of the nature of the foul, of the trinity, and many other things that bore a relation to them, as those who drew their inftructions from the facred fcriptures, and were taught by Christ only. ib. p. 210.

Synefius," fays Warburton (Divine Legation, vol. ii. p. 236) "went into the church 66 a Platonist, and a Platonift he continued "when he was there. This man could not "be brought to believe the apoftolic doctrine "of a refurrection, because he believed with "Plato that the foul was before the body, "i. e. eternal, a parte ante. However, he was "not for fhaking hands with christianity, but "would fuppofe fome grand' and profound "mystery to lie hid under the fcripture ac"count of a refurrection."

But it is not my defign to trace the Platonism of the Fathers in every article of faith. Enough of it has appeared in my hiftorical account of opinions concerning the nature of God, and the human foul, on which I have enlarged pretty much, in order to trace the rife and progress of the doctrines of materialism and immaterialism, and other things connected with them.

That the early heretics, or those who attempted to bring into christianity more of the Oriental fyftem than the bulk of christians were difpofed to relish, had their inftructions partly in the Eaft, and partly also in the school of Plato, is univerfally acknowledged. The doctrine of the Gnoftics, fays Beaufobre (vol. U 4 i. p.

i. p. 394) was compounded of the philofophy of Plato, the Oriental philofophy, and the christian religion. Tertullian's complaints, that fo excellent a philofophy as that of Plato fhould give occafion to all the herefies, gives but too much reafon, by discovering his own exceffive admiration of it, to suspect that he had himself made too free with it.

But in "those days," says Beaufobre (ib. p. 40) “it

was allowed that, together with the funda"mental doctrines of chriftianity, any person "was at liberty to philofophize about the reft; "and the nearer they could bring their reli"gion to the established principles of philofophy, the more fuccefs they had."

But

how dangerous a maxim was this! It was, in fact, fetting up their own wisdom against the wisdom of God himself.

Manes and his predeceffors were all known adepts in the philofophy of the Eaft. Bafilides, the proper founder of Manicheifm, was a philofophical divine, who travelled into Perfia, and mixed the philofophical opinions of that country with his religion. ib. p. 40. Bardefanes travelled even into India, to acquaint himself with the wisdom of the Brachmans, ib. vol. ii. p. 129. The four books of Scythian, a teacher of Manicheism, and who had travelled into India, were thought to be thofe which he had from the Brachmans, and which he brought into Egypt, p. 45. And the Valentinians, Beaufobre fays, were Pythagoricians and Platonifts, as, he adds, were

almoft

almost all the Greek philofophers, who embraced chriftianity. vol. ii. p. 161.

Simon Magus is, by several ancient writers, called the parent of all herefies, not that he was properly a chriftian heretic, but because the Gnoftics, and other early heretics, borrowed much of their fyftem from him, and because he introduced the Oriental philofophy into Judea and the neighbourhood. See Mofheim's Differtations, p. 226.

In these circumftances can it be any wonder that the pure religion of Christ got a tincture that would continue for ages, and even to the present time.

SECTION V.

Of the Influence of the Philofophical Syftem on the Chriftian Doctrine concerning the PERSON OF CHRIST.

PERE

ERHAPS the greatest differvice that the introduction of philofophy ever did to chriftianity was, that, in confequence of the general doctrine of the pre-existence of all buman fouls, the foul of Chrift was, of course, supposed to have had a pre-existent state, and alfo to have had a fuperior rank and office before he came into the world, fuitable to the power and dignity with which he appeared to be invested on earth.

Had

Had the fate of philofophical opinions in that age of the world been what it is now, and, confequently, had the doctrine of pre-exiftence been unknown, the rife of fuch a doctrine concerning the perfon of Chrift would have been very extraordinary; and the fact of its existence might have been alledged, as an argument for its truth. But the introduction of this tenet from the Oriental or Platonic philofophy was but too eafy; so that to a perfon who confiders the ftate of opinions at that time, there appears to have been nothing extraordinary in it. Nay, it would have been very extraordinary if, together with other opinions, known to have been derived from that fource, philofophizing chriftians had not adopted this allo; the temptation in this cafe being greater than in any other whatever; viz. to wipe away the reproach which was reflected upon chriftianity from the meanness of the perfon of our Saviour, and the indignity with which he was treated.

We have feen that it was a fundamental doctrine in the Eaft, and likewise in the Platonic system, that, on account of the mixture of evil in the world, it could not be fuppofed to have been made by the fupreme Being himfelf; but that it was formed from pre-exiftent matter, by a celeftial fpirit, a principal emanation from the divine mind, the Birmah of the Hindoos, the prima mens of the Chaldeans, the vous and holes of Plato. And what was more natural than to fuppofe that the reStorer

ftorer of the human race had been the former of it; efpecially as those who adopted that hypothefis could fo plaufibly apply to Chrift, as we know they actually did, thofe paffages of the Old Teftament, in which the world was faid to have been made by the word, xolos, of God, the fame word or power, which actually dwelled in Chrift, and acted by him*. By this eafy channel, I make no doubt, did this great corruption flow into the chriftian fyftem, with all the train of mischievous confequences that foon followed it.

It is, likewife, remarkable, that, as in the philofophical system of those times, there was but one emanation of the Divine Being distinguished in fo particular a manner as to be the Creator of the world, fo we find that chriftians were first charged with introducing two Gods, and not three, the divinity of the Holy Ghoft, as a separate perfon, not having been an article in any chriftian creed till after the council of Nice. Alfo the orthodox in those times always gave that fuperiority to the Father, as the fource of all intelligence, that the philofophers did to the fupreme mind with refpect to his emanations; fo that the correfpondence between the two fyftems was wonderfully complete.

The Platonifts, indeed, befides the fecond God, called ous, which they supposed to be a

* Alexander, to prove the eternity of the Logos, cites Pf. xlv. i. My heart is inditing a good matter, olov ayatov. Fortin's Remarks, vol. iii. p. 47.

perfect