perhaps, that they had the sanction of an apostle's example, for becoming all things to all men, that they might gain some.'"*

Brucker gives the same account with Dr. Horsley, of the Antenicene Fathers explaining the doctrine of the trinity, in the language of Platonism, and defending it by arguments drawn from this philosophy. He however, in opposition to Dr. Hors ley, supposes, as I have before mentioned, that they did not teach the orthodox doctrine; but had corrupted this by the in troduction of their Platonic notions. "For whilst the Fath ers," he says, "without sufficient caution, compare the Christian doctrines with those of Plato, whilst they speak of them in Pla tonic language, and use modes of proof and illustration drawn from this philosophy, they not unfrequently do violence to the purity of the Christian religion, and corrupt the simplicity of the Christian mysteries with philosophical subtleties." "Those will confess," he adds, "to whom truth is superior to the prejudice of antiquity and authority, that they so discoursed concerning divine mysteries, and especially the doctrine of the holy trinity, that if we take their words merely (as we have no other rule of judging of them) it must be said that their orthodoxy suffered some human mixture, and glossed over by Platonism, lost something of that native splendor, with which it had been transmitted to them from the apostolic times."+

Brucker quotes the opinion of Huetius, "that very many of the Fathers endeavoured to illustrate Christianity by Academic glosses, and that the Antenicene Fathers imitated Platonic opin

• Charge iv. § 2.

† Dum enim cum Platonis dogmatibus patres satis incauti Christiana dogmata comparant, dum Platonice de illis loquuntur, et ex hac philosophia rationes probandi, illustrandique afferunt, ipsi haud raro puritati Christiana religionis vim inferunt, et simplicitatem Christianorum mysteriorum subtilitate philosophica corrumpunt-At fatebuntur etiam, quibus veritas omni antiquitatis et auctoritatis præjudicio superior, potiorque est, eos ita de mysteriis nonnullis divinis præcipue de SS. Trinitatis dogmate disseruisse, ut, si verbis eorum standum sit (cum alia de iis judicandi norma non existat) dicendum omnino sit, eorum oglodoğan humani aliquid passam, fucoque Platonico illitam amisisse non nihil splendoris illius nativi quem að ços transmiserunt tempora apostolica. Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. iii. p. 341.

ions in their doctrine concerning the holy trinity. The same thing," continues Brucker, "Dionysius Petavius acknowledged and proved, with that infinite reading and most acute judgment which he possessed; who being about to give an account of the doctrine of the Fathers concerning the holy trinity, thought it proper to prefix a treatise concerning the trinity of Plato, and likewise of Philo, and of Pseudo Mercurius. He then so explained the doctrine of the Antenicene Fathers concerning this mystery-of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria—that he thought it necessary for him to confess with that candor which he possessed, that they both thought and wrote concerning this doctrine after the manner of Plato. Which confession of Petavius, although it was the fruit of his learning and candor, was the occasion of many complaints and accusations against him."*

Beside the use which the Fathers made of Platonic language, ideas, and arguments, in explaining and defending the doctrine of the trinity, another circumstance, which shews that this doctrine might have been derived from the philosophy of Plato, is the fact that a very near approach was made to it, and opinions very similar to it were adopted by those of his followers who were not Christians. Concerning this, as there is no controvery, I will only quote a short passage from Dr. Priestley. "As the Christians," he says, "were admirers of Platonism, so we find that some of the Platonists were admirers of that part

• Alio vero loco magis candide monet [Huetius], plerosque patres fuco academico doctrinam Christianam illustrare conatos, patresque Antenicanos in dogmate de SS. Trinitate Platonicas opiniones imitatos fuisse. Idem, et agnovit, et, qua erat infinita lectione atque acutissimo judicio demonstravit doctissme Dionysius Petavius, qui patrum de SS. Trinitate doctrinam enarraturus, præmittendam sibi esse tractationem de trinitate Platonis, itemque Philonis et Pseudo Mercurii putavit; tumque patrum synodo Nicana ætate priorum Justini Martyris, Irenæi, Athenagoræ, Tatiani, Theophili Antiocheni, et Clementis Alexandrini de hoc mysterio doctrinam ita exposuit, ut Platonis in modum eos et cogitasse et scripsisse do eo, sibi, quo erat, candore fatendum esse existimaret. Quæ tamen Petavii confessio, quamvis eruditionis et integritatis ejus fructus esset, multarum querularum et accusationum caussa auctori suo extitit. Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. iii. pp. 344, 345.

of the Christian system which was formed after the model of Plato; and that they were particularly struck with the introduction to the gospel of John, as interpreted by the Platonic Christians. Basil, speaking of the first verses of John's gospel, says, that he knew many heathen philosophers, who admired them, and copied them into their own writings. Austin says, that a 'Platonic philosopher said, that the introduction to John's gospel ought to be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches.' Theodoret says, that Plutarch, Numenius, and others, after the appearance of our Saviour, inserted in their own discourses many things from the Christian theology."*

It may be further observed, that one of the Fathers at least, I mean Austin, professed to have learnt the doctrine of the Logos, as he supposed it contianed in the introduction of St. John's gospel, from some works of the Platonists, translated into Latin: "There," says he, "I read it, not in the same words, but the same thing supported by many and various arguments."

