With

think, perfectly satisfactory ground, which at once presents itself, the CLEAR SENSE OF THE REST OF SCRIPTURE. regard to Philippians ii. 5-8, Professor Stuart says, that af ter laborious examination' he is persuaded that the Greek of this passage not only admits, but demands' a Trinitarian render. ing; and that a fair examination of [the word translated form, in the phrase form of God] either generally, or in special relation to the passage before us, will end in the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synonymous with pur (nature) and sơ (being).' It is through a similar process that every one should pass in order to be satisfied, whether correctly or not, that this text and others may bear and were intended to express a Trinitarian meaning. It appears in Professor Stuart's book how the Trinitarian doctrine must be defended. Supposing that any one be unable to judge for himself of the correctness of his statements, translations, and criticisms (and many of them appear to us altogether incorrect) what course is it then proper for him to adopt? What is he to do, who has neither leisure nor critical skill for a laborious examination' of the passages adduced by Trinitarians? Is he to believe blindly such a doctrine as that of the Trinity, receiving it merely upon the authority of some Trinitarian critic? We think not. But there is one course which he may pursue, that seems to us perfectly safe and satisfactory. He may rest his faith upon the plain, undisputed, indisputable meaning of almost the whole of the New Testament. No interpretation of the passages in question CAN BE correct, which contradicts the common language of our Saviour and his apostles. He may make the clear, prevailing sense of scripture his rule, by which to judge of the true sense either of these, or of any other disputed pas sages. There can be no better rule either for the learned or the unlearned. Having adopted this principle of judgment, he will find, that critics, inferior to none in ability, learning and fairness, have explained these passages in such a manner, that they present no difficulty when compared with the rest of scripture; and that there is no reason 'therefore that they should occasion, him any anxiety or doubt. He will find, for instance, with regard to the passage just adverted to, those who will tell him, what he might be very apt to suspect beforehand,that the form of God does not mean the nature or being of God, any more than the form of a servant, in the same pas sage, means the nature or being of a servant.

Some of our opponents insist, in language which seems to us extremely presumptuous, that if we reject their doctrines, we must also reject the scriptures, and give up our Christian faith.

They are not very scrupulous in refraining from the use of those somewhat dishonourable weapons of warfare, insinuations and charges of real or virtual infidelity. We value Christianity quite as much as they can do; and we feel compelled to say, that we think we understand its real value much better than they do. We believe its divine origin in the highest and strongest possible sense of the words, quite as firmly as they can; and we think we perceive the intrinsic divinity of its character with incomparably more clearness, than it can be discerned by those, who, as it seems to us, have mistaken some of the grossest and worst errors of men for essential doctrines of the religion of God. Whether Christianity must share the fate of the doctrines against which we are contending; and whether we, or those who maintain these doctrines, hold opinions opposite to the clear and decided testimony of revelation, are questions which, we think, the preceding statements afford some means of determining. They are questions of very serious importance; and let every man make it a matter of conscience to decide them according to the best of his ability.

If there is not some essential error in our preceding statements and reasonings, it is clear that the doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by Christ and his apostles, either directly or by implication. Whence then was it derived? In answer to this question, we have something more, and something very material to say. Reason and scripture have borne their testimony against it; and we are now about to call another witness, Ecclesiastical history.

In the next place, then, we do not believe this doctrine, because we can trace its history, and show its origin, in a very different source from the Christian revelation. We distinctly trace its origin to the Platonic philosophy, which was the popular and prevalent philosophy during the first ages, subsequent to the introduction of Christianity; and of which all the more eminent Christian writers, the fathers, as they are called, were, in a greater or less degree, disciples. They, as others have often done, blended their philosophy and their religion into one complex and heterogeneous system; and taught the doctrines of the former as those of the latter. In this manner, they introduced gross errors into the popular faith. The facts which we have stated are not to be denied. They are proved by the most satisfactory evidence; and are affirmed or acknowledged by writers who hold the most opposite opinions upon other subjects. "It is an old complaint of learned men," says Mosheim, "that the fathers, or teachers

