fuit Catholici Dogmatis Haec enim Aequalitatem potius Essentiae quam SINGVLARITATEM significat ut Capite Quinto docui Deinde caetera ejusdem modi sunt in illo Decreto ut c. The chief force which the Ancient Fathers opposed against the Arian Hereticks was in asserting only the Equality of the Son with the Father as to Nature or Essence without any express mention of the SINGVLARITY of the same
destroying the very being of the Son Where Vsia Essence or Substance in that Fictitious word Monoousios is taken for Singular or Existent Essence the whole Deity being thus said by Sabellius to have only One Singular Essence or Hypostasis in it whereas in the word Homoousios is understood a Common or Vniversal Generical or Specifical Essence the Son being thus said to agree with the Father in the Common Essence of the Godhead as not being a Creature Wherefore Athanasius here disclaimeth a Monoousian Trinity as Epiphanius did before a Tautoousian both of them a Trinity of meer Names and Notions or Inadequate Conceptions of One and the Same Singular Essence or Hypostasis they alike distinguishing them from the Homoousian Trinity as a Trinity of Real Hypostates or Persons that have severally their Own Singular Essence but agree in one Common and Vniversal Essence of the Godhead they being none of them Creatures but all Uncreated or Creators From whence it is plain that the ancient Orthodox Fathers asserted no such thing as One and the Same Singular or Numerical Essence of the several Persons of the Trinity this according to them being not a Real Trinity but a Trinity of meer Names Notions and Inadequate Conceptions only which is thus disclaimed and declared against by Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity is not a Trinity of meer Names and Words only but of Hypostases truely and really Existing But the Homoousian Trinity of the Orthodox went exactly in the Middle betwixt that Monoousian Trinity of Sabellius which was a Trinity of different Notions or Conceptions only of One and the Self-Same Thing and that other Heteroousian Trinity of Arius which was a Trinity of Separate and Heterogeneous Substances one of which only was God and the other Creatures this being a Trinity of Hypostases or Persons Numerically differing from one another but all of them agreeing in one Common or General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature which is Eternall and Infinite Which was also thus particularly declared by Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Church doth neither believe less than this Homoousian Trinity lest it should comply with Judaism or sink into Sabellianism nor yet more than this left on the other hand it should tumble down into Arianism which is the same with Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry it introducing in like manner the worshipping of Creatures together with the Creator And now upon all these Considerations our Platonick Christian would conclude that the Orthodox Trinity of the ancient Christian Church did herein agree with the Genuinely Platonick Trinity that it was not Monoousian One Sole Singular Essence under Three Notions Conceptions or Modes only but Three Hypostases or Persons As likewise the right Platonick Trinity does agree with the Trinity of the ancient Orthodox Christians in this that it is not Heteroousian but Homoousian Coessential or Consubstantial none of their Three Hypostases being Creatures or Particular Beings made in Time but all of them Vncreated Eternal and Infinite Notwithstanding all which it must be granted that though this Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Three Persons in the Trinity does imply them to be all God yet does it not follow from thence of necessity that they are therefore One God What then shall we conclude that Athanasius himself also entertained that opinion before mentioned and exploded Of the Three Persons in the Trinity being but Three Individuals under the same Species as Peter Paul and Timothy and having no other Natural Vnity or Identity than Specifical only Indeed some have confidently fastned this upon Athanasius because in those Dialogues Of the Trinity published amongst his works and there entitled to him the same is grosly owned and in defence thereof this Absurd Paradox maintained that Peter Paul and Timothy though they be Three Hypostases yet are not to be accounted Three men but only then when they dissent from one another or disagree in Will or Opinion But it is certain from several Passages in those Dialogues themselves that they could not be wriâ—ten by Athanasius and there hath been also another Father found for them to wit Maximus the Martyr Notwithstanding which thus much must not be denied by us that Athanasius in those others his reputedly Genuine Writings does sometime approach so near hereunto that he lays no small stress upon this Homoousiotes this Coessentiality and Common Nature of the Godhead to all the Three Persons in order to their being One God For thus in that Book entitled Concerning the Common Essence of the Three Persons and the Chapter inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there are not Three Gods doth Athanasius lay his Foundation here When to that question proposed How it can be said that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there are not Three Gods the First Reply which he makes is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there is a Communion of Nature there is also one Common Name of Dignity bestowed And thus doth God himself call things divided into Multitudes from one Common Nature by One Singular Name For both when he is angry with men doth he call all those who are the objects of his anger by the name of One Man and when he is reconciled to the world is he reconciled thereto as to One Man The first Instances which he gives hereof are in Gen. the 6. the 3. and 7. Verses My Spirit shall not always strive with Man and I will destroy Man whom I have Created Upon which Athanasius makes this Reflexion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though there was not then only one man but Infinite Myriads of men nevertheless by the name of One Nature doth the Scripture call all those men One Man by reason of their Community of Essence or Substance Again he commenteth in like manner upon that other Scripture-passage Exodus the 15.1 The Horse and his Rider hath he thrown into the Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Pharaoh went out to the Red Sea and fell with Infinite Chariots in the same and there were many men that were drowned together with him and many Horses yet Moses knowing that there was but One Common Nature of all those that were drowned speaketh thus both of the Men and Horses The Lord hath thrown both the Horse and the Rider into the Sea he calling such a Multitude of Men but One Singular Man and such a Multitude of Horses but One Horse Whereupon Athanasius thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If therefore amongst men where the things of Nature are confounded and where there are differences of Form Power and Will all men not having the same disposition of Mind nor Form nor Strength as also different Languages from whence men are called by the Poets Meropes nevertheless by reason of the Community of Nature the whole world is called One Man might not that Trinity of Persons where there is an Vndivided Dignity One Kingdom One
Power One Will and One Energy be much rather called One God But though it be true that Athanasius in this place if at least this were a Genuine Foetus of Athanasius may Justly be thought to attribute too much to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Common Nature Essence or Substance of all the Three Persons as to the making of them to be truly and properly One God and that those Scripture-passages are but weakly urged to this purpose yet is it plain that he did not acquiesce in this only but addeth other things to it also as their having not only One Will but also One Energy or Action of which more afterwards Moreover Athanasius elsewhere plainly implieth that this Common Essence or Nature of the Godhead is not sufficient alone to make all the Three Hypostases One God As in his Fourth Oration against the Arians where he tells us that his Trinity of Divine Hypostases cannot therefore be accounted Three Gods nor Three Principles because they are not resembled by him to Three Original Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour and the Light from both Now Three Suns according to the Language of Athanasius have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Nature Essence and Substance and therefore are Coessential or Consubstantial and since they cannot be accounted one Sun it is manifest that according to Athanasius this Specifick Identity or Unity is not sufficient to make the Three Divine Hypostases One God Again the same Athanasius in his Exposition of Faith writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither do we acknowledge Three Hypostases Divided or Separate by themselves as is to be seen corporeally in men that we may not comply with the Pagan Polytheism From whence it is Evident that neither Three Separate Men though Coessential to Athanasius were accounted by him to be One Man nor yet the Community of the Specifick Nature and Essence of the Godhead can alone by it self exclude Polytheism from the Trinity Wherefore the true reason why Athanasius laid so great a stress upon this Homoousiotes or Coessentially of the Trinity in order to the Vnity of the Godhead in them was not because this alone was sufficient to make them One God but because they could not be so without it This Athanasius often urges against the Arians as in his Fourth Oration where he tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they must needs introduce a Plurality of Gods because of the Heterogeneity of their Trinity And again afterwards determining that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Species of the Godhead in Father Son and Spirit he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus do we acknowledge one only God in the Trinity and maintain it more Religiously than those Hereticks do who introduce a Multiform Deity consisting of divers Species we supposing only One Vniversal Godhead in the whole For if it be not thus but the Son be a Creature made out of nothing however called God by these Arians then must He and his Father of necessity be Two Gods one of them a Creator the other a Creature In like manner in his Books Of the Nicene Council he affirmeth concerning