The Trinities of the Ancients

UC-NRLF

B

3

117 1D7

:

'^-^hf^^^-VK.

THE

TRIM TIES OF THE ANCIENTS; OR,

THE

MYTHOLOGY OF THE

FIRST AGES,

AKD

THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE PYTHAGOREAN AND OTHER SCHOOLS, EXAMINED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE

KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRINITY ASCRIBED TO PLATO, AND OTHER: ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS. BY

i

ROBERT MUSHET. " As man

is

fonned by nature with an incredible appetite

for truth

pleasure in the cnjoj-ment, arises from the actual communication of

it

;

so his strongest

to others."

Wabbubton's Divine

JOHN

W.

LONDON PARKER, WEST STRAND. M.DCCC.XXXVll.

Legation.

^ /^J

//^

2x^7/

/

'

'

TO

WILLIAM MUSHET,

ESQ.,

OF GRAY'S INN.

/ There

is

no one

to

whom

I

can more appropriately dedicate

the following pages than to yourself; not only on account of a

community

and opinions, but

as

and because the subject

to

of tastes, sentiments,

a token of ancient friendship

;

which they are devoted has been one of mutual

together, in those hours

which we have frequently discussed of rational relaxation for wdiich I

interest,

am

so greatly indebted

to you.

You were

—attributing

then inclined, as to Plato a

I

was, to regard the opinion

knowledge of the Trinity

considerable distrust and suspicion

you turned your attention the indulgence of

my

into the evidence on

;

—with

and when afterwards

to other objects, I proceeded, in

inclination, to prosecute

which that opinion

is

an inquiry supposed to

rest.

This volume contains the result of the inquiry, so I

thought necessary to pursue

it.

You

far as

will perceive there

a

2

I

PREFACE.

VI

of that devotion whicli

to self-evident truth

have attempted to prove their

support,

opinion with such arguments as

supply their

and, in fulfilling this task,

;

learning,

if

:

an object to gain, or an hypo-

others, again, having thesis to

we pay

we

the

subject can

we must admire

are not convinced by their

reasoning.

As

was conscious, from the beginning, of some

I

misgivings in

my own

mind,

—

as to the truth

first,

of the assertion, and, secondly, as to the cogency of the conclusions arrived at by these WTiters,

made

evidence

to

collect

what

conveniently, to

oppose

their

source of

a

it

I

could,

—

amusement

arguments, and to satisfy myself of their truth or falsehood.

When

the inquiry was brought to a conclusion,

so as to confirm

my

preconceived idea,

(with what justice or truth I

of

fruits

others,

it

might be

useful

not,)

judged

that the

and instructive to

whose pursuits would bring them constantly

in contact with the opinion

be refuted.

them

know

I

Such

which

is

attempted to

as they are, I willingly bequeath

to the reader.

But

as this Essay

was not originally designed to

— PREFACE.

meet the public eye

;

Vll

and as the inquiry was pur-

sued at long intervals in a desultory manner, just inclination

as

avocations of I

prompted me, or as the manifold life

allowed

me

quietude and leisure,

had some apprehensions that the arguments were

not developed so clearly, nor the evidence collated

and arranged

so carefully, as if

it

had been under-

taken with the object of publication immediately in

However,

view.

some first

I

have striven to compensate, in

degree, for the defects and irregularities of

mode

my

of proceeding, by reducing the " indigesta

moles" of the primary materials to their present form; having tried to breathe into them some of the

spirit

the sage

of order and harmony.

maxim

And

hoped

it is

of the Latin poet has not been

violated with respect to brevity

and propriety

:

Id arbiter,

Adprime

If T

am

in vita esse utile,

nequid nimis.

too sanguine in thinking, that I have

conclusively disproved the opinion of Plato and the

ancients ha^^ng a knowledge of the Trinity, I certain that the weakness of the

argument

with the author, and not with the subject.

am

rests

There

vm is

TREFACE.

enough given

to excite

and he ^ho

events;

is

doubt and inquiry disposed

extend his

to

researches further, will, I have no doubt, be

and more convinced of the referred to

is

at all

more

truth, that the opinion

without foundation, and the super-

upon

structure raised

it is,

without

consequently,

stability.

might appear almost superfluous to make any

It

observations here on the prevalence of this opinion.

however, limit myself to the early Fathers

I will,

and to the ancient philosophers.

With

to

respect

knowledge of the

Plato

Trinity,

himself

having

some

seems to have met

it

the early times of

with universal concurrence in

our religion, by the Christians as well as by the pagans.

