nature was not peculiar to the Platonic school: the followers of Plato pretended to no more than to be the expositors of a more ancient doctrine; and it may be clearly traced from Plato up to the Egyptian priests. The same notions of a triple principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldæan theology. Vestiges of it are discernible in the Roman superstition in a very late age; and this worship of the Romans was received from their Trojan ancestors, for the Trojans brought it with them into Italy from Phrygia, and in Phrygia it was introduced by Dardanus as early as the ninth century after the flood; so that a notion of the Trinity, more or less removed from the purity of the Christian faith, is found to have been a leading principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy, and in the religions of almost all nations; and traces of an early popular belief of it appear even in the abominable rites of idolatrous worship. If reason was sufficient for this great discovery, what could be the means of information but what the Platonists themselves assign; namely, "a theology delivered from the gods," in other words, a theology derived from Revelation. This is the account which Platonists, who were no Christians, have given of the origin of their master's doctrine. But I ask, from what revelation could they derive their information; they who lived before the Christian, and had no light from the Mosaic? For, what

ever some of the early fathers may have imagined, there is no evidence that Plato or Pythagoras were at all acquainted with the Mosaic writings, not to insist (as I strenuously do) that the worship of the Trinity is traced to an earlier age than that of Plato or Pythagoras, or even of Moses. Their information could only be drawn from traditions founded upon earlier revelations; from scattered fragments of the ancient patriarchal creed; that creed which was universal before the defection of the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idolatry, gross and enormous as they were, could never totally obliterate. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is rather confirmed than discredited by the suffrage of the Heathen sages, since the resemblance of the Christian faith and the Pagan philosophy in this article, when fairly interpreted, appears to be nothing less than the consent of the latest and earliest Revelations.1

Court. What were the three principles in the Divine Nature, according to the Platonists, named? Witness. Goodness, Intelligence, and Vitality, by which was meant the eternal activity of the Deity, the existence of intellect, and the vital principle.

Att. Gen. My Lord, I have done with this witness.

1 See Dr. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of St. Albans, p. 49.

Cross-examination of the Witness.

Court. Priestley, are there any questions which you wish to ask of this witness?

Priestley. Yes, my Lord. In the commencement of his evidence, the witness attempts to show that Theodotus was the first promulger of the doctrine of the sole humanity of Christ; whereas that person only revived the doctrine long previously held by the ancient Unitarians, which doctrine was the universal opinion of the primitive Church until the time of Victor, who was contemporary with Theodotus; and I challenge the witness to disprove this. 1

Witness. Then, Eusebius shall decide the point; who tells us, "that the pretensions of these heretics were confuted by the presbyter Caius, who, referring to authors older than the time of Victor, says, "These heretics maintain that all the first Christians, and the Apostles themselves, received and taught those things which the followers of Artemon (the disciple of Theodotus) now hold; and that the true doctrine which was preserved till the time of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of Rome in succession from St. Peter, was first corrupted by his successor Zephyrinus. Their assertion might have some show of probability, but that, in the first place, the Holy Scriptures were

History of Corrup. vol. xi. p. 486.

directly opposed to them; and there are extant many writings of the brethren, more ancient than the times of Victor, which they wrote to the Gentiles in defence of the truth, and against the then existing heresies, I speak of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many others; in all of which the divinity of Christ is maintained. And who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim that Christ is both God and man? and whatever psalms and songs were written from the first by the faithful brethren, they all ascribe divinity to Christ, and celebrate him as the Word of God. How, then, can it be pretended that the doctrines which the Artemonites inculcate were received till the time of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to throw out this calumny against him, since they perfectly well know that Victor excommunicated Theodotus, the inventor and father of their God-denying apostacy, the first who asserted the mere humanity of Christ." These are the words of Eusebius himself. 1

Priestley. I see nothing in this passage but a

1 Hist. Ecc. lib. v. c. 28.

As soon as Theodotus had impugned the divinity of Christ, he was instantly condemned by the Church for it, and was excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome, Victor, (about A. D. 188,) as an Heresiarch.-Waterland's Judg. of Prim. Churches.

plain acknowledgement that the ancient Unitarians themselves constantly asserted that their doctrine was the universal opinion of the primitive Church till the time of Victor. The witness has also said, that Ignatius speaks of Jesus as a Divine Being, and as the Son of God, in his epistle to the Magnesians. I will admit that he is made to say so in our present copies of his epistles; but then the witness cannot but know that those epistles are not genuine; and the learned, on this account, have long given them up.

Witness. This I must unequivocally deny that the longer epistles are spurious, I readily admit ; but those of which we are speaking, the shorter ones, I will, in conjunction with Vossius, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, and a host of others, maintain to be genuine; and in them is the evidence of the truth of Christ's Divine nature, of which I have spoken. 2

Priestley. Then, in common justice, I require you to prove them genuine.

Witness. No; the onus probandi rests with you, to show that the great majority, indeed, I may

1 History of Corrup. vol. xi. p. 486.

2 See Horsley's Letter to Priestley, V. p. 135.

When Priestley made this assertion he was unacquainted with the writings of Bishop Bull, and many others of the great divines, on this point. .