Trinity was doubtless Anti-Arian or else the Arian Trinity Anti-Platonick the Second and Third Hypostases in the Platonick Trinity being both Eternal Infinite and Immutable And as for those Platonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gradations so much spoken of these by St. Cyril's leave were of a different Kind from the Arian there being not the Inequality of Creatures in them to the Creator Wherefore Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historian not without Cause wonders how those Two Presbyters Georgius and Timotheus should adhere to the Arian Faction since they were accounted such great Readers of Plato and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me wonderful how those Two Persons should persist in the Arian Perswasion one of them having always Plato in his hands and the other continually breathing Origen Since Plato no where affirmeth his First and Second Cause as he was wont to call them to have had any beginning of their Existence and Origen every where confesseth the Son to be Coeternal with the Father Besides which Another Reason for this Apology of the Christian Platonist was because as the Platonick Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian Doctrine concerning the Logos as that which was exactly agreeable with their own so did the Generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Council represent the Genuine Platonick Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian or as approaching so near to it that they differed chiefly in Circumstances or the manner of Expression The Former of these is Evident from that famous Passage of Amelius Contemporary with Plotinus recorded by Eusebius St. Cyril and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the Logos or Word by whom Existing from Eternity according to Heraclitus all things were made and whom that Barbarian also placeth in the rank and dignity of a Principle affirming him to have been with God and to be God and that all things were made by him and that whatsoever was made was Life and Being in him As also that he descended into a Body and being cloathed in Flesh appeared as a Man though not without demonstration of the Divinity of his Nature But that afterwards being Loosed or Separated from the same he was Deified and became God again such as he was before he came down into a Mortal Body In which words Amelius speaks favourably also of the Incarnation of that Eternal Logos And the same is further manifest from what St. Austin writeth concerning a Platonist in his time Initium Sancti Evangelii cui nomen est secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus sicut à sancto Sene Simpliciano qui posteà Mediolanensi Ecclesiae praesedit Episcopus solebamus audire aureis Literis conscribendum per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat We have often heard from that holy man Simplicianus afterward Bishop of Millain that a certain Platonist affirmed the beginning of St. John 's Gospel deserved to be writ in Letters of Gold and to be set up in all the most Eminent places throughout the Christian Churches And the latter will sufficiently appear from these following Testimonies Justin Martyr in his Apology affirmeth of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he gave the Second place to the Word of God and the Third to that Spirit which is said to have moved upon the waters Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of that Passage in Plato's Second Epistle to Dionysius concerning the First Second and Third writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I understand this no otherwise than that the Holy Trinity is signified thereby the Third being the Holy Ghost and the Second the Son by whom all things were made according to the Will of the Father Origen also affirmeth the Son of God to have been plainly spoken of by Plato in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus who pretendeth to know all things and who citeth so many other passages out of Plato doth purposely as I suppose dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of God in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus where he calls him the God of the whole Vniverse and the Prince of all things both present and future afterwards speaking of the Father of this Prince and Cause And again elsewhere in that Book he writeth to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither would Celsus here speaking of Chistians making Christ the Son of God take any notice of that passage in Plato 's Epistle before mentioned concerning the Framer and Governour of the whole world as being the Son of God lest he should be compelled by the Authority of Plato whom he so often magnifieth to agree with this Doctrine of ours that the Demiurgus of the whole World is the Son of God but the First and Supreme Deity his Father Moreover St. Cyprian or who ever were the Author of the Book inscribed De Spiritu Sancto affirmeth the Platonists First and Vniversal Psyche to be the same with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Theology in these words Hujus Sempiterna Virtus Divinitas cum in propria natura ab Inquisitoribus Mundi antiquis Philosophis propriè investigari non posset Subtilissimis tamen intuiti conjecturis Compositionem Mundi distinctis Elementorum affectibus praesentem omnibus Animam adfuisse dixerunt quibus secundum genus ordinem singulorum vitam praeberet motum intransgressibiles figeret Metas Stabilitatem assignaret Vniversam hanc Vitam hunc motum hanc rerum Essentiam Animam Mundi vocaverunt In the next place Eusebius Caesariensis gives a full and clear Testimony of the Concordance and Agreement of the Platonick at least as to the main with the Christian Trinity which he will have to have been the Cabala of the ancient Hebrews thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Oracles of the Hebrews placing the Holy Ghost after the Father and the Son in the Third Rank and acknowledging a Holy and Blessed Trinity after this manner so as that this Third Power does also transcend all Created Nature and is the First of those Intellectual Substances which proceed from the Son and the Third from the First Cause see how Plato Enigmatically declareth the same things in his Epistle to Dionysius in these words c. These things the Interpreters of Plato refer to a First God and to a Second Cause and to a Third the Soul of the World which they call also The Third God And the Divine Scriptures in like manner rank the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the place or degree of a Principle But it is most observable what Athanasius himself affirmeth of the Platonists that though they derived the Second Hypostasis of their Trinity from the First and the Third from the Second yet they supposed both their Second and Third Hypostases to be Vncreated and therefore does he send the Arians to
the Second Book The Confutation of the Divine Fate Immoral There is a large Account given of the Pagan Polytheism to satisfy a very considerable Objection that lay in our way from thence Against the Naturality of the Idea of God as Including Oneliness and Singularity in it For had that upon enquiry been found True which is so commonly taken for granted That the generality of the Pagan Nations had constantly Scattered their Devotions amongst a multitude of Self-Existent and Independent Deities they acknowledging no One Sovereign Numen This would much have Stumbled the Naturality of the Divine Idea But now it being on the Contrary clearly Proved That the Pagan Theologers all along acknowledged One Sovereign and Omnipotent Deity from which all their other Gods were Generated or Created we have thereby not onely Removed the forementioned Objection out of the way but also Evinced That the Generality of mankind have constantly had a certain Prolepsis or Anticipation in their Minds concerning the Actual Existence of a God according to the True Idea of him And this was the rather done Fully and Carefully by us because we had not met with it sufficiently performed before A. Steuchus Eugubinus having laboured mâ—st in this Subject from whose profitable Industry though we shall no way detract yet whosoever will compare what he hath written with ours will find no Just Cause to think ours Superfluous and Unnecessary much less a Transcription out of his In which besides other things there is no Account at all given of the Many Pagan Poetical and Political Gods what they were which is so great a part of our Performance to prove them Really to have been but the Polyonymy of one God From whence it follows also That the Pagan Religion though sufficiently Faulty yet was not altogether so Nonsensical as the Atheists would represent it out of design that they might from thence infer all Religion to be nothing but a meer Cheat and Imposture they worshipping onely One Supreme God in the several Manifestations of his Goodness Power and Providence throughout the World together with his Inferiour Ministers Nevertheless we cannâ—t deny that being once engaged in this Subject we thought our Selves the more Concerned to doe the business thoroughly and effectually because of that Controversy lately Agitated concerning Idolatry which cannot otherwise be Decided then by giving a True Account of the Pagan Religion and the so Confident Affirmations of some That none could possibly be Guilty of Idolatry in the Scripture Sense who Believed One God the Creator of the whole world Whereas it is most certain on the contrary that the Pagan Polyteism and Idolatry consisted not in worshipping Many Creators or Uncreateds but in giving Religious Worship to Creatures besides the Creator they directing their Devotion as Athanasius plainly affirmeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To One Uncreated onely but besides him to many Created Gods But as for the Polemick Management of this Controversy concerning Idolatry we leave it to other Learned Hands that are already engaged in it Moreover We have in this Fourth Chapter largely Insisted also upon the Trinity The Reason whereof was Because it came in our way and our Contents engaged us thereunto in order to the giving a full Account of the Pagan Theology it being certain that the Platonicks and Pythagoreans at least if not other Pagans also had their Trinity as well as Christians And we could not well avoid the Comparing of these Two together Vpon which Occasion we take notice of a Double Platonick Trinity the One Spurious and Adulterated of some latter Platonists the Other True and Genuine of Plato himself Parmenides and the Ancients The Former of which though it be Opposed by us to the Christian Trinity and Confuted yet betwixt the Latter and that do we find a Wonderfull Correspondence which is Largely Pursued in the Platonick Christians Apology Wherein notwithstanding nothing must be lookt upon as Dogmatically Asserted by us but onely Offered and Submitted to the Judgment of the Learned in these Matters We confining our selves in this Mysterious Point of the Holy Trinity within the Compass of those its Three Essentials declared First That it is not a Trinity of meer Names and Words or of Logical Notions onely But of Persons or Hypostases Secondly That none of those Persons or Hypostases are Creatures