only one General and Vniversal Essence of the Godhead belonging to them all they being all God but were also Three Individuals under One and the same Vltimate Species or Specifick Essence and Substance of the Godhead Just as Three Individual men Thomas Peter and John under that Vltimate Species of Man or that Specifick Essence of Humanity which have only a Numerical Difference from one another Wherefore an Hypostasis or Person in the Trinity was accordingly thus defined by some of these Fathers viz. Anastasius and Cyril to be Essentia cum suis quibusdam Proprietatibus ab iis quae sunt ejusdem Speciei Numero differens an Essence or Substance with its Certain Properties or Individuating Circumstances differing only Numerically from those of the same Species with it This Doctrine was plainly asserted and Industriously pursued besides several others both of the Greeks and Latins especially by Gregory Nyssen Cyril of Alexandria Maximus the Martyr and Damascen whose words because Petavius hath set them down at large we shall not here insert Now these were they who principally insisted upon the Absolute Co-Equality and Independent Co-Ordination of the Three Hypostases or Persons in the Trinity as compared with one another Because as Three Men though one of them were a Father Another a Son and the Third a Nephew yet have no Essential Dependence one upon another but are Naturally Co-Equal and Vnsubordinate there being only a Numerical Difference betwixt them so did they in like manner conclude that the Three Hypostases or Persons of the Deity the Father Son and Holy Ghost being likewise but Three Individuals under the same Vltimate Species or Specifick Essence of the Godhead and differing only Numerically from one another were Absolutely Co-Equal Vnsubordinate and Independent and this was that which was Commonly called by them their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality Wherefore it is observable that St. Cyril one of these Theologers finds no other fault at all with the Platonick Trinity but only this that such an Homoousiotes such a Co-Essentiality or Consubstantiality as this was not acknowledged therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There would have been nothing at all wanting to the Platonick Trinity for an Absolute agreement of it with the Christian had they but accommodated the right Notion of Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality to their Three Hypostases so that their might have been but one Specifick Nature or Essence of the Godhead not further distinguishable by any Natural Diversity but Numerically only and so no one Hypostasis any way Inferiour or Subordinate to another That is had these Platonists complied with that Hypothesis of St. Cyril and others that the Three Persons of the Trinity were but Three Independent and Co-Ordinate Individuals under the same Ultimate Species or Specifick Essence of the Godhead as Peter Paul and John under that Species or Common Nature of Humanity and so taken in this Co-Essentiality or Con-Substantiality of theirs then had they been completely Orthodox Though we have already shewed that this Platonick Trinity was in another sence Homoousian and perhaps it will appear afterwards that it was so also in the very sence of the Nicene Fathers and of Athanasius Again these Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity or Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three Men are Three Men these learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove That Three Men are but Abusively and Improperly so called Three they being really truly but One because there is but One the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Humane Nature in them all and seriously perswaded men to lay aside that kind of Language By which same Logick of theirs they might as well prove also that all the men in the world are but One Man and that all Epicurus his Gods were but one God neither But not to urge here that according to this Hypothesis there cannot possibly be any reason given why there should be so many as Three such Individuals in the Species of God which differ only Numerically from one another they being but the very same thing thrice repeated and yet that there should be no more than Three such neither and not Three Hundred or Three Thousand or as many as there are individuals in the Species of Man we say not to urge this it seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-Ordinate too And therefore some would think that the Ancient and Genuine Platonick Trinity taken with all its faults is to be preferred before this Trinity of St. Cyril and St. Gregory Nyssen and several other reputed Orthodox Fathers and more agreeable to the Principles both of Christianity and of Reason However it is evident from hence that these Reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same Singular Existent Essence they supposing them to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be One God than Three Individual Men have one Common Specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all One Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for Tritheistick so in the room thereof started there up that other Trinity of Persons Numerically the Same or having all One and the same Singular Existent Essence a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only And that no such thing was ever entertained by the Nicene Fathers and those First opposers of Arianism might be rendered probable in the First place from the free Confession and Acknowledgment of D. Petavius a Person well acquainted with Ecclesiastick Antiquity and for this reason especially because many are much led by such new Names and Authorities In eo praecipuam vim collocasse Patres ut Aequalem Patri Naturâ Excellentiâque Filium esse defenderent citra expressam SINGVLARITATIS mentionem licet ex eo conjicere Etenim Nicaeni isti Praesules quibus nemo melius Arianae Sectae arcana cognovit nemo qua re opprimenda maximè foret acrius dijudicare potuit nihil in Professionis suae formulâ spectarunt aliud nisi ut Aequalitatem illam Essentiae Dignitatis Aeternitatis astruerent Testatur hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vox ipsa quae arx quaedam fuit Catholici Dogmatis Haec enim Aequalitatem potius Essentiae quam SINGVLARITATEM significat ut Capite Quinto docui Deinde caetera ejusdem modi sunt in illo Decreto ut c. The chief force which the Ancient Fathers opposed against the Arian Hereticks was in asserting only the Equality of the Son with the Father as to Nature or Essence without any express mention of the SINGVLARITY of the same
to quarrel with that of our Lord I am in the Father and the Father in me objecting How is it possible that both the Former should be in the Latter and the Latter in the Former Or how can the Father being Greater be received in the Son who is Lesser And yet what wonder is it if the Son should be in the Father since it is written of us men also That in him we Live and Move and have our Being In way of reply whereunto Athanasius first observes that the Ground of this Arian Cavillation was the Grossness of their Apprehensions and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conceive of Incorporeal things after a Corporeal manner And then does he add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Father and Son are not as they suppose Transvasated and Poured out one into another as into an Empty Vessel as if the Son filled up the Concavity of the Father and again the Father that of the Son and neither of them were full or perfect in themselves For all this is proper to Bodies wherefore though the Father be in some sence Greater than the Son yet notwithstanding may he be in him after an Incorporeal manner And he replieth to their Last Cavil thus That the Son is not so in the Father as we our selves are said to Live and Move and Be in God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For he himself from the Fountain of the Father is that Life in whom all things are quickned and consist neither does he who is the Life live in another Life which were to suppose him not to be the Life it self Nor saith he must it be conceived that the Father is no otherwise in the Son than he is in holy men Corroborating of them for the Son himself is the Power and Wisdom of God and all Creatâ—d Beings are sanctified by a Participation of him in the Spirit Wherefore this Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of the Father and the Son is to be understood after a Peculiar manner so as that they are Really thereby One and what the Son and Holy Ghost doth the Father doth in them accordig to that of Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father and so the Father exercises a Providence over all things in the Son Lastly the same Athanasius in sundry places still further supposes those Three Divine Hypostases to make up one Entire Divinity aftâ—r the same manner as the Fountain and the Stream make up one Entire River or the Root and the Stock and the Branches one Entire Tree And in this sence also is the whole Trinity said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity and One Nature and One Essence and One God And accordingly the word Homousios seems here to be taken by Athanasius in a further sence besides that before mentioned not only for things Agreeing in one Common and General Essence as Three Individual men are Coessential with one another but also for such as concurrently together make up One Entire Thing and are therefore Joyntly Essential thereunto For when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Tree is Congenerous or Homogenial with the Root and the Branches Coessential with the Vine his meaning is that the Root Stock and Branches are not only of One Kind but also all together make up the Entire Essence of One Plant or Tree In like manner those Three Hypostases the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not only Congenerous and Coessential as having all the Essence of the Godhead alike in them but also as Concurrently Making up one Entire Divinity Accordingly whereunto Athanasius further concludes thâ—t these Three Divine Hypostases have not a Consent of Will only but Essentially one and the Self Same Will and that they do also joyntly produce ad extra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the Self-same Energy Operation or Action nothing being Peculiar to the Son as such but only the Oeconomy of the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity is like it self and by Nature Indivisible and there is One Energy or Action of it for the Father By the Word In the Holy Ghost doth all things And thus is the Vnity of the Holy Trinity conserved and One God preached in the Church Namely such as is Above all and By or Through all and In all Above all as the Father the Principle and Fountain Through all by the Word and In all by the Holy Spirit And elsewhere he writeth often to the same purpose Thus have we given a true and full account how according to Athanasius the Three Divine Hypostases though not Monoousious but Homoousious only are Really but One God or Divinity In all which doctrine of his there is nothing but what a True and Genuine Platonist would readily suâ—scribe to From whence it may be concluded that the right Platonick Trinity differs not so much from the Doctrine of the Ancient Church as some late Writers have supposed Hitherto hath the Platonick Christian endeavoured partly to Rectifie and Reform the True and Genuine Platonick Trinity and partly to Reconcile it with the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Nevertheless to prevent all mistakes we shall here declare that wheresoever this most Genuine Platonick Trinity may be found to differ not only from the Scripture it self which yet notwithstanding is the sole Rule of Faith but also from the Form of the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councils and further from the Doctrine of Athanasius too in his Genuine writings whether it be in their Inequality or in any thing else is there utterly disclaimed and rejected by us For as for that Creed commonly called Athanasian which was written a long time after by some other hand since at first it derived all its authority either from the Name of Athanasius to whom it was Entituled or else because it was supposed to be an Epitome and Abridgement of his Doctrine this as we conceive is therefore to be interpreted according to the Tenour of that Doctrine contained in the Genuine Writings of Athanasius Of whom we can think no otherwise than as a person highly Instrumental and Serviceable to Divine Providence for the preserving of the Christian Church from lapsing by Arianism into a kind of Paganick and Idolatrous Christianity in Religiously Worshipping of those which themselves concluded to be Creatures and by means of whom especially the Doctrine of the Trinity which before fluctuated in some loose Uncertainty came to be more punctually Stated and Settled Now the Reason why we introduced the Platonick Christian here thus Apologizing was First because we conceived it not to be the Interest of Christianity that the ancient Platonick Trinity should be made more discrepant from the Christian than indeed it is And Secondly because as we have already proved the Ancient and Genuine Platonick
Three Gods therefore the Second and the Third must of necessity be Inferiour Gods because otherwise they would be Three Independent Gods whereas the Pagan Theology Expresly disclaims a Plurality of Independent and Self-originated Deities But since according to the Principles of Christianity which was partly designed to oppose and bear down the Pagan Polytheism there is One only God to be acknowledged the meaning whereof notwithstanding seems to be chiefly directed against the Deifying of Created Beings or giving Religious Worship to any besides the Uncreated and the Creatour of all moreover since in the Scripture which is the only true Rule and Measure of this Divine Cabala of the Trinity though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word be said to have been With God that is God the Father and also it self to Be God that is not a Creature yet is it no where called An Other or Second God Therefore cannot we Christians entertain this Pagan Language of a Trinity of Gods but must call it either a Trinity of Divine Hypostases or Subsistences or Persons or the like Nevertheless it is observable that Philo though according to his Jewish Principles he was a zealous Opposer of the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry yet did he not for all that scruple to call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Word after the Platonick way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Second God as not suspecting this to clash with the Principles of his Religion or that Second Commandment of the Decalogue Thou shalt have no other Gods before my Face possibly because he conceived that this was to be understood of Creature-Gods only whereas his Second God the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word is declared by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal and therefore according to the Jewish Theology Vncreated However this Language of a Second and Third God is not so excusable in a Jew as it might be in a Pagan because the Pagans according to the Principles of their Religion were so far from having any Scrupulosity against a Plurality of Gods so long as there was only One Fountain of the Godhead acknowledged that they rather accounted it an honour to the Supreme God as hath been already shewed that he should have Many other not only Titular Gods under him but also such as were Religiously Worshipped Wherefore besides this Second and Third God they also did luxuriate in their other Many Creature-gods And indeed St. Austin doth upon this accompt seem somewhat to excuse the Pagans for this their Trinity of Gods and Principles in these words Liberis enim verbis loquuntur Philosophi nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt Nobis autem ad certam Regulam loqui fas est ne Verborum licentia etiam in rebus quae in his significantur impiam gignat opinionem Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia cum de Deo loquimur sicut nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere quamvis de Vnoquoque loquentes vel de Filio vel de Spiritu Sancto etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur The Philosophers use Free Language nor in these things which are extremely difficult to be understood did they at all fear the offending of any Religious and Scrupulous ears But the Case is otherwise with us Christians for we are tied up to Phrases and ought to speak according to a certain Rule lest the licentious use of words should beget a wicked Opinion in any concerning those things that are signified by them That is though this might be in a manner excusable in the Pagans because each of those Three Hypostases is God therefore to call them severally Gods and all of them a Trinity of Gods and Principles they having no such Rule then given them to govern their Language by as this That though the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet are they not Three Gods but One God yet is not this allowable for us Christians to speak of a Second or Third God or Principle or to call the Holy Trinity a Trinity of Gods notwithshanding that when we speak of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Ghost severally we confess each of them to be God And indeed when the Pagans thus spake of a First Second and Third God and no more though having Innumerable other Gods besides they did by this Language plainly imply that these Three Gods of theirs were of a very different kind from all the rest of their Gods that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Created but Eternal and Vncreated Ones And that many of them did really take this Whole Trinity of Gods for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general the Divine Numen and sometimes call it the First God too in way of distinction from their Generated Gods will be showed afterward So that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First God was used in different sences by these Pagans sometimes in a larger sence and in way of opposition to all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Generated or Created Gods or the Gods that were made in Time together with the World and sometime again more Particularly in way of distinction from those Two other Divine Hypostases Eternal called by them the Second and Third God Which First of the Three Gods is also frequently by them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God Emphatically and by way of Excellency they supposing a Gradual Subordination in these Principles Neither was this Trinity of Divine Subsistences only thus ill-languag'd by the Pagans generally when they called it a Trinity of Gods but also the Cabala thereof was otherwise much Depraved and Adulterated by several of the Platonists and Phythagoreans For first the Third of these Three Hypostases commonly called Psyche is by some of them made to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of the Corporeal World informing acting and enlivening it after the same manner as the Souls of other Animals do their respective Bodies insomuch that this Corporeal World it self as together with its Soul it makes up one Complete Animal was frequently called the Third God This Proclus affirmeth of Numenius the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World according to him was the Third God And Plotinus being a great Reader of this Numenius seems to have been somewhat infected by him with this conceit also though contrary to his own Principles from those words befored cited out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World as is commonly said is the Third God Now if the World be not a Creature then is there no Created Being at all but all is God But not only Timaeus Locrus but also Plato himself calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Created God the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being here put for that which after it once was not is brought into