There

more

is

no feature of that interesting period

curious, if not extraordinary, than this general

acquiescence in that which lias

no foundation

things

of

the

new and

new

for their

religion

strange;

am now

convinced

The pagan

in truth.

had probably some reason rivalry

I

but

conduct

brought I

Platonists

into

:

the

being

can find no more

tanoible explanation for the conduct of the Cliris-

PREFACE.

tiaii

IX

the conjecture, that they were

writers than

deluded or deceived by the specious Eclectic system of philosophy, whose singular interpretations of the

and of the writings of the

expiring mythology,

ancient philosophers, obliterated

all

the landmarks

The pagans

of certainty and of truth.

fancied they

saw a resemblance between the Christian Trinity and the doctrines of Plato and others

met them more than M'illingly confessed,

religion

half-way,

and

:

the Fathers in

the

end

that this essential truth of our

was known before Christ revealed

it

a

second time to mankind*. It has

been supposed, that the Christian Fathers

complied with, and acquiesced the pagan Platonists, by

hominem, (being, as

it

As

the notions of

way of an argumentum ad

were,

all

for the sake of proselytism,)

* "

in,

things to

all

men,

that they might the

the Platonic pagans, after Christianity, did approve

of the Christian doctrine, concerning the Logos, as that which

was exactly agreeable

with, their

own;

so did the generality

of the Christian Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, represent the genuine and Platonic Trinity as really the same

thing with the Christian

;

or as approaching so near to

it,

that

they differed chiefly in circiunstances, or in the manner of expression."

—

Intell.

System,

vol.

iii.

p. 185.

— X

PRKFACE.

easier reconcile the heathen to the doctrine of the

by showing that

Trinity,

mystery,

at

or,

obstacle, as to

have

But

of Plato.

least,

I

was not so great a

it

not so insurmountable an

l^affled

the acute understanding

apprehend

this

is

more

fanciful

than true.

As

to the pagan Platonists themselves, they do

not a])pear to have had any fixed or pennanent ideas

on the

subject.

The doctrine professed by

some of the most eminent of them, was unquestionably repugnant to the essential nature or characteristic

of a Trinity.

AVe may be

certain of this, that if there

been no Christian doctrine,

all

tions of the early period of the

have had a being: will

be no

had

the wild specula-

Church would never

destroy the cause, and there

effect.

There are many and great reasons why Plato, **

the

Swan

of Socrates," was held in such esteem

and admiration by both Christians and that time.

by

His System of IMorals, taught to him

his great master,

and infused into

the beauty and fascination of his elevated

pag-ans at

character

of

his

his writings, style,

philosophy,

and the all

con-

;

PREFACE.

ciirred in exalting

him

Xi

to that pitch of glory and

distinction.

He

enforces upon us the beauty of virtue, and

the excellence of truth «leprecates all pleasures

our preference

for

;

he inculcates

merely sensual

intellectual

;

rather

self-denial

and excites than

corporeal delights.

R. London, AprilU,

1837.

M.

for

CONTENTS.

PART

I.

ON THE IDOLATRY OF THE FIRST AGES. Page Introductory Chapter

.

.

Chapter The Prevalence Nations

of

Compound

.

.

.

19

.

I.

....... Deities

Chapter

in

Ancient

37

II.

These Compound Deities, in a three-fold Nature, or

49

Triad

Chapter The Triad

;

the

three

III.

Kings or

deduced from Ancient History

Royal Personages,

....

67

Chapter IV. The Subject continued .

;

with some Observations on the

Origin of the word Novi)lied

and directed

but to have soared beyond

;

and to have penetrated the veiled and unre-

vealed mystery of the nature of His existence, w^hich reason can never grasp or conceive, appears a violent contradiction.

Yet Dr. Cudworth, and those who agree with him, must necessarily admit all this. They admit even more than this for Plato is represented not as ;

a Pagan, Avho, receiving

tliis

by

source, corrupted

it,

distinct, or three

kings

doctrine from another

calling ;

it

three principles

but he actually

is

said to

hold the co-essentiality and consubstantiality of the three archical hypostases

:

but an orthodox Trinitarian

that he was no Arian, !

Another objection suggested by the prima facie view of the case, is the converse of that propounded The

System of the Universe, where the learned author imagined such a correspondence as in

this,

Irdellectual

between Platonism and the Christian

to be a great benefit to the latter.

"

We

'

religion,

conceive,

that this parallelism, betwixt the ancient and the

Christian Trinity, might be of

some use

to satisfy

those amongst us,

who boggle

and look upon

as the choak-pear of Christianity

it ^

Vol.

i.

so

much

p. 61, Preface.

at the Trinity,

;

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

when they

29

among the who had nothing

shall find, that the freest wits

Pagans, and the best philosophers, of superstition to determine

them

that way, were so

from being shy of such an hypothesis, as that

far

they were even fond thereof." This author having proceeded so

far,

might have

given us a view of the other side of the picture, and candidly stated to what extent such an admission as this

might

have been injurious to Christianity,

also

by robbing

it

of

its

characteristic originality

and in

;

giving to scepticism an intrument of considerable

by which to contest

force,

this,

was

modern

really

divine origin.

