YOU are pleased, Sir, to demand of me the general Reasons; why the Ʋnitarians (or as others now call us, the Socinians) have de­parted from the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation: in which all other Sects and Denominations of Christians do agree; and contend also for them as Funda­mental Doctrines?

'Tis true, Sir, that we are alone, in our Belief or Opinion of but one GOD, or (what is the same) but one who is GOD; even the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: And as we are alone, so we are a little Flock: If our Reasons were no more considerable than our Number, we should be very contemptible to our Opposers. The Case was once otherwise; there is no Eccle­siastical Historian but has noted the time, when All the World was against Athanasius, and Athanasius against all the World. But it avails very little, that we can say, Fuimus Trees, suit Ilium. And that which you have de­manded of me, is, What are our Reasons; not how it has come to pass (or by what Perse­cutions) we have been reduced to so small a Number?

I answer therefore; Our first Reason is,

The Doctrines of the Trinity and Incar­nation, have no solid or good Foundation in Revelation, or Holy Scripture.

A Stranger in this Controversy, who hears the Sermons or reads the Books of some of our Opposers, would think, that the Question between us and the Trinitari­ans is on their side as clear in Revelation, as 'tis confess'd to be on ours in Point of Rea­son: for this is the Fault with which they continually charge us, that we exalt Reason above Revelation; and that we pretend, that a Force, how great soever, is to be put up­on the Words of Revelation, rather than we will admit of any Doctrine which is contrary to Reason.

Now, First; 'Tis not true, that we prefer our Reason before Revelation: On the con­trary, Revelation being what GOD himself hath said, either immediately, or by in­spired Persons; 'tis to be preferred before the clearest Demonstration of our Reason. But because we cannot suppose, without Dis­respect and Injury to GOD, to his Goodness and Veracity, that he has so made us that our Faculties should be deceived, in what they clearly and distinctly perceive; and be­cause GOD hath in Revelation frequently ap­pealed to our Faculties, to our Understand­ing and Reason; therefore we conclude, that what is clearly and distinctly discerned by Reason as true or false, is so. And from thence we infer; that what is false in Reason, can never be true in Revelation, or by Reve­lation. So that whatsoever in Revelation doth seem to contradict Reason, can be no­thing but our Blunder; our unskilful injudi­cious and too close Adherence to the mere Letter and Words of Revelation.

'Tis so true, that we ought to interpret the most clear Revelation, so as not to con­tradict evident Reason; that if we neglect this Rule, we shall oft times make Revelation contrary to, and inconsistent with it self; as well as to or with Reason: We shall be forced (for Instance) to say, the Lord Christ is a [Page 2]Rock, a Way, a true Vine, a Door, and twen­ty more such different and contrary things; be­cause Revelation has clearly and expresly called him all these.

I desire therefore to know, Why our Op­posers take care not to make themselves con­temptible by maintaining 'tis a Scripture-Do­ctrine, that the Lord Christ is a Rock, a Way, a true Vine, a Door; on the Account that such a Doctrine, though founded on the express Words of Holy Scripture, is contrary to Reason: and yet have no regard to avoid the Imputation of Folly, Incogitance and Inadvertence, by contending this is a Scrip­ture-Doctrine, which is no less contrary to Rea­son and natural Light; even this, that there are three Almighty and Infinite Persons, and yet but one GOD. No Man ever had by Na­ture or Reason, nor can have any other Noti­on of Three Gods, but only this; Three Infi­nite and Almighty Persons. Is it supposable, that GOD should give forth contrary Manife­stations of himself? that he should teach us by Nature and Reason, to apprehend one GOD as but one Almighty and Infinite Per­son; and yet command us by Revelation to believe, one GOD is Three such Persons? Or can we our selves obey contrary Com­mands, or believe contrary Manifestations, concerning the same thing, at the same time?

This Foundation being laid, we say, Three Divine Persons, an Almighty Father, an Al­mighty Son, and an Almighty Spirit, distinct from both, being in Reason and common Sense but the Periphrasis and Circumlocution for Three Gods; so that we can have no other Conception of Three Gods, but only Three such Persons: that Revelation which (by Confession of all Parties) obliges me to be­lieve but one GOD; can never be supposed to require me to believe Three Almighty Persons.

So also, Reason assuring me, that the Dis­proportion between Infinite and Finite is such, that they can never be commensurate, or made one and the same: That Revelation, or Holy Scripture, which tells me GOD is in­finite; that the Heaven of Heavens contains him not; cannot be interpreted or understood as bidding me believe, that a Person who is GOD or an Infinite Person (and such, they say, every Person of the Trinity is) can be Whole and All Incarnate, that is, united and commensurate to a finite Man.

We abide, Sir, by this Argument; here we fix our Foot, never to be removed: that the Inconsistence of the Trinity, and the In­carnation with Reason and natural Knowledg, being undeniably evident, therefore those Doctrines can have no real Foundation in Di­vine Revelation, that is to say, in Holy Scripture.