but all Uncreated And Lastly That they are all Three Truely and Really One God Nevertheless we acknowledge That we did therefore the more Copiously insist upon this Argument because of our then Designed Defence of Christianity we conceiving that this Parallelism betwixt the Ancient or Genuine Platonick and the Christian Trinity might be of some use to satisfy those amongst us who Boggle so much at the Trinity and look upon it as the Choak-Pear of Christianity when they shall find that the Freest Wits amongst the Pagans and the Best Philosophers who had nothing of Superstition to Determine them that way were so far from being shy of such an Hypothesis as that they were even Fond thereof And that the Pagans had indeed such a Cabbala amongst them which some perhaps will yet hardly believe notwithstanding all that we have said might be further convinced from that memorable Relation in Plutarch of Thespesius Solensis who after he had been lookt upon as Dead for Three days Reviving Affirmed amongst other things which he thought he saw or heard in the mean time in his Ecstasy This Of Three Gods in the Form of a Triangle pouring in Streams into one another Orpheus his Soul being said to have arrived so far accordingly as from the Testimonies of other Pagan Writers we have proved that a Trinity of Divine Hypostases was a part of the Orphick Cabbala True indeed our Belief of the Holy Trinity is Founded upon no Pagan Cabbala's but onely Scripture Revelation it being that which Christians are or should be all Baptized into Nevertheless these things are Reasonably noted by us to this end That that should not be made a Prejudice Against Christianity and Revealed Religion nor lookt upon as such an Affrightfull Bugbear or Mormo in it which even Pagan Philosophers themselves and those of the most Accomplished Intellectuals and Uncaptivated Minds though having neither Councils nor Creeds nor Scriptures had so great a Propensity and Readiness to entertain and such a Veneration for In this Fourth Chapter We were necessitated by the Matter it self to run out into Philology and Antiquity as also in the other Parts of the Book we do often give an Account of the Doctrine of the Ancients which however some Over-severe Philosophers may look upon Fastidiously or Undervalue and Depretiate yet as we conceived it often Necessary so possibly may the Variety thereof not be Ungratefull to others and this Mixture of Philology throughout the Whole Sweeten and Allay the Severity of Philosophy to them The main thing which the Book pretends to in the mean time being the Philosophy of Religion But for our
of Man-Sacrifices against a modern Diatribist 67. That what Faith soever Plato might have in the Delphick Apollo he was no other than an Evil Daemon or Devil An Answer to the Pagans Argument from Divine Providence 68. That the Pagans Religion unsound in its Foundation was Infinitely more Corrupted and Depraved by means of these Four Things First the Superstition of the Ignorant Vulgar 69. Secondly the Licentious Figments of Poets and Fable-Mongers frequently condemned by Plato and other Wiser Pagans 70. Thirdly the Craft of Priests and Politicians 71. Lastly the Imposture of evil Daemons or Devils That by means of these Four Things the Pagan Religion became a most foul and unclean thing And as some were captivated by it under a most grievous Yoke of Superstition so others strongly inclined to Atheism 72. Plato not insensible that the Pagan Religion stood in need of Reformation nevertheless supposing many of those Religious Rites to have been introduced by Visions Dreams and Oracles he concluded that no wise Legislator would of his own head venture to make an Alteration Implying that this was a thing not to be effected otherwise than by Divine Revelation and Miracles The generally received Opinion of the Pagans that no man ought to trouble himself about Religion but content himself to worship God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of that Country which he lived in 73. Wherefore God Almighty in great compassion to Mankind designed himself to reform the Religion of the Pagan World by introducing another Religion of his own framing in stead of it after he had first made a Praeludium thereunto in one Nation of the Israelites where he expresly prohibited by a Voice out of the Fire in his First Commandment the Pagan Polytheism or the worshipping of other Inferior Deities besides himself and in the Second their Idolatry or the Worshipping of the Supreme God in Images Statues or Symbols Besides which he restrain'd the use of Sacrifices As also successively gave Predictions of a Messiah to come such as together with Miracles might reasonably conciliate Faith to him when he came 74. That afterwards in due time God sent the promised Messiah who was the Eternal Word Hypostatically united with a Pure Humane Soul and Body and so a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-man Designing him for a Living Temple and Visible Statue or Image in which the Deity should be represented and Worshipped as also after his Death and Resurrection when he was to be invested with all Power and Authority for a Prince and King a Mediatour and Intercessour betwixt God and Men. 75. That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-man was so far from intending to require Men-sacrifices of his Worshippers as the Pagan Demons did that he devoted himself to be a Catharma Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World and thereby also abolished all Sacrifices or Oblations by Fire whatsoever according to the Divine Prediction 76. That the Christian Trinity though a Mystery is more agreeable to Reason than the Platonick and that there is no absurdity at all in supposing the Pure Soul and Body of the Messiah to be made a Living Temple or Shechinah Image or Statue of the Deity That this Religion of One God and One Mediatour or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man preached to the Pagan World and confirm'd by Miracles did effectually destroy all the Pagan Inferiour Deities Middle Gods and Mediatours Demons and Heroes together with their Statues and Images 77. That it is no way incongruous to suppose that the Divine Majesty in prescribing a Form of Religion to the World should graciously condescend to comply with Humane Infirmity in order to the removing of Two such Grand Evils as Polytheism and Idolatry and the bringing of men to Worship God in Spirit and in Truth 78. That Demons and Angels Heroes and Saints are but different Names for the same things which are made Gods by being worshipped And that the introducing of Angel and Saint-worship together with Image-Worship into Christianity seems to be a defeating of one grand design of God Almighty in it and the Paganizing of that which was intended for the Vnpaganizing of the World 79. Another Key for Christianity in the Scripture not disagreeing with the former That since the way of Wisdom and Knowledge proved Ineffectual as to the Generality of Mankind men might by the contrivance of the Gospel be brought to God and a holy Life without profound Knowledge in the way of Believing 80. That according to the Scripture there is a Higher more Precious and Diviner Light than that of Theory and Speculation 81. That in Christianity all the Great Goodly and most Glorious things of this World are slurried and disgraced comparatively with the Life of Christ. 82. And that there are all possible Engines in it to bring men up to God and engage them in a holy Life 83. Two Errors here to be taken notice of The First of those who make Christianity nothing but an Antinomian Plot against Real Righteousness and as it were a secret Confederacy with the Devil The Second of those who turn that into Matter of mere Notion and Opinion Dispute and Controversie which was designed by God only as a Contrivance Machin or Engine to bring men Effectually to a Holy and Godly Life 84. That Christianity may be yet further illustrated from the consideration of the Adversary or Satanical Power which is in the World This no Mâ—nichean Substantial Evil Principle but a Polity of Lapsed Angels with which the Souls of Wicked men are also Incorporated and may therefore be called The Kingdom of Darkness 85. The History of the Fallen Angels in Scripture briefly explained 86. The concurrent Agreement of the Pagans concerning Evil Demons or Devils and their Activity in the World 87. That there is a perpetual War betwixt Two Polities or Kingdoms in the World the one of Light the other of Darkness and that our Saviour Christ or the Messiah is appointed the Head or Chieftain over the Heavenly Militia or the Forces of the Kingdom of Light 88. That there will be at length a Palpable and Signal Overthrow of the Satanical Power and whole Kingdom of Darkness by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God appearing in an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that this great affair is to be managed by our Saviour Christ as God's Vicegerent and a Visible Judge both of Quick and Dead 89. That our Saviour Christ designed not to set up himself Factiously against God Almighty nor to be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superiour to God but that when he hath done his Work and put down all Adversary Power himself will then be subject to God even the Father that so God may be all in all 90. Lastly having spoken of Three Forms of Religious the Jewish Christian and the Pagan and there remaining only a Fourth the Mahometan in which the Divine Monarchy is zealously asserted we may now Conclude that the Idea of