able to beget the Father nor the Holy Ghost to Produce either Father or Son and therefore neither of these two Latter is absolutely the Cause of all things but only the First And upon this account was that First of these Three Hypostases who is the Original Fountain of all by Macrobius styled Omnipotentissimus Deus the Most Omnipotent God he therein implying the Second and Third Hypostases Nous and Psyche to be Omnipotent too but not in a perfect Equality with him as within the Deity they are compared together however ad Extra or Outwardly and to Us they being all One are Equally Omnipotent And Plotinus writeth also to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If the First be absolutely Perfect and the First Power then must it needs be the Most Powerful of all Beings other Powers only imitating and partaking thereof And accordingly hereunto would the Platonick Christian further pretend that there are sundry places in the Scripture which do not a little favour some Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Persons of the Holy Trinity of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Christ My Father is greater than I which to understand of his Humanity only seemeth to be less reasonable because this was no news at all that the Eternal God the Creator of the whole World should be Greater than a Mortal Man born of a woman And thus do divers of the Orthodox Fathers as Athanasius himself St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostome with several others of the Latins interpret the same to have been spoken not of the Humanity but the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. Insomuch that Petavius himself expounding the Athanasian Creed writeth in this manner Pater Major Filio ritè catholicè pronuntiatus est à plerisque Veterum Origine Prior sine reprehensione dici solet The Father is in a right Catholick manner affirmed by most of the ancients to be Greater than the Son and he is commonly said also without reprehension to be Before him in respect of Original Whereupon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this that no Person of the Trinity is Greater or Less than other in respect of the Essence of the Godhead common to them all Quia Vera Deitas in nullo esse aut Minor aut Major potest because the true Godhead can be no where Greater or Less but that notwithstanding there may be some Inequality in them as they are Hic Deus and Haec Persona This God and That Person It is true indeed that many of those ancient Fathers do restrain and limit this Inequality only to the Relation of the Persons one to another as the Father's Begetting and the Son 's being Begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from both they seeming to affirm that there is otherwise a perfect Equality amongst them Nevertheless several of them do extend this Difference further also as for example St. Hilary a zealous Opposer of the Arians he in his Book of Synods writing thus Siquis Vnum dicens Deum Christum autem Deum ante secula Filium Dei Obsecutum Patri in Creatione omnium non consitetur Anathema sit And again Non exaequamus vel conformamus Filium Patri sed Subjectum intelligimus And Athanasius himself who is commonly accounted the very Rule of Orthodoxality in this Point when he doth so often resemble the Father to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun or the Original Light and the Son to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Splendour or Brightness of it as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the Scripture it self he seems hereby to imply some Dependence of the Second upon the First and Subordination to it Especially when he declareth that the Three Persons of the Trinity are not to be look'd upon as Three Principles nor to be resembled to Three Suns but to the Sun and its Splendour and its Derivative Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it appears from the similitude used by us that we do not introduce Three Principles as the Marcionists and Manicheans did we not comparing the Trinity to Three Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour So that we acknowledge only one Principle As also where he approves of this of Dionysius of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is an Eternal Light which never began and shall never cease to be wherefore thâ—re is an Eternal Splendour also coexistent with him which had no beginning neither but was Alwayes Generated by him shining out before him For if the Son of God be as the Splendour of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Always Generated then must he needs have an Essential Dependence upon the Father and Subordination to him And this same thing further appears from those other resemblances which the same Dionysius maketh of the Father and the Son approved in like manner also by Athanasius viz. to the Fountain and the River to the Root and the Branch to the Water and the Vapour for so it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appeareth from his Book of the Nicene Synod where he affirmeth the Son to have been begotten of the Essence or Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendour of the Light and as the Vapour of the Water adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither the Splendour nor the Vapour is the very Sun and the very Water nor yet is it Aliene from it or a stranger to its nature but they are both Effluxes from the Essence or Substance of them as the Son is an Efflux from the Substance of the Father yet so as that he is no way diminished or lessened thereby Now all these similitudes of the Fountain and the River the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour as well as that of the Sun and the Splendour seem plainly to imply some Dependence and Subordination And Dionysius doubtless intended them to that purpose he asserting as Photius informeth us an Inferiority of Power and Glory in the Second as likewise did Origen before him both whose Testimonies notwithstanding Athanasius maketh use of without any censure or reprehension of them Wherefore when Athanasius and the other Orthodox Fathers writing against Arius do so frequently assert the Equality of all the Three Persons this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only who made the Son to be Unequal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence from him One being God and the other a Creature they affirming on the contrary that he was Equal to the Father as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with him that is as God and not a Creature Notwithstanding which Equality there might be some Subordination in them as Hic Deus and Haec Persona to use Petavius
For those Nicene Bishops themselves who did understand best of any the secrets of the Arian Faction and which way it should especially be oppugned aimed at nothing else in their Confession of Faith but only to establish that Equality of Essence Dignity and Eternity between them This does the word Homoousios it self declare it signifying rather Equality than SINGVLARITY of Essence as we have before showed And the like do those other Passages in the same Decree as That there was no time when the Son was not and That he was not made of nothing Nor of a different Hypostasis or Essence Thus does Petavius clearly confess that this Same Singularity of Numerical Essence was not asserted by the Nicene Council nor the most Ancient Fathers but only an Equality or Sameness of Generical Essence or else that the Father and Son agreed only in One Common Essence or Substance of the Godhead that is the Eternal and Vncreated Nature But the truth of this will more fully appear from these following Particulars First because these Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers did all of zealously condemn Sabellianism the Doctrine whereof is no other than this that there was but one Hypostasis or Singular Individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but Three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Father's Begetting the Son was nothing but one Name Notion or Mode of the Deities Begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion Begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been Incarnated and to have suffered death for us upon the Cross that it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was Incarnate and Suffered or else the whole Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only But should it be averred notwithanding that this Trinity which we now speak of was not a Trinity of meer Names and Notions as that of the Sabellians but of distinct Hypostases or Persons then must it needs follow since every Singular Essence is an Hypostasis according to the sence of the Ancient Fathers that there was not a Trinity only but a Quaternity of Hypostases in the Deity Which is a thing that none of those Fathers ever dream'd of Again the word Homoousios as was before intimated by Petavius was never used by Greek writers otherwise than to signifie the Agreement of things Numerically differing from one another in some Common Nature or Vniversal Essence or their having a Generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given Nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under Humane Conception viz. Several Things having one and the same Singular Essence And accordingly St. Basil interprets the force of this word thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it plainly takes away the Sameness of Hypostasis that is of Singular Numerical Essence this being that which the ancient Fathers meant by the word Hypostasis For the same thing is not Homoousios Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with it self but always One thing with Another Wherefore as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used by Plotinus as Synonymous in these words concerning the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is full of Divine things by reason of its being Cognate or Congenerous and Homoousious with them so doth Athanasius in like manner use them when he affirmeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Branches are Homoousious Co-essential or Con-substantial and Con-generous with the Vine or with the Root thereof Besides which the same Father uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sundry places None of which words can be thought to signifie an Identity of Singular Essence but only of Generical or Specifical And thus was the word Homoousios plainly used by the Council of Chalcedon they affirming that our Saviour Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with the Father as to his Divinity but Co-Essential or Con-Substantial with us Men as to his Humanity Where it cannot reasonably be suspected that one and the same word should be taken in two different sences in the same Sentence so as in the first place to signifie a Numerical Identity but in the second a Generical or Specifical only But Lastly which is yet more Athanasius himself speaketh in like manner of our Saviour Christ's being Homoousious with us men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Son be Coessential or Consubstantial or of the same Essence or Substance with us Men he having the very same Nature with us then let him be in this respect a stranger to the Essence or Substance of the Father even as the Vine is to the Essence of the Husbandman And again a little after in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or did Dionysius think you when he affirmed the Word not to be Proper to the Essence of the Father suppose him therefore to be Coessential or Consubstantial with us Men From all which it is unquestionably evident that Athanasius did not by the word Homoousios understand That which hath the Same Singular and Numerical Essence with another but the same Common Generical or Specifical only and consequently that he conceived the Son to be Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father after that manner Furthermore the true meaning of the Nicene Fathers may more fully and thoroughly be perceived by considering what that Doctrine of Arius was which they Opposed and Condemned Now Arius maintained the Son or Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature Made in Time and Mutable or Defectible and for that reason as Athanasius tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence or Substance from the Father That which is Created being supposed to differ Essentially or Substantially from that which is Vncreated Wherefore the Nicene Fathers in way of Opposition to this Doctrine of Arius determined that the Son or Word was not thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father that is not a Creature but God or agreeing with the Father in that Common Nature or Essence of the Godhead So that this is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Substance of the ancient Fathers which is said to be the Same in all the Three Hypostases of the Trinity as they are called God not a Singular Existent Essence but the Common General or Vniversal Essence of the Godhead or of the Vncreated Nature called by S. Hilary Natura Vna non Vnitate Personae sed Generis One Nature not by Vnity of Person
but of Kind Which Vnity of the Common or General Essence of the Godhead is the same thing also with that Equality which some of the Ancient Fathers so much insist upon against Arius namely An Equality of Nature as the Son and Father are both of them alike God that Essence of the Godhead which is Common to all the Three Persons being as all other Essences supposed to be Indivisible From which Equality it self also does it appear that they acknowledged no Identity of Singular Essence it being absurd to say that One and the self same thing is Equal to it self And with this Equality of Essence did some of these Orthodox Fathers themselves imply that a certain Inequality of the Hypostases or Persons also in their mutual Relation to one another might be consistent As for example St. Austin writing thus against the Arians Patris ergo Filii Spiritus Sancti etiamsi disparem cogitant Potestatem Naturam saltem confiteantur Aequalem Though they conceive the Power of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Vnequal yet let them for all that confess their Nature at least to be Equal And St. Basil likewise Though the Son be in Order Second to the Father because produced by him and in Dignity also forasmuch as the Father is the Cause and Principle of his being yet is he not for all that Second in Nature because there is One Divinity in them both And that this was indeed the meaning both of the Nicene Pathers and of Athanasius in their Homoousiotes their Coessentiality or Con-substantiality and Coequality of the Son with the Father namely their having both the same Common Essence of the Godhead or that the Son was No Creature as Arius contended but truly God or Vncreated likewise will appear undeniably from many passages in Athanasius of which we shall here mention only some few In his Epistle concerning the Nicene Council he tells us how the Eusebian Faction subscribed the Form of that Council though afterward they recanted it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the rest subscribing the Eusebianists themselves subscribed also to these very words which they now find fault with I mean Of the Essence or Substance and Coessential or Consubstantial and that the Son is no Creature or Facture or any of the Things Made but the Genuine Off-spring of the Essence or Substance of the Father Afterwards he declareth how the Nicene Council at first intended to have made use only of Scripture Words and Phrases against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As that Christ was the Son of God and not from nothing but from God the Word and Wisdom of God and consequently no Creature or thing Made But when they perceived that the Eusebian Faction would evade all those Expressions by Equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They conceived themselves necessitated more plainly to declare what they meant by being From God or Out of him and therefore added that the Son was Out of the Substance of God thereby to distinguish him from all Created Beings Again a little after in the same Epistle he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synod perceiving this rightly declared that the Son was Homoousious with the Father both to cut off the Subterfuges of Hereticks and to show him to be different from the Creatures For after they had decreed this they added immediately They who say that the Son of God was from things that are not or Made or Mutable or a Creature or of another Substance or Essence all such does the Holy and Catholick Church Anathematize Whereby they made it Evident that these Words Of the Father and Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father were opposed to the Impiety of those expressions of the Arians that the Son was a Creature or thing Made and Mutable and that he was not before he was Made which he that affirmeth contradicteth the Synod but whosoever dissents from Arius must needs consent to these Forms of the Synod In this same Epistle to cite but one passage more out of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brass and Gold Silver and Tin are alike in their shining and colour nevertheless in their Essence and Nature are they very different from one another If therefore the Son be such then let him be a Creature as we are and not Coessential or Consubstantial but if he be a Son the Word Wisdom Image of the Father and his Splendour then of right should he be accounted Coessential and Consubstantial Thus in his Epistle concerning Dionysius we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son 's being one of the Creatures and his not being Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father put for Synonymous expressions which signifie one and the samething Wherefore it semeeth to be unquestionably evident that when the Ancient Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church maintained against Arius the Son to be Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial with the Father though that word be thus interpreted Of the same Essence or Substance yet they Universally understood thereby not a Sameness of Singular and Numerical but of Common or Vniversal Essence only that is the Generical or Specifical Essence of the Godhead that the Son was no Creature but truly and properly God But if it were needful there might be yet more Testimonies cited out of Athanasius to this purpose As from his Epistle De Synodis Arimini Seleuciae where he writeth thus concerning the Difference betwixt those Two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Like Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Same Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For even your selves know that Similitudes is not Predicated of Essences or Substances but of Figures and Qualities only But of Essences or Substances Identity or Sameness is affirmed and not Similitude For a man is not said to be Like to a man in respect of the Essence or Substance of Humanity but only as to Figure or Form they being said as to their Essence to be Congenerous of the same Nature or Kind with one another Nor is a man properly said to be Vnlike to a Dog but of a Different Nature or Kind from him Wherefore that which is Congenerous of the same Nature Kind or Species is also Homoousion Coessential or Consubstantial of the same Essence or Substance and that which is of a different Nature Kind or Species is Heterousion of a different Essence or Substance Again Athanasius in that Fragment of his Against the Hypocrisie of Meletius c. concerning Consubstantiality writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He that denies the Son to be Homoousion Consubstantial with the Father affirming him only to be like to him denies him to be God In like manner he who reteining the word Homousion or Consubstantial interprets it notwithstanding only of Similitude or Likeness in