But, Secondly, As we consider that though Revelation is to be preferred before Reason; and always interpreted by Reason, for the Causes already given: so we cannot but profess our selves surprized, that any should have the Confidence to pretend, that there is clear and express Revelation, on behalf of the Trinity and Incarnation? In the Name of Wonder, what do these Gentlemen mean by express and clear Revelation: do they mean that they have found out some Texts, which directly and expresly say, There is a Trinity of Divine Persons, who are but one GOD; or which say, The Son or second Person of the Trinity was incar­nate? If they have any such Texts to pro­duce; we shall grant them, they have an ex­press Revelation for those Doctrines. But in very Deed they mean no such thing: but by clear and express Revelation they mean what was never meant by any but themselves; nor by themselves in any other Case or Que­stion, but this of the Trinity. They mean, the Trinity and Incarnation are provable, by certain most remote and strained Consequences, from some such Texts of Revelation or Scrip­ture; as either are of suspected Authority and Credit in the Original, among the Learned of their own Party; or are denied by the Learnedest of their own side, to be truly translated, or finally are interpreted by their own principal Criticks, in such manner as Socinians and Unitarians interpret them. What is this but to say, that is an express Re­velation, [Page 3]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 'tis 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: 'Tis 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 'tis interpreted by Socinians and Arians; or expresly said, 'twas 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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.

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 'twas certain by Sense to those who conversed with him, that he was a true and very Man, so 'tis certain by Reve­lation that he was also a true and very Vine. ‘That any Person should be a true Man and yet a true Vine, is indeed an incomprehensible Mystery: but Almighty God hath a Right to require of us, to believe on his Word, what we cannot comprehend or understand. He hath already posed us with divers Mysteries and (seeming) Contradictions, in visible and ordinary Objects, both of Sense and Reason: thereby to prepare and dispose us, to receive with an humble Faith, what him­self should reveal in his Word. That the Lord Christ is a true Man, and at the same time a true and very Vine, is a Point of pure and mere Revelation; and no way knowable by Sense or Reason: therefore as to his Vi­ney Nature we ought to acquiesce in Reve­lation, without further Scruple or Inquiry. The Revelation concerning it, is so clear and express, I am [...], the true Vine; that to quarrel with this Doctrine, is to give the Lie to God, and prefer 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 to these and such like Questions; without involving our selves [Page 5]in great Difficulties, and even in Contra­dictions: Why do we admire that there may be some (seeming) Contradictions, in our Lord Christ's being both a Man and a Vine? Do we better comprehend, how GOD possesses eternal Life all at once; or how he is whole and all present to every se­veral Point of Space: than we apprehend, how the Lord Christ may be both a Man and a Vine? Who can comprehend infinite Wisdom, infinite Justice, or ought else that is infinite? but if we do not compre­hend those Attributes, why do we pretend to comprehend the Extent of infinite Pow­er; or to say of it, Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further; thou canst make a Man or a Vine, but canst not make an humane Vine, or a Viney Man? How many have been as confident, that the very Notion of a Spirit implies a Contradiction to our Reason; and that there can possibly be no Antipodes: as any Anti-Scripturist and Idolater of Reason can be, that 'tis a Contradiction and impossi­ble, that a Man should be a true Vine, and a Vine a true Man? This should make us cautious and modest; it should serve to in­struct us, that 'tis easy for us to mistake our own Shallowness and Errors, for Impossibi­lities and Contradictions, to true Reason. And as hot as some (many perchance) be against this Scripture-Mystery, that a Man is both a Man and a Vine; themselves find greater Mysteries in the same Holy Scrip­ture. 'Tis (for Example) a greater Leap from Finite to Infinite, and from Man to God; than from Man to Vine downwards, or from Vine to Man upwards: whatever Explication will make the former of these but possible, will make either of the o­ther two easy. We shall have no Difficulty in apprehending; that a Man may be a Vine, and a Vine a Man; if we can get but the Glimpse of a Conception, how a Man may be GOD, or GOD a Man; or how there can be such a Person as GOD-MAN.’

If you tell me, Sir, that this Parallel is somewhat too light in so serious and grave a Question, as that depending between as and the Trinitarians; I must intreat you to show me, where I have made a false Step: for if I have made none, I must take leave to tell you; the Parallel is no more light than the Doctrines which gave occasion to it. Mean and childish Errors are never so effectually and successfully detected; as by the most fa­miliar and easy Parallels: and he that makes the Comparison, is not to be blamed; but he or they that gave the Occasion of it. I think the Parallel I have made, serves to show, that we are never to talk of clear Re­velation or express Revelation, in Excuse or Defence of absurd Doctrines; but that 'tis necessary to interpret all both Speech and Wri­ting, in Consistence with common Sense and our natural Knowledg. In fine, it serves to establish this Rule; if the Person speaking or writing, is fallible, we must try the Truth of what is said or written, by Reason: but if he is infallible, 'tis always his meaning, that we should interpret what he hath said or written, by that Reason and according to those natu­ral Notions, which he hath bestowed on us chiefly for that purpose.

I pass to our Third Reason, or third Ex­ception, against these Doctrines.

These Doctrines are as little consistant with Piety toward GOD; as they are with Reason and with natural Knowledge.