the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they make in a manner Three Gods dividing the Holy Monad into Three Heterogeneous Substances Separate from one another Whereas the right Orthodox Trinity on the contrary is elsewhere thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy and perfect Trinity Theologized in the Father Son and Spirit hath nothing Aliene Foreign or Extraneous intermingled with it nor is it compounded of Heterogeneous things the Creator and Creature joyned together And whereas the Arians interpreted that of our Saviour Christ I and my Father are One only in respect of Consent or Agreement of Will Athanasius shewing the insufficiency hereof concludeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore besides this Consent of Will there must of necessity be another Vnity of Essence or Substance also acknowledged in the Father and the Son Where by Vnity of Essence or Substance that Athanasius did not mean a Vnity of Singular and Individual but of General or Vniversal Essence only appears plainly from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those things which are Made or Created though they may have an Agreement of Will with their Creator yet have they this by Participation only and in a way of Motion as he who retaining not the same was cast out of Heaven But the Son being begotten from the Essence or Substance of the Father is Essentially or Substantially One with him So that the Opposition here is betwixt Vnity of Consent with God in Created Beings which are Mutable and Vnity of Essence in that which is Vncreated and Immutably of the same Will with the Father There are also many other places in Athanasius which though some may understand of the Vnity of Singular Essence yet were they not so by him intended but either of Generick or Specifick Essence only or else in such other sence as shall be afterwards declared As for Example in his Fourth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We acknowledge only One Godhead in the Trinity where the following words plainly imply this to be understood in part at least of One Common or General Essence of the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because if it be not so but the Word be a Creature made out of Nothing he is either not truly God or if he be called by that name then must they be two Gods one a Creator the other a Creature Again when in the same Book it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son and the Father are One thing in the Propriety of Nature and in the Sameness of one Godhead it is evident from the Context that this is not to be understood of a Sameness of Singular Essence but partly of a Common and Generical One and partly of such another Sameness or Unity as will be hereafter expressed Lastly when the Three Hypostases are somewhere said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Essence or Substance this is not to be understood neither in that place as if they had all Three the same Singular Essence but in some of those other Sences before mentioned But though Athanasius no where declare the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have only One and the same Singular Essence but on the contrary denies them to be Monoousian and though he lay a great stress upon their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Specifick or Generick Vnity and Coessentiality in order to their being One God for as much as without this they could not be God at all yet doth he not rely wholly upon this as alone sufficient to that purpose but addeth certain other considerations thereunto to make it out in manner as followeth First that this Trinity is not a Trinity of Principles but that there is only One Principle
to quarrel with that of our Lord I am in the Father and the Father in me objecting How is it possible that both the Former should be in the Latter and the Latter in the Former Or how can the Father being Greater be received in the Son who is Lesser And yet what wonder is it if the Son should be in the Father since it is written of us men also That in him we Live and Move and have our Being In way of reply whereunto Athanasius first observes that the Ground of this Arian Cavillation was the Grossness of their Apprehensions and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conceive of Incorporeal things after a Corporeal manner And then does he add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Father and Son are not as they suppose Transvasated and Poured out one into another as into an Empty Vessel as if the Son filled up the Concavity of the Father and again the Father that of the Son and neither of them were full or perfect in themselves For all this is proper to Bodies wherefore though the Father be in some sence Greater than the Son yet notwithstanding may he be in him after an Incorporeal manner And he replieth to their Last Cavil thus That the Son is not so in the Father as we our selves are said to Live and Move and Be in God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For he himself from the Fountain of the Father is that Life in whom all things are quickned and consist neither does he who is the Life live in another Life which were to suppose him not to be the Life it self Nor saith he must it be conceived that the Father is no otherwise in the Son than he is in holy men Corroborating of them for the Son himself is the Power and Wisdom of God and all Creatâ—d Beings are sanctified by a Participation of him in the Spirit Wherefore this Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of the Father and the Son is to be understood after a Peculiar manner so as that they are Really thereby One and what the Son and Holy Ghost doth the Father doth in them accordig to that of Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father and so the Father exercises a Providence over all things in the Son Lastly the same Athanasius in sundry places still further supposes those Three Divine Hypostases to make up one Entire Divinity aftâ—r the same manner as the Fountain and the Stream make up one Entire River or the Root and the Stock and the Branches one Entire Tree And in this sence also is the whole Trinity said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity and One Nature and One Essence and One God And accordingly the word Homousios seems here to be taken by Athanasius in a further sence besides that before mentioned not only for things Agreeing in one Common and General Essence as Three Individual men are Coessential with one another but also for such as concurrently together make up One Entire Thing and are therefore Joyntly Essential thereunto For when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Tree is Congenerous or Homogenial with the Root and the Branches Coessential with the Vine his meaning is that the Root Stock and Branches are not only of One Kind but also all together make up the Entire Essence of One Plant or Tree In like manner those Three Hypostases the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not only Congenerous and Coessential as having all the Essence of the Godhead alike in them but also as Concurrently Making up one Entire Divinity Accordingly whereunto Athanasius further concludes thâ—t these Three Divine Hypostases have not a Consent of Will only but Essentially one and the Self Same Will and that they do also joyntly produce ad extra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the Self-same Energy Operation or Action nothing being Peculiar to the Son as such but only the Oeconomy of the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity is like it self and by Nature Indivisible and there is One Energy or Action of it for the Father By the Word In the Holy Ghost doth all things And thus is the Vnity of the Holy Trinity conserved and One God preached in the Church Namely such as is Above all and By or Through all and In all Above all as the Father the Principle and Fountain Through all by the Word and In all by the Holy Spirit And elsewhere he writeth often to the same purpose Thus have we given a true and full account how according to Athanasius the Three Divine Hypostases though not Monoousious but Homoousious only are Really but One God or Divinity In all which doctrine of his there is nothing but what a True and Genuine Platonist would readily suâ—scribe to From whence it may be concluded that the right Platonick Trinity differs not so much from the Doctrine of the Ancient Church as some late Writers have supposed Hitherto hath the Platonick Christian endeavoured partly to Rectifie and Reform the True and Genuine Platonick Trinity and partly to Reconcile it with the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Nevertheless to prevent all mistakes we shall here declare that wheresoever this most Genuine Platonick Trinity may be found to differ not only from the Scripture it self which yet notwithstanding is the sole Rule of Faith but also from the Form of the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councils and further from the Doctrine of Athanasius too in his Genuine writings whether it be in their Inequality or in any thing else is there utterly disclaimed and rejected by us For as for that Creed commonly called Athanasian which was written a long time after by some other hand since at first it derived all its authority either from the Name of Athanasius to whom it was Entituled or else because it was supposed to be an Epitome and Abridgement of his Doctrine this as we conceive is therefore to be interpreted according to the Tenour of that Doctrine contained in the Genuine Writings of Athanasius Of whom we can think no otherwise than as a person highly Instrumental and Serviceable to Divine Providence for the preserving of the Christian Church from lapsing by Arianism into a kind of Paganick and Idolatrous Christianity in Religiously Worshipping of those which themselves concluded to be Creatures and by means of whom especially the Doctrine of the Trinity which before fluctuated in some loose Uncertainty came to be more punctually Stated and Settled Now the Reason why we introduced the Platonick Christian here thus Apologizing was First because we conceived it not to be the Interest of Christianity that the ancient Platonick Trinity should be made more discrepant from the Christian than indeed it is And Secondly because as we have already proved the Ancient and Genuine Platonick
