are of a Mind And the Dissent among them is so bitter and unreconcilable that the Anathema's fly as thick and fast at one another as at the Unitarians As many Parties as they are each Party is heretical and in a State of Damnation in the Opinion of all the rest Their Divisions do respect some of them the Doctrine of the Trinity and some the Incarnation I will reckon them up as they shall occur to my Mind without regarding that Method which might be given to Error 1. The first Difference is about the Filiâ—que or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son This Quarrel divides them into two great and almost equal Parties into the Church of the East and the Church of the West The Eastern Church that is to say all Asia and Africa Greece and the Islands of the Archipelago all Muscovy and the Provinces of Illyricum a good Part of Poland and some Part of Hungary all these maintain that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only But the Western Church that is all the Roman Catholick Nations and all the Reformed or Protestants contend that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son There is no Trinitarian but is in one of these Parties and consequently none of them but who is an heretick and in a State of Damnation in the Judgment and Opinion of the one Moyety or half of his Fellow-Trinitarians But because this damning of one another upon this Difference between them has been of late so confidently denied by Dr. Wallis and Dr. Sherlock I am obliged to take notice of the publick Declarations of these two Churches against one another The whole Western Church in the first Canon of the second general Council of Lions saith Damnamus reprobamiss c. i. e. We damn and reprobate all such as presume to deny that the Holy Spirit doth eternally proceed from the Father and from the Son On the other Hand the Eastern Church excommunicates as Scismaticks and Hereticks all the Latins so they call the Western Churches which hold the Filioque or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son on every Holy Thursday and all other principal Holy-days F. Simon Crit. Hist of the Religions of the East p. 16 17. 2. These two mighty Parties are again subdivided into a great many factious Differences Into those for instance who teach that but one Person of their supposed Trinity was incarnate and those who contend that the whole Trinity was incarnate 3. Into those who say all the Persons in the Trinity are equal and those who on the contrary ascribe to the Father a Prerogative and Superiority above the other two Persons a Superiority not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Order and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Dignity but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Power 4. Into those who say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. hath underived Godhead or is GOD of himself and those that hold he is GOD of GOD that is deriveth from the Father Being Life and Godhead 5. Into those who say the Son is so the Wisdom of the Father that he is the Wisdom by which the Father is wise and into those who deny this as little better than Blasphemy because 't is as much as to say that the Father without the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 irrational and unwise 6. In what Sense the three Persons are consubstantial that is have the same Substance or Essence or Nature doth unreconcilably divide them the Ancients from the Moderns and the Moderns from one another One Party saith Father Son and Spirit are generically or if you will specifically consubstantial that is as three Men are consubstantial to one another because all of them partake of the same specifick Nature even the humane or as three Guineas are consubstantial being all of them Gold The contrary Party saith the Divine Persons are numerically consubstantial i. e. do all subsist in the self-same Substance or Essence as Understanding Will and Memory subsist in one and the same Soul 7. They dispute whether upon the Incarnation of the Son the Lord Christ became two Persons or was only one Person whom they call by a compound and monstrous Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or GOD-MAN If the latter of these the Virgin Mary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God if the other she was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of Christ 8. Besides the Dispute about the Persons there is a great Controversy among them about the Natures in the Lord Christ The Eutychian Trinitarians say the Lord Christ hath but one Nature the rest of them called Melchites affirm two distinct Natures an humane as well as a divine 9. 