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

Chap. IV. Hofnooujian^ and Co~equaL 59 jCreator of all things, ought therefore to be reJigioufly worfliipped and a-dored as God, by all created beings. Wherefore this erfcnce of tne Godhead,that belongeth alike to all the three hypoftafes, being, as all other eflences,perfeftly indivifible, it might be well affirmed, according to Platonickgrounds, that all the three divine hypoftafes (though having fome fubordinationin them) yet in this fenfe are co-equal, they being all truly andalike God or uncreated. And the Platonifts thus diftinguilhing betwixt o-Viitand •jVs-aTi-:, the effence of the Godhead-, and the diftin£l hypoftafes or perfonalitiesthereof, and making the firft of them to be common, general and univerfa!,are not without the confent and approbation of the orthodox fathersherein ; they determining likewife, that in the Deity, cffence or fubrtancediffers from hypoftafis, as to xoimv from to xa.6' 'Uxrov, that whichiscGtnmon and general, differs from that which is fingular and individual.Thus, befides many others, St. Cyril ", >iv tx.'^i Stx^ofxu ^o yiw;, >) iTaoc, uVi^TO XT0U.0V, TauTJiv V) bVioj -sTfo; T!t\ CTTorxTiv Ep^fi' 'Thc cffcnce or fubftance of theBeity differs from the l^-poftajis, after the fanie manner as a genus or /pedesdiffers frovi an indtvidiium. So that, as well according to thefe fathersas the Platonifts, that effence or fubftance of the Godhead, whichall the three perlbns agree in, is not fingular, but generical or univerfal -,they both fuppofing each of the perfons alio to have their own numericaleftence. Wherefore, according to this diftinftion,. betwixt the efTence or fubftanceof the Godheadj.and the particular hypoftafes, (approved by the orthodoxfathers) neither Plato^ nor any intelligent Platonift, would fcruple to fubfcribethat form of the Nicene council, that the Son or Word, is ijj.'.idi'^.,co-effential, or con-fitbftantial, and co-equal with the father And we thinkit will be proved afterwards, that this was the very meaning of the Nicenecouncil it felf, that the Son was therefore co-effential or con-fubftantial withdie Father, raeerly becaufe he was God, and not a creature.Fefides which, the genuine Platonifts would doubtlefs acl-mowledge alfo.all the three hypoftafes of their trinity to be homo-oufian, co-eflential orcon-fubftantial, yet in a further fenfe than this ; namely, as being all of themone ©s^ov or divinity. For thus, befides that paflage of Pcrphyrius beforecited, may thefe words of St. Cyril he underftood concerning them"-; (J-^x^iTpiup Ctro^xa-euv r-/iv oJ(riJsv to~ Sfou zjpoawiiv l^^ifi^ovlKi' 'That, according to thetn,^the effence of God extendeth to three hypoftafes,. or comprehendeth three hypoftafesin it : that is, not only fo as that each of thefe three is God •, butalfo that they are not fo many feparate and divided Gods, but all of themtogether one God or Divinity. For though the PJatonifts, as Pagans, being notfo fcrupulous in their language as v/e Chriftians are, do often call them threeGods, and a firft, fecond, and third God ; yet notwithftanding,.as philofophers,did they declare them to be one ©iTov or Divinity ; and that,as it feems,upon thefefeveral accounts following. Firft, becaufe they are indivifibly conjoined together,,as the fplendour is indivifible from the fun. And then, becaufe they are mutuallyinexiftent in each other, the firft being in the fecond, and both firft and fecond» Tliis feems to be a miftake for Thorloret, Dialog. I. deTrinitate, p. 40S. Ttm.V. O^er..in whom we find tlie'e very words. Dialog, i. Ed. yiuberti.a.-iveff. H^-ef. Jok. II. opec p. zi)-,.^ Tho' rhe » Contra Julian, lib. VIII- p. z;o.1amc thing is liiid in otUcr ^\ords ia St. Cjril,.in