Trinity was doubtless Anti-Arian or else the Arian Trinity Anti-Platonick the Second and Third Hypostases in the Platonick Trinity being both Eternal Infinite and Immutable And as for those Platonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gradations so much spoken of these by St. Cyril's leave were of a different Kind from the Arian there being not the Inequality of Creatures in them to the Creator Wherefore Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historian not without Cause wonders how those Two Presbyters Georgius and Timotheus should adhere to the Arian Faction since they were accounted such great Readers of Plato and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to me wonderful how those Two Persons should persist in the Arian Perswasion one of them having always Plato in his hands and the other continually breathing Origen Since Plato no where affirmeth his First and Second Cause as he was wont to call them to have had any beginning of their Existence and Origen every where confesseth the Son to be Coeternal with the Father Besides which Another Reason for this Apology of the Christian Platonist was because as the Platonick Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian Doctrine concerning the Logos as that which was exactly agreeable with their own so did the Generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Council represent the Genuine Platonick Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian or as approaching so near to it that they differed chiefly in Circumstances or the manner of Expression The Former of these is Evident from that famous Passage of Amelius Contemporary with Plotinus recorded by Eusebius St. Cyril and Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the Logos or Word by whom Existing from Eternity according to Heraclitus all things were made and whom that Barbarian also placeth in the rank and dignity of a Principle affirming him to have been with God and to be God and that all things were made by him and that whatsoever was made was Life and Being in him As also that he descended into a Body and being cloathed in Flesh appeared as a Man though not without demonstration of the Divinity of his Nature But that afterwards being Loosed or Separated from the same he was Deified and became God again such as he was before he came down into a Mortal Body In which words Amelius speaks favourably also of the Incarnation of that Eternal Logos And the same is further manifest from what St. Austin writeth concerning a Platonist in his time Initium Sancti Evangelii cui nomen est secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus sicut à sancto Sene Simpliciano qui posteà Mediolanensi Ecclesiae praesedit Episcopus solebamus audire aureis Literis conscribendum per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat We have often heard from that holy man Simplicianus afterward Bishop of Millain that a certain Platonist affirmed the beginning of St. John 's Gospel deserved to be writ in Letters of Gold and to be set up in all the most Eminent places throughout the Christian Churches And the latter will sufficiently appear from these following Testimonies Justin Martyr in his Apology affirmeth of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he gave the Second place to the Word of God and the Third to that Spirit which is said to have moved upon the waters Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of that Passage in Plato's Second Epistle to Dionysius concerning the First Second and Third writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I understand this no otherwise than that the Holy Trinity is signified thereby the Third being the Holy Ghost and the Second the Son by whom all things were made according to the Will of the Father Origen also affirmeth the Son of God to have been plainly spoken of by Plato in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus who pretendeth to know all things and who citeth so many other passages out of Plato doth purposely as I suppose dissemble and conceal that which he wrote concerning the Son of God in his Epistle to Hermias and Coriscus where he calls him the God of the whole Vniverse and the Prince of all things both present and future afterwards speaking of the Father of this Prince and Cause And again elsewhere in that Book he writeth to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither would Celsus here speaking of Chistians making Christ the Son of God take any notice of that passage in Plato 's Epistle before mentioned concerning the Framer and Governour of the whole world as being the Son of God lest he should be compelled by the Authority of Plato whom he so often magnifieth to agree with this Doctrine of ours that the Demiurgus of the whole World is the Son of God but the First and Supreme Deity his Father Moreover St. Cyprian or who ever were the Author of the Book inscribed De Spiritu Sancto affirmeth the Platonists First and Vniversal Psyche to be the same with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Theology in these words Hujus Sempiterna Virtus Divinitas cum in propria natura ab Inquisitoribus Mundi antiquis Philosophis propriè investigari non posset Subtilissimis tamen intuiti conjecturis Compositionem Mundi distinctis Elementorum affectibus praesentem omnibus Animam adfuisse dixerunt quibus secundum genus ordinem singulorum vitam praeberet motum intransgressibiles figeret Metas Stabilitatem assignaret Vniversam hanc Vitam hunc motum hanc rerum Essentiam Animam Mundi vocaverunt In the next place Eusebius Caesariensis gives a full and clear Testimony of the Concordance and Agreement of the Platonick at least as to the main with the Christian Trinity which he will have to have been the Cabala of the ancient Hebrews thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Oracles of the Hebrews placing the Holy Ghost after the Father and the Son in the Third Rank and acknowledging a Holy and Blessed Trinity after this manner so as that this Third Power does also transcend all Created Nature and is the First of those Intellectual Substances which proceed from the Son and the Third from the First Cause see how Plato Enigmatically declareth the same things in his Epistle to Dionysius in these words c. These things the Interpreters of Plato refer to a First God and to a Second Cause and to a Third the Soul of the World which they call also The Third God And the Divine Scriptures in like manner rank the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the place or degree of a Principle But it is most observable what Athanasius himself affirmeth of the Platonists that though they derived the Second Hypostasis of their Trinity from the First and the Third from the Second yet they supposed both their Second and Third Hypostases to be Vncreated and therefore does he send the Arians to
School thither who because there is but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Self-Originated Being would unskilfully conclude that the Word or Son of God must therefore needs be a Creature Thus in his Book concerning the Decrees of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Arians borrowing the word Agennetos from the Pagans who acknowledge only One such make that a pretence to rank the Word or Son of God who is the Creator of all amongst Creatures or things Made Whereas they ought to have learn'd the right signification of that word Agennetos from those very Platonists who gave it them Who though acknowledging their Second Hypostasis of Nous or Intellect to be derived from the first called Tagathon and their Third Hypostasis or Psyche from the Second nevertheless doubt not to affirm them both to be Ageneta or Vncreated knowing well that hereby they detract nothing from the Majesty of the First from whom these Two are derived Wherefore the Arians either ought so to speak as the Platonists do or else to say nothing at all concerning these things which they are ignorant of In which words of Athanasius there is a plain distinction made betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbegotten and Vncreated and the Second Person of the Trinity the Son or Word of God though acknowledged by him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbegotten he being Begotten of the Father who is the only Agennetos yet is he here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncreated he declaring the Platonists thus to have affirmed the Second and Third Hypostases of their Trinity not to be Creatures but Vncreated Which Signal Testimony of Athanasius concerning the Platonick Trinity is a great Vindication of the same We might here further add St. Austin's Confession also that God the Father and God the Son were by the Platonists acknowledged in like manner as by the Christians though concerning the Holy Ghost he observes some difference betwixt Plotinus and Porphyrius in that the Former did Postponere Animae Naturam Paterno Intellectui the Latter Interponere Plotinus did Postpone his Psyche or Soul after the Paternal Intellect but Porphyrius Interponed it betwixt the Father and the Son as a Middle between both It was before observed that St. Cyril of Alexandria affirmeth nothing to be wanting to the Platonick Trinity but only that Homoousiotes of his and some other Fathers in that Age that they should not only all be God or Vncreated but also Three Coequal Individuals under the same Ultimate Species as Three Individual Men he conceiving that Gradual Subordination that is in the Platonick Trinity to be a certain tang of Arianism Nevertheless he thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Plato notwithstanding was not altogether ignorant of the Truth but that he had the knowledge of the Only begotten Son of God as likewise of the Holy Ghost called by him Psyche and that he would have every way expressed himself rightly had he not been afraid of Anitus and Melitus and that Poyson which Socrates drunk Now whether this were a Fault or no in the Platonists that they did not suppose their Hypostases to be Three Individuals under the same Ultimate Species we leave to others to judge We might here add the Testimony of Chalcidius because he is unquestionably concluded to have been a Christian though his Language indeed be too much Paganical when he calls the Three Divine Hypostases a Chief a Second and a Third God Istius rei dispositio talis mente concipienda est Originem quidem rerum esse Summum Ineffabilem Deum post Providentiam ejus Secundum Deum Latorem Legis utriusque Vitae tam Aeternae quam Temporariae Tertium esse porro Substantiam que Secunda Mens Intellectusque dicitur quasi quaedam Custos Legis Aeternae His Subjectas esse Rationabiles Animas Legi Obsequentes Ministras verò Potestates c. Ergo Summus Deus jubet Secundus ordinat Tertius intimat Animae verò Legem agâ—nt This thing is to be conceived after this manner That the First Original of Things is the Supreme and Ineffable God after his Providence a Second God the Establisher of the Law of Life both Eternal and Temporary And the Third which is also a Substance and called a Second Mind or Intellect is a certain Keeper of this Eternal Law Vnder these Three are Rational Souls Subject to that Law together with the Ministerial Powers c. So that the Sovereign or Supreme God Commands the Second Orders and the Third executes But Souls are Subject to the Law Where Chalcidius though seeming indeed rather more a Platonist than a Christian yet acknowledgeth no such Beings as Henades and Noes but only Three Divine Hypostases and under them Rational Souls But we shall conclude with the Testimony of Theodoret in his Book De Principio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plotinus and Numenius explaining Plato 's Sence declare him to have asserted Three Super-Temporals or Eternals Good Mind or Intellect and the Soul of the Vniverse he calling that Tagathon which to us is Father that Mind or Intellect which to us is Son or Word and that Psyche or a Power Animating and Enlivening all things which our Scriptures call the Holy Ghost And these things saith he were by Plato purloined from the Philosophy and Theology of the Hebrews Wherefore we cannot but take notice here of a Wonderful Providence of Almighty God that this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should find such Admittance and Entertainment in the Pagan World and be received by the wisest of all their Philosophers before the times of Christianity thereby to prepare a more easie way for the Reception of Christianity amongst the Learned Pagans Which that it proved successful accordingly is undeniably evident from the Monuments of Antiquity And the Juniour Platonists who were most opposite and adverse to Christianity became at length so sensible hereof that besides their other Adulterations of the Trinity before mentioned for the countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they did in all probability for this very reason quite innovate change and pervert the whole Cabala and no longer acknowledge a Trinity but either a Quaternity or a Quinary or more of Divine Hypostases They first of all contending that before the Trinity there was another Supreme and Highest Hypostasis not to be reckoned with the others but standing alone by himself And we conceive the first Innovator in this kind to have been Jamblichus who in his Egyptian Mysteries where he seems to make the Egyptian Theology to agree with his own Hypotheses writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before those things which truly are and the Principles of all there is One God Superiour to the First God and King Immovable and always remaining in the Solitude of his own Vnity there being nothing Intelligible nor any thing else mingled with him but he being the
themselves therein implying also the Doctrine of the ancient Zoroaster no way to have countenanced or favoured that Gnostick Heresie Moreover the Tenents of these ancient Magi concerning that Duplicity of Principles are by Writers represented with great Variety and Uncertainty That Accompt which Theodorus in Photius treating of the Persian Magick gives thereof as also that other of Eudemus in Damascius are both of them so Nonsensical that we shall not here trouble the Reader with them however neither of them suppose the Persian Arimanius or Satanas to be an Unmade Self-existing Demon. But the Arabians writing of this Altanawiah or Persian Duplicity of Good and Evil Principles affirm That according to the most approved Magi Light was Kadiman the Most Ancient and First God and that Darkness was but a Created God they expresly denying the Principle of Evil and Darkness to be Coeve with God or the Principle of Good and Light And Abulseda represents the Zoroastrian Doctrine as the Doctrine of the Magi Reformed after this manner That God was older than Darkness and Light and the Creator of them so that he was a Solitary Being without Companion or Corrival and that Good and Evil Vertue and Vice did arise from a certain Commixture of Light and Darkness together without which this lower World could never have been produced which Mixture was still to continue in it till at length Light should overcome Darkness and then Light and Darkness shall each of them have their separate and distinct Worlds apart from one another If it were now needful we might still make it further evident that Zoroaster notwithstanding the Multiplicity of Gods worship'd by him was an Asserter of One Supreme from his own Description of God extant in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is the First Incorruptible Eternal Vnmade Indivisible Most unlike to every thing the Head or Leader of all Good Vnbribable the Best of the Good the Wisest of the Wise He is also the Father of Law and Justice Self-taught Perfect and the only Inventor of the Natural Holy Which Eusebius tells us that this Zoroastrian Description of God was conteined verbatim in a Book entituled A Holy Collection of the Persian Monuments as also that Ostanes himself a famous Magician and admirer of Zoroaster had recorded the very same of him in his Octateuchon Now we having in this Discourse concerning Zoroaster and the Magi cited the Oracles called by some Magical and imputed to Zoroaster but by others Chaldaical we conceive it not improper to give some account of them here And indeed if there could be any Assurance of the Antiquity and Sincerity of those Reputed Oracles there would then need no other Testimony to prove that either Zoroaster and the Persian Magi or else at least the Chaldeans asserted not only a Divine Monarchy or One Supreme Deity the Original of all things but also a Trinity consistently with the same And it is certain that those Oracles are not such Novel Things as some would suspect they being cited by Synesius as then Venerable and of great Authority under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Oracles and there being of this Number some produced by him that are not to be found in the Copies of Psellus and Pletho from whence it may be concluded that we have only some Fragments of these Oracles now left And that they were not forged by Christians as some of the Sibylline Oracles undoubtedly were seems probable from hence because so many Pagan Philosophers make use of their Testimonies laying no small stress upon them As for Example Damascius out of whom Patritius hath made a Considerable Collection of such of these Oracles are wanting in Psellus and Pletho's Copies And we learn from Photius that whereas Hierocles his Book of Fate and Providence was divided into Seven Parts the Drift of the Fourth of them was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile the Reputed Oracles with Plato 's Doctrines Where it is not to be doubted but that those Reputed Oracles of Hierocles were the same with these Magick or Chaldaick Oracles because these are frequently cited by Philosophers under that name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Oracles Proclus upon the Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Maker of the Vniverse is celebrated both by Plato and Orpheus and The Oracles as the Father of Gods and Men who both produceth Multitudes of Gods and sends down Souls for the Generations of Men. And as there are other Fragments of these cited by Proclus elsewhere under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Oracles so doth he sometimes give them that higher Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Theology that was of Divine Tradition or Revelation Which magnificent Encomium was bestowed in like manner upon Pythagoras his Philosophy by Jamblichus that being thought to have been derived in great part from the Chaldeans and the Magi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Philosophy of Pythagoras having been first Divinely delivered or reveiled by the Gods ought not to be handled by us without a Religious Invocation of them And that Porphyrius was not unacquainted with these Oracles neither may be concluded from that Book of his entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Philosophy from Oracles which consisting of more Parts one of them was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Oracles of the Chaldeans which that they were the very same with those we now speak of shall be further proved afterward Now though Psellus affirm that the Chaldean Dogmata conteined in those Oracles were some of them admitted both by Aristotle and Plato yet does he not pretend these very Greek Verses themselves to have been so ancient But it seems probable from Suidas that Juliane a Chaldean and Theurgist the Son of Juliane a Philosopher who wrote concerning Daemons and Telesiurgicks was the First that turned those Chalday or Magick Oracles into Greek Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Juliane in the time of Marcus Antoninus the Emperor wrote the Theurgick and Telestick Oracles in Verse For that there is something of the Theurgical Magick mixed together with Mystical Theology in these Oracles is a thing so manifest from that Operation about the Hecatine Circle and other passages in them that it cannot be denied which renders it still more unlikely that they should have been forged by Christians Nevertheless they carry along with them as hath been already observed a clear acknowledgement of a Divine Monarchy or One Supreme Deity the Original of all things which is called in them The Father and the Paternal Principle and that Intelligible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that cannot be apprehended otherwise than by the Flower of the Mind as also that One Fire from whence all things spring Psellus thus glossing upon that Oracle All things were the Off-spring of one Fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things whether Intelligible or Sensible receive their Essence from God alone and return