We

times,

employed by a celebrated writer of

who shows how much our

beholden to the

But the truth seems

—and how much

object

truth,

is

it

to

The

!

will a

man

sacrifice to

of the simple and naked

force

often paralyzed for the sake of a theory or

hypothesis.

which

is

Cudworth had a preconceived hypothesis

be, that Dr.

to support,

religion

dreams of Plato, and the soberer

speculations of Aristotle.

this

its

observe presently, that such an argument as

shall

And,

as if sensible of the difiiculties

by

was surrounded, and not unconscious to the

prjudice which a Christian

may

reasonably entertain,

of the originality of the Trinity in his

he uses the above

prepare the reader for the counters he

is

own

religion,

apologetic strain of ex])ression, to

likelv to

many

meet with

surprises in his

and en-

argument.

lay aside any partiality he

The

Christian must

may

indulge in favour of the origin of his Trinity

first

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

30

and then be prepared to receive the

startling result

of Dr. Cudworth's reasoning-, That this doctrine was

a Mell-known " dogma," or "

made

later revelation

mankind

to

long before the

cal)ala,"

that the three

:

persons were not conceived by Plato, as three kings,

having a sejiarate and independent existence, but exactly in the same light in which

we

believe the

nature of this mystery. It

is

my

ments of degree, his

purpose, therefore, to examine the argu-

this learned author,

and to point out the

and the nature, of the evidence on which

hypothesis

is

founded.

I

am

sensible

of the

boldness of the undertaking, in encountering a writer of such gigantic learning and profound acquirements

But

as Dr. Cudworth.

ment by which truth

itself,

emulation.

truth

as learning

so far only

AVherever

be sought

to

is

is it it

only an instru-

is

is

for,

and not

worthy of esteem, or of otherwise employed,

it

am

I,

can neither be admired nor respected.

Far

however, from insinuating that Dr. Cudworth was not reasonably convinced of the truth of his argu-

ment, though his evidence does not seem to Avarrant his

conclusions.

The character and

distinguished Christian exalts

such charge as is

this.

terity.

all his

far

above any

So long as profound erudition

admired by mankind, so long

reward of

him

piety of that

shall

he receive the

exertions in the gratitude of pos-

Before I conclude,

it

may be

necessary to

say a few words more, relative to this great author,

and to those to

whom

I

have been otherwise

debted for the evidence which I adduce.

in-

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

A

81

considerable share of The IiitellecUml System of

the Universe, is

devoted to the discussion of the Trinity

The

of Plato.

author,

Avitli

the hand of profusion,

and a mind overflowing with learning, in that branch of his

work

knowledge which

lays before us all the

he supposed to bear on the doctrine, that could be gathered from the eminent, as Mell as obsolete and obscure, writers of antiquity.

There

is

scarcely a

passage or an allusion that escaped his penetration.

He

absolutely overwhelms

illustration, or

there

us with

one single fault or omission,

is

quotations in

But

defence, of his hypothesis.

in

A^liich

well nigh

subverts his ingenious structure, and which

He

great service to our cause. later Platonists for

ment.

is

of

chiefly resorts to the

evidence in support of his argu-

Plato and his writings are rarely ever men-

tioned or referred divine h}'postases.

doctrine as

this,

to, in

He

was ever

any of the genuine

respect of that Trinity of

does not show that such a so

much

as alluded to

disciples of Plato,

by

which could

not have happened, had they been so intimately

acquainted with inference,

it

as

he imagines.

It

is

only by

and that of great uncertainty, that he works

—supported

deduces a trinity from

Plato's

only by a few obscure

expressions, which are of

doubtful signification, and might possibly refer to

something of a very diflerent nature.

Those

Platonists, to

whom he

is

so greatly beholden

for his testimonies, as Plotinus, Proclus,

were not so much followers of Plato,

and

others,

as professors of

32

INTRODUCTORY CIIArTER.

the Eclectic system, whose very essence consisted in

the choice of as they

its

doctrines from every possible source,

were determined

thought

on, or

founders of this ]ihilosophy.