our selves namely that there is a certain Life or Vital and Moral Disposition of Soul which is much more Inwardly and thoroughly Satisfactory not only than Sensual Pleasure but also than all Knowledge and Speculation whatsoever Now whatever this Chiefest Good be which is a Perfection Superiour to Knowledge and Understanding that Philosopher resolves that it must needs be First and Principally in God who is therefore called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Idea or Essence of Good Wherein he trode in the Footsteps of the Pythagoreans and particularly of Timaeus Locrus who making Two Principles of the Universe Mind and Necessity adds concerning the Former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First of these Two is of the Nature of Good and it is called God the Principle of the Best things Agreeably with which Doctrine of theirs the Hebrew Cabalists also make a Sephirah in the Deity Superiour both to Binah and Chochmah Vnderstanding and Wisdom which they call Chether or the Crown And some would suspect this Cabalistick Learning to have been very ancient among the Jews and that Parmenides was imbued with it he calling God in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Crown For which Velleius in Cicero representing the several Opinions of Philosophers concerning God perstringes him amongst the rest Parmenides Commentitium quiddam Coronae similitudine efficit Stephanem appellat continentem ardore lucis orbem qui cingit Coelum quem appellat Deum But all this while we seem to be to seek What the Chief and Highest Good Superiour to Knowledge is in which the Essence of the Deity principally consists and it cannot be denied but that Plato sometimes talks too Metaphysically and Clowdily about it for which cause as he lay open to the Lash of Aristotle so was he also Vulgarly perstringed for it as appears by that of Amphys the Poet in Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Good that is which you exâ—ect from hence I confess I less understand than I do Plato ' s Good Nevertheless he plainly intimates these two Things concerning it First that this Nâ—ture of Good which is also the Nature of God includes Benignity in it when he gives this accompt of Gods both Making the World and after such a Manner Because he was Good and that which is Good hath no Envy in it and therefore he both made the World and also made it as well and as like to himself as was possible And Secondly that it comprehends Eminently all Vertue and Justice the Divine Nature being the First Pattern hereof for which cause Vertue is defined to be An Assimilation to the Deity Justice and Honesty are no Factitious things Made by the Will and Command of the more Powerful to the Weaker but they are Nature and Perfection and descend downward to us from the Deity But the Holy Scripture without any Metaphysical Pomp and Obscurity tells us plainly Both what is that Highest Perfection of Intellectual Beings which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Better than Reason and Knowledge and which is also the Source Life and Soul of all Morality namely that it is Love or Charity Though I speak with the Tongue of Men and Angels and have not Love I am but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sounding Brass or a Tinkling Cymbal which only makes a Noise without any Inward Life And though I have Prophecy and understand all Mysteries and all Knowledge and though I have all Faith so that I could remove Mountains and have not Love I am Nothing that is I have no Inward Satisfaction Peace or True Happiness And though I bestow all my Goods to feed the Poor and give my body to be burned and have not love it profiteth me nothing I am for all that utterly destitute of all True Morality Vertue and Grace And accordingly it tells us also in the next place what the Nature of God is that he is properly neither Power nor Knowledge though having the Perfection of both in him but Love And certainly whatever Dark Thoughts concerning the Deity some Men in their Cells may sit brooding on it can never reasonably be conceived that that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Most Self-sufficient and Self-happy Being should have any Narrow and Selfish Designs abroad without it self much less harbour any Malignant and Despightful ones towards its Creatures Nevertheless because so many are apt to abuse the Notion of the Divine Love and Goodness and to frame such Conceptions of it as destroy that Awful and Râ—vâ—rential Fear that ought to be had of the Deity and make Men Presumptuous and Regardless of their Lives therefore we think fit here to superadd also that God is no Soft nor Fond and Partial Love but that Justice is an Essential Branch of this Divine Goodness God being as the Writer De Mundo well Expresses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Impartial Law and as Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Measure of all things In Imitation whereof Aristotle concludes also that a Good Man in a Lower and more Imperfect sence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too an Impartial Measure of Things and Actions It is evident that the Atheists themselves in those former times of Paganism took it for Granted that Goodness was an Essential Attribute of the Deity whose Existence they opposed so that it was then generally acknowledged for such by the Pagan Theists from those Argumentations of theirs before mentioned the 12th and 13th taken from the Topick of Evils the Pretended Ill Frame of things and Want of Providence over Humane Affairs Which if they were true would not at all disprove such an Arbitrary Deity as is now phancied by some made up of Nothing but Will and Power without any Essential Goodness and Justice But those Arguments of the Atheists are directly Level'd against the Deity according to the True Notion or Idea of it and could they be made Good would do execution upon the same For it cannot be denied but that the Natural Consequence of this Doctrine That there is a God Essentially Good is this that therefore the World is Well Made and Governed But we shall afterwards declare that though there be Evil in the Parts of the World yet there is none in the Whole and that Moral Evils are not Imputable to the Deity And now we have proposed the Three Principal Attributes of the Deity The First whereof is Infinite goodness with Fecundity the Second Infinite Knowledge and Wisdom and the Last Infinite Active and Perceptive Power From which Three Divine Attributes the Pythagoreans and Platonists seem to have framed their Trinity of Archical Hypostases such as have the Nature of Principles in the Universe and which though they apprehended as several Distinct Substances gradually subordinate to one another yet they many times extend the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far as to comprehend them all within it Which Pythagorick Trinity seems to be intimated by
these following words Alius eandem matâ—riam mordaciùs scripsit qui erat tum è numero Judicum qui auctor in primis faciendae persecutionis fuit quo scelere non contentus etiam scriptis eos quos afflixerat insecutus est Composuit enim Libellos Duos non Contrà Christianos nè inimicè insectari videretur sed Ad Christianos ut humanè ac benignè consulere videretur In quibus ita falsitatem Scripturae Sacrae arguere conatus est tanquam sibi esset tota contraria Praecipuè tamen Paulum Petrúmque laceravit caeterósque Discipulos tanquam fallaciae seminatores quos eosdem tamen rudes indoctos fuisse testatus est Another hath handled the same matter more smartly who was First himself one of the Judges and a chief Author of the Persecution but being not contented with that wickedness he added this afterwards to persecute the Christians also with his Pen He composing Two Books not inscribed Against the Christians lest he should seem plainly to act the part of an enemy but To the Christians that he might be thought to counsel them humanely and benignly in which he so charges the holy Scripture with Falshood as if it were all nothing else but contradictions but he chiefly lashes Paul and Peter as divulgers of lyes and deceits whom notwithstanding he declares to have been rude and illiterate Persons I say though Hierocles for some cause or other be not named here by Lactantius in these Cited words or that which follows yet it cannot be doubted but that he was the Person intended by him for these Two Reasons First because he tells us afterward that the main business of that Christiano-mastix was to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ. Cùm facta Christi mirabilia destrueret nec tamen negaret voluit ostendere Apollonium vel paria vel etiam majora fecisse Mirum quòd Apuleium praetermiserit cujus solent multa mira memorari Et ex hoc insolentiam Christi voluit arguere quòd Deum se constituerit ut ille verecundior fuisse videretur qui cùm majora faceret ut hic putat tamen id sibi non arrogaverit That he might obscure the Miracles of our Saviour Christ which he could not deny he would undertake to show that Equal or greater Miracles were done by Apollonius And it was a wonder he did not mention Apuleius too of whose many and wonderful things the Pagans use to brag likewise Moreover he condemns our Saviour Christ of Insolency for making himself a God affirming Apollonius to have been the modester Person who though he did as he supposes greater miracles yet arrogated no such thing to himself The Second Reason is because Lactantius also expresly mentions the very Title of Hierocles his Book viz. Philalethes Cùm talia ignorantiae suae deliramenta fudisset cùmque Veritatem peniâ—ùs excidere connixus est ausus est Libros suos nefarios ac Dei hostes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annotare Though pouring out so much folly and madness professedly fighting against the Truth yet he presumed to call these his wicked Books and Enemies of God Philaletheis or Friends to Truth From which words of Lactantius and those foregoing where he affirms this Christiano-mastix to have writen Two Books the Learned Prefacer to the late Edition of Hierocles probably concludes that the whole Title of Hierocles his Book was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I conceive that the First of those Two Books of Hierocles insisted upon such things as Porphyrius had before urged against the Christians but then in the Second he added this de novo of his own to compare Apollonius with our Saviour Christ which Eusebius only takes notice of Wherefore Epiphanius telling us that there was one Hierocles a Presect or Governour of Alexandria in those persecuting times of Diocletian we may probably conclude that this was the very Person described in Lactantius who is said to have been First of the Number of the Judges and a Principal Actor in the Persecution and then afterwards to have written this Philalethes against the Christians wherein besides other things he ventured to compare Apollonius Tyanaeus with our Saviour Christ. Now if this Hierocles who wrote the Philalethes in defence of the Pagan Gods against the Christians were the Author of those two other Philosophick Books the Commentary upon the Golden Verses and that De Fato Providentia it might be easily evinced from both of them that he was notwithstanding an Asserter of One Supreme Deity But Photius tells us that that Hierocles who wrote the Book concerning Fate and Providence did therein make mention of Jamblichus and his Junior Plutarchus Atheniensis from whence Jonsius taking it for granted that it was one and the same Hierocles who wrote against the Christians and de Fato infers that it could not be Eusebius Pamphili who Answered the Philalethes but that it must needs be some other Eusebius much Junior But we finding Hierocles his Philalethes in Lactantius must needs conclude on the contrary that Hierocles the famous Christiano-mastix was not the same with that Hierocles who wrote de Fato Which is further evident from Aenaeas Gazeus in his Theophrastus where first he mentions one Hierocles an Alexandrian that had been his Master whom he highly extols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tell me I pray you are there yet left amongst you in Aegypt any such Expounders of the Arcane Mysteries of Philosophy as Hierocles our Master was And this we suppose to be that Hierocles who wrote concerning Fate and Providence if not also upon the Golden Verses But afterward upon occasion of Apollonius the Cappadocian or Tyanaean he mentions another Hierocles distinct from the former namely him who had so boasted of Apollonius his Miracles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Apollonius is convinced of falshood but Hierocles not our Master but he that boasts of the Miracles of Apollonius adds another incredible thing And though it be probable that one of these was the Author of that Commentary upon the Golden Verses for that it should be written by a Christian is but a dream yet we cannot certainly determine which of them it was However that this Hierocles who was the Mastix of Christianity and Champion for The Gods was notwithstanding a professed asserter of one Supreme Deity is clearly manifest also from Lactantius in these following words Quam tandem nobis attulisti Veritatem nisi quod Assertor Deorum eos ipsos ad ultimum prodidisti Prosecutus enim Summi Dei laudes quem Regem quem Maximum quem Opificem rerum quem Fontem bonorum quem Parentem omnium quem Factorem Altorémque viventium confessus es ademisti Jovi tuo Regnum eúmque Summa potestate depulsum in Ministrorum numerum redigisti Epilogus ergo te tuus arguit Stultitiae Vanitatis Erroris Affirmas Deos esse illos tamen subjicis mancipas