'T is controverted among them whether in Consequence of the Incarnation of the Son or WORD there followed two Wills and two Actions in the Lord Christ or only one Action and one Will Also 10. Whether by Virtue of the Incarnation the Body of the Lord Christ became incorruptible and exempt from humane Affections and Passions or not Farther 11. Whether the humane Nature of Christ being personally united to the Son or WORD were not by Virtue of that Union Omniscient knowing even when the Day of Judgment shall be 12. Whether this Proposition be Orthodox or on the contrary the Seed of the Devil one Person of the Blessed Trinity hath suffered for us 13. Whether the Son and Spirit have been once generated and breathed and that from all Eternity or whether they are continually and always begotten and breathed 14. They all agree that there are three Divine Persons but to make this no Agreement they are divided in explaining what is to be understood by the Word Persons Some say the three Persons are three Properties of the Divine Nature But these agree not some making them to be Properties in the same numerical Nature Others take them to be discretive Properties in the specifick Nature Others say the three Persons are three Modes of Subsistence or three Relations or three Respects of GOD towards his Creatures or three Operations Others affirm the three Persons to be so many several or distinct intellectual Beings and Spirits as distinct from one another as three humane Persons or three Men are 15. To add now no more They require us to believe that three Almighty Persons are but one God but in what Sense or Manner three such Persons make one GOD is not only disputed among them but they are here also Apostates and Hereticks to one another Some resolve this Mystery as they call it by an Unity or Oneness of Affection Will and Design between the three Persons as St. Paul speaking of himself and Apollos saith He that planteth and he that watereth are one 1 Cor. 3.8 Others say the Son and Spirit are one GOD with the Father by their most perfect Subordination or Subjection to him All
Authors that knew those Nations and Writers better than at this Distance of time we now can particularly the most learned Plutarch and Laertius these Authors say that those Philosophers and Nations did not hold a Trinity but a Duality of Principles or Gods that is a good and a bad GOD. And by what they say of those Gods or Principles they seem to mean no more than what we are taught in Holy Scripture concerning GOD and that malign but subordinate Spirit called the Devil and Satan But you will say the Platonists held a Trinity of Divine Persons Yes some of them did I say some of them for the more learned Platonists such as Jamblichus Proclus and Plato himself did not think their imagin'd Trinity to be the supream GOD but that over their Trinity there is one most simple Monadick or solitary Being who is GOD of Gods and the first Author of all things If you ask How the vulgar Platonists came to stumble upon a Trinity I answer They finding that the first Philosophers had called GOD Hen and Tagathon or the One and the Good as also Logos Nous and Sophia or the Reason or WORD the Mind and Wisdom And finally Psyche the Soul because he pervades and governs the World as the Soul does the Body They being the most fanciful and Enthusiastical of all Men exceeding the Quakers in Enthusiasm and the Behmenists in Fancifulness and Affectation of Mystery mistook the aforementioned Properties of the Divine Nature for Persons or wilfully and affectedly allegoriz'd them into Persons Hen and Tagathon the One and the Good they made to be the same even the Father and Fountain of the Deity because all Number proceeds from One or Vnity and because Goodness as these Philosophers often speak is better than Reason or Wisdom Nous Logos and Sophia that is Mind Reason and Wisdom being but equivalent Words of these they made the second Person or as some of them call him the Son Psyche or the Mundane Soul was the third because Reason or Wisdom is better than and superiour to all things but Tagathon or Goodness There is Sir a certain Fate always attending on Error by which she is first or last betrayed and exposed even by those who seek to maintain and defend her Therefore though Dr. Cudworth hath spent so ma-many Sheets in discovering a Trinity among several Philosophers and Nations more ancient than the Platonists yet he hath somewhere unsaid all again and confess'd that the Platonick Trinity was nothing but an Affectation or Blunder of those Philosophers and as I just now said either their Mistake or their Exchange of the Properties of the Divine Nature for so many Divine Persons His own Words at p. 206 of the Intel. System are these We have proposed the three principal Properties or Attributes of the Deity The first whereof is infinite GOODNESS with Fecundity the second infinite WISDOM or Knowledg the third infinite active and perceptive POWER From which three Divine Attributes and Properties the Pythagorians and Platonists seem to have framed their Trinity So at legnth this learned Person hath given it up to us after so great Endeavours to prove the contrary that the Trinity is of mere Paganick and Heathen Original the Device or the Mistake of the Platonists Our last Exception or Reason is this As the Trinity when first brought into the Church by the Platonists did by its natural Absurdity and Impossibility give a Check and Stop to the Progress of the Gospel so ever since it has served to propagate Deism and Atheism and to hinder the Conversion of the Jews and Mahometans and the Heathen Nations not yet turned to Christianity You cannot Sir expect in a single Letter a large and ample Proof of this Assertion of mine but however I will say hereupon enough to convince you or any other unprejudic'd Person that I am able to make such a Proof of it whenever it shall be denied by our Opposers as will very much surprize the Idolaters of these Doctrines For the first Part of this Assertion I will now content my self with the plain Acknowledgment of Lactantius Instit l. 4. c. 29. This learned and eloquent Father disputing concerning these very