It

fit,

by the

was not Platonic,

nor TiniEcan, nor yet Pythagorean, nor Aristotelian, but a mixture of

all these,

with an abundant effusion

of obsolete fables, night-mare dreams, and a con-

Their theology, as

it

magic

of

sprinkling

siderable

falsely

is

and

named,

superstition. is

a ridiculous

version of the mythologic systems of different coun-

They adopted the Grecian

mingled together.

tries

theogony, and divesting

it

alone can

made

it

" the basis of their procedure,"

of that fabulous or poetical charm, which

make

tivated mind.

it

endurable to a refined and cul-

Every

fable of the gods, immortalized

by the Grecian poets in adojjted

by

its attraction,

The

their exquisite writings,

these " divine

by a new or

was

men," and robbed of

all

allegorical interpretation.

by Homer and Hesiod

licentious stories related

of their divinities, for which they were reprobated by Plato,

and consigned to the tortures of Hades by

Pythagoras, were freely and willingly received into the category of their truths.

But the amours of

Jupiter or of Venus, were no longer considered such as the license of poetic fiction

them came

:

in the

and fancy described

hands of these interpreters, they be-

" divine energies,"

and

" deific unions," such as

are worthy of immortal beings.

Of

these spurious

followers of Plato,

or

later

Platonists, I shall have, therefore, a great deal to

say hereafter.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

To Mr. I

am

33

Taylor, and his notes and explanations,

my He

greatly indebted for

philosophy and theology.

knowledge of

their

a disciple of the

is

school of Proclus, and a bigoted follower of the later Platonists

and, as such, his interjiretation of their

;

may be

system

He

relied on.

would persuade

us,

that he strictly adhered to Plato's genuine writings

and doctrines

this,

;

however,

on

is

his jmrt a great

error or delusion.

cannot mention the name of Jacob Bryant,

I

reverence and admiration.

without truth

;

his

His love of

profound and extensive learning

;

and

his

admirable judgment, constitute him a great authority

To

in everything relative to antiquity.

I

am under

some

great obligation, for

his writings ojDinions

and

illustrations in the following Essay.

I

am happy

conclusions,

to say, that I coincide in

most of

his

wrought out by unparalleled industry,

and surprising erudition.

His great work on The

Ancient Mytliology, must continue to be the wonder of posterity

w'hich

it

:

it is

honorable, as

was produced,

much

to the country in

as to the great

and inestimable

author himself. It

will

how much

be readily perceived,

am

I

indebted to Bryant; especially in the preliminary observations on ancient idolatry. ao-ree

I

am

inclined to

with him in his strictures on some of the

Grecian writers, on

when they

whom we

cannot safely

treat of the events of

Their accounts

of ancient

remote

history are not

c

rely,

anti(]uity.

to

be

;

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

34

They were

trusted.

tions, chiefly arising

own country barbarians

guilty of great misinterpreta-

from an undue opinion of their

whom

a contempt for those

;

they styled

a false idea of the antiquity of Greece

;

and from a strange custom of proceeding lann'uaffes of other countries,

derived from

their

own.

more

as if the

;

ancient, were really

They likewise invented

innumerable ingenious fables to support any preconceived

which perhaps had

notion,

no

better

foundation than the accidental similitude, in sound, of a foreign word, to one in the Grecian language. I cannot do better than refer the reader to Bryant's " Dissertation

AVriters,"

upon the Helladian and other Grecian

for

a proof of what

have advanced

I

above. "

The whole tive

Ancient Mythology"

examples of

of instruc-

is full

this fact.

"Cory's Collection of Ancient Fragments," has

me

been of great service to Essay.

When

I rejoiced to

this useful

in

work

how much

see

one branch of fell

my

into

support

I

this

hands,

derived,

by way of proof and illustration, from these very ancient and very curious records of antiquity.

The seemed 1.

I

division I have adopted in the following work, to

be the most simple and natural.

make some remarks on

the

compound

deities

of ancient nations; on the triple forms sometimes

assumed by them host,

and

creatures

its ;

;

on the worship of the

prevalence

;

celestial

on the deification of mortal

and point out who these

deified persons

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. were

really

35

and then, by inference, attempt to trace

;

practice, the origin of the Chaldaic, Orphic,

to this

and, subsequently, the Platonic triads, or trinities. 2.

examine the philosophy and theology

I then

of Plato, as they have descended to us, in his copious writings tiquity

First

;

;

and of other celebrated characters of an-

showing their

Cause

;

in

which

Great

oi^inions respecting the it

shall

be made manifest that

they had no suspicion of such a doctrine as a Trinity in the

Godhead.

I

must likewise

notice,

and that

at considerable length, Plato's system of Ideas,

which originated the Second Person, or

\ojoy

the same author (Pro-

Zeu?

6 irpo

(or perhaps, 6 TraTrjp) rcov rpt(ov

vlSwv, ovro