Three Gods therefore the Second and the Third must of necessity be Inferiour Gods because otherwise they would be Three Independent Gods whereas the Pagan Theology Expresly disclaims a Plurality of Independent and Self-originated Deities But since according to the Principles of Christianity which was partly designed to oppose and bear down the Pagan Polytheism there is One only God to be acknowledged the meaning whereof notwithstanding seems to be chiefly directed against the Deifying of Created Beings or giving Religious Worship to any besides the Uncreated and the Creatour of all moreover since in the Scripture which is the only true Rule and Measure of this Divine Cabala of the Trinity though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word be said to have been With God that is God the Father and also it self to Be God that is not a Creature yet is it no where called An Other or Second God Therefore cannot we Christians entertain this Pagan Language of a Trinity of Gods but must call it either a Trinity of Divine Hypostases or Subsistences or Persons or the like Nevertheless it is observable that Philo though according to his Jewish Principles he was a zealous Opposer of the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry yet did he not for all that scruple to call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Word after the Platonick way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Second God as not suspecting this to clash with the Principles of his Religion or that Second Commandment of the Decalogue Thou shalt have no other Gods before my Face possibly because he conceived that this was to be understood of Creature-Gods only whereas his Second God the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word is declared by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal and therefore according to the Jewish Theology Vncreated However this Language of a Second and Third God is not so excusable in a Jew as it might be in a Pagan because the Pagans according to the Principles of their Religion were so far from having any Scrupulosity against a Plurality of Gods so long as there was only One Fountain of the Godhead acknowledged that they rather accounted it an honour to the Supreme God as hath been already shewed that he should have Many other not only Titular Gods under him but also such as were Religiously Worshipped Wherefore besides this Second and Third God they also did luxuriate in their other Many Creature-gods And indeed St. Austin doth upon this accompt seem somewhat to excuse the Pagans for this their Trinity of Gods and Principles in these words Liberis enim verbis loquuntur Philosophi nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt Nobis autem ad certam Regulam loqui fas est ne Verborum licentia etiam in rebus quae in his significantur impiam gignat opinionem Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia cum de Deo loquimur sicut nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere quamvis de Vnoquoque loquentes vel de Filio vel de Spiritu Sancto etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur The Philosophers use Free Language nor in these things which are extremely difficult to be understood did they at all fear the offending of any Religious and Scrupulous ears But the Case is otherwise with us Christians for we are tied up to Phrases and ought to speak according to a certain Rule lest the licentious use of words should beget a wicked Opinion in any concerning those things that are signified by them That is though this might be in a manner excusable in the Pagans because each of those Three Hypostases is God therefore to call them severally Gods and all of them a Trinity of Gods and Principles they having no such Rule then given them to govern their Language by as this That though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet are they not Three Gods but One God yet is not this allowable for us Christians to speak of a Second or Third God or Principle or to call the Holy Trinity a Trinity of Gods notwithshanding that when we speak of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Ghost severally we confess each of them to be God And indeed when the Pagans thus spake of a First Second and Third God and no more though having Innumerable other Gods besides they did by this Language plainly imply that these Three Gods of theirs were of a very different kind from all the rest of their Gods that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Created but Eternal and Vncreated Ones And that many of them did really take this Whole Trinity of Gods for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general the Divine Numen and sometimes call it the First God too in way of distinction from their Generated Gods will be showed afterward So that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God was used in different sences by these Pagans sometimes in a larger sence and in way of opposition to all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Generated or Created Gods or the Gods that were made in Time together with the World and sometime again more Particularly in way of distinction from those Two other Divine Hypostases Eternal called by them the Second and Third God Which First of the Three Gods is also frequently by them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God Emphatically and by way of Excellency they supposing a Gradual Subordination in these Principles Neither was this Trinity of Divine Subsistences only thus ill-languag'd by the Pagans generally when they called it a Trinity of Gods but also the Cabala thereof was otherwise much Depraved and Adulterated by several of the Platonists and Phythagoreans For first the Third of these Three Hypostases commonly called Psyche is by some of them made to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of the Corporeal World informing acting and enlivening it after the same manner as the Souls of other Animals do their respective Bodies insomuch that this Corporeal World it self as together with its Soul it makes up one Complete Animal was frequently called the Third God This Proclus affirmeth of Numenius the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World according to him was the Third God And Plotinus being a great Reader of this Numenius seems to have been somewhat infected by him with this conceit also though contrary to his own Principles from those words befored cited out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World as is commonly said is the Third God Now if the World be not a Creature then is there no Created Being at all but all is God But not only Timaeus Locrus but also Plato himself calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Created God the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being here put for that which after it once was not is brought into
the Intelligible or Archetypal World as making Apollo for Example to be the Intelligible Sun the Idea of the Sensible and Diana the Intelligible Moon and the like for the rest Lastly it hath been observed also that the Egyptian Theologers pretended in like manner to Worship these Intelligible Gods or Eternal Ideas in their Religious Animals as Symbols of them Philo indeed Platonized so far as to suppose God to have made an Archetypal and Intelligible World before he made this Corporeal and Sensible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God intending to make a Visible World first formed an Intelligible One that so having an Incorporeal and most God-like Pattern before him he might make the Corporeal World agreeably to the same this Younger an Image of that Older that should contein as many Sensible kinds in it as the other did Intelligible But it is not possible saith he to conceive this World of Ideas to exist in any place Nay according to him Moses himself philosophized also after the same manner in his Cosmopaeia describing in the First Five Verses of Genesis the making of an Intelligible Heaven and Earth before the Sensible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Creator first of all made an Incorporeal Heaven and an Invisible Earth the Ideas of Air and Vacuum Incorporeal Water and Air and last of all Light which was also the Incorporeal and Intelligible Paradigm of the Sun and Stars and that from whence their Sensible Light is derived But Philo does not plainly make these Ideas of the Intelligible and Archetypal World to be so many distinct Substances and Animals much less Gods though he somewhere takes notice of those who admiring the Pulchritude of both these Worlds did not only Deifie the whole of them but also their several Parts that is the Several Ideas of the Intelligible World also as well as the Greater Parts of the Sensible an Intelligible Heaven and Earth Sun and Moon they pretending to worship those Divine Ideas in all these Sensible things Which high-flown Platonick Notion as it gave Sanctuary and Protection to the grossest and foulest of all the Pagan Superstitions and Idolatries when the Egyptians would worship Brute Animals and other Pagans all the Things of Nature Inanimate Substances and meer Accidents under a pretence of worshipping the Divine Ideas in them so did it directly tend to absolute Impiety Irreligion and Atheism there being few that could entertain any thoughts at all of those Eternal Ideas and scarcely any who could thoroughly perswade themselves that these had so much Reality in them as the Sensible things of Nature as the Idea of a House in the mind of an Architect hath not so much Reality in it as a Material House made up of Stones Mortar and Timber so that their Devotion must needs sink down wholly into those Sensible Things and themselves naturally at length fall into this Atheistick Perswasion That the Good Things of Nature are the only Deities Here therefore have we a Multitude of Pagan Gods Supermundane and Eternal though all depending upon One Supreme the Gods by them properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligible or the Divine Ideas And we cannot but account this for another Depravation of the ancient Mosaick Cabbala of the Trinity that the Second Hypostasis thereof is made to be the Archetypal World and all the Divine Ideas as so many distinct Substances Animals and Gods that is not One God but a whole World of Gods But over and besides all this some of these Platonists and Pythagoreans did further Deprave and Adulterate the ancient Hebrew or Mosaick Cabbala of the Trinity the certain Rule whereof