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

namely,Chap. IV. into an Agreement with the Chrifiian. 60aftive love and power, (thefe not as accidents and qualities, but as all fub-(lantial) it is more eafy to conceive, that ail thefe are really but one andthe fame God, than how there fhould be any confiderable inferiority in them.But befides this, there is another Platonick hypothefis (which St. Auflin'DeCi-v. D.hinteth from Porphyrins., though he profefll-th he did not well underftand iO^,";'J'-^^"where the third hypoftafis is made to be a certain middle betwixt the '^'^^ ,nedium\ionand ftcond. And tliis does Proclus alfo fometimes follow, calling the third /io/^oh//, fedtn like manner, i/Atw i'Svccy-iv, a middle power., and o/jtiv oly.(po7vy the relation '"'""to"'*-of both the fir Ji and fecond to one another. Which agreeth exadly with thatapprehenfion of fome Chriitians, that the third hypoftafis is as it were thenexus betwixt the firft and the fecond, and that love, whereby the Fatherand Son love each other. Now, according to this latter Platonick hypothefis,there would feem to be not fo much a gradation or defcenr, as a kindof circulation in the Trinity. Upon all which confiderations, the PlatonickChriftian will conclude, that though fome junior Plaronifts have adulteratedthe notion of the Trinity, yet either there is no fuch great difference betwixtthe genuine Platonick Trinity, rightly underftood, and the Chriftian ;or elfe, that as the fame might be modelled and reftified, there need notto be.But though the genuine Platonifts do thus fuppofe the three hypoftafestheir Trinity to be all of them, not only God, but alfo one God, or ;u.ta!SfOT))?, one entire Divinity ; upon which latter account, the whole may befaid alfo by them, to have one fingular or numerical efi'ence : yet notwithftandingmuft it be acknowledged, that they no where fuppofe each ofthefe three hypoftafes to be numerically the very fame, or to have no diftindlfingular efiences of their own ; this bi-ing, in their apprehenfions, diretllycontradiftious to their very hypothefis itielf, and all one, as if theyfhould affirm them, indeed not to be three hypoftafes, but only one. Neverthelefs,the Chriftian Placonift would here alfo apologize for them afterthis manner ; that the ancient orthodox fathers of the Chriftian church weregenerally of no other perfuafion than this, that that effcnce or fubftance ofthe Godhead, which all the three perfons or hypoftafes agree in, as each ofthem is God, was not one fingular and individual, but only one commonand univerfil efifence or fubftance ; that word fubftance being ufed by themas fynonymous with efience, and applied to univerfds likewife, as it is by thePeripateticks, when they call a man, or animal in general, fv.bfiantiam fecundam,a fecond fubftance. Now this is evident from hence, bccaufe thefeorthodox fathers did commorily diftinguifli, in this controverfy of the Trinity,betwixt Ol(rlx and 'T7ror^.o-ic, the ejence or fiitftance of the Godhead, and thehypoftafes or perfons themfelves, after this manner -, that the hypoftafisor pcrfon was fingular and individual, but the eflence or fubftance commonand univerfal. Thus does Theodoret pronounce of thefe fathers in general,ofyh^ uVsa TO i7^ Ji TO aTO,aov, Ta'JT?i-j Ep^t. 'H O'TSI'A zjoig TH'N 'TIIO'STASIN- ^^'^^ jjylccording to the doSfrine of the fathers, as that which is co;nmon differs Oper.p.sg;.]from that which is proper^ and the genus from the /pedes or individiam, foH h h h 2 doth