worshipping Many Vnmade Self-originated Deities as Partial Creators of the World or else in worshipping besides the Supreme God other Created Beings Superiour to Men Now Philo plainly understood the Pagan Polytheism after this latter way as may appear from this passage of his in his Book concerning the Confusion of Languages where speaking of the Supreme God the Maker and Lord of the whole World and of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Innumerable Assistent Powers both visible and invisible he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore some men being struck with admiration of both these Worlds the Visible and the Invisible have not only Deified the whole of them but also their several Parts as the Sun and the Moon and the whole Heaven they not scrupling to call these Gods Which Notion and Language of theirs Moses respected in those words of his Thou Lord the King of Gods he thereby declaring the transcendency of the Supreme God above all those his subjects called Gods To the same purpose Philo writeth also in his Commentary upon the Decalogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore removing all such imposture Let us worship no Beings that are by Nature Brothers and Germane to us though endued with far more pure and immortal Essences than we are For all Created things as such have a kind of Germane and Brotherly Equality with one another the maker of all things being their common Father But let us deeply infix this first and most holy commandment in our breasts to acknowledge and worship One only Highest God And again afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who worship the Sun and the Moon and the whole Heaven and World and the Principal parts of them as Gods err in that they worship the Subjects of the Prince whereas the Prince alone ought to be worshipped Thus according to Philo the Pagan Polytheism consisted in giving Religious Worship besides the Supreme God to other Created understanding Beings and Parts of the World more pure and immortal than men Flavius Josephus in his Judaick Antiquities extolling Abraham's Wisdom and Piety writeth thus concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some would understand in this manner that Abraham was the first who publickly declared that there was one God the Demiurgus or maker of the whole world as if all mankind besides at that time had supposed the world to have been made not by One but by Many Gods But the true meaning of those words is this That Abraham was the first who in that degenerate age publickly declared that the Maker of the whole world was the One only God and alone to be Religiously Worshipped accordingly as it follows afterwards in the same writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom alone men ought to give honour and thanks And the reason hereof is there also set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because all those other beings that were then worshipped as Gods whatsoever any of them contributed to the happiness of mankind they did it not by their own power but by his appointment and command he instancing in the Sun and Moon and Earth and Sea which are all made and ordered by a higher power and providence by the force whereof they contribute to our utility As if he should have said That no Created Being ought to be Religiously worshipped but the Creator only And this agreeth with what we read in Scripture concerning Abraham that he called upon the Name of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God of the whole World that is he worshipped no particular Created Beings as the other Pagans at that time did but only that Supreme Vniversal Numen which made and conteineth the whole World And thus Maimonides interprets that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham began to teach that none ought to be Religiously Worshipped save only the God of the whole World Moreover the same Josephus afterwards in his Twelfth Book brings in Aristaeus who seems to have been a secret Proselyted Greek pleading with Ptolemaeus Philadelphus in behalf of the Jews and their Liberty after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It would well agree with your Goodness and Magnanimity to free the Jews from that miserable Captivity which they are under since the same God who governeth your Kingdom gave Laws to them as I have by diligent search found out For both They and we do alike worship the God who made all things we calling him Zene because he gives life to all Wherefore for the honour of that God whom they worship after a singular manner please you to indulge them the liberty of returning to their native country Where Aristaeus also according to the sence of Pagans thus concludes Know O King that I intercede not for these Jews as having any cognation with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but all men being the Workmanship of God and knowing that he is delighted with beneficence I therefore thus exhort you As for the latter Jewish Writers and Rabbins it is certain that the generality of them supposed the Pagans to have acknowledged One Supreme and Vniversal Numen and to have worshipped all their other Gods only as his Ministers or as Mediators between him and them Maimonides in Halacoth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describeth the Rise of the Pagan Polytheism in the dayes of Enosh after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the days of Enosh the Sons of men grievously erred and the wisemen of that age became brutish even Enosh himself being in the number of them and their errour was this that since God had created the Stars and Spheres to govern the world and placing them on high had bestowed this honour upon them that they should be his Ministers and subservient Instruments men ought therefore to praise them honour them and worship them this being the pleasure of the Blessed God that men should magnifie and honour those whom himself hath magnified and honoured as a King will have his Ministers to be reverenced this honour redounding to himself Again the same Maimonides in the beginning of the Second Chapter of that Book writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Foundation of that Commandment against strange Worship now commonly called Idolatry is this that no man should worship any of the Creatures whatsoever neither Angel nor Sphere nor Star nor any of the four Elements nor any thing made out of them For though he that worships these things know that the Lord is God and Superiour to them all and worships those Creatures no otherwise than Enosh and the rest of that age did yet is he nevertheless guilty of Strange Worship or Idolatry And that after the times of Enosh also in succeeding ages the Polytheism of the Pagan Nations was no other than this the worshipping besides One Supreme God of other created Beings as the Ministers of his Providence and as Middles or Mediators betwixt Him and Men is declared likewise by Maimonides in his More
betwixt their Second and Third Hypostasis so do they Debase the Deity therein too much confound God and the Creature together laying a Foundation not only for Cosmo-Latry or World-Idolatry in general but also for the grossest and most sottish of all Idolatries the worshipping of the Inanimate Parts of the World themselves in pretence as Parts and Members of this great Mundane Animal and Sensible God It is true indeed that Origen and some others of the ancient Christian Writers have supposed that God may be said in some sence to be the Soul of the World Thus in that Book Peri Archοn Sicut Corpus nostrum unum ex multis Membris aptatum est ab una Anima continetur ita Vniversum Mundum velut Animal quoddam Immane opinandum puto quod quasi ab una Animâ Virtute Dei ac Ratione teneatur Quod etiam à Sanctâ Scripturâ indicari arbitror per illud quod dictum est per Prophetam Nonne Coelum Terram ego repleo dicit Dominus Coelum mihi Sedes Terra autem Scabellum pedum meorum Et quod Salvator cum ait non esse jurandum neque per Coelum quia Sedes Dei est neque per Terram quia Scabellum pedum ejus Sed illud quod ait Paulus Quoniam in ipso Vivimus Movemur Sumus Quomodo enim in Deo Vivimus Movemur Sumus nisi quod in Virtute suâ Vniversum constringit continet Mundum As our own Body is made up of many Members and conteined by One Soul so do I conceive that the whole World is to be looked upon as One huge great Animal which is conteined as it were by One Soul the Vertue and Reason of God And so much seems to be intimated by the Scripture in sundry places as in that of the Prophet Do not I fill Heaven and Earth And again Heaven is my Throne and the Earth my Footstool And in that of our Saviour Swear not at all neither by Heaven because it is the Throne of God nor by the Earth because it is his Footstool And lastly in that of Paul to the Athenians For in him we Live and Move and have our Being For how can we be said to Live and Move and have our Being in God unless because he by his Vertue and Power does Constringe and Contein the whole World And how can Heaven be the Throne of God and the Earth his Footstool unless his Vertue and Power fill all things both in Heaven and Earth Nevertheless God is here said by Origen to be but Quasi-Anima As it were The Soul of the World As if he should have said That all the Perfection of a Soul is to be attributed to God in respect of the World he Quickening and Enlivening all things as much as if he were the Very Soul of it and all the Parts thereof were his Living Members And perhaps the whole Deity ought not to be look'd upon according to Aristotle's Notion thereof meerly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Immovable Essence for then it is not conceivable how it could either Act upon the World or be Sensible of any thing therein or to what purpose any Devotional Addresses should be made by us to such an Vnaffectible Inflexible Rockie and Adamantine Being Wherefore all the Perfection of a Mundane Soul may perhaps be attributed to God in some sence and he called Quasi-Anima Mundi As it were the Soul thereof Though St. Cyprian would have this properly to belong to the Third Hypostasis or Person of the Christian Trinity viz. The Holy Ghost But there is something of Imperfection also plainly cleaving and adhering to this Notion of a Mundane Soul besides something of Paganity likewise necessarily consequent thereupon which cannot be admitted by us Wherefore God or the Third Divine Hypostasis cannot be called the Soul of the World in this sence as if it were so Immersed thereinto and so Passive from it as our Soul is Immersed into and Passive from its Body Nor as if the World and this Soul together made up one Entire Animal each Part whereof were incomplete alone by it self And that God or the Third Hypostasis of the Christian Trinity is not to be accounted in this Sence properly the Soul of the World according to Origen himself we may learn from these words of his Solius Dei id est Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Naturae id proprium est ut sine Materiali Substantia absque ulla Corporeae adjectionis societate intelligatur subsistere It is proper to the Nature of God alone that is of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to subsist without any Material Substance or Body Vitally Vnited to it Where Origen affirming that all Created Souls and Spirits whatsoever have always some Body or other Vitally Vnited to them and that it is the Property only of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity not to be Vitally Vnited to any Body as the Soul thereof whether this Assertion of his be true or no which is a thing not here to be discussed he does plainly hereby declare that God or the Third Hypostasis of the Trinity is not to be accounted in a true and proper sence the Soul of the World And it is certain that the more Refined Platonists were themselves also of this Perswasion and that their Third God or Divine Hypostasis was neither the Whole World as supposed to be Animated nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of this Mundane Animal but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Supermundane Soul that is such a thing as though it Preside over the Whole World and take Cognizance of all things in it yet is not properly an Essential Part of that Mundane Animal but a Being Elevated above the same For thus Proclus plainly affirmeth not only of Amelius but also of Porphyrius himself who likewise pretended to follow Plotinus therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After Amelius Porphyrius thinking to agree with Plotinus calls the Supermundane Soul the Immediate Opificer or Maker of the World and that Mind or Intellect to which it is converted not the Opificer himself but the Paradigm thereof And though Proclus there make a question whether or no this was Plotinus his true meaning yet Porphyrius is most to be credited herein he having had such an intimate acquaintance with him Wherefore according to these Three Platonist Plotinus Amelius and Porphyrius the Third Hypostasis of the Platonick Trinity is neither the World nor the Immediate Soul of the Mundane Animal but a certain Supermundane Soul which also was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Opificer and Creator of the World and therefore no Creature Now the Corporeal World being supposed by these Platonists also to be an Animal they must therefore needs acknowledge a Double Soul one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immediate Soul of this Mundane Animal and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
which also was the Demiurgus the Maker both of other Souls and of the whole World As Plato had before expresly affirmed him to be the Inspirer of all Life and Creator of Souls or the Lord and Giver of Life And likewise declared that amongst all those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congenerous and Cognate with our Humane Souls there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing any where to be found at all like unto it So that Plato though he were also a Star-worshipper and Idolater upon other grounds yet in all probability would he not at all have approved of Plotinus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Souls being of the same Species with that Third Hypostasis of the Divine Triad but rather have said in the Language of the Psalmist It is he that hath made us and not we our selves we are his People and the Sheep of his Pasture Notwithstanding all which a Christian Platonist or Platonick Christian would in all probability Apologize for Plato himself and the ancient and most Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans after this manner First That since they had no Scriptures Councils nor Creeds to direct their steps in the Darkness of this Mystery and to confine their Language to a Regular Uniformity but Theologized all Freely and Boldly and without any Scrupulosity every one according to his own private apprehensions it is no wonder at all if they did not only speak many times unadvisedly and inconsistently with their own Principles but also plainly wander out of the Right Path. And that it ought much rather to be wondred at that living so long before Christianity as some of them did they should in so Abstruse a Point and Dark a Mystery make so near an approach to the Christian Truth afterwards revealed than that they should any where fumble or fall short of the Accuracy thereof They not only extending the True and Real Deity to Three Hypostases but also calling the Second of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or Word too as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mind or Intellect and likewise the Son of the First Hypostasis the Faâ—her and affirming him to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Artificer and Cause of the whole World and Lastly describing him as the Scripture doth to be the Image the Figure or Character and the Splendour or Brightness of the First This I say our Christian Platonist supposes to be much more wonderful that this so Great and Abstruse a Mystery of Three Eternal Hypostases in the Deity should thus by Pagan Philosophers so long before Christianity have been asserted as the Principle and Original of the whole World it being more indeed than was acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers themselves they then not so much as determining that the Holy Ghost was an Hypostasis much less that he was God But Particularly as to their Gradual Subordination of the Second Hypostasis to the First and of the Third to the First and Second our Platonick Christian doubtless would therefore plead them the more excusable because the Generality of Christian Doctors for the First Three Hundred years after the Apostles times plainly asserted the same as Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus the Author of the Recognitions Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Gregorius Thaumaturgus Dionysius of Alexandria Lactantius and many others All whose Testimonies because it would be too tedious to set down here we shall content our selves only with one of the last mentioned Et Pater Filius Deus est Sed Ille quasi exuberans Fons Hic tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus Ille tanquam Sol Hic tanquam Radius à Sole porrectus Both the Father and the Son is God But he as it were an Exuberant Fountain this as a Stream derived from him He like to the Sun This like to a Ray extended from the Sun And though it be true that Athanasius writing against the Arians does appeal to the Tradition of the Ancient Church and amongst others cites Origen's Testimony too yet was this only for the Eternity and Divinity of the Son of God but not at all for such an Absolute Co-equality of him with the Father as would exclude all Dependence Subordination and Inferiority those Ancients so Unanimously agreeing therein that they are by Petavius therefore taxed for Platonism and having by that means corrupted the Purity of the Christian Faith in this Article of the Trinity Which how it can be reconciled with those other Opinions of Ecclesiastick Tradition being a Rule of Faith and the Impossibility of the Visible Churches Erring in any Fundamental Point cannot easily be understood However this General Tradition or Consent of the Christian Church for Three Hundred years together after the Apostles Times though it cannot Justifie the Platonists in any thing discrepant from the Scripture yet may it in some measure doubtless plead their excuse who had no Scripture Revelation at all to guide them herein and so at least make their Error more Tolerable or Pardonable Moreover the Platonick Christian would further Apologize for these Pagan Platonists after this manner That their Intention in thus Subordinating the Hypostases of their Trinity was plainly no other than to exclude thereby a Plurality of Co-ordinate and Independent Gods which they supposed an absolute Co-equality of them would infer And that they made only so much Subordination of them as was both necessary to this purpose and unavoidable the Juncture of them being in their Opinion so close that there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing Intermedious or that could possibly be Thrust in between them But now again on the otherhand whereas the only ground of the Co-Equality of the Persons in the Holy Trinity is because it cannot well be conceived how they should otherwise all be God since the Essence of the Godhead being Absolute Perfection can admit of no degrees these Platonists do on the contrary contend that notwithstanding that Dependence and Subordination which they commonly suppose in these Hypostases there is none of them for all that to be accounted Creatures but that the General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature truly and properly belongeth to them all according to that of Porphyrius before cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Essence of the Godhead proceedeth to Three Hypostases Now these Platonists conceive that the Essence of the Godhead as common to all the Three Hypostases of their Trinity consisteth besides Perfect Intellectuality in these Following things First In Being Eternal which as we have already showed was Plato's Distinctive Character betwixt God and the Creature That whatsoever was Eternal is therefore Vncreated and whatsoever was not Eternal is a Creature He by Eternity meaning the having not only no Beginning but also a Permanent Duration Again In having not a Contingent but Necessary Existence and therefore being Absolutely Vndestroyable which perhaps is included also in the Former Lastly In being not Particular but