is now only the Scriptures of the New Testament when they concluded that as from the Third Hypostasis of their Trinity called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Soul there were Innumerable other Particular Souls derived namely the Souls of all Inferiour Animals that are Parts of the World so in like manner that from their Second Hypostasis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Mind or Intellect there were innumerable other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Particular Minds or Intellects Substantial Derived Superiour to the First Soul and not only so but also That from that First and Highest Hypostasis of all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The One and The Good there were derived likewise many Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnities and Goodnesses Substantial Superiour to the First Intellect Thus Proclus in his Theologick Institutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the First One and from it there are many Particular Henades or Vnities after the First Intellect and from it many Particular Noes Minds or Intellects after the First Soul many Particular and Derivative Souls and lastly after the Vniversal Nature many Particular Natures and Spermatick Reasons Where it may be obiter observed that these Platonists supposed below the Vniversal Psyche or Mundane Soul a Vniversal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substantial Nature also but so as that besides it there were other Particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seminal Reasons or Plastick Principles also As for these Noes and that besides the First Vniversal Mind or Intellect there are other Particular Minds or Intellects Substantial a Rank of Beings not only immutably Good and Wise but also every way Immovabl◠and therefore above the Rank of all Souls that are Self-moveable Beings Proclus was not singular in this but had the concurrence of many other Platonists with him amongst whom Plotinus may seem to be one from this Passage of his besides others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Souls are Immortal and every Mind or Intellect we have elsewhere largely proved Upon which words Ficinus thus Hîc suprà infrà saepè per verba Plotini notabis Plures esse Mentium Animarumque Substantias inter se distinctas quamvis inter eas Vnio sit Mirabilis Here and from many other places before and after you may observe that according to Plotinus there are many Substantial Minds distinct from Souls though there be a wonderful Vnion betwixt them Moreover that there was also above these Noes or Immovable but Multiform Minds not only one Perfect Monad and First Good but also a Rank of Many Particular Henades or Monades and Agathotetes was besides Proclus and others asserted by Simplicius also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Highest Good saith he produceth all things from himself in several Ranks and Degrees The First the Middle and the Last or Lowest of all But the First and the next to himself doth he produce like himself One Goodness Many Goodnesses and one Vnity or Henade Many Henades And that by these Henades and Autoagathotetes he means Substantial Beings that are Conscious of themselves appears also from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Beings which are first produced from the First Good by reason of their Sameness of Nature with him are
also and therefore Plato here makes the Third Hypostasis of his Trinity likewise to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential with the Second as he elsewhere made the Second Co-Essential with the First It is true that by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Opificer in Plato is commonly meant Nous or Intellect his Second Hypostasis Plotinus affirming as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Demiurgus to Plato is Intellect Nevertheless both Amelius and Plotinus and other Platonists called this Third Hypostasis also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer or Opificer of the whole World Some of them making him to be the Second from Mind or Intellect others the Third from the First Good the Supreme Cause of all things who was by Atticus and Amelius styled Demiurgus also Wherefore as was before suggested according to the Genuine and most ancient Platonick Doctrine all these Three Hypostases were the Joynt-Creators of the whole World and of all things besides themselves as Ficinus more than once declares the Tenour thereof Hi Tres uno quodam consensu omnÃa producunt These Three with one common consent produce all things and before him Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things depend upon the First One by Mind and Soul and accordingly we shall conclude in the words of Porphyrius That the True and Real Deity according to Plato extends to Three Divine Hypostases the last whereof is Psyche or Soul From all which it appears that Arius did not so much Platonize as the Nicene Fathers and Athâ—nasius who notwithstanding made not Plato but the Scripture together with Reason deducing natural Consequences therefrom their Foundation And that the Platonick Trinity was a certain Middle thing also betwixt the Doctrine of Sabellius and that of Arius it being neither a Trinity of Words only or Logical Notions or meer Modes but a Trinity of Hâ—postases nor yet a Jumbled Confusion of God and Creature Things Heterousious together neither the Seconâ— nor Thiâ—d of them being Creatures or Made in Time but all Eternal Infinite and Creators But that it may yet more fully appear how far the most Refined Platonick and Parmenidian or Pythagorick Trinity doth either Agree or Disagree with the Scripture-Doctrine and that of the Christian Church in several Ages we shall here further observe Two Things concerning it The First whereof is this That though the Genuine Platonists and Phythagoreans supposed none of their Three Archical Hypostases to be indeed Creatures but all of them Eternal Necessarily Existent and Vniversal or Infinite and consequently Creators of the whole World yet did they nevertheless assert an Essential Dependence of the Second Hypostasis upon the First as also of the Third both upon the First and Second together with a Gradual Subordination in them Thus Plotinus writing of the Generation of the Eternal Intellect which is the Second in the Platonick Trinity and answers to the Son or Word in the Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is always perfect Generates what is Eternal and thâ—t which it Generates is always Less than it self What shall we therefore say of the most Absolutely Perfect Being of all Does that produce nothing from it self or rather does it not produce the Greatest of all things after it Now the Greatest of all things after the most Absolutely Perfect Being is Mind or Intellect and this is Second to it For Mind beholdeth this as its Father and standeth in need of nothing else besides it whereas that First Principle standeth in need of no Mind or Intellect What is Generated from that which is Better than Mind must needs be Mind or Intellect because Mind is better than all other things they being all in order of Nature After it and Juniour to it as Psyche it self or the First Soul for this is also the Word or Energy of Mind as that is the Word and Energy of the First Good Again the same is more particularly declared by him concerning that Third Hypostasis called Psyche that as it Essentially Dependeth upon the Second so is it Gradually Subordinate or some way Inferiour to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfect Intellect Generates Soul and it Being Perfect must needs Generate for so great a Power could not remain Steril But that which is here Begotten also cannot be greater than its Begetter but must needs be Inferiour to it as being the Image thereof Elsewhere the same Philosopher calling the First Hypostasis of this Trinity Vranus the Second Chronos and the Third Zeus as Plato had done before and handsomly Allegorizing that Fable concludes in this manner concerning Chronos or the Second of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he is in a Middle state or degree betwixt his Father who is Greater and his Son who is Less and Inferiour Again the same thing is by that Philosopher thus asserted in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the things Generated from Eternity or Produced by way of natural Emanation there is no Progress upwards but all Downwards and still a Gradual Descent into Greater Multiplicity We shall cite but only one passage more out of this Philosopher which containeth something of Argumentation in it also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is Generated or Emaneth immediatly from the First and Highest Beings is not the very same thing with it as if it were nothing but that Repeated again and Ingeminated and as it is not the same so neither can it be Better than it From whence it follows that it must needs be Gradually Subordinate and Inferiour to it Which Gradual Subordination and Essential Dependence of the Second and â—hird Hypostases upon the First is by these Platonicks illustrated several ways Ficinus resembles it to the Circulations of Water when some Heavy Body falling into it its Superficies is depressed and from thence every way Circularly Wrinkled Alius saith he sic fermè prostuit ex alio sicut in aqua Circulus dependet à Circulo One of these Divine Hypostases doth in a manner so depend upon another as one Circulation of water depends upon another Where it is observable also that the Wider the Circulating Wave grows still hath it the more Subsidence and Detumescence together with an Abatement of Celerity till at last all becomes plain and smooth again But by the Pagan Platonists themselves each Following Hypostasis is many times said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Print stamp or Impression made by the Former like the Signature of a Seal upon Wax Again it is often called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image and Representation and Imitation which if considered in Audibles then will the Second Hypostasis be look'd upon as the Eccho of an Original Voice and the Third as the Repeated Eccho or Eccho of that Eccho as if both the Second and Third Hypostases were but certain Replications of the First