Piety (in proper Speaking) is that part of the Christians Duty, which he owes to GOD. And though the Goodness of GOD had divers other Ends (Ends respecting the Comfort and Good of his Creatures) why he was pleased to make what he hath made: yet it becomes us to esteem and regard Pie­ty, or our Duty and Service to GOD; as the great End that we ought to pursue.

The chief Parts or Branches of Piety, are Praise, Love, Faith, Devotion, Obedience. Let us see what Agreement these, or any of these, have with the Doctrines of which we are discoursing.

1. The respectful and thankful Recogniti­on, both in our Minds, and by our Words, of the Works of God, and of his Divine At­tributes; is what all Men call the Praise of [Page 6]GOD. But doth he or she thus praise GOD, who ascribe his Works, Creation, Conser­vation, Miracles, all providential Acts, to any other Person or Persons besides him, who is indeed the Author of them? But when besides this, we give to the Gods of our own devising, the Glory of all the incommuni­cable Attributes, even infinite and underived Wisdom, Justice, Power and Goodness; when we affirm, that in all these Properties they are equal to the supream Father and GOD of Gods: what farther Detraction from his Praise can be conceived, but absolute A­theism?

2. For the LOVE of GOD. How can we love the true God, in such manner as he re­quires, with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and all the Mind; if we have, and profess also to have as much Love for two other Persons, as for him who is the only true and legitimate Object of our highest Love? If we consider that Love which we owe to GOD, in its Causes; they are his supream Excel­lence, and his Merit and Desert towards us: if in its Effects they are a Conformity to his Will; a Readiness, Proneness and Desire to suffer the extremest Evils, for his Sake and Service. If therefore this Love be trans­ferred, if it be communicated to other Ob­jects, besides that one to which we owe it: We do thereby and therein ascribe to them his Excellence; we impute to them his Merit; we pay to them his Dues. Is it no Impiety, or rather is it not a deadly Wound to true Piety, thus to misplace the Propensions of our Minds, the Affections of our Hearts, the Use and Service of our whole Man?

3. I do not say, How lame, but what a Mon­ster is that Faith, that is made up of contra­dictory Parts; of Propositions that destroy one another; of such Inconsistencies, that in saying and affirming one, you (either expresly or implicitly) deny the other?

In their Doctrine of the Incarnation they tell us; an infinite Person is whole and all united to a finite Man. Is not this a contradictory Faith? doth it not confound Infinite with Fi­nite, and make them to be all one? doth it not destroy all the Demonstrations of Geome­try; and thereby contradict both our rational Faculties and our Senses?

Their Doctrine of the Trinity is, in short, this. There are three Infinite, Almighty, All-wise Persons, three eternal Beings, three ab­solutely-perfect Spirits, and yet but one GOD. Is not this a contradictory Faith? Doth it not destroy our natural Ideas, our congenit Noti­ons? For what are three Gods, but three such Persons: and what is the Idea, Notion or Conception of but one God, which is na­tural and congenit to every Man; but one Infinite Almighty All-wise Person, one eternal Being, one absolutely perfect Spirit?

As to the late Attempts of some, to satis­fy (in part) these Difficulties: you know, Sir, how vain and fruitless they have been. Dr. Wallis saith, the three Divine Persons are only three Modes (that is, three Quali­fications, or three Respects of GOD towards his Creatures) and they make one GOD as Ʋnderstanding, Will and Memory make one Soul. But this, saith Dr. Sherlock, is both Non-sense and Heresy. How doth Dr. Sherlock mend the matter? Why he hath advanced an Expli­cation of the Trinity, which Dr. Wallis and other Orthodox Men have, in Print, con­demned as Tritheism; that is, as introducing three Gods; a far worse Heresy than Socini­anism. And thereupon they tell Dr. Sherlock, in Print also: ‘That though he hath not been counted a Fool, yet it may become a wise Man to change his Opinion.’ In a Word, they have (in civil Language) in­vited him to a Recantation.

4. How is DEVOTION (another princi­pal Instance of Piety) disturbed, by such a strange and unaccountable Object of it? De­votion is senseless and irrational; if the Ob­ject to be adored and worshipped, be not conceived by it. But such of Necessity must be the Worship and Devotion of Trinitari­ans; if in their Prayers they keep to their Belief. For they may talk of a Trinity; but themselves will not pretend, that they can think it: they can have no Conception of it, no more than of Words without Sense. We [Page 7]have seen very lately, that those who have indeavoured to make Sense of this (as they call it) Mystery, or to represent it as a possi­ble and intelligible thing; not only accuse one another of Heresy, and demand a Recantation, but are generally disclaimed by their own Party. The Party it self (if you mean there­by the general Body of Trinitarians) are for a Trinity which no Man understands; or ought to pretend to give other Account of it, than that 'tis an incomprehensible Mystery; and this Trinity they call their GOD. And thus by their own Confession, that Blame and Repri­mand which our Saviour gives to the Samari­tans, is equally applicable to them; and what he saith of himself and the Jews, is ve­rified in the Unitarians: Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship, John 4.22.

5. As to Obedience; the last part of our Piety towards GOD, and the most necessary: the Obligation to it, and all occasion for it is wholly taken away, by the Doctrine of the Incarnation, and the Superstruction which Trinitarians build thereon.