Substance affirmeth the Son to be of Another Different Substance from the Father and therefore not God but like to God only Neither doth such a one rightly understand those words Of the Substance of the Father he not thinking the Son to be so Consubstantial or of the Essence and Substance of the Father as one man is Consubstantial or Of the Essence or Substance of another who begat him For he who affirmeth that the Son is not so Of God as a man is Of a man according to Essence or Substance but that he is Like him only as a Statue is like a Man or as a Man may be Like to God it is manifest that such a one though he use the word Homoousios yet he doth not really mean it For he will not understand it according to the customary signification thereof for that which hath One and the Same Essence or Substance this word being used by Greeks and Pagans in no other sence than to signifie that which hath the Same Nature as we ought to believe concerning the Father Son and Holy Ghost Where we see plainly that though the word Homoousios be interpreted That which hath One and the Same Essence or Substance yet is this understood of the Same Common Nature and as one man is of the same Essence or Substance with another We might here also add to this the concurrent testimonies of the other Orthodox Fathers but to avoid tediousness we shall omit them and only insert some passages out of St. Austin to the same purpose For he in his First Book Contra Maxim Chap. the 15. writeth thus Duo veri Homines etsi nullus eorum Filius sit Alterius Unius tamen Ejusdem sunt Substantiae Homo autem alterius Hominis Verus filius nullo modo potest nisi Ejusdem cum Patre esse Substantiae etiamsi non sit per omnia Similis Patri Quocirca Verus Dei Filius Unius cum Patre Substantiae est quia Verus Filius est per omnia est Patri similis quia est Dei Filius Two True men though neither of them be Son to the other yet are they both of One and the Same Substance But a man who is the true Son of another man can by no means be of a Different Substance from his Father although he be not in all respects like unto him Wherefore the true Son of God is both of one Substance with the Father because he is a true Son and he is also in all respects like to him because he is the Son of God Where Christ or the Son of God is said to be no otherwise of One Substance with God the Father than here amongst men the Son is of the same Substance with his Father or any one man with another Again the same S. Austin in his Respons ad Sermonem Arianorum expresseth himself thus Ariani nos vocitant Homoousianos quia contra eorum errorem Graeco vocabulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendimus Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum id est Unius Ejusdemque Substantiae vel ut expressiùs dicamus Essentiae quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graecè appellatur quod planiùs dicitur Unius Ejusdemque Naturae Et tamen siquis istorum qui nos Homoousianos vocant Filium suum non cujus ipse esset sed Diversae diceret esse Naturae Exhaeredari ab ipso mallet Filius quam hoc putarà Quanta igitur impietate isti caecantur qui cum confiteantur Vnicum Dei Filium nolunt Ejusdem Naturae cujus Pater est confiteri sed diversae atque imparis multis modis rebusque dissimilis tanquam non de Deo Natus sed ab illo de Nihilo sit Creatus Gratiâ Filius non Naturâ The Arians call us Homoousians because in opposition to their Errour we defend the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be in the Language of the Greeks Homoousious that is of One and the Same-Substance or to speak more clearly Essence this being in Greek called Usiah which is yet more plainly thus expressed of One and the Same Nature And yet there is none of their own Sons who thus call us Homoousians who would not as willingly be disinherited as be accounted of a Different Nature from his Father How great impiety therefore are they blinded with who though they acknowledge that there is One only Son of God yet will not confess him to be of the same Nature with his Father but different and unequal and many ways unlike him as if he were not Born of God but Created out of Nothing by him himself being a Creature and so a Son not by Nature but Grace only Lastly to name no more places in his First Book De Trinitate he hath these words Si Filius Creatura non est ejusdem cum Patre Substantiae est Omnis enim Substantia quae Deus non est Creatura est quae Creatura non est Deus est Et si non est Filius ejusdem Substantiae cujus est Pater ergo Facta Substantia est If the Son be not a Creature then is he of the same Substance with the Father for whatever Substance is not God is Creature and whatever is not Creature is God And therefore if the Son be not of the Same Substance with the Father he must needs be a Made and Created Substance and not truly God Lastly that the ancient Orthodox Fathers who used the word Homoousios against Arius intended not therein to assert the Son to have One and the same Singular or Individual Essence with the Father appeareth plainly from their disclaiming and disowning those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning the Former of which Epiphanius thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We affirm not the Son to be Tautoousion One and the same Substance with the Father lest this should be taken in way of compliance with Sabellius nevertheless do we assert him to be the Same in Godhead and in Essence and in Power Where it is plain that when Epiphanius affirmed the Son to be the same with the Father in Godhead and Essence he understood this only of a Generical or Specifical and not of a Singular or Individual Sameness namely that the Son is no Creature but God also as the Father is and this he intimates to be the true and genuine sence of the word Homoousios he therefore rejecting that other word Tautoousios because it would be liable to misinterpretation and to be taken in the Sabellian sence for that which hath One and the Same Singular and Individual Essence which the word Homoousios could not be obnoxious to And as concerning that other word Monoousios Athanasius himself in his Exposition of Faith thus expresly condemns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We do not think the Son to be really One and the Same with the Father as the Sabellians do and to be Monoousios and not Homoousios they thereby
destroying the very being of the Son Where Vsia Essence or Substance in that Fictitious word Monoousios is taken for Singular or Existent Essence the whole Deity being thus said by Sabellius to have only One Singular Essence or Hypostasis in it whereas in the word Homoousios is understood a Common or Vniversal Generical or Specifical Essence the Son being thus said to agree with the Father in the Common Essence of the Godhead as not being a Creature Wherefore Athanasius here disclaimeth a Monoousian Trinity as Epiphanius did before a Tautoousian both of them a Trinity of meer Names and Notions or Inadequate Conceptions of One and the Same Singular Essence or Hypostasis they alike distinguishing them from the Homoousian Trinity as a Trinity of Real Hypostates or Persons that have severally their Own Singular Essence but agree in one Common and Vniversal Essence of the Godhead they being none of them Creatures but all Uncreated or Creators From whence it is plain that the ancient Orthodox Fathers asserted no such thing as One and the Same Singular or Numerical Essence of the several Persons of the Trinity this according to them being not a Real Trinity but a Trinity of meer Names Notions and Inadequate Conceptions only which is thus disclaimed and declared against by Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity is not a Trinity of meer Names and Words only but of Hypostases truely and really Existing But the Homoousian Trinity of the Orthodox went exactly in the Middle betwixt that Monoousian Trinity of Sabellius which was a Trinity of different Notions or Conceptions only of One and the Self-Same Thing and that other Heteroousian Trinity of Arius which was a Trinity of Separate and Heterogeneous Substances one of which only was God and the other Creatures this being a Trinity of Hypostases or Persons Numerically differing from one another but all of them agreeing in one Common or General Essence of the Godhead or the Vncreated Nature which is Eternall and Infinite Which was also thus particularly declared by Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Church doth neither believe less than this Homoousian Trinity lest it should comply with Judaism or sink into Sabellianism nor yet more than this left on the other hand it should tumble down into Arianism which is the same with Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry it introducing in like manner the worshipping of Creatures together with the Creator And now upon all these Considerations our Platonick Christian would conclude that the Orthodox Trinity of the ancient Christian Church did herein agree with the Genuinely Platonick Trinity that it was not Monoousian One Sole Singular Essence under Three Notions Conceptions or Modes only but Three Hypostases or Persons As likewise the right Platonick Trinity does agree with the Trinity of the ancient Orthodox Christians in this that it is not Heteroousian but Homoousian Coessential or Consubstantial none of their Three Hypostases being Creatures or Particular Beings made in Time but all of them Vncreated Eternal and Infinite Notwithstanding all which it must be granted that though this Homoousiotes or Coessentiality of the Three Persons in the Trinity does imply them to be all God yet does it not follow from thence of necessity that they are therefore One God What then shall we conclude that Athanasius himself also entertained that opinion before mentioned and exploded Of the Three Persons in the Trinity being but Three Individuals under the same Species as Peter Paul and Timothy and having no other Natural Vnity or Identity than Specifical only Indeed some have confidently fastned this upon Athanasius because in those Dialogues Of the Trinity published amongst his works and there entitled to him the same is grosly owned and in defence thereof this Absurd Paradox maintained that Peter Paul and Timothy though they be Three Hypostases yet are not to be accounted Three men but only then when they dissent from one another or disagree in Will or Opinion But it is certain from several Passages in those Dialogues themselves that they could not be wriâ—ten by Athanasius and there hath been also another Father found for them to wit Maximus the Martyr Notwithstanding which thus much must not be denied by us that Athanasius in those others his reputedly Genuine Writings does sometime approach so near hereunto that he lays no small stress upon this Homoousiotes this Coessentiality and Common Nature of the Godhead to all the Three Persons in order to their being One God For thus in that Book entitled Concerning the Common Essence of the Three Persons and the Chapter inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there are not Three Gods doth Athanasius lay his Foundation here When to that question proposed How it can be said that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet that there are not Three Gods the First Reply which he makes is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there is a Communion of Nature there is also one Common Name of Dignity bestowed And thus doth God himself call things divided into Multitudes from one Common Nature by One Singular Name For both when he is angry with men doth he call all those who are the objects of his anger by the name of One Man and when he is reconciled to the world is he reconciled thereto as to One Man The first Instances which he gives hereof are in Gen. the 6. the 3. and 7. Verses My Spirit shall not always strive with Man and I will destroy Man whom I have Created Upon which Athanasius makes this Reflexion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though there was not then only one man but Infinite Myriads of men nevertheless by the name of One Nature doth the Scripture call all those men One Man by reason of their Community of Essence or Substance Again he commenteth in like manner upon that other Scripture-passage Exodus the 15.1 The Horse and his Rider hath he thrown into the Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Pharaoh went out to the Red Sea and fell with Infinite Chariots in the same and there were many men that were drowned together with him and many Horses yet Moses knowing that there was but One Common Nature of all those that were drowned speaketh thus both of the Men and Horses The Lord hath thrown both the Horse and the Rider into the Sea he calling such a Multitude of Men but One Singular Man and such a Multitude of Horses but One Horse Whereupon Athanasius thus concludeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If therefore amongst men where the things of Nature are confounded and where there are differences of Form Power and Will all men not having the same disposition of Mind nor Form nor Strength as also different Languages from whence men are called by the Poets Meropes nevertheless by reason of the Community of Nature the whole world is called One Man might not that Trinity of Persons where there is an Vndivided Dignity One Kingdom One
Power One Will and One Energy be much rather called One God But though it be true that Athanasius in this place if at least this were a Genuine Foetus of Athanasius may Justly be thought to attribute too much to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Common Nature Essence or Substance of all the Three Persons as to the making of them to be truly and properly One God and that those Scripture-passages are but weakly urged to this purpose yet is it plain that he did not acquiesce in this only but addeth other things to it also as their having not only One Will but also One Energy or Action of which more afterwards Moreover Athanasius elsewhere plainly implieth that this Common Essence or Nature of the Godhead is not sufficient alone to make all the Three Hypostases One God As in his Fourth Oration against the Arians where he tells us that his Trinity of Divine Hypostases cannot therefore be accounted Three Gods nor Three Principles because they are not resembled by him to Three Original Suns but only to the Sun and its Splendour and the Light from both Now Three Suns according to the Language of Athanasius have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Nature Essence and Substance and therefore are Coessential or Consubstantial and since they cannot be accounted one Sun it is manifest that according to Athanasius this Specifick Identity or Unity is not sufficient to make the Three Divine Hypostases One God Again the same Athanasius in his Exposition of Faith writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither do we acknowledge Three Hypostases Divided or Separate by themselves as is to be seen corporeally in men that we may not comply with the Pagan Polytheism From whence it is Evident that neither Three Separate Men though Coessential to Athanasius were accounted by him to be One Man nor yet the Community of the Specifick Nature and Essence of the Godhead can alone by it self exclude Polytheism from the Trinity Wherefore the true reason why Athanasius laid so great a stress upon this Homoousiotes or Coessentially of the Trinity in order to the Vnity of the Godhead in them was not because this alone was sufficient to make them One God but because they could not be so without it This Athanasius often urges against the Arians as in his Fourth Oration where he tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they must needs introduce a Plurality of Gods because of the Heterogeneity of their Trinity And again afterwards determining that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Species of the Godhead in Father Son and Spirit he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus do we acknowledge one only God in the Trinity and maintain it more Religiously than those Hereticks do who introduce a Multiform Deity consisting of divers Species we supposing only One Vniversal Godhead in the whole For if it be not thus but the Son be a Creature made out of nothing however called God by these Arians then must He and his Father of necessity be Two Gods one of them a Creator the other a Creature In like manner in his Books Of the Nicene Council he affirmeth concerning the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they make in a manner Three Gods dividing the Holy Monad into Three Heterogeneous Substances Separate from one another Whereas the right Orthodox Trinity on the contrary is elsewhere thus described by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy and perfect Trinity Theologized in the Father Son and Spirit hath nothing Aliene Foreign or Extraneous intermingled with it nor is it compounded of Heterogeneous things the Creator and Creature joyned together And whereas the Arians interpreted that of our Saviour Christ I and my Father are One only in respect of Consent or Agreement of Will Athanasius shewing the insufficiency hereof concludeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore besides this Consent of Will there must of necessity be another Vnity of Essence or Substance also acknowledged in the Father and the Son Where by Vnity of Essence or Substance that Athanasius did not mean a Vnity of Singular and Individual but of General or Vniversal Essence only appears plainly from these following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those things which are Made or Created though they may have an Agreement of Will with their Creator yet have they this by Participation only and in a way of Motion as he who retaining not the same was cast out of Heaven But the Son being begotten from the Essence or Substance of the Father is Essentially or Substantially One with him So that the Opposition here is betwixt Vnity of Consent with God in Created Beings which are Mutable and Vnity of Essence in that which is Vncreated and Immutably of the same Will with the Father There are also many other places in Athanasius which though some may understand of the Vnity of Singular Essence yet were they not so by him intended but either of Generick or Specifick Essence only or else in such other sence as shall be afterwards declared As for Example in his Fourth Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We acknowledge only One Godhead in the Trinity where the following words plainly imply this to be understood in part at least of One Common or General Essence of the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because if it be not so but the Word be a Creature made out of Nothing he is either not truly God or if he be called by that name then must they be two Gods one a Creator the other a Creature Again when in the same Book it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son and the Father are One thing in the Propriety of Nature and in the Sameness of one Godhead it is evident from the Context that this is not to be understood of a Sameness of Singular Essence but partly of a Common and Generical One and partly of such another Sameness or Unity as will be hereafter expressed Lastly when the Three Hypostases are somewhere said by him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Essence or Substance this is not to be understood neither in that place as if they had all Three the same Singular Essence but in some of those other Sences before mentioned But though Athanasius no where declare the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have only One and the same Singular Essence but on the contrary denies them to be Monoousian and though he lay a great stress upon their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Specifick or Generick Vnity and Coessentiality in order to their being One God for as much as without this they could not be God at all yet doth he not rely wholly upon this as alone sufficient to that purpose but addeth certain other considerations thereunto to make it out in manner as followeth First that this Trinity is not a Trinity of Principles but that there is only One Principle