Paradigm of that God truly Good which is Self-begotten and his own Parent For this is greater and before him and the Fountain of all things the foundation of all the first Intelligible Ideas Wherefore from this one did that Self sufficient God who is Autopator or his own Parent cause himself to shine forth for this is also a Principle and the God of Gods a Monad from the first One before all Essence Where so far as we can understand Jamblichus his meaning is that there is a Simple Vnity in order of Nature before that Tagathon or Monad which is the First of the Three Divine Hypostases And this Doctrine was afterward taken up by Proclus he declaring it in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato every where ascends from multitude to Vnity from whence also the order of the Many proceeds but before Plato and according to the Natural order of things One is before Multitude and every Divine order begins from a Monad Wherefore though the Divine Number proceed in a Trinity yet before this Trinity must there be a Monad Let there be Three Demiurgical Hypostases nevertheless before these must there be One because none of the Divine orders begins from Multitude We conclude that the Demiurgical Number does not begin from a Trinity but from a Monad standing alone by it self before that Trinity Here Proclus though endeavouring to gain some countenance for this doctrine out of Plato yet as fearing lest that should fail him does he fly to the order of Nature and from thence would infer that before the Trinity of Demiurgick Hypostases there must be a Single Monad or Henad standing alone by it self as the Head thereof And St. Cyril of Alexandria who was Juniour to Jamblichus but Senior to Proclus seems to take notice of this Innovation in the Platonick Theology as a thing then newly crept up and after the time of â—orphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But those before mentioned contradict this Doctrine of Porphyrius the ancient Platonists affirming that the Tagathon ought not to be connumerated or reckoned together with those which proceed from it but to be exempted from all Communion because it is altogether Simple and uncapable of any Commixture or Consociation with any other Wherefore these begin their Trinity with Nous or Intellect making that the First The only difference here is that Jamblichus seems to make the first Hypostasis of the Trinity after a Monad to be Tagathon but St. Cyril Nous. However they both meant the same thing as also did Proclus after them Wherefore it is evident that when from the time of the Nicene Council and Athanasius the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity came to be punctually stated and settled and much to be insisted upon by Christians Jamblichus and other Platonists who were great Antagonists of the same perceiving what advantage the Christians had from the Platonick Trinity then first of all Innovated this Doctrine introducing a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases instead of a Trinity the First of them being not Coordinate with the other Three nor Consociated or Reckoned with them But All of them though Subordinate yet Universal and such as Comprehend the whole that is Infinite and Omnipotent and therefore none of them Creatures For it is certain that before this time or the Age that Iamblichus lived in there was no such thing at all dream'd of by any Platonist as an Vnity before and above the Trinity and so a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases Plotinus positively determining that there could neither be More nor Fewer than Three and Proclus himself acknowledging the Ancient Tradition or Cabala to have run only of Three Gods and Numenius who was Senior to them both writing thus of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he also before Plato Asserted Three Gods that is Three Divine Hypostases and no more as Principles therein following the Pythagoreans Moreover the same Proclus besides his Henades and Noes before mentioned added certain other Phantastick Trinities of his own also as this for example of the First Essence the First Life and the First Intellect to omit others whereby that Ancient Cabala and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theology of Divine Tradition of Three Archical Hypostases and no more was disguised perverted and adulterated But besides this Advantage from the ancient Pagan Platonists and Pythagoreans admitting a Trinity into their Theology in like manner as Christianity doth whereby Christianity was the more recommended to the Philosophick Pagans there is another Advantage of the Same extending even to this present time probably not Unintended also by Divine Providence That whereas Bold and Conceited Wits precipitantly condemning the Doctrine of the Trinity for Nonsence absolute R. pugnancy to Humane Faculties and Impossibility have thereupon some of them quite shaken off Christianity and all Revealed Religion professing only Theism others have frustrated the Design thereof by Pagmizing it into Creature-Worship or Idolatry this Ignorant and Conceited Confidence of both may be retunded and confuted from hence because the most ingenious and acute of all the Pagan Philosophers the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had no byass at all upon them nor any Scripture Revelation that might seem to impose upon their Faculties but followed the free Sentiments and Dictates of their own Minds did notwithstanding not only entertain this Trinity of Divine Hypostases Eternal and Vncreated but were also fond of the Hypothesis and made it a main Fundamental of their Theology It now appears from what we have declared that as to the Ancient and Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans none of their Trinity of Gods or Divine Hypostases were Independent so neither were they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creature-Gods but Vncreated they being all of them not only Eternal and Necessarily Existent and Immutable but also Vniversal that is Infinite and Omnipotent Causes Principles and Creators of the whole World From whence it follows that these Platonists could noâ— justly be taxed for Idolatry in giving Religious Worship to each Hypostâ—sis of this their Trinity And we have the rather insisted so long upon this Platonick Trinity because we shall make use of this Doctrine afterwards in our Defence of Christianity where we are to show That one Grand Design of Christianity being to abolish the Pagan Idolatry or Creature-Worship it self cannot justly be charged with the same from that Religious Worship given to our Saviour Christ and the Trinity the Son and Holy Ghost they being none of them according to the true and Orthodox Christianity Creatures however the Arian Hypothesis made them such And this was indeed the Grand Reason why the Ancient Fathers so zealously opposed Arianism because That Christianity which was intended by God Almighty for a means to extirpate Pagan Idolatry was thereby it self Paganized and Idolatrized and made highly guilty of that very thing which it so much condemned in the Pagans that is Creature-Worship This might be proved by sundry testimonies of Athanasius Basil Gregory Nyssen
of Sense and Vnderstanding or the Entities of Soul and Mind could never have Resulted from any Modifications of Sensless Matter whatsoever Wherefore since it is Mathematically certain that our Humane Souls and Persons could not Possibly have been Generated out of Matter one of these Two things will undeniably follow That Either they must all have Existed Of Themselves from Eternity Vnmade or Else have been Created 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an Antecedent Non-Existence by a Perfect Vnderstanding Being Vnmade or atleast have Derived their whole Substance from it So that it is altogether as certain that there is a God as that our Humane Souls and Persons did not all Exist from Eternity Of Themselves And that there must be some Eternal Vnmade Mind hath been already Demonstrated also from the same Principle Nothing out of Nothing Thus have We abundantly Confuted the Second Atheistick Argumentation that there can be no Omnipotence nor Divine Creation because Nothing can be Made out of Nothing we having plainly shewed that this very Principle in the True Sense thereof affordeth a Demonstration for the Contrary THe Six following Atheistick Argumentations driving at these Two things First the Disproving of an Incorporeal and then of a Corporeal Deity From both which the Atheists conceive it must follow of necessity that there can be none at all we shall take them all together and in order to the Confutation of them perform these Three Things First we shall Answer the Atheistick Argumentations against an Incorporeal Deity contained in the Third and Fourth Heads Secondly we shall shew that from the very Principles of the Atheistick Corporealism as represented in the Fifth and Sixth Heads Incorporeal Substance is Demonstrable And Lastly That there being undeniably Incorporeal Substance the Two following Atheistick Argumentations also against a Corporeal Deity in the Seventh and Eighth Sections prove altogether Insignificant We begin with the First of these To shew the Invalidity of the Atheistick Argumentations against an Incorporeal Deity It hath been already observed That though all Corporealists be not therefore of necessity Atheists yet Atheists universally have been Corporealists this being always their First and Grand Postulatum That there is no other Substance besides Body Thus Plato long ago declared Concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They contend strongly that that only really Is which is Tangible or Can Resist their Touch concluding Body and Substance to be one and the self-same thing And if any one should affirm that there is any thing Incorporeal they will presently cry him down and not hear a word more from him For there can be no doubt but that the Persons here intended by Plato were those very Atheists which himself spake of afterward in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether shall we assent to that Opinion nâ—w adays entertained by so many That Nature Generateth all things from a certain Fortuitous Cause without the direction of any Mind or Vnderstanding or rather that it produceth them according to Reason and Knowledge proceeding from God Indeed the Philosopher there tells us that some of these Atheistick Persons began then to be somewhat ashamed of making Prudence and Justice and other Moral Vertues Corporeal Things or Bodys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though they affirm concerning the Soul it self that this seems to them