They say, GOD the Son being incarnate in our Nature, did by his active Righteousness fulfil for us all Obedience. By his Sufferings in this Life, his Death and Descent into Hell (which things they call his Passive Righteous­ness): He more than exhausted all that Pu­nishment, that is or can be due to Sin. What­soever he did, was (they say) for us; and his Righteousness was meritorious of Heaven for never so many Sinners: and what he suf­fered was in our stead also; and one Drop of his Blood was sufficient to ransom and thou­sand Worlds from the Demerit of their Sins: that is, from Hell and all other Punishments. The manifest Consequences of these Do­ctrines, are these: (1.) Gospel-Obedience, good Works, (or a good Life) are in us un­necessary and superfluous; some of them have said, hurtful and dangerous to Justificati­on and Salvation. (2.) Heaven is so much every Sinner's just Due and Debt from GOD, without any Amendment or Newness of Life on their Parts, that GOD would be unjust in giving them no more, if more could be gi­ven. (3.) GOD should be unrighteous, if he punish'd Men for Sin, though unrepented of: because we have in Christ our Represen­tative, both fulfilled all Righteousness, and suf­fered and paid a more than sufficient Price of Redemption.

The notorious Decay of Christian Piety in all Places and Ages, since these Doctrines have prevailed, plainly shows, That these are not speculative Consequences only, but such real Consequences, as do much influence the Practice of most Men. One may know and be assured, that 'tis these Consequences and this Belief, which bolsters Men up in their wicked Courses; because these are the things that comfort and support such, at their Deaths. The greatest of Sinners go away with Peace of Mind; on the Reflection and Consideration of the infinite Merits and Satis­faction of GOD their Redeemer. They have not, nor can out-sin his Satisfaction and De­serts, and applying both to themselves by be­lieving in him; that is, by believing he me­rited and suffered for them in particular: there­fore they depart, assuredly expecting of GOD the Rewards that are appointed to only Innocence and Well-doing.

I pray, Sir, desire your Friends who find Fault with us, for reviving (as they say) un­necessary Questions, to take it into serious and impartial Consideration; Whether Do­ctrines that have these Consequences, and also are such Hindrances of the other Branches of Piety, ought not to be again (and again) examined, whether they are (or can be) true?

The Fourth Reason against them is this;

They have crumbled the Christian Church, into innumerable and unreconci­lable Factions and Parries; so that there is no possible way of restoring Peace, but by returning to the Belief and Profession of the Unity of God.

Next to Godliness or Piety, the Peace of the Christian Churches should be the Wish and Indeavour of every Christian Man. But the Doctrines under Consideration, have so [Page 8]divided the Churches called after the Name of Christ; that there is no Agreement but a­mong those Professors, who believe there is but one GOD, or but one who is God. The Orthodox (as they call themselves) are so multifariously divided, that they are not (per­haps) ten of them in a Party. The whole Mobile indeed of them go under the common Name of Trinitarians; and the Trinity and Incarnation are the general Tests of Ortho­doxy, among them; but this is an Orthodoxy only of Names and Words; for in interpreting those Words and Names, I doubt very much, whether there are ten of them that 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 Fili [...] (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 'tis 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 [Page 9]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. 'Tis 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 three making but one Me­narchy, are therefore said to be but one GOD.

Again, some say, the three Persons are one GOD by their Emperichoresis, or In-being in one another. But others by Empericho­resis, or being in one another, understand only this, that the Relation of Father supposeth and includeth that of Son, and vice versa; and not that by an impossible real In-being, the three Divine Persons are as it were ming­led, and so confounded.

We have been told by others, that the three Persons are three distinct Minds and Spirits; and that the only possible Union of [Page 10]Spirits is mutual Consciousness: So that (in short) the three Divine Persons are one GOD, as (or because) they are intimately conscious to one anothers Thoughts and Acti­ons.

Finally, Some say, the three Persons are one GOD; by their all having the same nu­merical Essence or Substance.

There are, Sir, you see, no fewer than fifteen Divisions among our Opposers; each Division consisting of two Parties at the least, some of them of four or five. So there are in all about forty Parties of them; of which incomparably the greater Number are Hereticks and damned to all the other Par­ties among them. Give me leave to make two Observations hereupon.

(1.) The great and common Boast of Tri­nitarians, even their Number; on the Account of which they presume to call themselves the Catholick (or Ʋniversal) Church, is merely a Boast. It may be (not untruly) said; They are the least of Parties, that ever pro­fessed a Religion. To comprehend this, Sir, you need only suppose, a Person resolving to join himself to their universal Church, and in order thereto determining upon all the forementioned Heads of Controversy among them. For by that time he has so done, that is, has chosen his side in all the afore­said Questions: It will be no less than a Mi­racle if he finds himself Orthodox and Catho­lick, in the Opinion of ten Persons besides himself; it may be, the universal Church will dwindle into his single Person. For these forty Parties of Trinitarians are not all of them so many visible and associated Sects or Churches; but divers of them are Divisions and Heresies in one and the same associated Church: the Members of the same Church are in these Points divided, and heretick to one another. And the Number Forty affords. so many Changes; that (as I said) perhaps it will be impossible to find ten Trinitarians, who are intirely of a Mind in all the above­said Points and Questions. This evidently reduces the (pretended) Catholick Church or Ʋniversal Church, to a much more con­temptible Paucity, than are the Worshippers of one only GOD; or, as our Opposers by way of Jest sometimes call us, the little Flock: to which (however) their Father hath pro­mised, to give them a Kingdom.

