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

Chap. IV. in the ChriJhiaJi trinity,599mly imitatiiig and partaking thereof. And accordingly hereunto would thePlatonick Chriflian further pretend, that there are fundry places in theScripture, which do not a little favour fome fubordination and priority bothof order and dignity, in the pcrfons of the holy Trinity ; of which none ismore obvious, than that of our Saviour Chrift, My Father is greater than I:which to undcrfland of his humanity only, feemeth to be lefs reafonable,becaufe this was no news at all, that the eternal God, the creator of thewhole world, fhould be greater than a mortal man, born of a woman. Andthus do divers of the orthodox fathers, as Athanajius himfelf, St. Bafil^ St.Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chryfojloin, with feveral others of the Latins,interpret the fame to have been fpoken, not of the humanity, but the divinityof our Saviour Chrift. Infomuch tha.z Petavius himfelf, expounding D^ TV//.-,the Athanafian creed, writeth in this manner : Pater major Filio, rite (j}p-^(>icatholicepronuntiatus ejl a pkrifqiie vetermn ; ^ origine prior Jine reprehenjionedid folet. The Father is, in a right catholick manner^ affirmed, by moft of theancients, to be greater than the Son ; and he is commonly /aid alfo, without re~prehevfion, to be before him in refpe£l of original. Whereupon he concludeththe true meaning of that creed to be this, that no perfon in the Trinity isgreater or Icfs than other, in refpect of the eflence of the Godhead commonto them all ;^ia vera Dcitas in nulla effe aut minor aut major potejl ; Becaufethe true Godhead can be no inhere greater or lefs : but that, notwithftanding,there may be fome inequality in them, as they are hie Deus, andhiec perfona ; this God, and that perfon. It is true indeed, that many of thofeancient fathers do reftrain and limit this inequality only to the relation ofthe pcrfons one to another, as the Father's begetting, and the Son's beingbegotten by the Father, and the Holy Ghoft proceeding from both -, theyfeeming to affirm, that there is otherwife a perfedl equality amongft them.Neverthelefs feveral of them do extend this difference further alfo, as forexample, St. Hilary, a zealous oppofer of the Arians, he in his book of Synodswriting thus ' ; Siiiuis unum dicens Deum, Chrijium auteni Deum, antej'ecula Filinm Dei, cbfecuium Patri in creatione omnium, non confitetttr, anathemaJit. And again, Non exaquamus vel cotiformamus Filium Patri, fed fiibje£iuminlelUgimiis . And Athanaftus himfelf, who is commonly accountedthe very rule of orthodoxality in this point, when he doth fo often refemblrthe Father to the ^'/.i©^, or to the (pa?, the fun, or the original light, andthe Son to the a.-n-oi.-^yxTii.x, the fplendor or brightnefs of it, fas likewifedoth the Nicene council and the Scripture itfelf ; ) he feems hereby to implyfome dependence of the fecond upon the firft, and fubordination to it ; efpeciallywhen he declareth, that the three perfons of the Trinity are not tobe look'd upon as three principles, nor to be refembled to three funs, butto the fun, and its fplendor, and its derivative light; iSi yx^ roiT; aifX.*? C«v/. .^z-. 0/-.Vj to £^ r'Ais vj TO, a,Trcit.\jyx,(s-fj.ix]i (pu;' iVw /xiau ol^^r-j o'lSuuiw For it appears from [Tom. I.tbefimilitude iifed by us, that we do not introduce three principles (as the Mar- '-^P^'"'^cionifts and Manicheans did) we not comparing the Trinity to three funs, butonly to the fun and its fplendor ; fo that we acknowledge only one principle.Hhhh» P. 1178, & 11S2. Oper. Ed. Benedift.'As'