to be Corporeal yet concerning Prudence and those other Vertues mentioned some have now scarcely the Confidence to maintain these to be either Bodies or Nothing But this saith he was indeed no less than the quite Giving up of the Cause of Atheism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if it be but once granted that there is never so little Incorporeal this will be sufficient to overthrow the Atheistiek Foundation Wherefore he concludes that such as these were but Mongrel and Imperfect Atheists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they who are thorough-paced and Genuine Atheists indeed will bogle at neither of those forementioned things but contend that whatsoever they cannot grasp with their hands is altogether Nothing That is that there is no other Substance nor Entity in the World but only Body that which is Tangible or Resists the Touch. Aristotle also representeth the Atheistick Hypothesis after the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They affirm that Matter or Body is all the Substance that is and that all other things are but the Passions and Affections thereof And again in his Metaphysicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These men maintain All to be One and that there is but one Only Nature as the Matter of all things and this Corporeal or endued with Magnitude And now we see plainly that the ancient Atheists were of the very same mind with these in our Days that Body or that which is Tangible and Divisible is the Only Substantial Thing from whence it follows that an Incorporeal Substance would be the same with an Incorporeal Body i. e. an Impossibility and that there can be no Incorporeal Deity But in the Management of this Cause there hath been some Disagreement amongst the Atheists themselves For First the Democriticks and Epicureans though consenting with all the other Atheists in this That whatsoever was Vnextended and devoid of Magnitude was therefore Nothing so that there could neither be any Substance nor Accident or Mode of any Substance Vnextended did notwithstanding distinguish concerning a Double Nature First That which is so Extended as to be Impenetrable and Tangible or Resist the Touch which is Body And Secondly That which is Extended also but Penetrably and Intangibly which is Space or Vacuum a Nature according to them really distinct from Body and the only Incorporeal Thing that is Now since this Space which is the only Incorporeal can neither Do nor Suffer any thing but only give Place or Room to Bodies to Subsist in or Pass thorough therefore can there not be any Active Vnderstanding Incorporeal Deity This is the Argumentation of the Democritick Atheists To which we Reply That if Space be indeed a Nature distinct from Body and a Thing Really Incorporeal as they pretend then will it undeniably follow from this very Principle of theirs that there must be Incorporeal Substance and this Space being supposed by them also to be Infinite an Infinite Incorporeal Deity Because if Space be not the Extension of Body nor an Affection thereof then must it of necessity be either an Accident Existing alone by it self without a Substance which is Impossible or else the Extension or Affection of some other Incorporeal Substance that is Infinite But here will Gassendus step in to help out his good Friends the Democriticks and Epicureans at a dead Lift and undertake to maintain that though Space be indeed an Incorporeal Thing yet it would neither follow of necessity from thence that it is an Incorporeal Substance or Affection thereof nor yet that it is an Accident Existing alone by it self without a Substance because this Space is really neither Accident nor
Generated from a Fortuitous Commixture of those Similar Atoms or the Qualities of Heat and Cold Moist and Dry and the like Contempered together And we confess that there is some probability for this Opinion Notwithstanding which because there is no Absolute certainty thereof and because all these Ancient Atheists agreed in this that Life and Vnderstanding are either First and Primary or else Secondary Qualities of Body Generable and Corruptible Therefore did we not think fit to Multiply Forms of Atheism but rather to make but one kind of Atheism of all this calling it indifferently Hylopathian or Anaximandrian The Second Atheistick Hypothesis is that Form of Atheism described Under the Sixth Head which likewise supposing Body to be the only Substance and the Principles thereof devoid of Life and Vnderstanding does reject all Real Qualities according to the Vulgar Notion of them and Generate all things whatsoever besides Matter meerly from the Combinations of Magnitudes Figures Sites and Motions or the Contextures of Vnqualified Atoms Life and Vnderstanding not excepted Which therefore according to them being no Simple Primitive and Primordial thing but Secondary Compounded and Derivative the meer Creature of Matter and Motion could not possibly be a God or First Principle in the Universe This is that Atomick Atheism called Democritical Leucippus and Democritus being the First Founders thereof For though there was before them another Atomology which made Vnqualified Atoms the Principles of all Bodies it supposing besides Body Substance Incorporeal yet were these as Laertius declareth the First that ever made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensless Atoms the Principles of all things whatsoever even of Life and Vnderstanding Soul and Mind Indeed it cannot be denied but that from these Two Things granted That all is Body and That the Principles of Body are devoid of all Life and Vnderstanding it will follow unavoidably that there can be no Corporeal Deity Wherefore the Stoicks who professed to acknowledge no other Substance besides Body and yet nevertheless had a strong Perswasion of the Existence of a God or an Eternal Vnmade Mind the Maker of the whole World denied that other Proposition of the Atheistick Corporealists that the Principles of all Bodies were devoid of Life and Vnderstanding they asserting an Intellectual Fire Eternal and Vnmade the Maker of the whole Mundane System Which Postulatum of a Living Intellectual Body Eternal were it granted to these Stoicks yet could not this their Corporeal God notwithstanding be Absolutely Incorruptible as Origen often inculcateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God to the Stoicks is a Body and therefore Mutable Alterable and Changeable and he would indeed be perfectly Corruptible were there any other Body to act upon him Wherefore he is only Happy in this that he wants a Corrupter or Destroyer And thus much was therefore rightly urged by the Atheistick Argumentator that no Corporeal Deity could be Absolutely in its own Nature Incorruptible nor otherwise than by Accident only Immortal because of its Divisibility For were there any other Matter without this World to make Inroads or Incursions upon it or to Disunite the Parts thereof the Life and Vnity of the Stoical Corporeal God must needs be Scattered and Destroyed And therefore of this Stoical God does the same Origen thus further write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God of the Stoicks being a Body hath sometimes the whole for its Hegemonick in the Conflagration and sometimes only a part of the Mundane Matter For these Men were not able to reach to a clear Notion of the Deity as a Being every way Incorruptible Simple Vncompounded and Indivisible Notwithstanding which these Stoicks were not therefore to be ranked amongst the Atheists but far to be preferred before them and accounted only a kind of Imperfect Theists But we shall now make it evident that in both these Atheistick Corporealisms agreeing in those Two things That Body is the only Substance and That the Principles of Body are not Vital there is an Absolute Impossibility not only because as Aristotle objecteth they supposed no Active Principle but also because their bringing of Life and Understanding being Real Entities out of Dead and Sensless Matter is also the Bringing of Something out of Nothing And indeed the Atomick Atheist is here of the two rather the more Absurd and Unreasonable for as much as he discarding all Real Qualities and that for this very Reason because Nothing can come out of Nothing doth himself notwithstanding produce Life Sense and Vnderstanding Unquestionable Realities out of meer Magnitudes Figures Sites and Motions that is indeed Out of Nothing Wherefore there being an Absolute Impossibility of both these Atheistick Hypotheses neither of which is able to salve the Phaenomenon of Life and Vnderstanding from that confessed Principle of theirs that Matter as such hath no Life nor Vnderstanding belonging to it it follows unavoydably that there must be some other Substance besides Body or Matter which is Essentially Vital and Intellectual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because all things cannot possibly have a Peregrine Adventitious and Borrowed Life but something in the Universe must needs have Life Naturally and Originally All Life cannot be meerly Accidental Generable and Corruptible producible out of nothing and Reducible to Nothing again but there must of Necessity be some Substantial Life Which Point That all Life is not a meer Accident but that there is Life Substantial hath been of late with much Reason and Judgment insisted upon the Urged by the Writer Of the Life of Nature Neither must there be only such a Substantial Life as is Naturally Immortal for the future but also such as is Eternal and was never Made all other Lives and Minds whatsoever none of which could possibly be Generated out of Matter being derived from this Eternal Vnmade Fountain of Life and Vnderstanding Which thing the Hylozoick Atheists being well aware of namely that there must of Necessity be both Substantial and Eternal Vnmade Life but supposing also Matter to be the only Substance thought themselves necessitated to attribute to all Matter as such Life and Vnderstanding though not Animalish and Conscious but Nâ—tural only they conceiving that from the Modification thereof alone by Organization all other Animalish Life not only the Sensitive in Brutes but also the Rational in Men was derived But this Hylozoick Atheism thus bringing all Conscious and Reflexive Life or Animality out of a Supposed Sensless Stupid and Inconscious Life of Nature in Matter and that meerly from a different Accidental Modification thereof or Contexture of Parts does again plainly bring Something out of Nothing which is an Absolute Impossibility Moreover this Hylozoick Atheism was long since and in the first Emersion thereof Solidly Confuted by the Atomick Atheists after this manner If Matter as such had Life Perception and Vnderstanding belonging to it then of Necessity must every Atom or Smallest Particle thereof be a Distinct Percipient by it self from whence it will follow