(2.) Whereas Trinitarians generally pre­tend; and that as an Argument which ought to end all further Dispute about these Mat­ters; that the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions derived down to our times, thrô all the intermediate Ages, and by all the Churches professing Christianity: these Di­visions among them plainly demonstrate the contrary. For if the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions, how comes it to pass, that Trinitarians are in such contrary Tales about them? how is it that not ten of them, per­haps not two of them, are in the same Sto­ry concerning them? They agree in nothing but the Words Trinity and Incarnation; and are forced to acknowledg, that those very Words are not only unscriptural, but not ve­ry ancient. Tertullian among the Latins, and Clemens Alexandr. among the Greeks, were the first of Christians, who used the word Trinity: and for Incarnation, I do not remember it to be so ancient.

But I have often wondred at this Pretence of most Trinitarians, that these Doctrines are Traditions from the first Ages of Christia­nity. On another Account it is this; All the Criticks (without excepting one) who have made a Judgment of the Writings of the Fa­thers of the first 300 Years; and particular­ly which of those Writings are genuine and uncorrupted, which wholly feigned or other­ways corrupted; I say, all the Criticks con­stantly make this a Note of Forgery or Cor­ruption, if those Writings speak any what ex­presly or evidently of these Doctrines, namely, the Trinity and Incarnation, and the Questi­ons on them depending. If these Doctrines were Traditions from the first Ages, the high­er we ascend in Time, the more express and clear would the Tradition about them be: And in confessing that 'tis quite contrary, the Criticks, (that is, the more Learned of the Trinitarians) have given up the Pretence of [Page 11] Tradition and Antiquity, and make it proba­ble, I may say unavoidable, that these Do­ctrines are not Traditions from the Ancients, but Novelties, and Corruptions, and Depra­vations of genuine Christianity.

Whereas some have indeavour'd to evade this, by saying, Those Fathers have made no distinct Mention of, or Determination in these Points; because they were not con­troverted in their times, but afterwards be­gan to be disputed and denied by Men af­fecting Novelty and Singularity. I answer, Nothing can be more frivolous or false than this Pretext. For, 1. 'tis notoriously false, that these Doctrines were not denied in the times of those Fathers. The Nazarens and Theodotians are more ancient than any of the Fathers; and yet 'tis well known, nay, con­fess'd by all, that those Sects held the very Doctrines that are now called Socinianism. 2. Admitting there was as yet none (or very little) Controversy about these Points: yet because they are pretended to be the Essentials and Fundamentals of Christianity, so that he that denies them, is an Heretick; and he that knows them not, is no Christian; what can we rationally infer but this, that the Fathers, who have not delivered these Doctrines in any of their Writings, neither believed nor knew them; and that they are a part of the gradual Corruptions which have so unhappily deformed the Church. 3. Ad­mitting once more, that there was as yet no Controversy about these Questions, which is the thing for which these learned Men contend, and their only Excuse on the behalf of those first Fathers; yet this makes wholly for the Unitarians. For besides this Defect, the Fathers and first Ages have spoken in their Creed, altogether as the Socinian Uni­tarians now do. The Creed called the Apo­stles (because it contains the true Apostolick Do­ctrine and Tradition) was the only Creed of those Fathers and Ages; it was, as one of them speaks of it, their Regula Fidei immobi­lis irreformabilis, i. e. the unchangable unalte­table Rule of their Faith. But this Creed expresses the very Doctrine of the present Socinians, and not of the Church; as our Opposers themselves are constrained to own. It attributeth the Appellation GOD, and the Creation of Heaven and Earth, to only the Almighty Father. It describeth the Son as only a Man; declaring his Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, his Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, without the least In­timation of an eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father; or that he or the Holy Ghost are GOD. It saith no higher thing of them, than it saith of the Holy Ca­tholick Church; I believe in the Holy Ghost, I believe in the Holy Catholick Church: for so (all know) this Creed is read in the Ori­ginal Greek, and by all the Fathers.

Is it now, Sir, conceivable, that these Doctrines should be (as Trinitarians pre­tend) a Tradition constantly preserved; when their own Criticks reject the Works of those first Fathers, as certainly spurious or forged, that speak any what directly or ex­plicitly of the Trinity, and other depending Points and Questions; and when besides their common and only Creed is undeniably Socinian?

I deny not, Sir, that the Fathers of the first 300 Years, whose Writings have been suffered to come down to Posterity, began to corrupt the true Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour; making him to be much greater than he was. From about the Year 150, some of them were got into the Opi­nions, that were afterwards called Arianism or the Arian Trinity. But this I affirm, and all the Criticks among the Trinitarians do own it; that those Fathers spoke not of the Tri­nity, and of the Points and Questions thereon de­pending, as the Church now doth: they so held a kind of Trinity, as not to destroy the Uni­ty of GOD; or that only the Father is truly and properly GOD. But this was a Digressi­on.