Doctrines says Fortasse quaerathìc aliquis c. Here some one may perhaps ask How though Christians profess to worship but one GOD yet we seem to believe and hold two Gods GOD the Father and GOD the Son This Doctrine hath been a great Stumbling-block to many who confess that in other Points of the Christian Doctrine we speak what is probable and fit to be imbraced but in this they think we sumble that we hold a second GOD and him also a mortal one or one who could die You may please Sir here to take notice that the Reason why Lactantius mentions only two Gods the Father and the Son was because the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not yet believed or I think so much as mentioned by any The Council of Nice it self durst not say the Holy Ghost is GOD no nor the Council of Constantinople in express Terms For as Petavius has noted the Party of the Pneumatomacht i. e. those who denied the Divinity of the Spirit were yet the more powerful Party in the Church D. Petav. de Trin. l. 1. c. 14. s 14 and 21. See also Huetius Origenian l. 2. c. 2. q. 2. sect 10. As to Deism and Atheism Some other-ways discerning Men have not Judgment enough to distinguish between the corrupted and the sincere Parts of Religion but they consider the whole of Religion together and judg it to be all of it false or all true From these two sorts of Men proceed all the Deists and most if not all Atheists The Atheist reiects all Religion whatsoever for the sake of some unaccountable and absurd things which vulgarly pass for the principal Articles of Religion The Deist far more judicious rejects hereupon only all positive or revealed Religion and takes up with natural Religion i. e. with the Belief of a GOD whose Power and Wisdom he plainly sees in the Structure and Contrivance of the World and with the Dictates of Reason and our congenit and natural Notions concerning moral and immoral or good and evil This Sir is not a Place to argue either against the Deist or Atheist I had here only to observe that from the absurd Corruptions of true Religion by injudicious or fanciful Men have and do arise all the Deism and most part of the Atheism with which our Age is infested There is so much the more Reason for our utmost Indeavours to withstand the farther Progress of those two Deism and that Pest of Atheism by purging Religion of all the contradictory and impossible Doctrines which give occasion to those Mistakes because Christianity has already lost so much ground to Mahometism or Turcism Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other Design in pretending himself to be a Prophet but to
principal Criticks in such manner as Socinians and Unitarians interpret them What is this but to say that is an express Revelation which is only an harsh and doubtful Consequence framed by themselves and that is a clear Revelation for these Doctrines which the best and most knowing of their own Party interpret to a contrary Sense Perhaps Sir you may be a little surprised at what I here affirm but so it is and I make challenge to any of our Opposers to convict me of Falshood that there is no Text of Holy Scripture alledged for the Trinity or Incarnation which all the Catholick Doctors and some or other of the most discerning and eminent Interpreters and Criticks of the Protestants have not acknowledged that 't is not to the purpose of the Trinity or Incarnation The Texts that are cited for the Trinity or Incarnation are either out of the Old Testament or out of the New As to the Texts of the Old Testament the Learned among our Opposers of all Persuasions laugh at those that pretend to find the Trinity or the Incarnation in the Books of the Old Testament 'T is universally agreed among the more Learned Trinitarians that to use the Words of an Author and Book licensed by the famous Faculty of the Sorbon Ex veteri Testamento nihil praeter umbras i. e. There is nothing urged for the Trinity out of any Book or Books of the Old Testament but mere Umbrages and Shadows J. Salabert Haeres domitae par 2 dâ Then for the New Testament all the Catholick Doctors own what D. Petavius the most learned Writer of the most learned Order among them has thought fit to express in these Words They that would prove the Trinity out of only the Words of Scripture without taking to their Aid the Churches Interpretation and Authority Sudant plus satis suo artificio vincuntur i. e. They sweat to no purpose and are beaten at their own Weapon Scripture by their Adversaries the Socinians and Arians D. Petav. de Trin. l. 3. c. 11. s 9. Protestants indeed have been somewhat more careful of such free and general Acknowledgmets because they know there is no trusting to Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers on which the Catholicks so called wholly relie in these Questions Notwithstanding even Protestants have among them given up to us all their Scripture-Strengths That Text cannot be named which some or other of the Learnedest Protestants have not either interpreted as 't is interpreted by Socinians and Arians or expresly said 't was not intended by the inspired Author concerning the Incarnation or Trinity or any Person therein I demand such a Text of our Opposers and do here profess that if they name it not 't is because they cannot I will leave it here with you Sir Whether this first be not a just Exception to these Doctrines even this that they have no sufficient Foundation in