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

cch.kcl.ac.uk
from cch.kcl.ac.uk More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

•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.

Chap. IV. re<strong>all</strong>y one Divinity. 589duced or created by one <strong>of</strong> th<strong>of</strong>e three ; nor yet can it be conceived, how<strong>the</strong>re could be three re<strong>all</strong>y diftind creations <strong>of</strong> one <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fame thing.Wherefore <strong>the</strong> world havii-g but one creation, <strong>and</strong> being created by th<strong>of</strong>ethree divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes ; it follows, that <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>all</strong> three re<strong>all</strong>y but oneCreator <strong>and</strong> one God. Thus when, both in Plato <strong>and</strong> Plotinns^ <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>and</strong>fouls <strong>of</strong> <strong>all</strong> animals, (as fbars, demons <strong>and</strong> men) are attributed to <strong>the</strong> thirdhyp<strong>of</strong>taf<strong>is</strong>, <strong>the</strong> firft ami great Pfyche, as <strong>the</strong>ir fountain <strong>and</strong> caufe after a fpecialmanner ; accordingly as in our Creed, <strong>the</strong> Holy Gh<strong>of</strong>t <strong>is</strong> fly led <strong>the</strong>Lord <strong>and</strong> giver <strong>of</strong> life ; th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> not fo to be underftood, as if <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong>firft <strong>and</strong> fecond hyp<strong>of</strong>lafes were to be excluded from having any caufality<strong>the</strong>rein. For <strong>the</strong> iirft <strong>is</strong> flyled by Plato alfo, aiVioi; aVaurKv tud x.aAuu, Thgcaufe <strong>of</strong> <strong>all</strong> good things ; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore doubtlefs ehiefly <strong>of</strong> fouls : <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fecond<strong>is</strong> c<strong>all</strong>ed by him <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs too, alViov <strong>and</strong> ^r.^j-i^toyoc^ <strong>the</strong> caufe <strong>and</strong> artificer<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole ivorld. We conclude <strong>the</strong>refore, that fouls being createdby <strong>the</strong> joint concurrence <strong>and</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes fubordinate,<strong>the</strong>y are <strong>all</strong> re<strong>all</strong>y but one <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fame God. And thus it <strong>is</strong> 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 JVifx<strong>is</strong>sj-ov" TciTflii SIx) T-« T» xsVjUB ij/ux.'''-'" '^PCf J/Ap x}/!-;^?;? Tvj ^fsTUTa zrpoiK^eTv That <strong>the</strong> ejferice <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> divinity proceeds or propagates it felf {by way <strong>of</strong> defcent downwards) untothree hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes or fubftflences. The higheft God <strong>is</strong> ihe Tagathon, or fupremeGood ; <strong>the</strong> fecond next after him <strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong> Demiurgus fo c<strong>all</strong>ed, <strong>the</strong> architeSi ora>-tificer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world ; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Soul <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world, that <strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong> third: for <strong>the</strong> divinityextendeth fo far as ta th<strong>is</strong> foul. Here we plainly fee, that though Porphyriusc<strong>all</strong>s <strong>the</strong> three divine hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes three Gods; yet does he at <strong>the</strong>very fame time declare, that >' biin itrlx, <strong>and</strong> -S-.-ot^c, <strong>the</strong> effence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Godhead<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Divinity extends it felf to <strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes, includino<strong>the</strong>third <strong>and</strong> laft alfo, (which <strong>the</strong>y c<strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong> 7>iundane foul) within <strong>the</strong> compafs<strong>of</strong> it. And <strong>the</strong>refore that even according to <strong>the</strong> Porphyrian <strong>the</strong>ologyit felf, which could not be fufpefted to affeCt any compliance with Chriftianity)<strong>the</strong> three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes in <strong>the</strong> Platonick trinity are owokVioi, co-effential,both as being each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m God, <strong>and</strong> as being <strong>all</strong> one God. St. Cyril himfelfalfoacknowledging as much; where he writeth thus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Platonifts %0foj t£rpo-)-')c£ii/ jj^'jpi(r«'/xr.or That fuppojing three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes, which have <strong>the</strong> nature<strong>of</strong> principles {in <strong>the</strong> univerfe,) <strong>the</strong>y extend <strong>the</strong> eftence <strong>of</strong> God to <strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe threehyp<strong>of</strong>tafes.Indeed many conceive, that <strong>the</strong> Platonifts making <strong>the</strong> three hyp<strong>of</strong>tafes <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>ir tiinity to be thus gradu<strong>all</strong>y fubordinate one to ano<strong>the</strong>r, could not, forthat very reafon, acknowledge <strong>the</strong>m to be one divinity : but <strong>the</strong> Platonifts<strong>the</strong>mfelves do upon th<strong>is</strong> very account, <strong>and</strong> no o<strong>the</strong>r, declare <strong>all</strong> <strong>the</strong>fe threeto be one divinity, becaufe <strong>the</strong>y have an effentia! dependence <strong>and</strong> gradualfubordination in <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong> fecond being but <strong>the</strong> image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firft, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>third <strong>the</strong> image both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firft <strong>and</strong> fecund. Whereas, were <strong>the</strong>fe three fupp<strong>of</strong>edto be perfectly co-equal, <strong>and</strong> to have no clTential dependence one uponano<strong>the</strong>r,* Contra Julian. lib. VIII. p. 271. » Ibid. p. 2 c.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!