I proceed to our fifth Reason against these Doctrines.

They have been partly the direct and ne­cessary Causes, partly the unhappy Occasions of divers scandalous and hurtful Errors and [Page 12] Heresies; particularly of those which com­pose the gross Body of Popery.

'Tis well observed by some, that one Absur­dity (or Error) being introduced, 'tis always the Ground and Occasion of many more. This Aphorism was never more sadly verified, than in the Doctrines of the Trinity and In­carnation. For no sooner were these Do­ctrines, by the Countenance of sanguinary and arbitrary Edicts of the Bizantine Empe­rours, become the more general and current Belief of the Churches, but there immedi­arely broke in after them, that Swarm of absurd and heretical Doctrines which have no less than subverted the true and primitive Christianity.

1. The first-born of the Trinity was the Su­premacy of the Pope. A few Bishops, not a fifth Part of the Bishops of the Catholick Church, having presumed in the Council of Nice, Anno 325, to determine for the whole Catholick Church so great a Point as this; that there is more than one Divine and Eternal Person: they sent the new Creed and Acts of that Council, to the Churches and Bishops who had not been present at it; to be by them subscribed. Hereupon the Bishops of Asia assembling themselves in about 30 pro­vincial Councils, rejected the Word Consub­stantial (or of the same Substance with the Father) in which the whole Mystery of Tri­nitarianism, and the Stress of the Nicene Creed, does lie: they would by no means admit of this Word. So faith Marcus Ephesin, the most Learned of the Greeks. Concil. Florent. Sess. 5.

The Bishops of Germany and of Belgium (now the Low-Countries) and of Gaul (now France) and of the three Provinces of Great Britain, would not receive the Creed of Nice; giving this Reason, that the Word Consubstantial is unscriptural. So saith St. Hilary, that great Adversary of the Arians and other Unitarians, towards the beginning of his Book, de Synod.

The Bishops of Africa seem not so much as to have taken into their Archives or Regi­stries, the Acts, Canons, or Creed of Nice. For in the Year 418, in a Contest between them and the Bishop of Rome; they sent to Constantinople and Alexandria, for Copies of the Acts of the Nicene Council. Concil. Car­thag. 6. Anno 418.

The Nicene Council being thus refused and despised by all the considerable Nations pro­fessing Christianity: the Nicene Faction of Bishops began to consult of a way, how to settle their beloved Doctrine by political Arts; and at length they resolved upon this Expedient.

Anno 347, having got on their side the Emperor Constans; and finding that the Bi­shops and Church of Rome were thorowly in their Interests, they assembled in Council at Sardica, and there made those famous Ca­nons, on which (all learned Men know) the Authority and Supremacy of the Bi­shops of Rome is wholly grounded, and which those Bishops have ever since exer­cised. They designed by these Canons, to se­cure the Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks of the Nicene Party (now called Trinitarians) in their Bishopricks and other Church-Digni­ties; and to eject from time to time all Ʋni­tarians. But these Politicians were quite out, in hoping for such an Effect: they were so far from governing the Catholick Church by those Canons, that they served to no o­ther purpose, but the inslaving the Makers of them and their Successors to the Popes of Rome. But for a fuller Account, Sir, of this Sardican Council (or rather Conventicle) I refer you to the Acts of Athanasius, lately published, in which the History of these Be­trayers of the Catholick Church is fully re­lated.

2. In the Year 431, it was concluded and determined by the Trinitarian Faction, as­sembled in Council at Ephesus; that GOD the Son was truly and properly incarnate in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and was born of her; so that Mary was not only [...], Mother of Christ, but [...], Mother of God, This blasphemons and contradictory Con­clusion being once made; immediately they fell to worshipping and praying to her. If [Page 13] GOD the Son is to be worshipp'd and invo­vated, shall we turn our Backs on the Mother of God? Shall not she be able to help us, at least by way of Intercession, to whom the An­gel said, Thou art highly honoured of GOD; and who was (as it were) Wife to GOD the Fa­ther, and (in very Deed) Mother to GOD the Son? Father Simon, in the 3d Chapter of the Critical History of the Religions of the East, saith, ‘It is chiefly since the Birth of Nestorianism (that is since the Council of E­phesus) that so much respect hath been shown to the Virgin Mary.’ He means, she was not so much worshipp'd and invocated, till that Council had determined against Ne­storius, that she is [...], Mother of GOD. But Father Simon will never be able to show, that Holy Mary was at all worshipp'd or pray­ed unto, till the Ephesin Council had decreed, that she is to be deem'd the Mother of GOD. I do challenge him, or any for him, to pro­duce any Testimony of the Ancients for the Worship and Invocation of Mary, that is so ancient as the Ephesin Council. This Father should therefore have dealt as ingenuously and freely in this Case, as is his manner in most others; or should have said nothing at all of this matter, but have chose some other Instance to confirm what he had to say. He should have owned what he knows to be the Truth, that as the Doctrine of the Incarna­tion produced this impious and sensless Con­clusion, that Mary is the Mother of GOD; so that Conclusion was the Cause of the idolola­trical Worship and Invocation of her, by the far greater part of Christians; even by all Catholicks (so called) and by the whole Eastern Church.