which also was the Demiurgus the Maker both of other Souls and of the whole World As Plato had before expresly affirmed him to be the Inspirer of all Life and Creator of Souls or the Lord and Giver of Life And likewise declared that amongst all those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congenerous and Cognate with our Humane Souls there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing any where to be found at all like unto it So that Plato though he were also a Star-worshipper and Idolater upon other grounds yet in all probability would he not at all have approved of Plotinus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Souls being of the same Species with that Third Hypostasis of the Divine Triad but rather have said in the Language of the Psalmist It is he that hath made us and not we our selves we are his People and the Sheep of his Pasture Notwithstanding all which a Christian Platonist or Platonick Christian would in all probability Apologize for Plato himself and the ancient and most Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans after this manner First That since they had no Scriptures Councils nor Creeds to direct their steps in the Darkness of this Mystery and to confine their Language to a Regular Uniformity but Theologized all Freely and Boldly and without any Scrupulosity every one according to his own private apprehensions it is no wonder at all if they did not only speak many times unadvisedly and inconsistently with their own Principles but also plainly wander out of the Right Path. And that it ought much rather to be wondred at that living so long before Christianity as some of them did they should in so Abstruse a Point and Dark a Mystery make so near an approach to the Christian Truth afterwards revealed than that they should any where fumble or fall short of the Accuracy thereof They not only extending the True and Real Deity to Three Hypostases but also calling the Second of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or Word too as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect and likewise the Son of the First Hypostasis the Faâ—her and affirming him to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer and Cause of the whole World and Lastly describing him as the Scripture doth to be the Image the Figure or Character and the Splendour or Brightness of the First This I say our Christian Platonist supposes to be much more wonderful that this so Great and Abstruse a Mystery of Three Eternal Hypostases in the Deity should thus by Pagan Philosophers so long before Christianity have been asserted as the Principle and Original of the whole World it being more indeed than was acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers themselves they then not so much as determining that the Holy Ghost was an Hypostasis much less that he was God But Particularly as to their Gradual Subordination of the Second Hypostasis to the First and of the Third to the First and Second our Platonick Christian doubtless would therefore plead them the more excusable because the Generality of Christian Doctors for the First Three Hundred years after the Apostles times plainly asserted the same as Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus the Author of the Recognitions Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Gregorius Thaumaturgus Dionysius of Alexandria Lactantius and many others All whose Testimonies because it would be too tedious to set down here we shall content our selves only with one of the last mentioned Et Pater Filius Deus est Sed Ille quasi exuberans Fons Hic tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus Ille tanquam Sol Hic tanquam Radius à Sole porrectus Both the Father and the Son is God But he as it were an Exuberant Fountain this as a Stream derived from him He like to the Sun This like to a Ray extended from the Sun And though it be true that Athanasius writing against the Arians does appeal to the Tradition of the Ancient Church and amongst others cites Origen's Testimony too yet was this only for the Eternity and Divinity of the Son of God but not at all for such an Absolute Co-equality of him with the Father as would exclude all Dependence Subordination and Inferiority those Ancients so Unanimously agreeing therein that they are by Petavius therefore taxed for Platonism and having by that means corrupted the Purity of the Christian Faith in this Article of the Trinity Which how it can be reconciled with those other Opinions of Ecclesiastick Tradition being a Rule of Faith and the Impossibility of the Visible Churches Erring in any Fundamental Point cannot easily be understood However this General Tradition or Consent of the Christian Church for Three Hundred years together after the Apostles Times though it cannot Justifie the Platonists in any thing discrepant from the Scripture yet may it in some measure doubtless plead their excuse who had no Scripture Revelation at all to guide them herein and so at least make their Error more Tolerable or Pardonable Moreover the Platonick Christian would further Apologize for these Pagan Platonists after this manner That their Intention in thus Subordinating the Hypostases of their Trinity was plainly no other than to exclude thereby a Plurality of Co-ordinate and Independent Gods which they supposed an absolute Co-equality of them would infer And that they made only so much Subordination of them as was both necessary to this purpose and unavoidable the Juncture of them being in their Opinion so close that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing Intermedious or that could possibly be Thrust in between them But now again on the otherhand whereas the only ground of the Co-Equality of the Persons in the Holy Trinity is because it cannot well be conceived how they should otherwise all be God since the Essence of the Godhead being Absolute Perfection can admit of no degrees these Platonists do on the contrary contend that notwithstanding that Dependence and Subordination which they commonly suppose in these Hypostases there is none of them for all that to be accounted Creatures but that the General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature truly and properly belongeth to them all according to that of Porphyrius before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence of the Godhead proceedeth to Three Hypostases Now these Platonists conceive that the Essence of the Godhead as common to all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity consisteth besides Perfect Intellectuality in these Following things First In Being Eternal which as we have already showed was Plato's Distinctive Character betwixt God and the Creature That whatsoever was Eternal is therefore Vncreated and whatsoever was not Eternal is a Creature He by Eternity meaning the having not only no Beginning but also a Permanent Duration Again In having not a Contingent but Necessary Existence and therefore being Absolutely Vndestroyable which perhaps is included also in the Former Lastly In being not Particular but
able to beget the Father nor the Holy Ghost to Produce either Father or Son and therefore neither of these two Latter is absolutely the Cause of all things but only the First And upon this account was that First of these Three Hypostases who is the Original Fountain of all by Macrobius styled Omnipotentissimus Deus the Most Omnipotent God he therein implying the Second and Third Hypostases Nous and Psyche to be Omnipotent too but not in a perfect Equality with him as within the Deity they are compared together however ad Extra or Outwardly and to Us they being all One are Equally Omnipotent And Plotinus writeth also to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If the First be absolutely Perfect and the First Power then must it needs be the Most Powerful of all Beings other Powers only imitating and partaking thereof And accordingly hereunto would the Platonick Christian further pretend that there are sundry places in the Scripture which do not a little favour some Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Persons of the Holy Trinity of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Christ My Father is greater than I which to understand of his Humanity only seemeth to be less reasonable because this was no news at all that the Eternal God the Creator of the whole World should be Greater than a Mortal Man born of a woman And thus do divers of the Orthodox Fathers as Athanasius himself St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostome with several others of the Latins interpret the same to have been spoken not of the Humanity but the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. Insomuch that Petavius himself expounding the Athanasian Creed writeth in this manner Pater Major Filio ritè catholicè pronuntiatus est à plerisque Veterum Origine Prior sine reprehensione dici solet The Father is in a right Catholick manner affirmed by most of the ancients to be Greater than the Son and he is commonly said also without reprehension to be Before him in respect of Original Whereupon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this that no Person of the Trinity is Greater or Less than other in respect of the Essence of the Godhead common to them all Quia Vera Deitas in nullo esse aut Minor aut Major potest because the true Godhead can be no where Greater or Less but that notwithstanding there may be some Inequality in them as they are Hic Deus and Haec Persona This God and That Person It is true indeed that many of those ancient Fathers do restrain and limit this Inequality only to the Relation of the Persons one to another as the Father's Begetting and the Son 's being Begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from both they seeming to affirm that there is otherwise a perfect Equality amongst them Nevertheless several of them do extend this Difference further also as for example St. Hilary a zealous Opposer of the Arians he in his Book of Synods writing thus Siquis Vnum dicens Deum Christum autem Deum ante secula Filium Dei Obsecutum Patri in Creatione omnium non consitetur Anathema sit And again Non exaequamus vel conformamus Filium Patri sed Subjectum intelligimus And Athanasius himself who is commonly accounted the very Rule of Orthodoxality in this Point when he doth so often resemble the Father to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun or the Original Light and the Son to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Splendour or Brightness of it as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the Scripture it self he seems hereby to imply some Dependence of the Second upon the First and Subordination to it Especially when he declareth that the Three Persons of the Trinity are not to be look'd upon as Three Principles nor to be resembled to Three Suns but to the Sun and its Splendour and its Derivative Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it appears from the similitude used by us that we do not introduce Three Principles as the Marcionists and Manicheans did we not comparing the Trinity to Three Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour So that we acknowledge only one Principle As also where he approves of this of Dionysius of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is an Eternal Light which never began and shall never cease to be wherefore thâ—re is an Eternal Splendour also coexistent with him which had no beginning neither but was Alwayes Generated by him shining out before him For if the Son of God be as the Splendour of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Always Generated then must he needs have an Essential Dependence upon the Father and Subordination to him And this same thing further appears from those other resemblances which the same Dionysius maketh of the Father and the Son approved in like manner also by Athanasius viz. to the Fountain and the River to the Root and the Branch to the Water and the Vapour for so it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appeareth from his Book of the Nicene Synod where he affirmeth the Son to have been begotten of the Essence or Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendour of the Light and as the Vapour of the Water adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither the Splendour nor the Vapour is the very Sun and the very Water nor yet is it Aliene from it or a stranger to its nature but they are both Effluxes from the Essence or Substance of them as the Son is an Efflux from the Substance of the Father yet so as that he is no way diminished or lessened thereby Now all these similitudes of the Fountain and the River the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour as well as that of the Sun and the Splendour seem plainly to imply some Dependence and Subordination And Dionysius doubtless intended them to that purpose he asserting as Photius informeth us an Inferiority of Power and Glory in the Second as likewise did Origen before him both whose Testimonies notwithstanding Athanasius maketh use of without any censure or reprehension of them Wherefore when Athanasius and the other Orthodox Fathers writing against Arius do so frequently assert the Equality of all the Three Persons this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only who made the Son to be Unequal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence from him One being God and the other a Creature they affirming on the contrary that he was Equal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with him that is as God and not a Creature Notwithstanding which Equality there might be some Subordination in them as Hic Deus and Haec Persona to use Petavius