Holy Scripture by Confession of the most and the learnedest of our Opposers and that being evidently false in Reason they cannot possibly be true in Divine Revelation or Scripture Our Second Reason against them is There has never yet been any Apology or Defence made nor can be for the confess'd Inconsistency of these Doctrines with Reason but what is equally applicable to the Transubstantiation or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine Our Opposers being sensible how great a Prejudice 't is to their Cause that their Doctrines are so directly contrary to Reason so utterly inconsistent with our natural Knowledg and congenit Notions which were given us by GOD to be Tests or Touch-stones whereby to discern Truth from Falshood they have therefore turned themselves all ways to find a Remedy for this Evil. The Sum and Force of what they have been observed to say either in their Books or Sermons is as follows The Trinity and Incarnation are indeed incomprehensible Mysteries but Almighty God hath a Right to require of us to believe on his Word what we do not comprehend or understand He has already posed us with divers Mysteries and seeming Contradictions to our Reason and Capacities in finite visible and ordinary Objects thereby to prepare and dispose us to receive with an humble Faith what he shall please to reveal in his Word concerning Objects invisible and infinite Whatsoever is matter of pure and mere Revelation is not to be judged by either Reason or Sense concerning such things there is a Necessity to acquiesce in Revelation only how unaccountable and wonderful soever they may seem And if Revelation is so express and clear concerning them that we would believe were it not for their supposed Contradiction to Reason in that case Reason must submit to Revelation else we fall into the horrible both Impiety and Foolery of giving the Lie to God and preferring our Knowledg before his What is the Union of the Soul with the Body how do the Parts of Matter hold together are Bodies made up of divisible Parts or of indivisible If we cannot answer these and divers such like Questions without involving our selves in great Difficulties and even in Contradictions Why do we wonder that there may be some seeming Contradictions in what we are taught about the Divine Nature or GOD Which of the Attributes of GOD is not as incomprehensible as the Trinity or the Incarnation Do we comprehend GOD's Eternity by which he possesses eternal Life all at once or his Immensity by which he is whole and all present in every Point of Space Can a finite Mind comprehend Infinite Wisdom Infinite Justice Infinite Power or ought else that is infinite How many have been as confident that the very Notion of a Spirit implies a Contradiction and that 't is not possible there should be Antipodes as any Unitarian can be that the Trinity is a Contradiction to Reason and the Incarnation impossible This should make us cautious and modest it should serve to instruct us that 't is easy for us to mistake our own Shallowness and our Errors for Impossibilities and Contradictions to true Reason Finally As hot as the Unitarians are against Mysteries and incomprehensible things themselves for all that advance as many and as great as those which they oppose You know Sir that I have elsewhere answer'd particularly and severally to all the Parts of this Defence but here I will be content to answer in general that what will prove every thing will prove nothing This Defence or Proof will serve as well for the Transubstantiation or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine as for the Trinity or Incarnation I am resolved to keep close to clear and express Revelation therefore our Saviour himself having said expresly that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Vine John 15.1 I maintain that as 't was certain by Sense to those who conversed with him that he was a true and very Man so 't is certain by Revelation that he was also a true and very Vine That any Person should
whom they are derived or by whom they were invented He that is generally and indeed deservedly confess'd to have written the most learnedly on this Subject is D. Cudworth in the Intellectual System The Sum of what he saith up and down in that large Book in behalf of the Trinity is this The Christian Trinity is the very same with the Trinity of the Platonick Philosophers Yet we are not to think that the Platonists were the first Authors or Devisers of the Trinity Plato learned it of Parmenides Parmenides of the Pythagoreans Pythagoras from Orpheus and the Books of Egyptian Hermes and other Hermaic Books which Books contained the Arcane Theology of the Egyptians The Magisk or Chalday Oracles and the Mithraick Mysteries both of them derived from Zoroaster a most ancient and sage King of the Bactrians and Persians express also the Mystery of the Trinity The Romans had their Capitoline Trinity which they derived from the Phrygians they from the Samothracians This Consent of Philosophers and Nations makes it more than probable and no less than certain that the Trinity was no humane Invention for how should so many jump in the same groundless Conceit but a Theology of Divine Original even a Part of the Cabala Tradition or oral Law of the Jews which they had from Moses and he from GOD which also is the Opinion of Eusebius and Theodoret the ablest Historians and Antiquaries of the Primitive