wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and
wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and
•588 PlatoV three Thpofiafcs Book I.an immoveable, inflexible, and unafleclible Deity, than to a fenfelefs adamantinerock. But thefc difficulties (as the Plaronifts pretend) are all removedby that third hypoflalis in their trinity-, which is a kind of moveabledeity. And thus are ail the piixnomena of the deity, or the different commonnotions in the minds of men concerning it, though feemingly repugnantand clafhing with one another, yet:, in their opinion, fairly reconciledand folvcd by this trinity of divine hypoftafes fubordinate.Laftly, they pretend alfo, that according to this hypothefis of theirs, theremay be fome reafonable fatisfaftion given to the mind of man, both whythere are fo many divine hypollafes, and why there could be no more : whereasaccording to other v/ays, it would feem to have been a mcer arbitrarybufinefs -, and that there might have been either but one folitary divine hypoftafis,or but a duality of them ; or elfe they might have been beyond atrinity,numberlefs.The fecond thing, which we fliall obferve concerning the moft genuine Platonicaland Parmenidian trinity, is this ; that though thefe philofophers fometimescalled their three divine hypoftafes, not only TpjHr (f>Vfjf, three natures^and three principles^ and three caufes, and three opijicers, but alfothree Gods, and a firfl;, and fecond, and third God ;yet did they often, forall that, fuppofe all thefe three to be really one im, one Divinity, or Nilmen.It hath been already proved from Origen and others, that the Platoniftsmoll commonly called the animated world the fecond God, though fome ofthem, as for example Nttmenius, ftylcd it the third God. Now thofe of them,who called the world the fecond God, attributed indeed (not more, but)lefs divinity to it, than thofe, who would have it to be the third God. Becaufethefe latter fuppofed, that foul of the world to be the third hypoflafisof their trinity; but the othertaking all thefe three divine hypoftafes together,for one fupreme and firft God, called the world the fecond God-, they fuppofingthe foul thereof to be another foul inferiour to that firft Pfyche, which wasproperly their third hypoftafis. Wherefore this was really all one, as if theyfhould have called the animated world the fourth God ; only by that otherway of reckoning, when they called it a fecond God, they intimated, thatthough thofe three divine hypoftafes were frequently called three gods, yetwere they notwithftanding, really all but one 3tw.', Divinity or Numen ; or,as Plotinns fpeaks, to eu tm zra-^l ^i7o'j, the divinity ivhich is in the ivhole tvorld.Thus when God is fo often fpoken of in Plato fingularly, the word is notalways to be underftood of the firft hypoftafis only, or the Tagathon, butmany times plainly of the tsTfUToi-, and Sil-n^'.-:, and TpiW, thtfrft, and/econdand //^fW all together ; or that whole divinity, which confifteth oris madeup of thefe three hypoftafes. And this will further appear from hence, becaufewhen the whole world is faid in Pltito to be the image of the eternalgods, as alfo by Plotinus, of the firft, fecond and third, by whom it is alwaysproduced anew, as the image in a glafs is -, this is not to be underftood,as if the world being tripartite, each tliird part thereof was feverally pro-1 duced