School thither who because there is but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Self-Originated Being would unskilfully conclude that the Word or Son of God must therefore needs be a Creature Thus in his Book concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Arians borrowing the word Agennetos from the Pagans who acknowledge only One such make that a pretence to rank the Word or Son of God who is the Creator of all amongst Creatures or things Made Whereas they ought to have learn'd the right signification of that word Agennetos from those very Platonists who gave it them Who though acknowledging their Second Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect to be derived from the first called Tagathon and their Third Hypostasis or Psyche from the Second nevertheless doubt not to affirm them both to be Ageneta or Vncreated knowing well that hereby they detract nothing from the Majesty of the First from whom these Two are derived Wherefore the Arians either ought so to speak as the Platonists do or else to say nothing at all concerning these things which they are ignorant of In which words of Athanasius there is a plain distinction made betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbegotten and Vncreated and the Second Person of the Trinity the Son or Word of God though acknowledged by him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbegotten he being Begotten of the Father who is the only Agennetos yet is he here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncreated he declaring the Platonists thus to have affirmed the Second and Third Hypostases of their Trinity not to be Creatures but Vncreated Which Signal Testimony of Athanasius concerning the Platonick Trinity is a great Vindication of the same We might here further add St. Austin's Confession also that God the Father and God the Son were by the Platonists acknowledged in like manner as by the Christians though concerning the Holy Ghost he observes some difference betwixt Plotinus and Porphyrius in that the Former did Postponere Animae Naturam Paterno Intellectui the Latter Interponere Plotinus did Postpone his Psyche or Soul after the Paternal Intellect but Porphyrius Interponed it betwixt the Father and the Son as a Middle between both It was before observed that St. Cyril of Alexandria affirmeth nothing to be wanting to the Platonick Trinity but only that Homoousiotes of his and some other Fathers in that Age that they should not only all be God or Vncreated but also Three Coequal Individuals under the same Ultimate Species as Three Individual Men he conceiving that Gradual Subordination that is in the Platonick Trinity to be a certain tang of Arianism Nevertheless he thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Plato notwithstanding was not altogether ignorant of the Truth but that he had the knowledge of the Only begotten Son of God as likewise of the Holy Ghost called by him Psyche and that he would have every way expressed himself rightly had he not been afraid of Anitus and Melitus and that Poyson which Socrates drunk Now whether this were a Fault or no in the Platonists that they did not suppose their Hypostases to be Three Individuals under the same Ultimate Species we leave to others to judge We might here add the Testimony of Chalcidius because he is unquestionably concluded to have been a Christian though his Language indeed be too much Paganical when he calls the Three Divine Hypostases a Chief a Second and a Third God Istius rei dispositio talis mente concipienda est Originem quidem rerum esse Summum Ineffabilem Deum post Providentiam ejus Secundum Deum Latorem Legis utriusque Vitae tam Aeternae quam Temporariae Tertium esse porro Substantiam que Secunda Mens Intellectusque dicitur quasi quaedam Custos Legis Aeternae His Subjectas esse Rationabiles Animas Legi Obsequentes Ministras verò Potestates c. Ergo Summus Deus jubet Secundus ordinat Tertius intimat Animae verò Legem agâ—nt This thing is to be conceived after this manner That the First Original of Things is the Supreme and Ineffable God after his Providence a Second God the Establisher of the Law of Life both Eternal and Temporary And the Third which is also a Substance and called a Second Mind or Intellect is a certain Keeper of this Eternal Law Vnder these Three are Rational Souls Subject to that Law together with the Ministerial Powers c. So that the Sovereign or Supreme God Commands the Second Orders and the Third executes But Souls are Subject to the Law Where Chalcidius though seeming indeed rather more a Platonist than a Christian yet acknowledgeth no such Beings as Henades and Noes but only Three Divine Hypostases and under them Rational Souls But we shall conclude with the Testimony of Theodoret in his Book De Principio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plotinus and Numenius explaining Plato 's Sence declare him to have asserted Three Super-Temporals or Eternals Good Mind or Intellect and the Soul of the Vniverse he calling that Tagathon which to us is Father that Mind or Intellect which to us is Son or Word and that Psyche or a Power Animating and Enlivening all things which our Scriptures call the Holy Ghost And these things saith he were by Plato purloined from the Philosophy and Theology of the Hebrews Wherefore we cannot but take notice here of a Wonderful Providence of Almighty God that this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should find such Admittance and Entertainment in the Pagan World and be received by the wisest of all their Philosophers before the times of Christianity thereby to prepare a more easie way for the Reception of Christianity amongst the Learned Pagans Which that it proved successful accordingly is undeniably evident from the Monuments of Antiquity And the Juniour Platonists who were most opposite and adverse to Christianity became at length so sensible hereof that besides their other Adulterations of the Trinity before mentioned for the countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they did in all probability for this very reason quite innovate change and pervert the whole Cabala and no longer acknowledge a Trinity but either a Quaternity or a Quinary or more of Divine Hypostases They first of all contending that before the Trinity there was another Supreme and Highest Hypostasis not to be reckoned with the others but standing alone by himself And we conceive the first Innovator in this kind to have been Jamblichus who in his Egyptian Mysteries where he seems to make the Egyptian Theology to agree with his own Hypotheses writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before those things which truly are and the Principles of all there is One God Superiour to the First God and King Immovable and always remaining in the Solitude of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else mingled with him but he being the
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
Origenick Hypothesis the same with the Pythagorick That in Angels there is a Complication of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance both together or that they are Animals consisting of Soul and Body We shall now make it appear that the Greater part of the Ancient Fathers were for neither of the Two fore-mentioned Extreams Either That Angels were wholly Incorporeal or that they were wholly Corporeal but rather for the Middle Hypothesis That they Had Bodies and yet Were not Bodies But as other Terrestrial Animals Spirits or Souls Clothed with Etherial or Aerial Bodies And that the Generality of the Ancient and most Learned Fathers did not conceive Angels to be meer Vnbodied Spirits is unquestionably Evident from hence because they agreed with the Greek Philosophers in that Conceit that Evil Demons or Devils were therefore delighted with the Blood and Nidours of Sacrifices as having their more Gross Aiery and Vaporous Bodies nourished and refreshed with those Vapours which they did as it were Luxuriate and Gluttonize in For thus does Porphyrius write concerning them in his Book De Abstinentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they who take pleasure in the Incense Fumes and Nidours of Sacrifices wherewith their Corporeal and Spirituous Part is as it were Pinguified for this Lives and is Nourished by Vapours and Fumigations And that before Porphyrius many other Pagan Philosophers had been of the same Opinion appeareth from this of Celsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We ought to give Credit to wise men who affirm that most of these Lower and Circumterraneous Demons are delighted with Geniture Bloud and Nidour and such like things and much gratified therewith though they be not able to do any thing more in way of recompence then sometimes perhaps to cure the Body or to foretel good and evil Fortunes to Men and Cities Upon which account himself though a zealous Pagan perswadeth men to moderation in the Use of these Sacrifices as Principally gratifying the Inferiour and Worser Demons only In like manner Origen frequently insisteth upon the same thing he affirming that Devils were not only delighted with the Idolatry of the Pagans in their Sacrifices but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That their very Bodies were Nourished by the Vapours and Fumes arising from them and that these Evil Demons therefore did as it were Deliciate and Epicurize in them And before Origen most of the Ancient Fathers as Justine Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Tertullian c. and also many others after him endeavour to disparage those Material and Bloody Sacrifices upon the same Account as things whereby Evil Demons were principally