Paradigm of that God truly Good which is Self-begotten and his own Parent For this is greater and before him and the Fountain of all things the foundation of all the first Intelligible Ideas Wherefore from this one did that Self sufficient God who is Autopator or his own Parent cause himself to shine forth for this is also a Principle and the God of Gods a Monad from the first One before all Essence Where so far as we can understand Jamblichus his meaning is that there is a Simple Vnity in order of Nature before that Tagathon or Monad which is the First of the Three Divine Hypostases And this Doctrine was afterward taken up by Proclus he declaring it in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato every where ascends from multitude to Vnity from whence also the order of the Many proceeds but before Plato and according to the Natural order of things One is before Multitude and every Divine order begins from a Monad Wherefore though the Divine Number proceed in a Trinity yet before this Trinity must there be a Monad Let there be Three Demiurgical Hypostases nevertheless before these must there be One because none of the Divine orders begins from Multitude We conclude that the Demiurgical Number does not begin from a Trinity but from a Monad standing alone by it self before that Trinity Here Proclus though endeavouring to gain some countenance for this doctrine out of Plato yet as fearing lest that should fail him does he fly to the order of Nature and from thence would infer that before the Trinity of Demiurgick Hypostases there must be a Single Monad or Henad standing alone by it self as the Head thereof And St. Cyril of Alexandria who was Juniour to Jamblichus but Senior to Proclus seems to take notice of this Innovation in the Platonick Theology as a thing then newly crept up and after the time of â—orphyry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But those before mentioned contradict this Doctrine of Porphyrius the ancient Platonists affirming that the Tagathon ought not to be connumerated or reckoned together with those which proceed from it but to be exempted from all Communion because it is altogether Simple and uncapable of any Commixture or Consociation with any other Wherefore these begin their Trinity with Nous or Intellect making that the First The only difference here is that Jamblichus seems to make the first Hypostasis of the Trinity after a Monad to be Tagathon but St. Cyril Nous. However they both meant the same thing as also did Proclus after them Wherefore it is evident that when from the time of the Nicene Council and Athanasius the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity came to be punctually stated and settled and much to be insisted upon by Christians Jamblichus and other Platonists who were great Antagonists of the same perceiving what advantage the Christians had from the Platonick Trinity then first of all Innovated this Doctrine introducing a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases instead of a Trinity the First of them being not Coordinate with the other Three nor Consociated or Reckoned with them But All of them though Subordinate yet Universal and such as Comprehend the whole that is Infinite and Omnipotent and therefore none of them Creatures For it is certain that before this time or the Age that Iamblichus lived in there was no such thing at all dream'd of by any Platonist as an Vnity before and above the Trinity and so a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases Plotinus positively determining that there could neither be More nor Fewer than Three and Proclus himself acknowledging the Ancient Tradition or Cabala to have run only of Three Gods and Numenius who was Senior to them both writing thus of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he also before Plato Asserted Three Gods that is Three Divine Hypostases and no more as Principles therein following the Pythagoreans Moreover the same Proclus besides his Henades and Noes before mentioned added certain other Phantastick Trinities of his own also as this for example of the First Essence the First Life and the First Intellect to omit others whereby that Ancient Cabala and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theology of Divine Tradition of Three Archical Hypostases and no more was disguised perverted and adulterated But besides this Advantage from the ancient Pagan Platonists and Pythagoreans admitting a Trinity into their Theology in like manner as Christianity doth whereby Christianity was the more recommended to the Philosophick Pagans there is another Advantage of the Same extending even to this present time probably not Unintended also by Divine Providence That whereas Bold and Conceited Wits precipitantly condemning the Doctrine of the Trinity for Nonsence absolute R. pugnancy to Humane Faculties and Impossibility have thereupon some of them quite shaken off Christianity and all Revealed Religion professing only Theism others have frustrated the Design thereof by Pagmizing it into Creature-Worship or Idolatry this Ignorant and Conceited Confidence of both may be retunded and confuted from hence because the most ingenious and acute of all the Pagan Philosophers the Platonists and Pythagoreans who had no byass at all upon them nor any Scripture Revelation that might seem to impose upon their Faculties but followed the free Sentiments and Dictates of their own Minds did notwithstanding not only entertain this Trinity of Divine Hypostases Eternal and Vncreated but were also fond of the Hypothesis and made it a main Fundamental of their Theology It now appears from what we have declared that as to the Ancient and Genuine Platonists and Pythagoreans none of their Trinity of Gods or Divine Hypostases were Independent so neither were they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creature-Gods but Vncreated they being all of them not only Eternal and Necessarily Existent and Immutable but also Vniversal that is Infinite and Omnipotent Causes Principles and Creators of the whole World From whence it follows that these Platonists could noâ— justly be taxed for Idolatry in giving Religious Worship to each Hypostâ—sis of this their Trinity And we have the rather insisted so long upon this Platonick Trinity because we shall make use of this Doctrine afterwards in our Defence of Christianity where we are to show That one Grand Design of Christianity being to abolish the Pagan Idolatry or Creature-Worship it self cannot justly be charged with the same from that Religious Worship given to our Saviour Christ and the Trinity the Son and Holy Ghost they being none of them according to the true and Orthodox Christianity Creatures however the Arian Hypothesis made them such And this was indeed the Grand Reason why the Ancient Fathers so zealously opposed Arianism because That Christianity which was intended by God Almighty for a means to extirpate Pagan Idolatry was thereby it self Paganized and Idolatrized and made highly guilty of that very thing which it so much condemned in the Pagans that is Creature-Worship This might be proved by sundry testimonies of Athanasius Basil Gregory Nyssen
and that after his Resurrection too That he Liveth unto God Romans the 6. the 10. From whence it is evident that they who are said to Live to God are not therefore supposed to be less Alive than they were when they Lived unto men Now it seemeth to be a Priviledge or Prerogative Proper to the Deity only to Live and Act alone without Vital Vnion or Conjunction with any Body Quaerendum saith Origen Si Possibile est penitus Incorporeas remanere Rationabiles Creaturas cum ad summum Sanctitatis ac Beatudinis venerint An necesse est eas semper Conjunctas esse Corporibus It is worth our Enquiry Whether it be possible for Rational Creatures to remain Perfectly Incorporeal and Separate from all Body when they are arrived to the Highest Degree of Holiness and Happiness Or Whether they be always of necessity conjoyned with some Bodies And afterwards he plainly affirmeth it to be Impossible Vivere praeter Corpus Vllam aliam Naturam praeter Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum For any other Nature besides the Father and the Son and Holy Ghost to live quite without a Body Indeed if this were most Natural to the Humane Soul and most Perfective of it to continue Separate from all Body then doubtless as Origen Implied should the Souls of Good men rather After the day of Judgment continue in such a State of Separation to all Eternity But on the contrary If it be Natural to Souls to Enliven and Enform some Body or other though not always a Terrestrial one as our Inward Sense inclines us to think then can it not seem so probable that they should by a kind of Violence be kept so long in an Vn-Natural or Preter-Natural State of Nakedness and Separation from all Body some of them even from Adam till the day of Judgment Again the Scripture also Intimates that Souls Departed out of this Life have a Knowledge of one another and are also capable of the Punishment of Sense or Pain Fear him saith our Saviour who After he hath killed hath Power to cast into Hell Luke the 12. And the Soul of the Rich Man is said to be immediately after Death in Torments before the Day of Judgment as likewise to have Known Abraham and Lazarus And it seems neither agreeable to our Common Notions nor yet to Piety to conclude That the Souls of wicked men departing out of this Life from the beginning of the world in their several Ages till the Day of Judgment have all of them no manner of Punishment inflicted on them save only that of Remorse of Conscience and Future Expectation Now it is not conceivable how Souls after Death should Know and be Knowable and Converse with one another and have any Punishment of Sense or Pain inflicted on them were they not Vitally Vnited to some Bodies And thus did Tertullian reason long ago Dolet apud Inferos Anima cujusdam Punitur in Flamma Cruciatur in Linguâ de digito animae foelicioris implorat Solatium Roris Imaginem existimas exitum illum Pauperis Laetantis Divitis moerentis Et quid illic Lazari nomen si non in veritate res est Sed etsi Imago credenda est testimonium erit veritatis Si enim non habet Anima Corpus non caperet Imaginem Corporis Nec mentiretur de Corporalibus Membris Scriptura si non erant Quid est autem illud quod ad Inferna transfertur post Divortium Corporis quod detinetur in Diem Judicii reservatur Ad quod Christus moriendo descendit puto ad Animas Patriarcharum Incorporalitas Animae ab omni genere Custodiae libera est immunis à Poena à Fovel◠Per quod enim Punitur aut Fovetur hoc erit Corpus Igitur siquid Tormenti sive Solatii Anima praecepit in Carcere vel Diversorio Inferûm in Igni vel in Sinu Abrahae probata erit Corporalitas Animae Incorporalitas enim nihil Patitur non habens per quod Pati possit aut si habet hoc erit Corpus In quantum enim Omne Corporale Passibile est in tantum quod Passibile est Corporale est We read in Scripture of a Soul Tormented in Hell Punished with Flames and desirous of a drop of water to cool his Tongue You will say perhaps that this is Parabolical and Fictitious What then does the name of Lazarus signifie there if it were no Real thing But if it be a Parable never so much yet must it notwithstanding as to the main speak agreeably to Truth For if the Soul after Death have no Body at all then can it not have any Corporeal Image Shape or Figure Nor can it be thought that the Scripture would Lie concerning Corporal Members if there were none But what is that which after its Separation from this Body is carried down into Hell and there detained Prisoner and reserved till the day of Judgment And what is that which Christ dying descended down unto I suppose to the Souls of the Patriarchs But Incorporality is free from all Custody or Imprisonment as also devoid of Pain and Pleasure Wherefore if Souls be sensible of Pain after Death and Tormented with Fire then must they needs have some Corporeity for Incorporality suffers Nothing And as every Corporeal thing is Passive or Patible so again whatsoever is Passive is Corporeal Tertullian would also further confirm this from a Vision or Revelation of a certain Sister-Prophet Miracles and Prophecy being said by him not to be then altogether Extinct Inter caetera ostensa est mihi Anima Corporaliter Spiritus videbatur Tenera Lucida Aerii Coloris Et Formae per omnia Humanae There was said she amongst other things a Soul Corporally Exhibited to my View and it was Tender and Lucid and of an Aereal Colour and every way of Humane Form Agreeably to which Tertullian himself addeth Effigiem non aliam Animae Humanae deputandam praeter Humanam quidem ejus Corporis quod unaquaeque circuntulit There is no other Shape to be assigned to a Humane Soul but Humane and indeed that of the Body which it before carried about It is true indeed that Tertullian here drives the business so far as to make the Soul it self to be Corporeal Figurate and Colorate and after Death to have the very same Shape which its respective Body had before in this Life he being one of those who were not able to conceive of any thing Incorporeal and therefore being a Religionist concluded God himself to be a certain Body also But the Reasons which he here insisteth on will indeed extend no further than to prove that the Soul hath after Death some Body Vitally Vnited to it by means whereof it is both capable of Converse and Sensible of Pain for as much as Body alone can have no Sense of any thing And this is that which Irenaeus from the same Scripture gathereth
have a Building of God a House not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens For in this we groan Earnestly And Verse the 5. He that hath wrought us for the self same thing is God who also hath given us the Earnest of the Spirit Now how these Preludiums and Prelibations of an Immortal Body can consist with the Souls continuance after Death in a Perfect Separation from all manner of Body till the Day of Judgement is not so easily Conceivable Lastly it is not at all to be Doubted but that Irenaeus Origen and those other Ancients who entertained that Opinion of Souls being Clothed after Death with a certain Thin and Subtle Body suspected it not in the least to be Inconsistent with that of the Future Resurrection as it is no way Inconsistent for one who hath only a Shirt or Wastcoat on to put on a Sute of Cloths or Exteriour Upper garment Which will also seem the less strange if it be considered that even here in this Life our Body is as it were Two Fold Exteriour and Interiour we having besides the Grosly-Tangible Bulk of our Outward Body another Interiour Spirituous Body the Souls Immediate Instrument both of Sense and Motion which Latter is not put into the Grave with the Other nor Imprisoned under the Cold Sods Notwithstanding all which that hath been here suggested by us we shall not our selves venture to determine any thing in so great a Point but Sceptically leave it Vndecided The Third and Last thing in the Forementioned Philosophick or Pythagorick Cabbala is concerning those Beings Superior to men commonly called by the Greeks Demons which Philo tells us are the same with Angels amongst the Jews and accordingly are those words Demons and Angels by Hierocles and Simplicius and other of the latter Pagan Writers sometimes used indifferently as Synonymous viz. That these Demons or Angels are not Pure Abstract Incorporeal Substances devoid of Vital Vnion with any Matter but that they consist of something Incorporeal and something Corporeal joyned together so that as Hierocles writeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have a Superiour and an Inferiour Part in them and their Superiour Part is an Incorporeal Substance their Inferiour Corporeal In a word that they all as well as men consist of Soul and Body united together there being only this Difference betwixt them that the Souls of these Demons or Angels never descend down to such Gross and Terrestrial Bodies as Humane Souls do but are always Clothed either with Aerial or Etherial ones And indeed this Pythagorick Cabbala was Universal concerning all Vnderstanding Beings besides the Supreme Deity or Trinity of Divine Hypostases that is concerning all the Pagan Inferiour Gods that they are no other than Souls vitally united to some Bodies and so made up of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Joyned together For thus Hierocles plainly expresseth himself in the forecited place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Rational Nature in General was so produced by God as that it neither is Body nor yet without Body but an Incorporeal Substance having a Cognate or Congenit Body Which same thing was else where also thus declared by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole Rational Order or Rank of Being with its Congenite Immortal Body is the Image of the whole Deity the Maker thereof Where by Hierocles his Rational Nature or Essence and by the Whole Rational Order is plainly meant all Vnderstanding Beings Created of which he acknowledgeth only these Three Kinds and Degrees First the Immortal Gods which are to him the Animated Stars Secondly Demons Angels or Heroes and Thirdly Men called also by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Terrestrial Demons he pronouncing of them all that they are alike Incorporeal Substances together with a Congenite Immortal Body and that there is no other Vnderstanding Nature than such besides the Supreme Deity which is Complete in it self without the Conjunction of any Body So that according to Hierocles the Ancient Pythagorick Cabbala acknowledged no such Entities at all as those Intelligences of Aristotle and the Noes of some High-flown Platonists that is perfectly Vnbodied Minds and much less any Rank of Henades or Vnities Superior to these Noes And indeed such Particular Created Beings as these could neither have Sense or Cognizance of any Corporeal thing Existing without them Sense as Aristotle hath observed Resulting from a Complication of Soul and Body as Weaving Results from a Complication of the Weaver and Weaving Instruments nor yet could they Act upon any Part of the Corporeal Vniverse So that these Immoveable Beings would be but like Adamantine Statues and things Unconnected with the rest of the World having no Commerce with any thing at all but the Deity a kind of Insignificant Metaphysical Gazers or Contemplators Whereas the Deity though it be not properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mundane Soul such as together with the Corporeal World as its Body makes up one Compleat and Entire Animal yet because the whole world proceeded from it and perpetually dependeth on it therefore must it needs take Cognizance of all and Act upon all in it upon which account it hath been styled by these Pythagoreans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a Mundane but a Supra-Mundane Soul Wherefore this Ancient Pythagorick Cabbala seems to be agreeable to reason also that God should be the only Incorporeal Being in this sense such whose Essence is Complete and Life Entire within it self without the Conjunction or Appendage of any Body but that all other Incorporeal Substances Created should be Compleated and Made up by a Vital Vnion with Matter so that the whole of them is neither Corporeal nor Incorporeal but a Complication of both and all the Highest and Divinest things in the Universe next to the Supreme Deity are Animals consisting of Soul and Body united together And after this manner did the Ancient asserters of Incorporeal Substance as Unextended decline that Absurdity Objected against them of the Illocality of all Finite Created Spirits that these being Incorporeal Substances Vitally Clothed with some Body may by reason of the Locality and Mobility of their Respective Bodies truly be said to be he Here and There and to Move from Place to Place Wherefore we are here also to show what Agreement or Disagreement there is betwixt this Part of the Pythagorick Cabbala and the Christian Philosophy And First it hath been already intimated that the very same Doctrine with this of the Ancient Pythagoreans was plainly asserted by Origen Thus in his First Book Peri Archon c. 6. Solius Dei saith he id est Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Naturae id proprium est ut sine Materiali Substantia absque Vllâ Corporeae Adjectionis Societate intelligatur subsistere It is proper to the Nature of God only that is of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to subsist without Material Substance or the Society of any Corporeal