Chap. IV. really one Divinity. 589duced or created by one of thofe three ; nor yet can it be conceived, howthere could be three really diftind creations of one and the fame thing.Wherefore the world havii-g but one creation, and being created by thofethree divine hypoftafes ; it follows, that they are all three really but oneCreator and one God. Thus when, both in Plato and Plotinns^ the lives andfouls of all animals, (as fbars, demons and men) are attributed to the thirdhypoftafis, the firft ami great Pfyche, as their fountain and caufe after a fpecialmanner ; accordingly as in our Creed, the Holy Ghoft is fly led theLord and giver of life ; this is not fo to be underftood, as if therefore thefirft and fecond hypoflafes were to be excluded from having any caufalitytherein. For the iirft is flyled by Plato alfo, aiVioi; aVaurKv tud x.aAuu, Thgcaufe of all good things ; and therefore doubtlefs ehiefly of fouls : and the fecondis called by him and others too, alViov and ^r.^j-i^toyoc^ the caufe and artificerof the whole ivorld. We conclude therefore, that fouls being createdby the joint concurrence and influence of thefe three hypoftafes fubordinate,they are all really but one and the fame God. And thus it is exprefly affirmedby Porphyrins in St. Cyril ', a;)^^* rpicoi/ \,iror d^stuiiv iw ^tU z!^o=.\'ji7]i iaixv uvctiSi Tov fji.iv dvj'Tj'.Ta] S'^oi/ TO ayoi^ov, jusr ai/TOv Si Hj Jeuteoc.', tov JVifxissj-ov" TciTflii SIx) T-« T» xsVjUB ij/ux.'''-'" '^PCf J/Ap x}/!-;^?;? Tvj ^fsTUTa zrpoiK^eTv That the ejferice ofthe divinity proceeds or propagates it felf {by way of defcent downwards) untothree hypoftafes or fubftflences. The higheft God is ihe Tagathon, or fupremeGood ; the fecond next after him is the Demiurgus fo called, the architeSi ora>-tificer of the world ; and the Soul of the world, that is the third: for the divinityextendeth fo far as ta this foul. Here we plainly fee, that though Porphyriuscalls the three divine hypoftafes three Gods; yet does he at thevery fame time declare, that >' biin itrlx, and -S-.-ot^c, the effence of the Godheadand the Divinity extends it felf to all thefe three hypoftafes, includinothethird and laft alfo, (which they call the 7>iundane foul) within the compafsof it. And therefore that even according to the Porphyrian theologyit felf, which could not be fufpefted to affeCt any compliance with Chriftianity)the three hypoftafes in the Platonick trinity are owokVioi, co-effential,both as being each of them God, and as being all one God. St. Cyril himfelfalfoacknowledging as much; where he writeth thus of the Platonifts %0foj t£rpo-)-')c£ii/ jj^'jpi(r«'/xr.or That fuppojing three hypoftafes, which have the natureof principles {in the univerfe,) they extend the eftence of God to all thefe threehypoftafes.Indeed many conceive, that the Platonifts making the three hypoftafes oftheir tiinity to be thus gradually fubordinate one to another, could not, forthat very reafon, acknowledge them to be one divinity : but the Platoniftsthemfelves do upon this very account, and no other, declare all thefe threeto be one divinity, becaufe they have an effentia! dependence and gradualfubordination in them; the fecond being but the image of the firft, and thethird the image both of the firft and fecund. Whereas, were thefe three fuppofedto be perfectly co-equal, and to have no clTential dependence one uponanother,* Contra Julian. lib. VIII. p. 271. » Ibid. p. 2 c.
- Page 572 and 573: 538^7%e fVbfM i^ ui'ao, ruv Si ^oxj
- Page 574 and 575: c^o Vagaii DoBrine\ the Vulgar . Bo
- Page 576 and 577: .the542 l^he Pagans Real Polytheifm
- Page 578 and 579: ^44- Themis; the Eternal Law ^ or G
- Page 580 and 581: 5-4^ '^he Platonifis Super-Mundane
- Page 582 and 583: £^8 The Pagans Trinity^ derived Bo
- Page 584 and 585: Nobisceo T^^ Pagans Trinity ^ a Tri
- Page 586 and 587: thoughe^2 ^^ Cabala of the Trinity
- Page 588 and 589: 554Ideas made Animals and Gods. Boo
- Page 590 and 591: 5 Tlje fpuriom PlaWtkk Trinityy Boo
- Page 592 and 593: £^8 The Chrifilan Trmity^ as oppof
- Page 594 and 595: Nonnt.^QThis Platonick Trinity^ not
- Page 596 and 597: 562 Godf not a Mundane Soul, BookI
- Page 598 and 599: c;64^"^0 created Henades, Book I.I.
- Page 600 and 601: and^66 Different Degrees of Souls.'