the Regurgitation of the Faeces upward towards the Ventricle The First Atheistick Instance of the Faultiness of things in the Frame of Nature is from the Constitution of the Heavens and the Disposition of the Aequator and Ecliptick intersecting each other in an Angle of Three and Twenty Degrees and upwards whereby as they pretend the Terrestrial Globe is rendred much more Uninhabitable than otherwise it might be But this is built upon a False Supposition of the Ancients that the Torrid Zone or all between the Tropicks was utterly Uninhabitable by reason of the Extremity of Heat And it is certain that there is nothing which doth more demonstrate a Providence than this very thing it being the most Convenient Site or Disposition that could be devised as will appear if the Inconveniences of other Dispositions be considered especially these Three First If the Axes of those Circles should be Parallel and their Plains Coincident Secondly If they should Intersect each other in Right Angles and Thirdly which is a Middle betwixt both If they should cut one another in an Angle of Forty Five Degrees For it is evident that each of these Dispositions would be attended with far greater Inconveniences to the Terrestrial Inhabitants in respect of the Length of Days and Nights Heat and Cold. And that these two Circles should continue thus to keep the same Angular Intersection when Physical and Mechanick Causes would bring them still nearer together this is a farther Eviction of a Providence also In the next place the Atheist supposes that according to the general Perswasion of Theists the world and all things therein were Created only for the Sake of Man he thinking to make some advantage for his Cause from hence But this seemeth at first to have been an Opinion only of some strait-laced Stoicks though afterward indeed recommended to others also by their own Self-love their Over Weaning and Puffy Conceit of themselves And so Fleas and Lice had they Understanding might conclude the Bodies of other greater Animals and Men also to have been made only for them But the Whole was not properly made for any Part but the Parts for the Whole and the Whole for the Maker thereof And yet may the things of this Lower World be well said to have been Mâ—de Principally though not Only for Man For we ought not to Monopolize the Divine Goodness to our selves there being other Animals Superiour to us that are not altogether Unconcerned neither in this Visible Creation and it being reasonable to think that Even the Lower Animals likewise and whatsoever hath Conscious Life was made partly also to Enjoy it self But Atheists can be no Fit Judges of Worlds being made Well or Ill either in general or respectively to Mankind they having no Standing Measure for Well and Ill without a God and Morality nor any True Knowledge of themselves and what their own Good or Evil Consisteth in That was at first but a Froward Speech of some sullen discontented Persons when things falling not out agreeably to their own Private Selfish and Partial Appetites they would Revenge themselves by Railing upon Nature that is Providence and calling her a Stepmother only to Mankind whilst she was a Fond Partial and Indulgent Mother to other Animals and though this be Elegantly set off by Lucretius yet is there nothing but Poetick Flourish in it all without any Philosophick Truth The Advantages of Mankind being so notoriously conspicuous above those of Brutes But as for Evils in general from whence the Atheist would conclude the God of the Theist to be either Impotent or Envious it hath been already declared that the True Original of them is from the Necessity of Imperfect Beings and the Incompossibility of things but that the Divine Art and Skill most of all appeareth in Bonifying these Evils and making them like Discords in Musick to contribute to the Harmony of the Whole and the Good of Particular Persons Moreover a great part of those Evils which men are afflicted with is not from the Reality of Things but only from their own Phancy and Opinions according to that of the Moralist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not Things themselves that disturb men but only their Own Opinions concerning things and therefore it being much in our own Power to be freed from these Providence is not to be Blamed upon the account of them Pain is many times nearly linked with Pleasure according to that Socratick Fable That when God could not reconcile their Contrary Natures as he would he Tyed them Head and Tayl together And good men know that Pain is not the Evil of the Man but only of the Part so affected as Socrates also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It goes no further than the Leg where it is But this is many times very Serviceable to free us from the Greater Evils of the Mind upon which all our Happiness dependeth To the Atheists who acknowledge no Malum Culpae No Evil of Fault Turpitude or Dishonesty Death is the Greatest and most Tragical of all Evils But though this according to their forlorn Hypothesis be nothing less than an Absolute Extinction of Life yet according to the Doctrine of the Genuine Theists which makes all Souls Substantial no Life of it self without Divine Annihilation will ever quite Vanish into Nothing any more than the Substance of Matter doth And the Ancient Pythagoreans and Platonists have been here so Kind even to the Souls of Brutes also as that they might not be left in a State of Inactivity and Insensibility after Death as to bestow upon them certain Subtle Bodies which they may then continue to Act in Nor can we think otherwise but that Aristotle from this Fountain derived that Doctrine of his in his Second Book De Gen. An. c. 3. where after he had declared the Sensitive Soul to be Inseparable from Body he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Souls therefore seem to have another Body and Diviner than that of the Elements and as themselves differ in Dignity and Nobility so do these Bodies of theirs differ from one another And afterwards calling this Subtle Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Spirit he affirmeth it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Analogous to the Element of the Stars Only as Galen and S. Austin and others have conceived Aristotle deviated here from the Pythagoreans in this that he supposed the Sensitive Soul it self to be really nothing else but this Very Subtle and Star-like Body and not a distinct Substance from it using it only as a Vehicle Nevertheless he there plainly affirmeth the Mind or Rational Soul to be really distinct from the Body and to come into it From Without Pre-Existing and consequently should acknowledge also its After-Immortality But whatsoever Aristotles Judgment were which is not very Material it is Certain that Dying to the Rational or Humane Soul is nothing but a withdrawing into the Tyring-house and putting off the Clothing of this Terrestrial Body
mâ—y by Signs Dâ—clâ—re Velle se non Licitum sibi amplius fore certum aliquid facere quòd Jure anteà fecisse poterant That it is their Will it shall no longer be Lawful for them to do something which before they had a Right to do and this is called by him a Simple Renunciation of Right and â—urther saith he they may declare again Velle se non Licitum sibi amplius fore aliâ—ui Resistere c. That it is their Will it shall be no longer Lawful for them to Resist this or that particular Person whom before they might Lawfully hâ—ve resisted and this is called a Translation of Right But if there be Nothing in its own Nature Vnlawful then cannot this be Vnlâ—wful for a man afterwards to make use of such Liberty as he had before in Words Renounced or Abandoned Nor can any man by his meer Will make any thing Vnlawful to him which was not so in it self but only Suspend the Exercise of so much of his Liberty as he thought good But however could a man by his Will Oblige himself or make any thing Vnlawful to him there would be Nothing got by this because then might he by his Will Disoblige himself again and make the same Lawful as before For what is Made meerly by Will may be Destroyed by Will Wherefore these Politicians will yet urge the business further and tell us That no man can be Obliged but by his own Act and that the Essence of Injustice is Nothing else but Dati Repetitio The taking away of that which one had before given To which we again Reply that were a man Naturally Vnobliged to any thing then could he no way be Oblâ—ged to stand to his own Act so that it should be Really Vnjust and Unlawful for him at any time upon Second thoughts Voluntarily to undo what he had before voluntarily done But the Atheists here plainly Render Injustice a meer Ludicrous thing when they tell us that it is Nothing but such an Absurdity in Life as it is in Disputation when a man Denies a Proposition that he had before Granted Which is no Real Evil in him as a Man but only a thing Called an Absurdity as a Disputant That is Injustice is no Absolute Evil of the Man but only a Râ—lative Incongruity in him as a Citizen As when a man speaking Lâ—tine observes not the Laws of Grammar this is a kind of Injustice in him as a Latinist or Grammarian so when one who lives in Civil Society observes not the Laws and Conditions thereof this is as it were The False Latine of a Citizen and nothing else According to which Notion of Injustice there is no such Real Evil or Hurt in it as can any way withstand the Force of Appetite and Private Vtility and Oblige men to Civil Obedience when it is Contrary to the same But these Political Juglers and Enchanters will here cast yet a further Mist before mens Eyes with their Pacts and Covenants For men by their Covenants say they may Unquestionably Oblige themselves and make things Vnjust and Vnlawful to them that were not so before Wherefore Injustice is again Defined by them and that with more Speciousness to be the Breach of Covenants But though it be true that if there be Natural Justice Covenants will Oblige yet upon the Contrary Supposition that there is Nothing Naturally Vnjust this cannot be Vnjust neither to Break Covenants Covenants without Natural Justice are nothing but meer Words and Breath as indeed these Atheistick