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

6 20 77je Reafons for this Platonick Book I. _Ep ad Strap, nothing being peculiar to the *>on as furh, bu^ only the oeconomy of the inp.203. carnation : 'O i evo'tj;?T»)? xyty-i T^ixS^ a-u^elat ko-I aVw? si's 0;o; eu tm sjctAnna x^furlfliZi o ettI Trxvlav^nxi Six TravTuv, ;'.(Zi £v -a^iV etti 7ra;i;TM» juiv uf irxTYip, u; dpy^i x«i tttiJ/jJ' AkTrxvlav a\ Si(>. t» Ao'J's' h ttuci it, h tw Trvsu^ari tm a/i'u" Ti^? trinity is likeitfelf, and by nature indivifible, and there is one energy sr aSiinn of it ; for theFather by the Word., in the Holy Ghcfl, doth all things. And thus is the unity ofthe holy 'Trinity conferved^ and one God preached in the church : namely, fuch asis above all^ and by or through all, and in all. Above all, as the Father, theprinciple, and fountain % through all, by the Word ; and in alt, bv the HolySpirit. And elfewhere he writeth often to the fame purpofe. Thus havewe given a true and full account, how, according to Athanajius, the thrc^divine hypoftafes, though not Monooufjous, but Homooufious only, are reallybut one God or Divinity. In all which doflrine of his there is nothinor butwhat a true and genuine Platonift would readily fubfcribe to. From whenceit may be concluded, that the right Platonick trinity differs not fo muchfrom the dodrine of the ancient church, as fome late writers have fup-.pofedHitherto hath the Platonick Chrlftian endeavoured partly to reftify andreform the true and genuine Platonick trinity, and partly to reconcile itwith the doftrine of the ancient church. Neverthelefs, to prevent all miftakes,we fhall here declare, that wherefoever this moft genuine Platonicktrinity may be found to differ, not only from the Scripture itfelf, (whichyet notwithftanding is the fole rule of faith) but alfo from the form of theNicene and Conftantinopolitane councils ; and further from the doctrine ofAthanafius too, in his genuine writings, (whether it be in their inequality,or in any thing elfe) it is there utterly difclaimed and rejeftcd by us. Foras for that creed, commonly called Athanafian, which was written a longtime after by fome other hand ; fince at firft it derived all its authority,either from the name oi Athanc^fius, to whom it was entitled, or elfe becaufeit was fuppofed to be an epitome and abridgement of his dodtrine; this(as we conceive) is therefore to be interpreted according to the tenor ofthat doftrine, contained in the genuine writings of yf//^rt«i2/f;«. Of whomwe can think no otherwife, than as a perfon highly inftrumental and ferviceableto divine providence, for the preferving of the Chriftian churchfrom lapfing, by Arianifm, into a kind of paganick and idolatrous Chrifb'-anity ; in religioufly worfhipping of thole, which themfelves concluded tobe creatures; and by means of whom efpecially, the dodlrine of the Trinity,(which before fluduated in fome loofe uncertainty) came to be morepundually ftated and fettled.Now the reafon, why we introduced the Platonick Chridian here thusapologizing, was firft ; becaufe we conceived it not to be the intereft ofChrillianity, that the ancient Platonick trinity fhould be made more difcrepantfrom the Chriftian, than indeed it is. And fecondly, becaufe, as we5 have