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

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

cch.kcl.ac.uk
from cch.kcl.ac.uk More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

and6i6 How the Homooufian Trinity^ Book J,by him to be n^wt oJ^fa, one ej[ence or fubjlance^ this is not to be underftoodneither in that place, as if they had all three the fame Angular eflfcnce,but in fome of thofe other fenfes before mentioned.But though Athanafais no where declare the three hypoflafes of the Trinityto have only one and the fame fingular eflcnce, but, on the contrary, deniesthem to be monooufian •, though he lay a great ftrefs upon their i-Si-xy;jyoTHf, their fpecifick or gentrick unity, and coeflentiality, in order to theirbeing one God, for as much as without this they could not be God at all jyet doth he not rely wholly upon this, as alone fufficient to that purpofe,but addeth certain other confiderations thereunto, to make it out, in manneras foUoweth. Firft, that this trinity is not a trinity of principles,but that there is only one principle or fountain of the Godhead in it, fromwhich the other are derived. Thus doth he write in his fifth oration i,jMiai af^^r, ^ y-ara. toZto eI? Sto?, There is but one principle, nnd accord-'s. 6^6. ly but one God, Again, in his book againft the Sabellianifts, ou'jt siVlSia SfOt, OTl jMJlJs Sio TTOCTifilC, /J^I/jSl ETf JOi-VlS? TOW }-JVl7]7ai/7of >1 yiyiVVYj^MVO^'u,iv yoio ap'^xg e'lcccyuv Sxio, Sio x-^cxirlu Q=ojc, u'Jriri YAxcKix'Voi; n oucsiiix' 'Thenare not two gods, both becaufe there are not two fathers, and becaufethat, which is begotten, is not of a different effence from that which begat:For he that introduceth two principles, preacheth two gods ; which was the.:impiety of Marcion. Accordingly, the fame Athanafius dcclareth, rri*f^ Syn. ji>im.oC(7ixv roZ 7ra7f.of d^yrM xj p'^*" ^ Trr,yvi elvai tou i/ov. That the effence or'DtZel.i^^zo.fulflance of the Father is the principle, and root , and fountain of the Son.And in like manner doth he approve of this dodrine of Dinoyfius, artJ)e Syn. NicnCTTtnyri Tuv a,ya^cuv a.7roc'j]uv Es-'f o S'JoV, Tforxy.oq St vtt ccvtou Trpo^coucvo; o i^U'That God (the father) is the firfl fountain of all good things, but the Son ariver poured out from him. To the fame purpofe is it alfo, when hecompareth the Father and the Son to the water and the vapour arifingfrom it; to the light and the fplendor ; to the prototype and the image.And he concludeth the unity of the Godhead from hence, in this man-', Tiiv Sn'i'a,v Tcia^a ti'f 'ivd uTTrit fif xo^vlpriii Tiva, t6d ^ii-j 7-^1, i'Xuv rov -ttxv-}• *7S- 1o)tflaTOf« xiyos, (!-J:ii

Ghap. IV. fo Athanafius, cm God. 617beings, but «J;aij£TOj, indivifibly united to one another. Thus in his fifthoration ' ; nv.-ripa. >t^ \\om £u oulut; tJ? 3-eoT»;1f, >tj tw £? «1/'t«, a/x£^i,—ov, >t, aSixi^iTOV -Xyaj^upjj-ov flai TOD Ao'j/oa aVi) tb ttxtooc. The father and the fon are both onething in the Godhead, and in that the IVord, being begotten from him, isindivifibly and infeparably conjoined with him. Where, when he affirmeththe Father and the Son to be one in the Godhead, it is plain, that he dothnot mean them to have one and the fame fingi.ii.ir elTence, but only genericaland univerfal ; becaufe in the following words he fuppofes them tobe two, but indivifibly and infeparably united together. Again, in hisbook De Sent. Dionyf. triK xSixl^noi; ts Trar^e; i/'of, w; e'iTi to xTTz.i'yacrfj.x tt^o^T5 (poo;, The Son is indivifible from the Father, as the fplendor is from thelight. And afterwards in the fame book he infifterh further upon thispoint, according to the fenfe of Dionyfus, after this manner »; o it 't^tov >^oiStXlPtTOV T-/ij TK TTXTfiOi KcTia,' TOU i^OV CHIXI (TlsacrXfl, Wf fOV ^oyl^ TTfOJ TOV V»U Jiyuojxfj.^ T^^o^ TW TTJiJ'Jiv* £t jw.£u all Sixuiiv >^ XTTo^vjiy To\ Koyov xj TOV mv Tif duuaiat,>) TOV woTiXjuiov Xj Tw T-,)j/r):/ j (j.ipiiTXi xx\ Td'X^KTxi SiiXiiv, TO a7rauj/a(rp.a awx«JuXerv aW Ta (puToV, &c. Dionyfius teacheth, that the Son is cognate withthe Father, and indivifible from him, as reafon is from the mind, and theriver from the fountain. Who is there therefore, that would go about toalienate reafon from the mind, and to feparate the river from the fountain,making up a wall between them ? or to cut off the fplendor from the light ?Tlius alfo in his epiflle to Serapion, that the Holy Ghoft is not a crea- P. 194.lure, ^ Sli\irt))iTX\) TT^OTOV «DTOt T? XTTXXJ'yxQfJl.Ol!]''^ TO (P«C?, 1 T*1U aoptXV TH CtfpIS, VJU11 eiVaTwo-av, ttw; £$-( txZtx' Lei thefe men firfi divide the fplendor from thelight, or wifdom from him that is wife ; or elfe let them wonder no more, howthcfe things can be. Elfewhere Athanafius calls the whole Trinity, r^ixSa,ciSixl^i\o'j xjii )ivw/./£i»v TTjif 'ixMTw, a Trinity undivided and united to itfelf.Which Athanafian indivifibility of the Trinity is not fo to be underftood,as if three were not three in it j but firlt of all, that neither of thefecould be without the other, as the original light or fun could not be withoutthe fplendor, nor the Iplendor without the original light, and neitherone nor the other of them without a difFufed derivative light. WhereforeGod the Father being an eternal fun, muft needs have alfo an eternal fplendor,and an eternal Jight. And fecondly, that thefe are fo nearly and intimatelyconjoined together, that there is a kind of a-mix^ix, continuity, betwixtthem ; which yet is not to be underftood in the way of corporealthings, but fo as is agreeable to the nature of things incorporealThirdly, Athanafius afcendeth yet higher, affirming the hypoflafcs ofthe Trinity not only to be indivilibly conjoined with one another, but•alfo to have a mutual inexiftence in each other, which later Greek fli-K k k k 2• P. 529. * P. 566. 5 See Petav. Lib. IV. de Tiinitate, Cap. XVI. p. 263. Tom. II.Dogmac. theolog.