- Page 602 and 603: 568 The Henades and Noes, B o o k I
- Page 604 and 605: 57© The Genuine Cabala, of the Tri
- Page 606 and 607: -572 Plato'j Plurality in ths Deity
- Page 608 and 609: forpyA Nous or Logos caUed Autopa.t
- Page 610 and 611: wherebycy6 Nene of VhXo Book I.m v.
- Page 612 and 613: ^ ^ 8 PlatoV Trinity Homooufmn. B o
- Page 614 and 615: 580 The Dependence and Subordinatio
- Page 616 and 617: '582 7^^ diJlinSiive CharaSiers Boo
- Page 618 and 619: 8^. Platonifls make Mind and JVjfdo
- Page 620 and 621: 5 86 The Ground of this Platonick B
- Page 624 and 625: oQ How 'Phto s Trinity "B o o k I.a
- Page 626 and 627: merely^gt ^e Agreement and Difagree
- Page 628 and 629: 594- The Platomck'Ba,'^}i.o\ cenfur
- Page 630 and 631: ,q(f In u'hai Je?}fc PlatoV Tri?iit
- Page 632 and 633: 'but5^8 What Inequality Book!.
- Page 634 and 635: 6oo Plato'j Trinity reSiified. B o
- Page 636 and 637: 602 I'he EJjfence of the Godhead^ B
- Page 638 and 639: weaut604 A Trithei/iick Trinity, Bo
- Page 640 and 641: and6o6 II3& true Notion of the B o
- Page 642 and 643: 6o8 7^^ Nicene Fathers Book 5.irxTB
- Page 644 and 645: 6io The Homooufian Trinity Book L'T
- Page 646 and 647: 6 1 Whether Co-effe?ntaUty alone B
- Page 648 and 649: 614* Co'EJfentiality necejfary Book
- Page 650 and 651: and6i6 How the Homooufian Trinity^
- Page 652 and 653: 618" "TJ^e Perichorejts in the 'Tri
- Page 654 and 655: 6 20 77je Reafons for this Platonic
- Page 656 and 657: 62 2 Tb^ Father s Senfey ofthe Book
- Page 658 and 659: j624 ^^ Cahala of the Trinity Book
- Page 660 and 661: 626 Proclus'j Monad before the Trin
- Page 662 and 663: 628 Arians charged hy the Fathers B
- Page 664 and 665: 630 Orthodox Chrifiians worpipped B
- Page 666: (3^2 Human Nature depravahle. Book
•588 PlatoV three Thp<strong>of</strong>iafcs Book I.an immoveable, inflexible, <strong>and</strong> unafleclible Deity, than to a fenfelefs adamantinerock. But <strong>the</strong>fc difficulties (as <strong>the</strong> Plaronifts pretend) are <strong>all</strong> removedby that third hyp<strong>of</strong>lal<strong>is</strong> in <strong>the</strong>ir trinity-, which <strong>is</strong> a kind <strong>of</strong> moveabledeity. And thus are ail <strong>the</strong> piixnomena <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> deity, or <strong>the</strong> different commonnotions in <strong>the</strong> minds <strong>of</strong> men concerning it, though feemingly repugnant<strong>and</strong> clafhing with one ano<strong>the</strong>r, yet:, in <strong>the</strong>ir opinion, fairly reconciled<strong>and</strong> folvcd by th<strong>is</strong> trinity <strong>of</strong> divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes fubordinate.Laftly, <strong>the</strong>y pretend alfo, that according to th<strong>is</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>f<strong>is</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>irs, <strong>the</strong>remay be fome reafonable fat<strong>is</strong>faftion given to <strong>the</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> man, both why<strong>the</strong>re are fo many divine hypollafes, <strong>and</strong> why <strong>the</strong>re could be no more : whereasaccording to o<strong>the</strong>r v/ays, it would feem to have been a mcer arbitrarybufinefs -, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong>re might have been ei<strong>the</strong>r but one folitary divine hyp<strong>of</strong>taf<strong>is</strong>,or but a duality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m ; or elfe <strong>the</strong>y might have been beyond atrinity,numberlefs.The fecond thing, which we fli<strong>all</strong> obferve concerning <strong>the</strong> m<strong>of</strong>t genuine Platonical<strong>and</strong> Parmenidian trinity, <strong>is</strong> th<strong>is</strong> ; that though <strong>the</strong>fe phil<strong>of</strong>ophers fometimesc<strong>all</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>ir three divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes, not only TpjHr (f>Vfjf, three natures^<strong>and</strong> three principles^ <strong>and</strong> three caufes, <strong>and</strong> three opijicers, but alfothree Gods, <strong>and</strong> a