wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

did>c;ij. The Allegory of O^w'i^ Book I.fozvers an^ energies. In which palfage of 7^;«^/k/&?« ' we have plainly threedivine hypoftafes, or univerfal principles fubordinate, according to the Hermaicktheology ; firft, an indivifible unity called EiHon ; fccondly, a perfe6tmind, converting its intelledions into it Telf, called Emeph or Hemphta ; andthirdly, the immediate principle of generation, called by feveral names, accordingto its feveral powers, as Phtha., /Immon, Ofiris, and the like : fo thatthcfe three names with others, according to Jamblichus in the., Egyptiantheology fignify, one and the fame third divine hypoftafis. How well thefethree divine hypoftafes of the Egyptians agree v/ith the Pythagorick orPlatonick trinity, of firft, to '\j or rdyMv, unity and goodnefs it felf, fecondiy,v??, mind, and thirdly \]vux,'S /^«A I '"'ccd not here declare. Onlywe fhall call to mind what hath been already intimated, that that reafon orwifdom, which was the Demiurgus of the world, and is properly the fecond ofthe forcmentioned hypoftafes, was called alfo among the Egyptians, by anothername, Cneph; from whom was faid to have been produced or begottenthe god Phtha., the third hypoftafis of the Egyptian trinity; fothat Cnepb and Emeph are all one. Wherefore we have here plainly anEgyptian trinity of divine hypoftafis fubordinate, EiSton, Emeph (or Cneph)and Phtha. We know not what to add more to this ot Jamblichus, concerningan Egyptian trinity, unlefs we fhould infift upon thofe paftagcs, whichhave been cited by fome of the fathers to this purpofe out of Hermaick orTrifmegiftick books, whereof there was one before fet down out of St. Cyril-,or unlefs we fhouM again call to mind that citation out of Dama/cius'^, jxia, twjoAui/ a'pX.''"*'-''''''? ayvurov v[/.viiui\in >cj t«to rpi^- a^jxpu)/^ fj.evov {ituc, that according fathe Egyptians., there is one principle of all things praifed under the name of theunknozvn darknefs, and this thrice repeated. Agreeably to which, Auguftinus Steufbusproduces another palfage out of the fame philofophick writer ; that theEo'yptians mad^ nrfurw ap^^w o-jiot®-' vtte^ -n-o-.a-ixv voriQtv, ffjcoro? c.yvioi-O'j, t^ij t?-ro £7r,{pJi/^i'(^ov7Ef, the frfl principle of all, to be darknefs above all knowledge andunderflanding (or unknown darknefs) they thrice repeating the fame. Which theforementioned Steuchus takes to be a clear acknowledgment of a trinity _ofdivine hypoftafes in the Egyptian theology.Our fecond obfervation is this, that the Egyptian theology as well as theOrphick (which was derived from it) aflerting one incorporeal Deity, thatis all things ; as it is evident, that it could not admit a multitude of felfexiftentand independent deities, fo did the feeming polytheifm of thefe E-gyptians proceed alfo in great meafure from this principle of theirs not rightlyunderftood ; they being led thereby, in a certain fenfe, ^lon-oteT-j^ to perfonateand deify the feveral parts of the world, and things of nature, beftowingthe names of gods and goddefles upon them. Not that they therefore worfhippedthe inanimate parts of the world as fuch, much lefs things not fubftantial,but mere accidents, for fo many real, diftinft, pcrfonal deities ; but becaufeconceiving that God, who was all things, ought to be worfhipped in allthings (fuch efpecially as were moft beneficial to mankind) they did, accordingto that Afclepian and Trifmegiftick doftrine before-mentioned, callGod» De Myfter. ^gypt. Soft. VIII. cap. III. p. i j8, i jp.» Vide Wolfii Anecdot. Graeca p. z6o.