Politicians themselves agreeably to their own Hypothesis call them and therefore can they have no Force to Oblige Wherefore these Justice-Makers are themselves at last necessitaâ—ed to fly to Laws of Nature and to Pretend this to be a Law of Nature That men should Stand to their Pacts and Covenants Which is plainly to Contradict their main Fundamental Principle that by Nature nothing is Vnjust or Vlawâ—ul for if it be so then can there be no Laws of Nature and if there be Laws of Nature then must there be something Naturally Unjust and Unlawful So that this is not to Make Justice but clearly to Vnmake their own Hypothesis and to suppose Justice to have been already Made by Nature or to be in Nature which is a Gross Absurdity in Disputation to Affirm what one had before Denied But these their Laws of Nature are indeed nothing but Jugling Equivocation and a meer Mockery themselves again acknowledging them to be no Laws because Law is nothing but the Word of him who hath Command over others but only Conclusions or Theorems concerning what conduces to the Conservation and Defence of themselves upon the Principle of Fear that is indeed the Laws of their own Timorous and Cowardly Complexion for they who have Courage and Generosity in them according to this Hypothesis would never Submit to such sneaking Terms of Equality and Subjection but venture for Dominion and resolve either to Win the Saddle or Loose the Horse Here therefore do our Atheistick Politicians plainly daunce round in a Circle they first deriving the Obligation of Civil Laws from that of Covenants and then that of Covenants from the Laws of Nature and Lastly the Obligation both of these Laws of Nature and of Covenants themselves again from the Law Command and Sanction of the Civil Sovereign without which neither of them would at all Oblige And thus is it manifest how vain the Attempts of these Politicians are to Make Justice Artificially when there is no such thing Naturally which is indeed no less than to make Something out of Nothing and by Art to Consociate into Bodies Politick those whom Nature had Dissociated from one another a thing as impossible as to Ty Knots in the Wind or Water or to build up a Stately Palace or Castle out of Sand. Indeed the Ligaments by which these Politicians would tie the Members of their huge Leviathan or Artificial Man together are not so good as Cobwebs they being really nothing but meer Will and Words For if Authority and Sovereignty be made only by Will and Words then is it plain that by Will and Words they may be Vnmade again at pleasure Neither indeed are these Atheistick Politicians themselves altogether unaware hereof that this their Artificial Justice and Obligation can be no firm Vinculum of a Body Politick to Consociate those together and Unite them into One who are Naturally Dissociated and Divided from one another they acknowledging that Covenants without the Sword being but Words and Breath are of no strength to hold the Members of their Leviathan or Body Politick together Wherefore they plainly betake themselves at length from Art to Force and Power and make their Civil Sovereign really to Reign only in Fear And this must needs be their meaning when they so constantly declare All Obligation Just and Vnjust to be derived only from Law they by Law there understanding a Command directed to such as by reason of
such as made the World to be the Third God Such a Trinity a Confounding of God and Creature together Page 551 552 And that this an Adulterated Notion of the Trinity evident from hence because no Reason why these Philosophers should stop here since the Sun Moon and Stars and their other Generated Gods differ not in Kind but onely in Degree from the World Page 552 Neither will this excuse them that they understood this chiefly of the Soul of the World Since if there were such a Mundane Soul as together with the VVorld made up One Animal this it self must needs be a Creature also ibid. This probably the Reason why Philo though acknowledging the Divine Word as a Second God and Second Cause yet no-where speaketh of a Third God lest he should thereby seem to Deify the whole Created World Though he call God also in some Sense the Soul of the World too whether meaning thereby his First or his Second God So that Philo seems to have acknowledged onely a Duality and not a Trinity of Divine Hypostases Page 552 553 Another Depravation of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theology of Divine Tradition or Cabbala of the Trinity That some of these Platonists and Pythagoreans concluding all those several Idea's of the Divine Intellect or Archetypall World to be so many distinct Substances Animals and Gods have thereby made their Second Hypostasis not One but a Heap of Innumerable Gods and Hypostases and consequently destroyed their Trinity Page 553 Though Philo again here Platonized so far as to suppose an Incorporeal Heaven and Earth and an Intelligible Sun Moon and Stars to have been made before the Corporeal and Sensible yet does he no-where declare them to be so many distinct Substances and Animals much less Gods but on the contrary censures that for Pagan Idolatry This Pretence of worshipping the Divine Idea's in all Sensible things that which gave Sanctuary and Protection to the Foulest and Sottishest of all the Pagan Idolatries The Egyptians worshipping Brute Animals thus and the Greeks the Parts of the World Inanimate and Natures of Things Page 554 A Third Depravation or Adulteration of the Divine Cabbala of the Trinity by Proclus and other latter Platonists asserting an innumerable Company of Henades Particular Unities Superiour to the First Nous or Intellect their Second Hypostasis as also innumerable Noes Substantiall Minds or Intellects Superiour to the First Psyche their Third Hypostasis Page 555 These Noes seem to be asserted by Plotinus also as likewise the Henades and Agathotetes were by Simplicius Page 555 556 A Swarm of Innumerable Pagan Gods from hence besides their Intelligible Gods or Idea's Particular Henades and Noes Unities and Intellects ibid. Now since these Particular Henades and Noes of theirs must needs be Creatures the Trinity of Proclus and such others nothing but a Scale or Ladder of Nature wherein God and the Creature are Confounded together the Juncture or Commissure betwixt them being no-where discernible as if they differ'd onely in Degrees A gross Mistake and Adulteration of the Ancient Cabbala of the Trinity Page 556 557 This that Platonick or rather Pseudo-Platonick Trinity by us opposed to the Christian viz. such a Trinity as confounds the Differences betwixt God and the Creature bringing the Deity by degrees down lower and lower and at length scattering it into all the Animated Parts of the World A Foundation for Infinite Polytheism Cosmolatry or World-Idolatry and Creature-Worship Hence the Platonists and Pythagoreans the Fittest men to be Champions for Paganism against Christianity Page 557 558 Concerning the Christian Trinity Three things to be Observed First that it is not a Trinity of meer Names and Words nor Logicall Notions or Inadequate Conceptions of God this Doctrine having been condemned by the Christian Church in Sabellius and others but a Trinity of Hypostases Subsistences or Persons Page 558 559 The Second thing Observable in the Christian Trinity That though the Second Hypostasis thereof were Begotten from the First and the Third Proceedeth both from the First and Second yet neither of them Creatures First because not made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from an Antecedent Non-existence brought forth into Being but both of them Coeternall with the Father Secondly because all Necessarily existent and Un-Annihilable Thirdly because all of them Universall or Infinite and Creatours of all other Particular Beings Page 559 The Third Observable as to the Christian Trinity That the Three Hypostases thereof are all Truly and Really One God not onely by Reason of Agreement of Will but also of a Mutuall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Permeation of each other and Inexistence Though no Instance of the like Unity to be found elsewhere in Nature yet since two distinct Substances Corporeal and Incorporeal make one Man and Person in our Selves much more may Three Divine Hypostases be One God ibid. Though much of Mystery in the Christian Trinity yet nothing of plain Contradiction to Reason therein that is no Nonsense and Impossibility The Ill Design of those who represent the Christian Trinity as absolutely Contradictious to Reason that they may thereby debauch mens Vnderstandings and make them swallow down other things which unquestionably are such Page 560 The Christian Trinity much more agreeable to Reason then the Pseudo-Platonick in the Three Particulars before mentioned First its making their Third Hypostasis the Animated World or Mundane Soul Which not onely too great a Leap betwixt the Second and Third but also a gross Debasement of the Deity and Confounding it with the Creature a Foundation for World-Idolatry and worshipping Inanimate Things as Parts and Members of God ibid. God to Origen but Quasi Anima Mundi As it were the Soul of the World and not Truly and Properly such All the Perfection of this Notion to be attributed to God but not the Imperfection thereof Page 560 561 Certain that according to the more refined Platonists their Third Divine Hypostasis not a Mundane but Supra-mundane Soul and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Opificer of the whole World So to Amelius Porphyrius and Plotinus A Double Soul of the World to Plato likewise The Third Hypostasis to these no Creature but a Creatour Page 562 So in their Second Particular whereby the forementioned Pseudo-Platonick Trinity no Trinity its making all the Idea's and Archetypal Paradigms of things so many Hypostases Animals and Gods This a Monstrous Extravagancy Not to be doubted but that Plato well understood these Idea's to be Nothing but Noemata or Conceptions of the Divine Mind existing no-where apart by themselves however called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essences or Substances because not such Accidental and Evanid things as our Humane Thoughts are they being the Standing and Eternall Objects of all Science As also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animals to signify that they were not meer Dead Forms as Pictures upon Paper or Carved Statues And thus did not onely Amelius understand S. John
