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

6 1 Whether Co-effe?ntaUty alone B o o k !•W Strap.trin'ily of mere names and viords only, but of hypoftafes, truly and really exijiing.But the Homooufian Trinity of the orrhoc-ox went exactly in the middle,betwixt that Monooufian trinity of Salellius, which wtis a trinity of differentnotions or conceptions only of one and the felf-fame thing, and that otherHetcrooufian trinity of y/nw, which was a trinity of fcparate and heterogeneousfubftances, (one of which only was God, and the other creatures;) thisbeing a trinity of hypoftafes or perfons numerically differing from one another,but all of them agreeing in one common or general effence of theGodhead or the uncreated nature, which is eternal and infinite. Which was'^'^'^ "^'^"^ particularly declared by Athanafms; e-?-? Ixo-tIU ncv.AT,Tifl!, ivx iJ.n £if TCiC? uuv Kxroi K.a.iipxi Iniciiis:, >^ sic ZaffAAtov Trscnria-ri • oC'te7rM7m 'm-iVoiT, \\)X ^u ti; tw 'EAAtjviotv TroXuBio-rr^x xalaKjAia-O-^- The catbolick chlircbdoth neither believe lefs than this Homooufian trinity, leji it Jhould comply withJudaifm, or fink into Sabellianifm \ nor yet more than this, left, on the otherhand, it ftiould tumble down into Arianifm, which is the fame tvith Pagan poiylheifmand idolatry ; it introducing in like manner the worfhipping of crea--tures, together with the Creator.And now, upon all thefe confiderations, our Platonick Chriftian wouldconclude, that the orthodox trinity of the ancient Chriflian church did hereinagree with the genuinely Piatonick trinity, that it was not Monooufian,one fole fingular effence, under three notions, conceptions, or modes only,but three hypoftafes or perfons. As likewife, the right Piatonick trinitydoes agree with the trinity of the ancient orthodox Chriftians in this, that it\s not Heterooufian, hut Homooufian, co-ejfential, or confubjlantial; none oftheir three hyftoftafts being creatures, or particular beings, made in time ;4)ut all of them uncreated, eternal, and infinite.Notwithftanding all which, it muft be granted, that though thisHomooufiotes,or co-effentiality of the three perfons in the trinity, does imply themto be all God, yet does it not follow from thence of neceffity that they aretherefore one God. What then ? fhall we conclude, that Athanafms himfelfalio entertained that opinion before mentioned and exploded, of the threeperfons in the trinity being but three individuals under the fame fpecies (asPeter, Paul, ^nd Timothy) and having no other natural unity or identity,than fpecifical only ? Indeed fome have confidently faftned this upon Athanafius,becaufe, in thofe Dialogues of the Trinity ', publilhed amongft hisworks, and there entitled to him, the fame is grofly owned, and in defencethereof this abfurd paradox maintained, that Peter, Paui^, and Timothy,though they be three hypoftafes, yet are not to be accounted three men,but only then when they diffent from one another, or difagree in willor opinion. But it is certain, from feveral paffages in thofe dialoguesthemfclvcs, that they could not be written by Athanafius ; and therehath been alfo another father found for them, to wit, Maximus the martyr.Notwithftanding which, thus much muft not be denied by us, thatAthanafms, in thofe others his reputedly genuine writings, does fometimeapproachI Dialog. I. p. i6o. Tom. II. Oper.