Church To make up weight I will fling into the Scale three Authorities altogether as considerable and authentick as any of these alledged by Dr. Cudworth Let them take the Grecian Trinity which is much older than the Roman Phrygian or Samothracian Let them take the Books of Hystaspes another most ancient and sage King of the Medes which Books are celebrated by Lactantius and other Fathers We will also give them the Sybillin Oracles or Verses which speak so expresly of the Father Son and Spirit and even of the Incarnation that no Trinitarian or Arian can deliver himself more explicitly or evidently He saith How should so many Philosophers and Nations jump in the same groundless Conceit Therefore the Trinity is a part of the Jewish Cabala or Oral Law and was from them borrowed by other Nations and by the Philosophers I omit that the Nations and Philosophers by him mentioned are but few But all Men know there was an incomparably greater Consent of Nations and Philosophers in Polytheism or the Acknowledgment and Worship of many distinct Gods And that Consideration should have made this learned Author aware that a surprizing Consent of many is not always the Effect of a divine Tradition but too often of a diabolical Suggestion or other Causes Again supposing the aforesaid Consent of Philosophers and Nations yet 't is very odly father'd by a Protestant Divine on a Cabala Tradition or Oral Law of the Jews 'T is one of the Principles of us Protestants to disclaim all pretended Cabala's and Traditions whether of Jews or Christians and to believe there never was any other Divine Tradition but only the Books of the Old and New Testaments I am ready to dispute this Point at large with any of our Opposers whenever they shall think fit again to insist on it In the mean time I take notice that indeed the Pharisees having devised of their own Heads divers Doctrines and Rites to give them the greater Authority they called them Traditions and pretended they were a Cabala or Oral Law delivered originally by Moses But the sounder part of the Jews themselves even all the Karaits disown any such Tradition or Law And our Saviour whose Authority I hope may be equivalent to Eusebius or Theodorets calls these Traditions and this pretended Law not a Theology of divine Original but Doctrines and Commandments of Men Matth. 15.6 9. Nor is there any mention or least Intimation of such a Cabala or Law in any of the Books of the Old Testament And it seems incredible that among so many of the Holy Writers there should be no where found so much as any Allusion to their Cabala if indeed they had acknowledged or known of any such thing Why did not Esdras when he collected into one the scattered and dispersed Canon of Scripture without omitting the Proverbs of Solomon and others or his Book of Love why did he not at the same time commit to Writing and publish the Divine Cabala of so much more Authority and Concernment than divers Pieces by him published and added to the Law Furthermore admitting the pretended aforesaid Consent of some Philosophers and Nations and also a Tradition Cabala or oral Law of the Jews yet 't is certain the Trinity is no part of that Cabala For all the World knows that the Jews though they strictly adhere to their Cabala yet are so far from acknowledging a Trinity that this Doctrine is the very Stumbling-block which hinders their entring into the Church That whole Nation and all the Sects of them hold the Christians to be Polytheists and Idolaters on the Account of the Doctrine of the Trinity They pronounce Christianity to be a much worse Idolatry than Jeroboam's Calves Which were not two fictitious Gods added to the true one but only Images of the Cherubims as the Cherubims were Hieroglyfick Resemblances of the one true GOD. So that though the ten Tribes were guilty of a kind of Idolatry by their worshipping the true GOD under forbidden Resemblances for though the Cherubims themselves were set up by GOD's Order yet not for Worship or to common Sight they were not Polytheists they owned with all the rest of the Jews but one Divine Person I doubt not Sir but that you perceive that the whole Force of Dr. Cudworth's Argument from the supposed Consent of some Nations and Philosophers is enervated and that such pretended Consent notwithstanding the Trinity is not as he says a Theology of Divine Tradition but merely and solely of Paganick and Heathen Extraction and brought into the Christian Church by the Platonick Philosophers when they came over to Christianity I could now tell you Sir that whereas Dr. Cudworth brings in his Philosophers Oracles Kings and Nations as believing and asserting the Trinity even in the dark times of Heathenism this is all mere Flourish and Rhodomontade For first as to the Books of Hermes Zoroaster and Hystaspes as also the Sybillin and Chalday or Magick Oracles they are all of them Forgeries partly of the Jews a little before the Nativity of our Saviour partly of the Christians of the second and third Centuries And this is so generally agreed and so clearly demonstrated by the Criticks that I was extreamly surprized to see such Authorities alledged in a Book written by Dr. Cudworth a Man if any other of true and real Learning But so it is that in the Defect of genuine and solid Proofs the most Learned must have recourse to such as their Cause will afford Next as to the Nations and Philosophers by him mentioned the