firfl;, <strong>and</strong> fecond, <strong>and</strong> third God ;yet did <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten, for<strong>all</strong> that, fupp<strong>of</strong>e <strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe three to be re<strong>all</strong>y one im, one Divinity, or Nilmen.It hath been already proved from Origen <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, that <strong>the</strong> Platoniftsmoll commonly c<strong>all</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> animated world <strong>the</strong> fecond God, though fome <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>m, as for example Nttmenius, ftylcd it <strong>the</strong> third God. Now th<strong>of</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m,who c<strong>all</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> world <strong>the</strong> fecond God, attributed indeed (not more, but)lefs divinity to it, than th<strong>of</strong>e, who would have it to be <strong>the</strong> third God. Becaufe<strong>the</strong>fe latter fupp<strong>of</strong>ed, that foul <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world to be <strong>the</strong> third hyp<strong>of</strong>laf<strong>is</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir trinity; but <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rtaking <strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe three divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes toge<strong>the</strong>r,for one fupreme <strong>and</strong> firft God, c<strong>all</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> world <strong>the</strong> fecond God-, <strong>the</strong>y fupp<strong>of</strong>ing<strong>the</strong> foul <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> to be ano<strong>the</strong>r foul inferiour to that firft Pfyche, which wasproperly <strong>the</strong>ir third hyp<strong>of</strong>taf<strong>is</strong>. Wherefore th<strong>is</strong> was re<strong>all</strong>y <strong>all</strong> one, as if <strong>the</strong>yfhould have c<strong>all</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> animated world <strong>the</strong> fourth God ; only by that o<strong>the</strong>rway <strong>of</strong> reckoning, when <strong>the</strong>y c<strong>all</strong>ed it a fecond God, <strong>the</strong>y intimated, thatthough th<strong>of</strong>e three divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes were frequently c<strong>all</strong>ed three gods, yetwere <strong>the</strong>y notwithft<strong>and</strong>ing, re<strong>all</strong>y <strong>all</strong> but one 3tw.', Divinity or Numen ; or,as Plotinns fpeaks, to eu tm zra-^l ^i7o'j, <strong>the</strong> divinity ivhich <strong>is</strong> in <strong>the</strong> ivhole tvorld.Thus when God <strong>is</strong> fo <strong>of</strong>ten fpoken <strong>of</strong> in Plato fingularly, <strong>the</strong> word <strong>is</strong> notalways to be underftood <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firft hyp<strong>of</strong>taf<strong>is</strong> only, or <strong>the</strong> Tagathon, butmany times plainly <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tsTfUToi-, <strong>and</strong> Sil-n^'.-:, <strong>and</strong> TpiW, thtfrft, <strong>and</strong>/econd<strong>and</strong> //^fW <strong>all</strong> toge<strong>the</strong>r ; or that whole divinity, which confifteth or<strong>is</strong> madeup <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes. And th<strong>is</strong> will fur<strong>the</strong>r appear from hence, becaufewhen <strong>the</strong> whole world <strong>is</strong> faid in Pltito to be <strong>the</strong> image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> eternalgods, as alfo by Plotinus, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firft, fecond <strong>and</strong> third, by whom it <strong>is</strong> alwaysproduced anew, as <strong>the</strong> image in a glafs <strong>is</strong> -, th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> not to be underftood,as if <strong>the</strong> world being tripartite, each tliird part <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> was fever<strong>all</strong>y pro-1 duced