Gratified We shall here only cite one passage to this purpose out of St. Basil or who ever were the Author of that Commentary upon Isaiah because there is something Philosophick in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifices are things of no small pleasure and advantage to Demons because the Blood being evaporated by Fire and so attenuated is taken into the Compages and Substances of their Bodies The whole of which is throughout nourished with Vapours not by Eating and Stomachs or such like Organs but as the Hairs and Nayls of all Animals and whatsoever other things Receive nourishment into their whole Substance And thus do we see it undeniably manifest that many of the Ancient Fathers supposed Devils to have Bodies neither can it at all be doubted but that they concluded the same of Angels too these being both of the same kind and differing but as Good and Evil men And though they do not affirm this of Good Angels but of Devils only that they were thus Delighted and Nourished with the Fumes and Vapours of Sacrifices and that they Epicurized in them yet was not the reason hereof because they conceived them to be altogether Incorporeal but to have Pure Etherial or Heavenly Bodies it being proper to those Gross and Vaporous Bodies of Demons only to be Nourished and Refreshed after that manner And Now that all these Ancient Fathers did not suppose either Angels or Devils to be altogether Corporeal or to have nothing but Body in them may be concluded from hence because many of them plainly declared the Souls of Men to be Incorporeal and therefore it cannot be imagined that they should so far degrade Angels below Men as not to acknowledge them to have any thing at all Incorporeal But we shall now Instance in some few amongst many of these Ancients who plainly asserted both Devils and Angels to be Spirits Incorporate and not to Be meer Bodies but only to Have Bodies that is to consist of Soul and Body or Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance joyned together That Angels themselves Have Bodies is every where declared by St. Austine in his Writings he affirming that the Bodies of Good men after the Resurrâ—ction shall be Qualia sunt Angelorum Corpora Such as are the Bodies of Angels and that they shall be Corpora Angelica in Societate Angelorum Angelical Bodies fit for Society and Converse with Angels and declaring the difference betwixt the Bodies of Angels and of Devils in this manner Daemones antequam transgrederentur Coelestia Corpora gerebant quae conversa sint ex poena in Aeream Qualitatem ut jam possint ab Igne Pati That though Devils before the Transgression had Celestial Bodies as Angels now have yet might these afterwards in way of Punishment be changed into Aerial ones and such as now may suffer by Fire Moreover the same St. Austin some where calleth Good Angels by the name of Animae Beatae atque Sanstae Happy and Holy Souls And though it be true that in his Retractations he recalleth and correcteth this yet was this only a Scrupulosity in that Pious Father concerning the meer word because he no where found in Scripture Angels called by the name of Souls it being far from his meaning even there to deny them to be Incorporeal Spirits joyned with Bodies And certainly he who every where concludes Humane Souls to be Incorporeal cannot be thought to have supposed Angels to have nothing at all but Body in them Again Claudianus Mamertus writing against Faustus who made Angels to be meer Bodies without Souls or any thing Incorporeal maintaineth in way of Opposition not that they are meer Incorporeal Spirits without Bodies which is the other Extream but that they consist of Corporeal and Incorporeal Soul and Body Joyned together he writing thus of the Devils Diabolus ex Duplici diversaque Substantia constat Corporeus est Incorporeus The Devil consisteth of a double and different Substance he is Corporeal and he is also Incorporeal And again of Angels Patet Beatos Angelos Vtriusque Substantiae Incorporeos esse in ea sui parte qua ipsis Visibilis Deus in ea itidem Parte Corporeos qua hominibus sunt ipsi Visibiles It is manifest that the blessed Angels are of a Two-fold Substance that they are Incorporeal in that part of theirs
that Arius was a German True and Genuine Platonist Whereas it is most certain from hence that Arius was no Platonist at all and that Petavius himself did not well understand the Platonick Doctrine Had Plato denied the Eternity of his Second Hypostasis called Nous he must have denied the Eternity of Wisedom and Vnderstanding it self this being to him that Wisedom by which God himself is Wise and whereby he made the World With which agreeth also Athanasius Our Lord is Wisedom and not Second to any other Wisedom and The Father of the Word is not himself Word and That was not Word and Wisedom which produced Word and Wisedom This in opposition to Arius who maintained Another Word and Wisedom Senior to that Word and Wisedom in Christ. These Platonists so far from denying the Eternity of the Word that they rather attributed too much to it in making it Self-begotten Wherefore Plato asserting the Eternity of his Second Hypostasis Nous or Logos and not of the World did thereby according to Athanasius his own Doctrine make it to be no Creature Page 575 Nor is there any force at all in that Testimony of Macrobius cited by Petavius to the contrary wherein the First Hypostasis is said to have Created Mind from it self and the Second to have Created Soul because these Ancient Pagans did not confine the word Creare to such a narrow sense as Christians commonly do but used it generally for all manner of Production Petavius his mistake chiefly from that Spurious Trinity of the latter Platonists whose Third God is by themselves called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature But this not the Doctrine of the Ancients Page 576 Nevertheless some more Reason to doubt whether Plato's Third Hypostasis were Eternal because in his Timaeus he Generates the Mundane Soul This Controversy decided by supposing a Double Psyche 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mundane and Supra-Mundane Soul the first of these called by Plotinus a Heavenly Venus and a Separate Soul Wherefore though the Lower Venus or Mundane Soul according to Plato made in Time together with the World yet the Higher Divine Soul or Heavenly Venus the Son of Chronus without a Mother his Third Hypostasis Eternal and without Beginning Page 576 577 This further Evident from hence Because Plato in his Epistle to Dionysius affirmeth as well of the Second and Third as of the First that in all those things that are Cognate to our Humane Soul or Creaturely there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing like thereunto Page 577 Secondly The Three Hypostases of Plato's Trinity not onely all Eternall but also Necessarily Existent and Absolutely Unannihilable Nor could the First any more Exist without the Second and Third then the Sun without its Primary Light and Secundary Splendor These according to Plotinus the Three Principles of the Universe so that there could be neither More nor Fewer They also who called the Second Autopator signified thereby the Necessity of its Existence Page 577 578 Thirdly These Three Platonick Hypostases as Eternall and Necessary so likewise Universal or Comprehensive of the Whole World that is Infinite and Omnipotent Therefore called Principles and Causes and Opificers Though Nous or Mind vulgarly lookt upon as the Highest Principle of all things yet Plato set before it One Most Simple Good When Nous said by Plato to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Same Kind with the First Cause of all things this all one as if he had affirmed it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Consubstantial with it Pag. 578 579 Plato's Third Hypostasis Psyche or the Superiour Mundane Soul called by him Zeus from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also the Cause and Fountain of Life and the Prince and King of all things And when said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Offspring of the Highest Mind thereby made Consubstantiall with it also So that Plato's whole Trinity Homoousian Page 579 Though by the Demiurgus or Opificer Plato commonly meant the Second Hypostasis Mind or Intellect yet Atticus Amelius Plotinus and others called the Third or the Higher Psyche also by that Name Wherefore according to the Genuine Platonick and Parmenidian Trinity all the Three Hypostases Joynt-Creatours of the whole World Thus Ficinus often and Proclus Porphyrius his Affirmation that the Deity according to Plato Extends to Three Hypostases Ibid. Certain therefore that Arius did not Platonize but rather Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers who notwithstanding made not Plato but the Scriptures their Foundation The Genuine Trinity of Plato and Parmenides a Middle betwixt that of Sabellius and that of Arius it being neither a Trinity of Words and Names as the Former nor an Heteroousious Trinity a Confused Jumble of God and Creature together but Homoousious and Homogeneall all Eternall Necessarily Existent Infinite or Omnipotent and Creatour Page 579 580 But that it may yet more fully appear how far the most refined Platonick and Parmenidian Trinity does either Agree or Disagree with the Scripture and Christian Doctrine Two things further to be Observed concerning it First that the Platonists Universally asserted an Essentiall Dependence of their Second and Third Hypostases upon the First as also a Graduall Subordination in them Thus Plotinus Chronos or the Second Hypostasis is in a Middle State betwixt his Father who is Greater and his Son who is Inferiour And that in this Eternal Generation or Emanation no Progress Vpward but all Downward and a Graduall Descent Page 580 581 More of the Dependence and Graduall Subordination of the Second and Third Hypostases of the Platonick Trinity to the First Each following Hypostasis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that before it Philo's Offensive Expression That the Logos or Word is the Shadow of God This Gradation commonly Illustrated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Effulgency or Out-shining Splendor of the Sun Page 581 582 The same further manifested from the severall Distinctive Characters given to each Hypostasis in the True Platonick or Parmenidian Trinity The First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One before all things The Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One All things as to their Distinct Idea's The Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Really producing All things The First Unity and Goodness Essentiall the Second Understanding and Wisedom the Third Self-Active Love and Power The First or Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above Action The Second or Son the Demiurgus The Maker or contriving Architect of the World but an Immovable Nature The Third a Movable Deity and the Immediate Governour of the whole World Amelius his Distinction of them into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 582 583 The greatest Difficulty in the distinctive Characters of these Three Platonick Hypostases That Understanding Reason and Wisedom should be made