<strong>and</strong>6i6 How <strong>the</strong> Homooufian Trinity^ Book J,by him to be n^wt oJ^fa, one ej[ence or fubjlance^ th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> not to be underftoodnei<strong>the</strong>r in that place, as if <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>all</strong> three <strong>the</strong> fame Angular eflfcnce,but in fome <strong>of</strong> th<strong>of</strong>e o<strong>the</strong>r fenfes before mentioned.But though Athanafa<strong>is</strong> no where declare <strong>the</strong> three hyp<strong>of</strong>lafes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Trinityto have only one <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fame fingular eflcnce, but, on <strong>the</strong> contrary, denies<strong>the</strong>m to be monooufian •, though he lay a great ftrefs upon <strong>the</strong>ir i-Si-xy;jyoTHf, <strong>the</strong>ir fpecifick or gentrick unity, <strong>and</strong> coeflentiality, in order to <strong>the</strong>irbeing one God, for as much as without th<strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong>y could not be God at <strong>all</strong> jyet doth he not rely wholly upon th<strong>is</strong>, as alone fufficient to that purp<strong>of</strong>e,but addeth certain o<strong>the</strong>r confiderations <strong>the</strong>reunto, to make it out, in manneras foUoweth. Firft, that th<strong>is</strong> trinity <strong>is</strong> not a trinity <strong>of</strong> principles,but that <strong>the</strong>re <strong>is</strong> only one principle or fountain <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Godhead in it, fromwhich <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r are derived. Thus doth he write in h<strong>is</strong> fifth oration i,jMiai af^^r, ^ y-ara. toZto eI? Sto?, There <strong>is</strong> but one principle, nnd accord-'s. 6^6. ly but one God, Again, in h<strong>is</strong> book againft <strong>the</strong> Sabellianifts, ou'jt siVlSia SfOt, OTl jMJlJs Sio TTOCTifilC, /J^I/jSl ETf JOi-VlS? TOW }-JVl7]7ai/7<strong>of</strong> >1 yiyiVVYj^MVO^'u,iv yoio ap'^xg e'lcccyuv Sxio, Sio x-^cxirlu Q=ojc, u'Jriri YAxcKix'Voi; n oucsiiix' 'Thenare not two gods, both becaufe <strong>the</strong>re are not two fa<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>and</strong> becaufethat, which <strong>is</strong> begotten, <strong>is</strong> not <strong>of</strong> a different effence from that which begat:For he that introduceth two principles, preacheth two gods ; which was <strong>the</strong>.:impiety <strong>of</strong> Marcion. Accordingly, <strong>the</strong> fame Athanafius dcclareth, rri*f^ Syn. ji>im.oC(7ixv roZ 7ra7f.<strong>of</strong> d^yrM xj p'^*" ^ Trr,yvi elvai tou i/ov. That <strong>the</strong> effence or'DtZel.i^^zo.fulflance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong> principle, <strong>and</strong> root , <strong>and</strong> fountain <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Son.And in like manner doth he approve <strong>of</strong> th<strong>is</strong> dodrine <strong>of</strong> Dinoyfius, artJ)e Syn. NicnCTTtnyri Tuv a,ya^cuv a.7roc'j]uv Es-'f o S'JoV, Tforxy.oq St vtt ccvtou Trpo^coucvo; o i^U'That God (<strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r) <strong>is</strong> <strong>the</strong> firfl fountain <strong>of</strong> <strong>all</strong> good things, but <strong>the</strong> Son ariver poured out from him. To <strong>the</strong> fame purp<strong>of</strong>e <strong>is</strong> it alfo, when hecompareth <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Son to <strong>the</strong> water <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> vapour arifingfrom it; to <strong>the</strong> light <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fplendor ; to <strong>the</strong> prototype <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> image.And he concludeth <strong>the</strong> unity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Godhead from hence, in th<strong>is</strong> man-', Tiiv Sn'i'a,v Tcia^a ti'f 'ivd uTTrit fif xo^vlpriii Tiva, t6d ^ii-j 7-^1, i'Xuv rov -ttxv-}• *7S- 1o)tflaTOf« xiyos, (!-J:ii

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!