concerning the Logos Whatsoever was made was Life in him but also divers of the Ancient Fathers Greek and Latin This Deifying of Idea's but a Piece of Pagan Poetry Page 562 563 Lastly whereas Proclus and others intermingle many Particular Gods with those Three Universal Hypostases as Henades and Agathotetes Unities and Goodnesses Substantiall above the First Intellect and Noes Particular Minds or Intellects above the First Soul This Hypothesis of theirs altogether Irrationall and Absurd there being Nothing Essentially Goodness Wisedom and Sanctity but the Three Divine Hypostases all other Beings having onely a Participation thereof Thus Origen expresly who therefore acknowledgeth no higher Rank of Created Beings then such as the Platonists call Souls that are Self-moveable Vitally Unitable to Bodies and Peccable With whom agreeth S. Jerome and others of the Fathers That God is the onely Impeccable Being but all Understanding Creatures Free-willed and Lapsable Page 564 565 An Opinion of Simplicius that even in that Rank of Beings called Souls though not Essentially Immutable but Self-moveable some are of so high a Pitch as that they can never Degenerate nor Sink or Fall into Vicious Habits Insomuch that he makes a Question whether Proaeresis belong to them or no. Page 565 566 But whatever is to be thought of this Origen too far in the other Extream in denying any other Ranks of Souls above Humane and supposing all the Difference that is now betwixt the highest Angels and Men to have proceeded only from their Merits and different uses of their Free Will his Reason being this because God would be otherwise a Prosopoleptes or Accepter of Persons This also Extended by him to the Soul of our Saviour Christ as not Partially chosen to that Dignity but for its Faithfull adherence to the Divine Word in a Prae-existent State which he would prove from Scripture But if a Rank of Souls below Humane and Specifically differing from them as Origen himself confesses those of Brutes to be no reason why there might not also be other Ranks or Species Superiour to them Page 566 567 But least of all can we assent to Origen when from this Principle That all Souls are Essentially endued with Free Will and therefore in their Nature Peccable he infers those Endless Circuits of Souls Upwards and Downwards and consequently denies them any Fixed State of Holiness and Happiness by Divine Grace an Assertion contrary to the Tenour and Promises of the Gospell Thus perhaps that to be understood That Christ brought Life and Immortality to Light thorough the Gospell not as if he were the First who taught the Soul's Immortality a thing believed before by the Pharisaick Jews and Generality of Pagans but because these held their Endless Transmigrations and Circuits therefore was he the first who brought everlasting Life and Happiness to Light Page 567 568 That Origen a man well skilled in the Platonick Learning and so much addicted to the Dogmata thereof would never have gone so far into that other Extreme had there been any Solidity of Reason for either those Henades or Noes of the Latter Platonists This Opinion all one as if a Christian should suppose besides the First Person or Father a Multitude of Particular Paternities Superiour to the Second Person and also besides the One Son or Word a Multitude of Particular Sons or Words Superiour to the Third the Holy Ghost This plainly to make a Breach upon the Deity and to introduce a company of such Creaturely Gods as imply a Contradiction in their very Notion Page 568 Lastly this not the Catholick Doctrine of the Platonick School neither but a Private Opinion onely of some late Doctours No Footsteps of those Henades and Agathotetes to be found any-where in Plato nor yet in Plotinus This Language little Older then Proclus Nor does Plato speak of any Abstract or Separate Mind save onely One His Second things about the Second being Idea's as his Thirds about the Third Created Beings Plotinus also doubtfull and staggering about these Noes he seeming sometimes to make them but the Heads or Summities of Souls Wherefore this Pseudo-Platonick Trinity to be Exploded as Confounding the Differences betwixt God and the Creature Whereas the Christian Trinity Homogeneall all Deity or Creatour all other things being supposed to be the Creatures of those Three Hypostases and produced by their Joynt-Concurrence and Influence they being all Really but One God Page 568 570 Nevertheless these forementioned Depravations and Adulterations of that Divine Cabbala of the Trinity not to be charged upon Plato himself nor all the other Ancient Platonists and Pythagoreans some of which approached so near to the Christian Trinity as to make their Three Hypostases all truly Divine and Creatours other things being the Creatures of them ibid. First therefore Plato himself in his Timaeus carefully distinguisheth betwixt God and the Creature and determineth the bounds of each after this manner That the First is that which Always Is and was never Made the Second that which is Made and had a Beginning but truely Is not His meaning here perverted by Junior Platonists whom Boetius also followed Where Plato takes it for granted That whatsoever hath a Temporary and Successive Duration had a Beginning and whatsoever had no Beginning hath no Successive but Permanent Duration and so concludes That whatsoever is Eternall is God but whatsoever exists in Time and hath a Beginning Creature Page 570 572 Now to Plato more Eternall Gods then One Which not Idea's or Noemata but true Substantiall Things his First Second and Third in his Epistle to Dionysius or Trinity of Divine Hypostases the Makers or Creatours of the whole World Cicero's Gods by whose Providence the World and all its Parts were framed Page 572 573 The Second Hypostasis in Plato's Trinity to wit Mind or Intellect unquestionably Eternal and without Beginning The same affirmed by Plotinus also of the Third Hypostasis or Psyche called the Word of the Second as the Second the Word of the First Porphyrius his Testimony to this purpose in S. Cyril where also Mind or the Second Divine Hypostasis though said to have been Begotten from the First yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Its Own-Parent and its Own-Offspring and said to have sprung out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-begottenly Page 573 574. This Mysterious Riddle expounded out of Plotinus The plain meaning thereof no more then this That though this Second Hypostasis proceeded from the First yet was it not produced by it after a Creaturely manner nor Arbitrariously by Will and Choice but in way of Natural and Necessary Emanation Thus have some Christians ventured to call the Logos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ex seipso Deum God from himself Page 574 575 Dionysius Petavius having declared the Doctrine of Arius that the Father was the onely Eternal God and the Son or Word a Creature made in Time and out of Nothing Concludes it undeniably manifest from hence
acknowledge also all their Three Hypostases to be Homoousian Co-essentiall or Consubstantiall yet in a further Sense as making up One Entire Divinity As the Root Stock and Branches Co-essentiall to a Vine The Trinity not so Undivided as if Three were not Three in it The Inequality and Subordination in the Platonick Trinity within the Deity it self onely and in the Relation of the Hypostases to one another they being ad extrà all One and the same God Joyntly Concurring in the same Actions and in that respect devoid of Inequality Page 597 598 Furthermore the Platonick Christian would urge That according to the Principles of Christianity it self there must needs be some Dependence and Subordination in these Hypostases in their Relation to one another a Priority and Posteriority of Order and Dignity That which is Originally of it Self having some kind of Priority and Superiority over thâ—t which is wholly Derived from it The Second and Third Hypostases not so Omnipotent as the First because not able to Beget or Produce that Hence the First styled by Macrobius the Most Omnipotent of all Sundry passages in Scripture favouring this Hypothesis as also Orthodox Fathers Athanasius his Resemblances to the Originall Light and the Secondary Splendor to the Fountain and the Stream the Root and the Branch the Water and the Vapour The Equality asserted by the Orthodox in way of opposition to the Arian Inequality of God and Creature That they Equally God or Uncreated Notwithstanding which some Inequality amongst them allowed by Petavius and others as This God and That Person Page 599 600 However no necessity of any more Inequality and Subordination in the Platonick then in the Christian Trinity they being but Infinite Goodness and Infinite Wisedom and Infinite Active Love and Power Substantiall Another Hypothesis of some Platonists hinted by S. Austine out of Porphyry which makes the Third Hypostasis a Myddle betwixt the First and Second and implies not so much a Gradation as a Circulation in the Trinity Page 600 601 As for the Platonists supposing their Three Hypostases though One Entire Divinity to have their Distinct Singular Essences without which they conceive they could be nothing but Three Names the Platonick Christian would make this Apology That the Orthodox Fathers themselves were generally of this persuasion That the Essence of the Godhead wherein all the Three Persons agree not One Singular but onely One Common or Universal Essence Their Distinction to this purpose betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the former was Common or Generical the latter Singular or Individual Theodoret Basil and many others Petavius his acknowledgement that the Greeks Vniversally agreed herein Page 601 602 The Opinion of Gregory Nyssen Cyril Damascen and others That the Persons of the Trinity no otherwaies One then as Three Individuals under the same Species or as Three Men agree in the same common Humanity These the Chief Asserters of an Absolute Independent and Un-subordinate Co-equality This the onely fault that S. Cyril finds in the Platonists that they did not assert such a Consubstantiality Whereas this Trinity Tritheism the Three Persons thereof being no more One God then Three Men are One Man However this certain that these Fathers did not suppose the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have all the same Singular Essence Another Extream that sprung up afterwards in the room of the former Tritheism and owned by no other Authority then of a Lateran Councill Page 603 604 And that this Sameness of Singular Essence was not asserted by the Nicene Fathers and first Opposers of Arius First clearly acknowledged by Petavius Page 604 605 But this further Evident from hence Because the same Orthodox Fathers who opposed Arianism did also condemn Sabellianism which asserted Father Son and Holy Ghost to be but One Hypostasis that is to have but One and the same Singular Essence and consequently acknowledged no other Trinity then of Names or Words Page 605 It appeareth also from hence Because the Word Homoousios had never any other Sense then to signify the Agreement of things Numerically differing in some Common and General Nature or Essence S. Basil That the same thing is not Homoousious Co-essential or Consubstantial with it self but always One thing with another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plotinus So also in Athanasius he affirming the Branches to be Homoousious and Congenerous with the Root Besides which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by Athanasius and others as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None of which words signify an Identity of Singular Essence but General or Universal onely The Council of Chalcedon That our Saviour Christ as to his Humanity was Homoousious or Consubstantial with us Men. Thus does Athanasius deny the Son or Word as such to be Homoousious or Consubstantial with Creatures as also he affirmeth men to be Consubstantial with one another every Son Consubstantial and Co-essential with his Father Page 605 606 Moreover the Sense of the Nicene Fathers in their Consubstantiality may more fully appear from the Doctrine of Arius opposed by them which made the Son a Creature and therefore as Athanasius writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a different Essence or Substance from the Father Proved clearly from Athanasius that by the Consubstantiality of the Word was meant no more then its being not a Creature or Uncreated Page 606 608 Further Proof out of Athanasius that by Consubstantiality is not meant a Sameness of Singular but onely of General Essence As also out of S. Austine Page 608 611 Lastly That the Homoousian Fathers did not assert against Arius a Sameness of Singular Essence evident from their Disclaiming those two other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having a Sabellian Sense in them the former by Epiphanius the latter by Athanasius So that they who asserted the Son to be Homoousious Consubstantial with the Father denied him to be Monoousious or Tautoousious that is to have the same Singular Essence Page 612 613 From all these Considerations concluded by the Platonick Christian Thâ—t as the Genuine Trinity of Plato agreed with that of the Orthodox Christians in being not Heteroousian but Homoousian Co-essential or Consubstantial not made up of God and Creature but all Homogeneal of Uncreated or Creatour so did the Trinity of the First Orthodox Anti-Arians herein agree with the Platonick Trinity that it was not Monoousian or Tautoousian One and the same Singular Essence under Three Names or Notions onely but really Three Hypostases or Persons Page 612 Nevertheless here remaineth a Question to be Answered Whether Athanasius the Nicene Fathers and all the First Anti-Arians did therefore assert the same thing with Greg. Nyssen Cyril and others That the Three Persons in the Trinity were but Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Species having onely a Specifick Unity
or Identity besides Consent of Will or that they all agree in the Uncreated Nature onely This Grossly asserted in the Dialogues of the Trinity Vulgarly Imputed to Athanasius and to that purpose also That Three Men are not Three Men but onely then when they Dissent from one another in Will and Opinion But these Dialogues Pseudepigraphous Nevertheless to be Granted that Athanasius himself in that Book of the Common Essence of the Persons seems to lay something too much Stresse upon this Common Nature Essence or Substance of the Three Persons as to the making of them all but One God However it is certain he does not there rely upon that alone and elsewhere acknowledgeth it to be insufficient The true Reason why Athanasius laid so great a Stresse upon the Homoousiotes not because this alone would make them One God but because they could not possibly be One God without it For if the Father be Uncreated and the Son a Creature then can they not both be One God Several Passages of Athanasius Cited to this purpose Those Expressions in him of One Godhead and the Sameness of the Godhead and One Essence or Substance in the Trinity not so to be understood as if the Three Persons were but several Names Notions or Modes of One Thing Page 612 616 Wherefore though Athanasius lay his Foundation in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Specifick Unity of the Persons which is their Consubstantiality in order to their being One God yet does he superadde other Considerations also thereunto A◠first of all this That they are not Three Principles but onely One the Essence of the Father being the Root and Fountain of the Son and Spirit and the Three Hypostases gathered together under One Head Where Athanasius implies That were they perfectly Co-ordinate and Independent they would not be One but Three Gods Page 616 In the next place he further addeth That these Three Hypostases are not Three Separated Disjoined Things but Indivisibly United as the Splendor is Indivisible from the Sun and Wisedom from him that is Wise. That neither of these Persons could be without the other nor any thing come between them they so immediately Conjoyned together as that there is a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Continuity betwixt them Page 616 617 Thirdly Athanasius goes yet higher affirming these Three Hypostases not onely to be Indivisibly Conjoyned but also to have a Mutual Inexistence in each other This afterwards called an Emperichoresis That of our Saviour I am in the Father and the Father in me therefore Quarrelled at by the Arians because they conceived of Things Incorporeal after a Corporeal manner That the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father and the Father exercises a Providence over all in the Son Page 617 619 Lastly Athanasius also in Sundry Places supposes the Three Divine Hypostases to make up one Entire Divinity as the Fountain and the Stream make up one entire River the Root Stock and Branches one entire Tree Accordingly the word Homoousios used by Athanasius in a further Sense not onely to signify things Agreeing in one Common and General Essence but also such as Essentially Concurr to the making up of One Entire thing That the Three Hypostases do Outwardly or Ad extrà produce all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and the self-same Action the Father By the Word In the Holy Spirit doing all things That all this Doctrine of Athanasius would have been readily assented to by Plato and his Genuine Followers The Platonick Christian therefore Concludeth That there is no such Real Difference betwixt the Genuine Platonick Trinity and that of the First Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers as some conceive From which notwithstanding that Tritheistick Trinity of S. Greg. Nyssen Cyril and others of Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Species as Three Men seems to have been a Deviation Page 619 620 Hitherto the Platonick Christians Apology for the Genuine Platonick Trinity or Endeavour to reconcile it with the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Where nothing is asserted by our selves but all Submitted to the Judgement of the Learned in these Matters And whatsoever in Plato's Trinity shall be found Discrepan◠from the sense of the First Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers utterly disclaimed by us Athanasius a great Instrument of Divine Providence for preserving the Christian Church from Lapsing into a kind of Paganick and Idolatrous Christianity ibid. The Reason of this Apology for the Genuine Platonick Trinity Because it is against the Interest of Christianity that this should be made more Discrepant from the Christian then indeed it is Moreover certain that this Genuine Platonick Trinity was Anti-Arian or rather the Arian Anti-Platonick Wherefore Socrates wondered that Georgius and Timotheus Presbyters should adhere to the Arian Faction when one of them was accounted much a Platonist the other an Origenist Page 620 621 Furthermore Platonick Pagans after Christianity highly approved of the Beginning of S. John's Gospell concerning the Logos as exactly agreeing with their Platonick Doctrine Thus Amelius in Eusebius and others A Platonist in S. Austine That it deserved to be writ in Golden Letters and set up in some Eminent places in every Christian Church But that which is most of all Considerable to Justify this Apology The generality of Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene Councill look'd upon this Platonick Trinity if not as really the Same thing with the Christian yet as approaching so near thereunto that it differed chiefly in Circumstances or Manner of Expression Thus Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Origen S. Cyprian or the Authour of the Book De Spiritu Sancto Eusebius Caesariensis and which is most of all to the purpose Athanasius himself he giving a Signal Testimony thereunto To which may be added S. Austine and Theodoret. S. Cyril though blaming the Platonick Subordination Himself supposing the Trinity to be Three Co-ordinate Individuals under the same Specifick Nature of the Godhead yet acknowledges that Plato was not altogether ignorant of the Truth c. But that Plato's Subordination of his Second Hypostasis to the First was not as the Arian of a Creature to the Creatour already made unquestionably Evident Page 621 625 Wherefore a Wonderfull Providence of Almighty God here to be taken notice of That this Doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Hypostases should be entertained in the Pagan World before Christianity as it were to prepare a way for the Reception of it amongst the Learned Which the Junior Platonists were so sensible of that besides their other Adulterations of the Platonick Trinity before mentioned for the Countenancing of their Polytheism and Idolatry they at length Innovated and Altered the whole Cabbala now no longer acknowledging a Trinity but at least a Quaternity of Divine Hypostases namely before and besides the Trinity another Hypostasis superiour thereunto and standing alone by it self This first started by Iamblichus carried on by Proclus taken notice of by S. Cyril besides which