3. After Mary was worshipp'd and prayed to, it soon became the Custom to pray also to the Apostles and Martyrs, and afterwards to other Saints, and reputed Saints. For if Mary who (confessedly) was but a Woman and a Saint; though she was Mother of GOD; can help us by her Intercession: Why may not others, who were perhaps as great Saints as she?

4. The Practice of worshipping Holy Mary and other Saints, had been but a little while received in the Churches; but it occasioned the Worship of their Images and Pictures. For if the Saints are to be worshipp'd, then so too are their Images and Pictures, with a relative Worship; that is, for the sake of those whom they represent; and so that the Wor­ship ultimately terminates, not in the Image, but in the Saint. Even as the Royal Chair, or Throne, is worshipp'd for the King's sake, though he be absent.

5. The Question about the Worship of I­mages, was long contested in the Church. Those that stood for that Worship, thought it a very heinous Disrespect to our Saviour; that no Honour should be shown to his Pi­cture or Image, no more than if it were the Image or Picture of an Heathen God. And this was a very common Argument and Alle­gation, against the Opposers of Image-Wor­ship. In answer to this, the Fathers of the 7th General Council (anno 754) said, ‘There is but one Image or Representation of the Lord Christ, [...], the Bread given to us in the Sacrament.’ This Council consisted of 380 Fathers. But the contrary Party at length prevailed; and it was concluded, both for the having and worshipping of Images, and by way of Sup­port thereto, that the Sacrament is not the Sign, Image or Representation of Christ, but true and very Christ; the Bread and Wine after the Words of the Consecration (though they agree not, which are the Words of Con­secration) being turned into the the real Bo­dy and Blood of Christ.

'Tis true the Greeks used not the word [...] (Transubstantiation) till within this 300 Years, but they used equivalent words, [...], and such like. If any Wonder that such absurd and contradictory Doctrines, as the Transubstantiation and the real Presence, met with so little Opposition, in the Greek and Latin Churches; such an one may make these two Reflections. First, that those Churches were led as it were by the Hand to those Do­ctrines, by certain Consequences from the [Page 14]Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, thus. There is a Trinity of Divine Persons, one of these was incarnate in the Womb of the Virgin; she is thereupon the Mother of GOD; if the Son of GOD is undoubtedly to be worshipp'd, then so too is the Mother of GOD; if Holy Mary, then others who were as much Saints as she; if Christ and the Saints, then for their Sakes their Images al­so, which are Signs of them. But Christ hath appointed the Sacramental Elements, as the only Signs of his Body: This is a Diffi­culty indeed: Therefore to defend Image-Worship, we will say, the Sacrament is not the Sign, but the very Body of Christ GOD-MAN. Secondly, it may be farther consi­dered, that these Churches having already swallowed so many palpable Contradictions to Reason, Scripture, and first Antiquity in the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarna­tion; they now stuck at nothing. It became now the Note and Mark of an Heretick, to talk of Absurdities and Contradictions, in any Doctrine whatsoever; and the Chara­cter of a Catholick or Orthodox Person, if one had no regard at all to such things, but only to help forward the Humour and Cur­rent of Superstition; that is, to believe in­credible Tales about the Saints, and monstrous Opinions concerning GOD, and the Sacra­ments of the Church.

6. That the Holy Scriptures are not a a compleat Rule, not sufficient to direct our Faith and Practice, without the Aid and Help of the Churches Tradition; all know is one of the Errors of the Roman Catholicks, and which they could never yet be per­swaded to give up. Ask them, what ground they have for such an Opinion? They an­swer as one Man; 'Tis notorious and unde­niable that the principal Articles of the Chri­stian Faith, the Trinity and Incarnation, cannot be proved by only Scripture. They profess openly and ingenuously, that the Ʋ ­nitarians have certainly beaten all their Op­posers at those two Weapons, mere Scripture and Reason.

7. Another Birth of the Trinitarian Do­ctrines is the Papal Indulgences, with all that Merchandize of Souls that has followed up­on them. First, and by way of Foundati­on it is supposed, that the Lord Christ is GOD as well as Man; and that he being GOD incarnate in our Nature, his Righteousness and Sufferings must needs be of infinite Va­lue. Next it is held, that the Sufferings of Christ, who is GOD-MAN, and of the Saints, are the Treasure which he hath given to the Church; which Treasure is to be dispensed by his Vi­car, even the Pope or Bishop of Rome. The Dispensations of this Treasure to particular Persons, by the Pope himself, or those who are by him authorized, are called Indulgences; and have been bought at mighty Rates, by those who thought they had need of them, either for themselves or their dead Friends.

8. The last of their Paradoxes which I shall now mention, and which is common to all Trinitarians, and is (by their own Confession) a necessary Consequence of the Incarnation, is their Doctrine of the Satis­faction.