or Identity besides Consent of Will or that they all agree in the Uncreated Nature onely This Grossly asserted in the Dialogues of the Trinity Vulgarly Imputed to Athanasius and to that purpose also That Three Men are not Three Men but onely then when they Dissent from one another in Will and Opinion But these Dialogues Pseudepigraphous Nevertheless to be Granted that Athanasius himself in that Book of the Common Essence of the Persons seems to lay something too much Stresse upon this Common Nature Essence or Substance of the Three Persons as to the making of them all but One God However it is certain he does not there rely upon that alone and elsewhere acknowledgeth it to be insufficient The true Reason why Athanasius laid so great a Stresse upon the Homoousiotes not because this alone would make them One God but because they could not possibly be One God without it For if the Father be Uncreated and the Son a Creature then can they not both be One God Several Passages of Athanasius Cited to this purpose Those Expressions in him of One Godhead and the Sameness of the Godhead and One Essence or Substance in the Trinity not so to be understood as if the Three Persons were but several Names Notions or Modes of One Thing Page 612 616 Wherefore though Athanasius lay his Foundation in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Specifick Unity of the Persons which is their Consubstantiality in order to their being One God yet does he superadde other Considerations also thereunto A◠first of all this That they are not Three Principles but onely One the Essence of the Father being the Root and Fountain of the Son and Spirit and the Three Hypostases gathered together under One Head Where Athanasius implies That were they perfectly Co-ordinate and Independent they would not be One but Three Gods Page 616 In the next place he further addeth That these Three Hypostases are not Three Separated Disjoined Things but Indivisibly United as the Splendor is Indivisible from the Sun and Wisedom from him that is Wise. That neither of these Persons could be without the other nor any thing come between them they so immediately Conjoyned together as that there is a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Continuity betwixt them Page 616 617 Thirdly Athanasius goes yet higher affirming these Three Hypostases not onely to be Indivisibly Conjoyned but also to have a Mutual Inexistence in each other This afterwards called an Emperichoresis That of our Saviour I am in the Father and the Father in me therefore Quarrelled at by the Arians because they conceived of Things Incorporeal after a Corporeal manner That the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father and the Father exercises a Providence over all in the Son Page 617 619 Lastly Athanasius also in Sundry Places supposes the Three Divine Hypostases to make up one Entire Divinity as the Fountain and the Stream make up one entire River the Root Stock and Branches one entire Tree Accordingly the word Homoousios used by Athanasius in a further Sense not onely to signify things Agreeing in one Common and General Essence but also such as Essentially Concurr to the making up of One Entire thing That the Three Hypostases do Outwardly or Ad extrà produce all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the self-same Action the Father By the Word In the Holy Spirit doing all things That all this Doctrine of Athanasius would have been readily assented to by Plato and his Genuine Followers The Platonick Christian therefore Concludeth That there is no such Real Difference betwixt the Genuine Platonick Trinity and that of the First Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers as some conceive From which notwithstanding that Tritheistick Trinity of S. Greg. Nyssen Cyril and others of Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Species as Three Men seems to have been a Deviation Page 619 620 Hitherto the Platonick Christians Apology for the Genuine Platonick Trinity or Endeavour to reconcile it with the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Where nothing is asserted by our selves but all Submitted to the Judgement of the Learned in these Matters And whatsoever in Plato's Trinity shall be found Discrepan◠from the sense of the First Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers utterly disclaimed by us Athanasius a great Instrument of Divine Providence for preserving the Christian Church from Lapsing into a kind of Paganick and Idolatrous Christianity ibid. The Reason of this Apology for the Genuine Platonick Trinity Because it is against the Interest of Christianity that this should be made more Discrepant from the Christian then indeed it is Moreover certain that this Genuine Platonick Trinity was Anti-Arian or rather the Arian Anti-Platonick Wherefore Socrates wondered that Georgius and Timotheus Presbyters should adhere to the Arian Faction when one of them was accounted much a Platonist the other an Origenist Page 620 621 Furthermore Platonick Pagans after Christianity highly approved of the Beginning of S. John's Gospell concerning the Logos as exactly agreeing with their Platonick Doctrine Thus Amelius in Eusebius and others A Platonist in S. Austine That it deserved to be writ in Golden Letters and set up in some Eminent places in every Christian Church But that which is most of all Considerable to Justify this Apology The generality of Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Councill look'd upon this Platonick Trinity if not as really the Same thing with the Christian yet as approaching so near thereunto that it differed chiefly in Circumstances or Manner of Expression Thus Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Origen S. Cyprian or the Authour of the Book De Spiritu Sancto Eusebius Caesariensis and which is most of all to the purpose Athanasius himself he giving a Signal Testimony thereunto To which may be added S. Austine and Theodoret. S. Cyril though blaming the Platonick Subordination Himself supposing the Trinity to be Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Specifick Nature of the Godhead yet acknowledges that Plato was not altogether ignorant of the Truth c. But that Plato's Subordination of his Second Hypostasis to the First was not as the Arian of a Creature to the Creatour already made unquestionably Evident Page 621 625 Wherefore a Wonderfull Providence of Almighty God here to be taken notice of That this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should be entertained in the Pagan World before Christianity as it were to prepare a way for the Reception of it amongst the Learned Which the Junior Platonists were so sensible of that besides their other Adulterations of the Platonick Trinity before mentioned for the Countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they at length Innovated and Altered the whole Cabbala now no longer acknowledging a Trinity but at least a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases namely before and besides the Trinity another Hypostasis superiour thereunto and standing alone by it self This first started by Iamblichus carried on by Proclus taken notice of by S. Cyril besides which
Deity not Servilely bound to doe the Best but this the Perfection of its Nature No Atheist able to prove The World to be Ill Made Page 872 874 Not to be Concluded That whatsoever we cannot find out the Reason or Use of is therefore Ineptly Made For example The Intestinum Caecum though seemingly an Odd Appendix and which the Generality of Anatomists give little Account of yet that with the Valve at its Enterance both together an Artificiall Contrivance of Nature to hinder the Regurgitation of the Faeces Page 874 875 The First Atheistick Instance of the Faultiness of things In the Disposition of the Aequator and Ecliptick Intersecting each other in such an Angle whereby the Terrestrial Globe rendered not so Habitable as it might have been This Objection Founded upon a False Supposition That the Torrid Zone Uninhabitable But this the Best Disposition which being Contrary to Mechanick Causes therefore its Continuance together with the Constant Parallelism of the Earth's Axis a manifest Eviction of Providence and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Best is a Cause in Nature Page 875 In the next place The Atheists would prove against some Theists That All things not Made for the Sake of Man This at First but the Doctrine of Streight-laced Stoicks onely recommended afterward by mens Self-Love Whereas Plato's Doctrine That the Whole not made for any Part but the Parts for the Whole Nevertheless Things in the Lower World made Principally though not Onely for Man Atheists no Judges of the Well or Ill-Making of Worlds they having no Standing Measure of Good That Nature a Step-Mother to Man but a froward Speech of some discontented Persons seeking to Revenge themselves by Railing upon Nature that is Providence Page 875 876 Evils in Generall from the Necessity of Imperfect Beings and Incompossibility of things Page 876 Men Afflicted more from their own Phancies then Reality of things Pain which a Real Evil of Sense often Link'd with Pleasure according to the Socratick Fable This not the Evil of the Whole Man but of the Outside onely Serviceable to free men from the Greater Evils of the Mind Death according to the Atheistick Hypothesis an Absolute Extinction of all Life but according to Genuine Theism onely a Withdrawing into the Tiring-House and putting off the Terrestriall Cloathing The Dead Live to God Christian Faith gives assurance of a Heavenly Body hereafter The Christian Resurrection not the Hope of Worms This the Confutation of the Twelfth Atheistick Argument Page 876 877 The Thirteenth but Second Objection a-Against Providence as to Humane Affairs Because all things Fall alike to all and sometimes Vicious and Irreligious Persons most Prosperous Page 877 878 Granted That this Consideration hath too much Staggered weak Minds in all Ages Some concluding from thence That there is no God but that blind Chance Steereth all Others That though there be a God yet he Knows nothing done here below Others That though he do know yet he Neglecteth Humane Affairs Page 878 Vnreasonable to require That God should Miraculously Interpose at every turn or to think That every Wicked person should presently be Thunder-struck That which Steers the whole World no Fond and Passionate but an Impartial Nature Yet That there want not Instances of an Extraordinary Providence Good Reasons for the Slowness of Divine Vengeance The Notoriously Wicked commonly met with at the long Run Page 878 879 