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

568 The Henades and Noes, B o o k I.Chrift, and perfeveringly obey him -, i Joh. ii. This is the promifey that hehath promifed us, e-ven eternal life : and Tit. i. 2. In hope of eternal life,which God, that cannot lye, hath promifed. And, Cod fo loved the world,that he gave his only begotten fon, that ivhofoever believeth in him fhould noferifh, but have evcrlajting life : and left all this fhould be taken for a periodicaleternity only, John iii. 26. He, that believeth in me,fjail never die. Andpofllbly this might be the meaning of St. Paul, 2 Tim. i. lo. when heaffirmethof our Saviour Chrift, That he hath abolifoed death, and brought life and immortalityto light, through the Gofpel ; not becaufe he was the firft, who haddifcovered, and publifhed to the world, the foul's immortahty, which was believedbefore, not only by all the Pharifaick Jews, but alfo by the generalityof Pagans too ; but becaufe thefe, for the moft part, held their endlefscircuits and tranfmigrations of fouls : therefore was he the firft, who broughteverlafting life to light, and gave the world afflirance, in the faith of theGofpel, of a fixed and permanent ftate of happinefs, and a never-fadingcrown of glory to be obtained ; Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in thitemple of my God, and he fhallgo no more out. Apoc. iii. 12.Now the reafon, why we mentioned Origen here, was becaufe he was aperfon, not only thoroughly fidlled in all the Platonick learning, but alfo one,who was fufBciently addifted to thofe dogmata, he being commonly conceivedto have had too great a kindnefs for them ; and therefore, had there beenany Iblidity of reafon for either thofe particular Henades or Noes of theirs,created beings above the rank of fouls, and confequently, according to thePlatonick hypothefis, fuperiour to the univerfal Pfyche alio, (which was thethird hypoftafis in their trinity, and feems to anfwer to the Holy Ghoft in theChriftian ;) Origen was as likely to have been favourable thereunto as anyother. But it is indeed manifeftly repugnant to reafon, that there fhould beany fuch particular, that is, created Henades, and a^jrox-yaSorviTt; effentialgcodneffes, fuperiour to the Platonick firft Mind; or any fuch Noes, and aJroo-oCpi'ai,effential ivifdoms, fuperiour to their univerfal Pfyche ; it being all one, asif, in the Chriftian Trinity, befides the firft perfon, or the Father, onefhould fuppofe a multitude of particular paternities fuperiour to the fecond;and alfo, befides the fecond perfon, the Son, or Word, a multitudeof particular fons, or words, all fuperiour to the third perfon, the HolyGhoft. For this is plainly to make a breach upon the Deity, to confoundthe creator and creature, together ; and to fuppofe a company of fuchcreatureiy gods, as imply a maniteft contradldioii in the very notion ofthem."Wherefore, we Ihall hereobferve, that this was not the catholick dodlrineof the Piatonick fchool, that there were fuch Henades and Noes, but only aprivate opinion of fome tioftors amongft them, and that of the latter forttoo. For firft, as for ihofe Henades, as there are not the leaft fooiftcps ofthem to be found any where in Plato^s writings, fb may it be plainly ga.-thered from thera, that he fuppofed no fuch thing. Forafmuch a?, in hisfecond