To one who adopts the representations of some of the orthodox, who, as I have mentioned, maintain a much closer resemblance between the opinions of Plato and the doctrine of the trinity, than is supposed by Dr. Priestley, and whose representations therefore are much more favorable to his purpose than his own, there can be no question, without particularly regarding any other circumstances, that this doctrine might have been derived from the Platonic philosophy. Nor is it at all more doubtful that it might have had such an origin, if we consider Dr. Priestley's account of the theology and language of Plato and his followers, in connexion with the other circumstances which have been stated. This is all that is necessary to the purpose of Dr. Priestley. If this doctrine could have been traced to no other source than the Christian revelation, this would have been a difficulty, opposing itself to all arguments adduced, to prove it not a doctrine of Christianity. But it has been shown, that though it were unsupported by revelation, it is a corruption which might have been, and probably would have been early introduced. All the arguments therefore against it, from rea

• Hist. Earl. Opp. B. ii. c. 1.

+ Confess. Op. Tom. i. p. 128. Hist. Earl. Opp. B. ii. c. 1.

son, and scripture, and the history of the church, may now act unimpeded and with their whole force.

But this is not all. If it can be proved that this doctrine might have been introduced from the Platonic philosophy, and if, in the manner in which it was originally taught and defended, it has all the appearance of having been thus introduced, these very facts, without considering any other objection to the doctrine, are in themselves an argument, of no mean force, to prove that it actually was so derived. It would be most extraordinary, if this mysterious doctrine had in truth two sources so distinct, as the philosophy of Plato, and the revelation of Jesus Christ. It is a doctrine, which, as a fiction of philosophy, we should least of all expect to find confirmed by revelation, and as a doctrine of revelation, we should least of all expect to have been previously attained by philosophy. It would be not a little embarrassing if there were any force in the sneer of Gibbon, who says that "the Athenian sage marvellously anticipated one of the most surprizing discoveries of Christianity." It is against the corruptions of our religion that the ridicule and the arguments of infidels are commonly directed.

The force of the preceding remarks, which are so obvious to every one, was felt by the Fathers; and they endeavoured to set them aside by a story, which is often repeated in their writings, that Plato derived his theology from the books of Moses, of which he found in Egypt a Greek translation prior to that of the Seventy. This idle story, I believe, is now pretty generally given up; and is sufficiently confuted by Brucker.f "Whatever," says Dr. Horsley, "some of the early Fathers may have imagined, there is no evidence, that Plato or Pythagoras were at all acquainted with the Mosaic writings." Dr. Horsley therefore proposes another solution for this difficulty. He states that the doctrine of the trinity was very early revealed to the patriarchs; that the belief of it was universal before the defection of the first idolaters, and that some notion of it was a leading principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy,

• Dec. and Fall of Rom. Emp. C. xxi.

† Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. i. p. 635, seq.

+ Charge ii. § 3;

and in the religions of almost all nations; and he traces even the particular channels by which he supposes a knowledge of it to have flowed down to Plato. The passage in which he does this may be found in the margin.*

WE come next-2. To the account which Dr. Priestley has given of the opinions of the early Fathers respecting the character of Christ; or of the form in which the doctrine of the trinity was held by them, so far as it regards the second person. The principal controversy, on this part of the subject, was between him and Dr. Horsley, respecting what the early Fathers meant by THE GENERATION OF THE SON. Of this I shall give an account in what immediately follows.

According to Dr. Priestley, the early Fathers believed that Christ was an attribute of God, (considered as being more properly his wisdom or reason, but sometimes spoken of as his

• "The Platonists pretended to be no more than the expositors of a more ancient doctrine: which is traced from Plato to Parmenides: from Parmenides to his masters of the Pythagorean sect: from the Pythagoræans to Orpheus, the earliest of Grecian Mystagogues: from Orpheus to the secret lore of the Egytian priests, in which the foundations of the Or. phic theology were laid. Similar notions of a triple principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldæan theology; and vestiges even of the worship of a trinity were discernible in the Roman superstition in a very late age. This worship the Romans had received from their Trojan ancestors. For the Trojans brought it with them into Italy from Phrygia. In Phrygia it was introduced by Dardanus so early as in the ninth century after Noah's flood. Dardanus carried it with him from Samothrace; where the personages, that were the objects of it, were worshipped under the Hebrew name of the Cabirim. Who these Cabirim might be, has been matter of unsuccessful inquiry to many learned men. The utmost that is known with certainty is, that they were originally Three, and were called by way of eminence, the Great or Mighty Ones: for that is the import of the Hebrew name. And of the like import is their Latin appellation, Penates. Dii per quos penitus spiramus, per quos habemus corpus, per quos rationem animi possidemus. Dii qui sunt intrinsecus, atque in intimis penetralibus cali. Thus the joint worship of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, the Triad of the Roman Capitol, is traced to that of the THREE MIGHTY ONES in Samothrace; which was es tablished in that island, at what precise time it is impossible to determine, but earlier, if Eusebius may be credited, than the days of Abraham.” Charge ii. § 2.