The Sometimes Impunity of Wicked Persons so far from Staggering Good men as to Providence that it confirms them in their Belief of Future Immortality and Judgement after Death The Evolution of Humane affairs a kind of Dramatick Poem and God Almighty the Skilful Dramatist who always Connecteth that of Ours which went before with what of His follows after into Coherent Sense A Geometrical Distribution of Rewards and Punishments Page 879 880 That there ought to be a Doubtful and Cloudy State of things for the Exercise of Faith and the more difficult Part of Vertue Had there been no Monsters to Subdue there could have been no Hercules Here we to Live by Faith and not by Sight Page 880 But that to make a full Defence of Providence would require a large Volume The Reader therefore referred to others for a Supplement Onely some Few Considerations to be here propounded not so much for the Confutation of Atheists as Satisfaction of Theists sometimes apt to call in Question the Divine Goodness though the very Foundation of our Christian Faith ibid. First That in Judging of the Works of God we ought not to consider the Parts of the World alone by themselves but in order to the Whole Were Nothing made but the Best there could have been no Harmony for want of Variety â—lotinus That a Limner does not make all Eye nor place Bright Colours every-where nor a Dramatist introduce onely Kings and Hero's upon the Stage Page 880 882 Secondly That we ought not to Confine God's Creation to the Narrowness of Vulgar Opinion which Extends the Universe but little beyond the Clouds and Walls it in with a Sphear of Fixed Stars The World Vncapable of Infinity of Magnitude as well as of Time Nevertheless as the Sun is much Bigger then we can Imagine it so much more may the World be The New Celestiall Phaenomena widen the Corporeal Universe and make those Phansied Flaming Walls thereof to fly away before us Not reasonable to think That all this Immense Vastness should be Desert and Uninhabited Page 882 883 Thirdly That we cannot make a Right Judgement of the Ways of Providence without looking both Forwards upon what is Future and Backwards upon what is Past as well as upon the Present That the Platonists and Pythagoreans salved many Phaenomena from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things done in a Prae-Existent State Our Common Christianity supposeth but a kind of Imputative Prae-Existence to Salve the Pravity of Mankind and the Evils of this State The different Fates and Conditions of Men here in this Life to be resolved into a Just though Occult Providence Page 883 The Third Objection against Providence or Fourteenth Atheistick Argument That it is Impossible for any One Being to Animadvert and Order all things and if it were Possible that it would be Distâ—actious and Inconsistent with Happiness Moreover That an Irresistibly Powerfull and Happy Being would not concern it self in the welfare of others Benevolence arising onely from Imbecillity Page 883 884 The Reply That because our Selves have but a Finite Animadversion and Narrow Sphear of Activity to measure the Deity accordingly is but an Idol of the Cave or Den. Certain that were there Nothing but what we could fully Comprehend there could be no God Had the Sun Life Equally Coextended with its Rays it would perceive every thing touched by them Creatures but the Rays of the Deity Men able to manage affairs in many distant places without Distraction And innumerable Notions lie together in our Minds without Crowding one another or any Disturbance
acknowledge also all their Three Hypostases to be Homoousian Co-essentiall or Consubstantiall yet in a further Sense as making up One Entire Divinity As the Root Stock and Branches Co-essentiall to a Vine The Trinity not so Undivided as if Three were not Three in it The Inequality and Subordination in the Platonick Trinity within the Deity it self onely and in the Relation of the Hypostases to one another they being ad extrà all One and the same God Joyntly Concurring in the same Actions and in that respect devoid of Inequality Page 597 598 Furthermore the Platonick Christian would urge That according to the Principles of Christianity it self there must needs be some Dependence and Subordination in these Hypostases in their Relation to one another a Priority and Posteriority of Order and Dignity That which is Originally of it Self having some kind of Priority and Superiority over thâ—t which is wholly Derived from it The Second and Third Hypostases not so Omnipotent as the First because not able to Beget or Produce that Hence the First styled by Macrobius the Most Omnipotent of all Sundry passages in Scripture favouring this Hypothesis as also Orthodox Fathers Athanasius his Resemblances to the Originall Light and the Secondary Splendor to the Fountain and the Stream the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour The Equality asserted by the Orthodox in way of opposition to the Arian Inequality of God and Creature That they Equally God or Uncreated Notwithstanding which some Inequality amongst them allowed by Petavius and others as This God and That Person Page 599 600 However no necessity of any more Inequality and Subordination in the Platonick then in the Christian Trinity they being but Infinite Goodness and Infinite Wisedom and Infinite Active Love and Power Substantiall Another Hypothesis of some Platonists hinted by S. Austine out of Porphyry which makes the Third Hypostasis a Myddle betwixt the First and Second and implies not so much a Gradation as a Circulation in the Trinity Page 600 601 As for the Platonists supposing their Three Hypostases though One Entire Divinity to have their Distinct Singular Essences without which they conceive they could be nothing but Three Names the Platonick Christian would make this Apology That the Orthodox Fathers themselves were generally of this persuasion That the Essence of the Godhead wherein all the Three Persons agree not One Singular but onely One Common or Universal Essence Their Distinction to this purpose betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the former was Common or Generical the latter Singular or Individual Theodoret Basil and many others Petavius his acknowledgement that the Greeks Vniversally agreed herein Page 601 602 The Opinion of Gregory Nyssen Cyril Damascen and others That the Persons of the Trinity no otherwaies One then as Three Individuals under the same Species or as Three Men agree in the same common Humanity These the Chief Asserters of an Absolute Independent and Un-subordinate Co-equality This the onely fault that S. Cyril finds in the Platonists that they did not assert such a Consubstantiality Whereas this Trinity Tritheism the Three Persons thereof being no more One God then Three Men are One Man However this certain that these Fathers did not suppose the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have all the same Singular Essence Another Extream that sprung up afterwards in the room of the former Tritheism and owned by no other Authority then of a Lateran Councill Page 603 604 And that this Sameness of Singular Essence was not asserted by the Nicene Fathers and first Opposers of Arius First clearly acknowledged by Petavius Page 604 605 But this further Evident from hence Because the same Orthodox Fathers who opposed Arianism did also condemn Sabellianism which asserted Father Son and Holy Ghost to be but One Hypostasis that is to have but One and the same Singular Essence and consequently acknowledged no other Trinity then of Names or Words Page 605 It appeareth also from hence Because the Word Homoousios had never any other Sense then to signify the Agreement of things Numerically differing in some Common and General Nature or Essence S. Basil That the same thing is not Homoousious Co-essential or Consubstantial with it self but always One thing with another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plotinus So also in Athanasius he affirming the Branches to be Homoousious and Congenerous with the Root Besides which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by Athanasius and others as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None of which words signify an Identity of Singular Essence but General or Universal onely The Council of Chalcedon That our Saviour Christ as to his Humanity was Homoousious or Consubstantial with us Men. Thus does Athanasius deny the Son or Word as such to be Homoousious or Consubstantial with Creatures as also he affirmeth men to be Consubstantial with one another every Son Consubstantial and Co-essential with his Father Page 605 606 Moreover the Sense of the Nicene Fathers in their Consubstantiality may more fully appear from the Doctrine of Arius opposed by them which made the Son a Creature and therefore as Athanasius writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence or Substance from the Father Proved clearly from Athanasius that by the Consubstantiality of the Word was meant no more then its being not a Creature or Uncreated Page 606 608 Further Proof out of Athanasius that by Consubstantiality is not meant a Sameness of Singular but onely of General Essence As also out of S. Austine Page 608 611 Lastly That the Homoousian Fathers did not assert against Arius a Sameness of Singular Essence evident from their Disclaiming those two other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having a Sabellian Sense in them the former by Epiphanius the latter by Athanasius So that they who asserted the Son to be Homoousious Consubstantial with the Father denied him to be Monoousious or Tautoousious that is to have the same Singular Essence Page 612 613 From all these Considerations concluded by the Platonick Christian Thâ—t as the Genuine Trinity of Plato agreed with that of the Orthodox Christians in being not Heteroousian but Homoousian Co-essential or Consubstantial not made up of God and Creature but all Homogeneal of Uncreated or Creatour so did the Trinity of the First Orthodox Anti-Arians herein agree with the Platonick Trinity that it was not Monoousian or Tautoousian One and the same Singular Essence under Three Names or Notions onely but really Three Hypostases or Persons Page 612 Nevertheless here remaineth a Question to be Answered Whether Athanasius the Nicene Fathers and all the First Anti-Arians did therefore assert the same thing with Greg. Nyssen Cyril and others That the Three Persons in the Trinity were but Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Species having onely a Specifick Unity