1

of the ancient church, were too much inclined to the philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines of Christ, our Saviour; in consequence of which, the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and the truth much obscured."* This passage is from the Dissertation of Mosheim, concerning the injury done to the church by the later Platonists. In the same dissertation, after stating some of the obstructions thrown in the way of Christianity, by those of the later Platonists, who were its enemies, he proceeds to say: "But these evils were only external, and although they were injurious to our most holy religion, and delayed its progress, yet did not corrupt its very nature, and disease, if I may so speak, its vitals. More fatal distempers afflicted Christianity, after this philosophy had entered the very limits of the sacred city; and had built a habitation for herself in the minds of those to whom the business of instruction was committed. There is nothing, the most sacred in our faith, which from that time was not profaned, and did not lose a great part of its original and natural form." "Few of the learned," he adds in another place, "are so unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, as to be ignorant what a great number of errors, and most preposterous opinions, flowed in from this impure fountain." Among the false doctrines thus introduced from the Platonic philosophy, is to be reckoned, we believe, preeminently that of the Trinity. Gibbon says, with a sneer, that "the Athenian sage [Plato] marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Chris tian revelation." It is not here the place to inquire, how far the doctrines of Plato himself, respecting the divinity, coincided with those afterwards maintained by his followers; but there is no question that the doctrine of the Trinity was a favourite doctrine of the later Platonists, equally of those who Both the one who were not Christians, as of those who were. and the other class expressed the doctrine in similar terms, explained it in a similar manner, and defended it, nature of the case allowed, by similar arguments; and both appealed in its support to the authority of Plato. Clement of Alexandria, one of the earliest of the Trinitarian and Platonizing fathers, (he flourished in the first part of the third century) endeavours to show, that the doctrine was taught by that philosopher. Among other passages, he quotes one from the Timæus of Plato, in which mention is made of a second and third principle, beside the King of all things.' In this

as far as the

* Mosheim, De_turbata per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia, Commentatio, § vi.

+ Ibid. § xxxiii.

Ibid. § xlviii.

passage, he observes, he "can understand nothing to be meant but the Sacred Trinity; the third principle being the Holy Spirit, and the second principle being the Son, by whom all things were created according to the will of the Father."* Two hundred years after Clement, Augustin tells us in his Confessions, that he found the true doctrine concerning the Logos in a Latin translation of some Platonic writings, which the providence of God had thrown in his way. In his time Christianity was so assimilated to Platonism, that Augustin, speaking of those ancient philosophers, who were particularly admired by the later Platonists, says: "If these men could revive, and live over again their lives with us, with the change of a few words and sentences, they would become Christians, as very many Platonists of our own time have done." Basnage had good reason for observing, that the fathers almost made of Plato a Christian, before the introduction of Christianity. Immediately after this remark, Basnage quotes a writer of the fifth century, who expresses with honest zeal his admiration at the supposed fact, that the Athenian sage should have so marvellously anticipated the most mysterious doctrines of revelation.8

We will produce a few passages from modern Trinitarian writers, to show the near resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity. The very learned Cudworth, in his great work on the Intellectual System, has brought together all that antiquity could furnish to illustrate the doctrine. He institutes a long and minute comparison between the form in which it was held by the Heathen Platonists, and that in which it was held by the Christian fathers. Toward the conclusion of this, we find the following passages:

"Thus have we given a true and full account, how, according to Athanasius, the three divine hypostases, though not monoousious, but homoousious only, are really but one God or Divinity. In all which doctrine of his, there is nothing but what a true and genuine Platonist would readily subscribe to."|| "As the Platonic Pagans, after Christianity did approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the Logos, as that which

* Stromat: v. Opp. p. 598. Sylburg: p. 710. Potter.

Tu, Domine-procurasti mihi-quosdam Platonicorum libros, &c. Opp. T. I. c. 128. Basil, 1556.

Lib. de vera religione. Opp. T. I. c. 704.

Basnage, Histoire des Juifs. Liv. iv. ch. iv. § 20.

P. 620 of the folio. London, 1678.

was exactly agreeable with their own; so did the generality of the Christian fathers before and after the Nicene council, represent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian, or as approaching so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstances, or the manner of expres sion."*

In proof of this, Cudworth produces many passages similar to those which we have quoted from Clement of Alexandria, and Angustin. Athanasius, he observes, sends the Ariaus to school to the Platonists.'t

Basnage was not disposed to allow such a resemblance between the Christian and Platonic trinity, as that which Cudworth maintains, and has written expressly in refutation of the latter. It is not necessary to enter into this controversy. The sentence with which he concludes his two chapters on the subject, is enough for our purpose. "Christianity, in its triumph, has often reflected honour on the Platonists; and as the Christians took some pride in finding the Trinity taught by a philosopher, so the Platonists were proud in their turn to see the Christians adopt their principles.'

There has been no more noted defender of the doctrine in modern times, than Bishop Horsley. The following is a quotation from his letters to Dr. Priestley:

"I am very sensible, that the Platonizers of the second cen tury were the orthodox of that age. I have not denied this. On the contrary, I have endeavoured to show that their Pla tonism brings no imputation upon their orthodoxy. The advocates of the Catholic faith in modern times have been too apt to take alarm at the charge of Platonism. I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium. I not only confess, but I maintain, not a perfect agreement, but such a similitude, as speaks a common origin, and affords an argument in confirmation of the Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity] from its conformity to the most an cient and universal traditions."

In another place he says: "It must be acknowledged, that the first converts from the Platonic school took advantage of the resemblance between the Evangelic and Platonic doctrine on the subject of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their old philosophy to the explication and confirmation of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn † Page 623.

*

Page 621.

Histoire des Juifs. Liv. iv. ch. iii. iv. Letters to Dr. Priestley, Letter 13.