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

6oo Plato'j Trinity reSiified. B o o k I.As alfo where he approves of this of Dionyfius of Alexandria, o Si ye Qe,P. 565. CCIC0VI5V sri tpw?, vT£ Kf^ai/t'Jov, »T£ Xr^QV ttoIe" Jxav «iu;i5v Tr^cay.ctTCi >^ c-Jvjciy aJra[ Lib. de Sen- ^^v a7rai;'7a9"|U.a, a'/ac/o-j x^ x-r/v.i; 7rjo(p*ii/i5,u£,ov aurs" Go^ M tf« eternal Jightyw/^/V/?' wc'^JiT i'^_^rt;/, a«i^ y&fl// «(fwr ceafe to be ; therefore there is an eternalnTf' contra'Arian. fplendor alfo co-exiftent ivith him, which had no beginning neither, but wasTom. 1.] always generated by him, pnning out before him. For if the Son of God beas the fplendor of the fun cinyi'Ai, always generated, then miift he needshave an elTential dependence upon the Father, and fubordination to him.And this fame thing further appears from thofe other refembJances, whichthe fame Dionyfius maketh, of the Father and tlie Son, approved in likemanner alfo by Athanafius \ viz. to the fountain and the river ; to the rootand the branch -, to the water and the vapour •, for fo it ought to be read,P. 275. vSx]^, and not mi'jfj.a.'lci, as appeareth from his book of the Nicene fynod,[Tom. r.where he afErmeth the Son to have been begotten of the efTence or fubftance*-'P^''-Jpf []^e Father ; wf t» (paro? dTrxh'yci(riJi.x, uf i'ixloi c!iTf/.\cj as the fplendor of thelight, and as the vapour of the water ; adding, in yxo to ci7rx-jyxa-i/.x, Uti ^ccTixi!, aJro TO "Sup £S~iv, ri asi-ro; rAioj" in uXXot^hv, ocXXx a,7iofficix rri; tm7ra7«o; oucria;' For neither the fplendor nor the vapour is the very fun, and thevery water i nor yet is it eliene from it, or a firanger to its nature ; but theyare both effluxes from the ejfence cr fubftance of them ; as the Son is an effluxfrom the fubftance of the Father, yet fo as he is >io way diminiped or kjjenedthereby. Now all thefe fimilitudes, of the fountain and the river, the rootand the branch, the water and the vapour, (as w^U as that of the fun andthe fpkndor) feem plainly to imply fome dependence and fubordination.And Dionyfius doubtlefs intended them to that purpofe, he aflerting, a.3Phoiius informeth us, an inferiority of power and glory in the fecond, aslikewife did Origen before him ; both whole teftimonies, notwithftanding,Jtianafius maketh ufe of, without any cenlure or reprehenfion of them.Wherefore when Athanafius, and the other orthodox fathers, writing againftArius, do fo frequently aflert the equality of all the three Perfons, this isto be underftood in way of oppofition to Arius only, who made the Son tobe unequal to the Father, as irf^oaViov, of a different effen e from him, onebeing God and the other a creature they affirming on the contrary, that-,he was equal to the Father, as o^uokVi^, of the fame effence with him ; that i-;,as God, and not a creature. Notwithftanding which equality, there miyhtbe fome fubordination in them, as hie Deus and h.ec ferfona (to ufe Pttaviushis language) this God and that perfon.And thus does there feem not to be fo great a difference betwixt themore genuine Platonifts, and the ancient orthodox fathers, in their dodlrineconcerning the Trinity, as is by many conceived. However, our PlatonickChriitian would further add, that there is no neceffity at all from theprinciples of Plaioiiifm itfJf, why the Platonifls Ihould make any other ormore fubordination in their Trinity, than the mcft ftvtrely onhociox fathersthemfelves. For according to the common hypothefis of the PJatonifts,when the characler of the firft hypoftafis is fuppoled by them, to beinfinite goodnefs •, of the fecond, infinite wifdom j and of the third, infinite5adive