Act alone without Vital Union with any Body If Natural to the Soul to Enliven a Body then not probable that it should be kept so long in an Unnatural State of Separation Page 799 800 Again Probable from Scripture That wicked Souls after Death have Punishment of Sense or Pain besides Remorse of Conscience which not easily Conceivable How they should have without Bodies Thus Tertullian He adding That Men have the same Shape or Effigies after this Life which they had here Though indeed he drive the business too far so as to make the Soul it self to be a Body Figurate and Colourate Page 800 801 But Irenaeus plainly supposed the Soul after Death being Incorporeal to be Adapted to a Body such as has the same Character and Figure with its Body here in this Life Page 801 802 Origen also of this Perswasion That Souls after Death have certain Subtile Bodies retaining the same Characterizing Form which their Terrestrial Bodies had His Opinion That Apparitions of the Dead are from the Souls themselves surviving in that which is called a Luciform Body As also that Saint Thomas did not doubt but that the Body of a Soul departed might appear every way like the Former onely be disbelieved our Saviour's appearing in the Same Solid Body which he had before Death Page 802 804 Our Saviour telling his Disciples That a Spirit had no Flesh and Bones that is no Solid Body as himself then had seems to Imply them to have Thinner Bodies which they may Visibly Appear in Thus in Apollonius is Touch made the Sign to distinguish a Ghost Appearing from a Living Man Our Saviour's Body after his Resurrection according to Origen in a Middle State betwixt This Gross or Solid Body of ours and That of a Ghost Page 804 A place of Scripture which as interpreted by the Fathers would Naturally Imply the Soul of our Saviour after Death not to have been quite Naked of all Body but to have had a Corporeal Spirit Moses and Elias Visibly appearing to our Saviour had therefore True Bodies Page 804 805 That the Regenerate here in this Life have a certain Earnest of their Future Inheritance which is their Spiritual or Heavenly Body Gathered from Scripture by Irenaeus and Novatian Which Praelibations of the Spiritual Body cannot so well consist with a Perfect Separation from all Body after Death till the Day of Judgement Page 805 806 This Opinion of Irenaeus Origen and others supposed by them not at all to Clash with the Christian Article of the Resurrection Nothing in this Point determined by us Page 806 The Last thing in the Pythagorick Cabbala That Daemons or Angels and indeed all Created Understanding Beings consist as well as Men of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Vnited together Thus Hierocles Vniversally of all the Rational Nature and that no Incorporeal Substance besides the Supreme Deity is Compleat without the Conjunction of a Body God the Onely Incorporeal in this Sense and not a Mundane but Supra-Mundane Soul Page 806 808 Origen's full Agreement with this Old Pythagorick Cabbala That Rational Creatures are neither Body nor yet without Body but Incorporeal Substances having a Corporeal Indument Page 808 809 Origen misrepresented by Huetius as asserting Angels not to Have Bodies but to Be Bodies whereas he plainly acknowledged the Humane Soul to be Incorporeal and Angels also to have Souls He proveth Incorporeal Creatures from the Scriptures which though themselves not Bodies yet always Use Bodies Whereas the Deity is neither Body nor yet clothed with a Body as the Proper Soul thereof Page 809 810 Some of the Fathers so far from supposing Angels altogether Incorporeal that they ran into the other Extream and concluded them altogether Corporeal that is to be All Body and Nothing else The Middle betwixt both these the Origenick and Phythagorick Hypothesis That they consist of Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Soul and Body Joyned together The Generality of the Ancient Fathers for neither of those Extreams That they did not suppose Angels to be perfectly Unbodied Spirits Evident from their affirming Devils as the Greek Philosophers did Demons to be Delighted with the Nidours of Sacrifices as having their Vapourous Bodies or Airy Vehicles refreshed thereby Thus Porphyrius and before him Celsus Amongst the Christians besides Origen Justin Athenagoras Tatianus c. S. Basil concerning the Bodies of Demons or Devils being Nourished with Vapours not by Organs but throughout their whole Substance Page 810 812 Several of the Fathers plainly asserting both Devils and Angels to consist of Soul and Body Incorporeal and Corporeal Substance Joyned together Saint Austine Claudianus Mamertus Fulgentius Joannes Thessalonicensis and Psellus who Philosophizeth much concerning this Page 812 814 That some of the Ancients when they called Angels Incorporeal understood Nothing else thereby but onely that they had not Grosse but Subtile Bodies Page 814 815 The Fathers though herein Happening to Agree with the Philosophick Cabbala yet seemed to have been led thereunto by Scripture As from that of our Saviour They who shall obtain the Resurrection of the Dead shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Equal to the Angels that is according to Saint Austine shall have Angelical Bodies From that of Saint Jude That Angels Sinning lost their Own Proper Dwelling-House that is their Heavenly Body called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Saint Paul which made them Fit Inhabitants of the Heavenly Regions and thereupon Cast down into the Lower Tartarus interpreted by Saint Austine to be this Caliginous Air or Atmo-Sphear of the Earth Again From that Fire said to have been Prepared for the Devils which being not to be taken Metaphorically therefore as Psellus concludeth Implies them to be Bodied because an Incorporeal Substance alone and not Vitally Vnited to any Body cannot be Tormented with Fire Page 815 817 Now if all Created Incorporeals Superiour to Men be Souls vitally Vnited to Bodies and never quite Separate from all Body then Probable that Humane Souls after Death not quite Naked from all Body as if they could Live and Act compleatly without it a Priviledge Superiour to that of Angels and proper to the Deity Nor is it at all Conceivable How Imperfect Beings could have Sense and Imagination without Bodies Origen Contra Celsum Our Soul in its own Nature Incorporeal alwaies Standeth in need of a Body suitable to the place wherein it is And accordingly Sometimes Putteth Off what it had before and Sometimes again Putteth On something New Where the following words being vitiated Origen's Genuine Sense restored Evident that Origen distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul Translated Tabernacle from the Earthly House he understanding by the former a Thin Spirituous Body which is a Middle betwixt the Earthly and the Heavenly and which the Soul remaineth still clothed with after Death This Opinion of Origen's That the Soul after Death not quite Separate from all Body never reckoned up in the Catalogue of his Errours Origen not Taxed
Dignity of its Hypostatick Vnion but by reason of its most faithful adherence to the Divine Word and Wisdom in a Pre-existent State beyond all others Souls which he endeavours thus to prove from the Scripture Quòd dilectionis Perfectio affectus sinceritas ei inseparabilem cum Deo fecerit Vnitatem ità ut non fortuita fuerit aut cum Personae acceptione Animae ejus assumptio sed Virtutum suarum sibi merito delata audi ad eum Prophetam dicentem Dilexisti Justitiam odisti iniquitatem proptereà unxit te Deus Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae participibus tuis Dilectionis ergo merito ungitur Oleo laetitiae Anima Christi id est cum Verbo Dei Vnum efficitur Vngè namque oleo laetitiae non aliud intelligitur quam Spiritu Sancto repleri Prae Participibus autem dixit quia nâ—n Gratia Spiritus sicut Prophetis ei data est sed ipsius Verbi Dei in ea Substantialis inerat Plenitudo That the Perfection of Love and Sincerity of Divine Affection procured to this Soul its Inseparable Vnion with the Godhead so that the Assumption of it was neither Fortuitous nor Partial or with Prosopolepsie the Acception of Persons but bestowed upon it justly for the Merit of its Vertues hear saith he the Prophet thus declaring to him Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity therefore hath God even thy God anointed thee with the oil of Gladness above thy Fellows The Soul of Christ therefore was anointed with the oil of Gladness or made one with the Word of God for the Merits of Love and faithful adherence to God and no otherwise For to be anointed with the oil of Gladness here properly signifies nothing else but to be replenish'd with the Holy Ghost But when it is said that he was thus anointed above his Fellows this intimateth that he had not the Holy Ghost bestowed upon him only as the Prophets and other Holy men had but that the Substantial Fulness of the Word of God dwelt in him But this Reason of Origen's seems to be very weak because if there be a Rank of Souls below Humane specifically differing from the same as Origen himself must needs confess he not allowing the Souls of Brutes to have been Humane Souls Lapsed as some Pythagoreans and Platonists conceited but renouncing and disclaiming that Opinion as monstrously Absurd and Irrational there can be no reason given why there might not be as well other Ranks and Orders of Souls Superiour to those of Men without the Injustice of Prosopolepsie as besides Simplicius Plotinus and the Generality of other Platonists conceived But least of all can we assent to Origen when from this Principle that Souls as such are Essentially endowed with Liberum Arbitrium or Free Will and therefore never in their own Nature Impeccable he infers those Endless Circuits of Souls Vpwards and Downwards and so makes them to be never at rest denying them any Fixed State of Holiness and Happiness by Divine Grace such as wherein they might be free from the Fear and Danger of ever losing the same Of whom St. Austin therefore thus Illum propter alia nonnulla maximè propter alternantes sine cessatione beatitudines miserias statutis seculorum intervallis ab istis ad illas atque ab illis ad istas Itus ac Reditus Interminabiles non immeritò reprobavit Ecclesia quia hoc quod Misericors videbatur amisit faciendo sanctis Veras Miserias quibus poenas luerent Falsas Beatitudines in quibus verum ac securum hoc est sine Timore certum sempiterni boni gaudium non haberent The Church hath deservedly rejected Origen both for certain other opinions of his and especially for those his Alternate Beatitudes and Miseries without end and for his infinite Circuits Ascents and Descents of Souls from one to the other in restless Vicissitudes and after Periods of Time Forasmuch as hereby he hath quite lost that very Title of Pitiful or Merciful which otherwise he seemed to have deserved by making so many True Miseries for the best of Saints in which they should successively undergo Punishment and Smart and none but False Happinesses for them such as wherein they could never have any True or Secure joy free from the Fear of losing that Good which they possess For this Origenical Hypothesis seems directly contrary to the whole Tenour of the Gospel promising Eternal and Everlasting Life to those who believe in Christ and Perseveringly obey him 1 Joh. 2. This is the Promise that he hath Promised us even Eternal Life and Titus 1.2 In hope of Eternal Life which God that cannot Lye hath promised And God so loved the World that he gave his only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have Everlasting Life and lest all this should be taken for a Periodical Eternity only John 3.26 He that believeth in me shall never die And possibly this might be the Meaning of St. Paul 2 Tim. 1.10 when he affirmeth of our Saviour Christ That he hath abolished Death and brought Life and Immortality to Light thorough the Gospel not because he was the First who had discovered and published to the World the Souls Immortality which was believed before not only by all the Pharisaick Jews but also by the Generality of Pagans too but because these for the most part held their Endless Circuits and Transmigrations of Souls therefore was he the First who brought Everlasting Life to Light and gave the World assurance in the Faith of the Gospel of a Fixed and Permanent State of Happiness and a never fading Crown of Glory to be obteined Him that overcometh will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out Apoc. 3.12 Now the Reason why we mention'd Origen here was because he was a Person not only thoroughly skilled in all the Platonick Learning but also one who was sufficiently addicted to those Dogmata he being commonly conceived to have had too great a kindness for them and therefore had there been any Solidity of Reason for either those Particular Henades or Noes of theirs Created Beings above the Rank of Souls and consequently according to the Platonick Hypothesis Superiour to the Vniversal Psyche also which was the Third Hypostasis in their Trinity and seems to answer to the Holy Ghost in the Christian Origen was as likely to have been favourable thereunto as any other But it is indeed manifestly repugnant to Reason that there should be any such Particular that is Created Henades and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essential Goodnesses Superiour to the Platonick First Mind or any such Noes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essential Wisdoms Superiour to their Vniversal Psyche it being all one as if in the Christian Trinity besides the First Person or the Father one should suppose a Multitude of Particular Paternities Superiour to the Second and also besides that Second
Person the Son or Word a Multitude of Particular Sons or Words all Superiour to the Third Person the Holy Ghost For this is plainly to make a Breach upon the Deity to confound the Creator and Creature together and to suppose a company of such Creaturely Gods as imply a manifest contradiction in the very Notion of them Wherefore we shall here observe that this was not the Catholick Doctrine of the Platonick School that there were such Henades and Noes but only a private Opinion of some Doctors amongst them and that of the latter sort too For First as for those Henades as there are not the least Footsteps of them to be found any where in Plato's Writings so may it be plainly gather'd from them that he supposed no such thing Forasmuch as in his Second Epistle where he describes his Trinity he doth not say of the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the First are the First as he doth of the Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Second are the Second and about the Third the Third but of the First he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 About the King of all things are all things and for his sake are all Things and he is the cause of all Things that are good Wherefore here are no Particular Henades and Autoagathotetes Vnities and Goodnesses about the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and Good but all Good things are about him he being both the Efficient and Final Cause of all Moreover Plotinus throughout all his Works discovers not the Least suspicion neither of these Henades and Agathotetes this Language being scarcely to be found any where in the Writings of any Platonists Seniour to Proclus who also as if he were conscious that this assumentum to the Platonick Theology were not so defensible a thing doth himself sometime as it were tergiversate and decline it by equivocating in the Word Henades taking them for the Ideas or the Intelligible Gods before mentioned As perhaps Synesius also uses the Word in his First Hymn when God is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The First Henad of Henades and the First Monad of Monades That is The First Idea of Good and Cause of all the Ideas And as for the Particular Noes Minds or Intellects these indeed seem to have crept up somewhat before Plotinus his time he besides the Passage before cited elsewhere giving some Intimations of them as Enn. 6. L. 4. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how can there be many Souls and many Minds and not only one but many Entia From which and other places of his Ficinus concluded Plotinus himself really to have asserted above the Rank of Souls a Multitude of other Substantial Beings called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minds or Intellects Nevertheless Plotinus speaking of them so uncertainly and making such an Union betwixt all these Noes and their Particular Respective Souls it may well be question'd whether he really took them for any thing else but the Heads and Summities of those Souls he supposing that all Souls have a Mind in them the Participation of the First Mind as also a Vnity too the Participation of the First Vnity whereby they are capable of being conjoyn'd with both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There must needs be Mind in us as also the Principle and Cause of Mind God Not as if he were divided but because though remaining in himself yet he is also considered in Many as capable to receive him As the Centre though it remain in it self yet is it also in every Line drawn from the Circumference each of them by a certain Point of its own touching it And by some such Thing in us is it that we are capable of touching God and of being Vnited to him when we direct our Intention towards him And in the next Chapter he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That though we have these things in us yet do we not perceive them being for the most part idle and asleep as to these higher Energies as some never at all exercise them However those do always act Mind and that which is before Mind Vnity but every thing which is in our Souls is not perceived by us unless come to the Whole when we dispose our selves towards it c. Where Plotinus seems to make the Noes or Minds to be nothing else but something in Souls whereby they partake of the First Mind And it is said of Porphyrius who was well acquainted with Plotinus his Philosophy that he quite discarded and rejected these Noes or Intellects as Substances really distinct from the First Mind and separate from Souls And it is certain that such Minds as these are no where plainly mentioned by Plato he speaking only of Minds in Souls but not of any Abstract and Separate Minds save only one And though some might think him to have given an Intimation of them in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before mentioned his Second about the Second Things or Second Things about the Second yet by these may very well be understood the Ideas as by the Third Things about the Third all Created Beings Wherefore we may conclude that this Platonick or rather Pseudo-Platonick Trinity which confounds the Differences betwixt God and the Creature and that probably in favour of the Pagan Polytheism and Idolatry is nothing so agreable to Reason it self as that Christian Trinity before described which distinctly declares how far the Deity goes and where the Creature begins namely that the Deity extends so far as to this Whole Trinity of Hypostases and that all other things whatsoever this Trinity of Persons only excepted are truly and properly their Creatures produced by the joynt concurrence and Influence of them all they being really but One God But it is already manifest that all the forementioned Depravations and Adulterations of that Divine Cabbala of the Trinity and that Spurious Trinity described which because asserted by some Platonists was called Platonical in way of distinction from the Christian cannot be justly charged neither upon Plato himself nor yet upon all his Followers Universally But on the contrary we shall now make it appear that Plato and some of the Platonists reteined much of the Ancient Genuine Cabbala and made a very near approach to the True Christian Trinity forasmuch as their Three Hypostases distinguish'd from all their other Gods seem to have been none of them accounted Creatures but all other things whatsoever the Creatures of them First therefore we affirm that Plato himself does in the beginning of his Timaeus very carefully distinguish betwixt God and the Creature he determining the Bounds between them after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We being here to treat concerning the Vniverse judge it necessary to begin with a Distinction betwixt that which