The Holy Scriptures say, Almighty God of his Grace and Goodness doth pardon our Sins, on the Conditions of Faith and Repen­tance on our Parts. The Scriptures are so express in ascribing our Pardon and Delive­rance from Hell and Damnation, to the Mercy and Grace of GOD forgiving us; that Trinitarians dare not directly deny it so to be: but then because they pretend that GOD was incarnate, and suffered in our stead, they are forced to this Conclusion. That God hath freely pardoned, and yet was infinitely overpaid for all our Transgressions and Sins. That of his mere Grace, the Abun­dance and Riches of his Grace, he will pardon and save the Penitent, because he hath re­ceived for them a Price of Redemption, able to redeem as many Worlds; as he is pleased to pardon or save particular Sinners.

These are the Branches growing upon the Trinitarian Stock; these the Fruits of that Tree: But such as the Fruits or Conse­quences of these Doctrines have been, such also was their Original and Extraction; as [Page 15]we shall see in the next, which is our sixth Reason or Exception against them.

They are of Paganick or Heathen Descent and Original, and were introduced into the Church by the Platonick Philosophers, when they came over to Christianity.

One of our Disputes with the Trinitarians is concerning the Original of these Doctrines, from 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 'tis very odly father'd by a Protestant Divine, on a Cabala Tradition or Oral Law of the Jews. 'Tis 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 [Page 16]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 'tis 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 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, [Page 17]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 Ʋnity; 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 ma­many 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 restore the Belief of the Ʋnity of GOD, which at that time was extirpated a­mong the Eastern Christians, by the Do­ctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. They will have it, that Mahomet meant not his Re­ligion should be esteemed a new Religion, but only the Restitution of the true Intent of the Christian Religion. They affirm more­over, that the Mahometan learned Men call themselves the true Disciples of the Messias or Christ; intimated thereby that Christians are Apostates from the most essential Parts of the Doctrine of the Messias; such as the Uni­ty of GOD; and that he is to be worshipp'd without Images or Pictures, in Spirit and in Truth. But whatsoever the Design of Ma­homet was, 'tis certain Mahometism has pre­vailed over greater Numbers and more Nati­ons, than at this Day profess Christianity: Nay, it has worn Christianity out of great part of Europe, most of Asia, and all Roman Africa; not by Force and the Sword, for the Mahometans grant Liberty of Religion to all the conquered Provinces of Christians; but by that one Truth in the Alchoran, the Unity of GOD. The Naturalness of their Belief of the Unity of God, and the unreconcilable In­consistence of the Trinity with that Belief, make it impossible ever to reconcile the Ma­hometans (whether Turks, Moors, or Persians) to Christianity. This is that by which both they and the Jews are perpetually and with­out Hope of regaining them, alienated from us, that they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians; and from thence conclude, that modern Christianity is no bet­ter nor other than a sort of Paganism and Hea­thenism.

The Nations also who are yet Pagans, re­ject Christianity for the sake of the corrupt Doctrines against which we are arguing. Of this there has been a calamitous Instance in the Tartars. This warlike People, who have made themselves so terrible by their Cavalry, to the great Kingdoms of Poland and Musco­vy, [Page 19]and even to Germany it self, were lost to Christianity by Occasion of the Doctrines of the Trinity, &c. In the Year 1246, Pope Innocent IV sent an Ambassage to Bati Cham of Tartary, inviting him to the Christian Religi­on: Bati received the Ambassage civilly; but when he heard from the Religious sent to instruct him, what were the chief Points of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, the Incar­nation, the Transubstantiation, &c. He thank'd the Pope for his Kindness, and pro­mised to make no Incursions into the Christi­an Countries for five Years next insuing; but withal declared himself not satisfied with the Christian Religion, as represented to him. Immediately after the Saracens sent a like Ambassage to Bati, recommending to him (saith the Historian) Mahometis sectam tan­quàm plausibiliorem, i. e. The more plausible Sect of Mahomet: And these prevailed, Bati and the whole Nation of the Tartars submitting to Mahometism, in which they continue to this Day, and are both the Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping GOD. L. Surius Comment. rerum in Orbe Gest.

These, Sir, are the Damages sustained by Christianity, by occasion of these Doctrines: I believe by that time you have well consi­dered them, you will conclude, these Do­ctrines will never repair half the Wastes they have already made in our Holy Religion; and that they are honest Men who are jealous of, and desirous to inquire very strictly into the Grounds of such Paradoxical Perswasions as have already given such deep Wounds to our common Cause of Christianity.

I will conclude, Sir, for this time, with only telling you, that the Reasons I have gi­ven, might all of them have been much am­plified and illustrated; and some of them great­ly exaggerated. But that is a Design hardly practicable in a Letter; the Brevity of a Let­ter even constrained me to lay before you what I had to say in few Words, and in a plain and sincere Discourse, without the Arts or Pomp of Rhetorick. Nor am I offended at it; for our Cause needs not those Helps. Till our Opposers can extinguish Reason and common Sense in Men; while there are any left who are not wholly Priest-ridden, who have not abandoned the Conduct and Gui­dance of Reason and natural Knowledg for that of a Confessor, that is to say, a Divine Light for an Ignis fatu [...]s, or Will-a-wisp: So long (I think) we need not be very sollicitous, whe­ther our Discourses or Writings concerning these Doctrines, be altogether so laboured and artificial, as our Opposers must take Care that theirs are.