But it becomes not the inquirer after truth to neglect or evade a question, because it is beset with danger. It is an old remark, that truth is a single point, but error is infinite: and so long as it pleases God that reason shall be our guide, there is always a chance of our falling, even while we fix our eyes steadily on the light. But the humble fear, which leads us to be diffident of ourselves, is very different from that wilful blindness which is afraid to examine, for fear of meeting difficulties. God forbid, that the timid friend or the insidious opponent of Christianity should say, that in any point it shrinks from inquiry. It has pleased God, that the gospel should be attacked, and the same almighty Being has raised up champions in its cause. They have answered every argument, they have refuted every calumny: and he who defends any outwork of our faith, has little else to do than to arm himself with weapons which have already been victorious, and to lay hold of the same shield which has already repelled every assault. But it is the peculiar character of infidelity to forget its own defeats: and though the same arguments have again and again been answered, they are again and again revived: and the ignorant or doubting mind is in danger, because it knows not the antidote to the poison which is offered. So it is with the charge which has often been brought, that Christianity was corrupted by the doctrines of Plato: a charge, which I may say with confidence, has laid open in its supporters more inconsistencies, and more mistatements than any other, which ever has been advanced.

I have endeavoured to shew in the course of these Lectures, that the Platonic philosophy was one of

the chief causes which led to Gnosticism: and we are told in return, that the Platonic philosophy infected Christianity itself. I am far from saying that all persons, who have opposed this charge, have taken their ground judiciously, or put the question in its true light. If Christianity as well as Gnosticism had been solely the offspring of the human mind, there is no reason why both hypotheses might not be true; and the Platonic philosophy might be the source, from which the two streams of Chistianity and Gnosticism diverged, meeting again occasionally as they flowed. But Christianity was not an invention of the human mind; and before we proceed further in this subject, I should wish to lay down two fundamental principles: 1. That there are certain points of vital importance for us to believe; by which I mean, not only that to know and believe them is absolutely necessary, but that we must know and believe them in one way and no other. 2. That these points, which are essential to such as have been revealed by God. two principles be granted, it seems to follow as a demonstrable conclusion, that no human opinions can modify or alter in any way whatsoever these fundamental points. Thus for instance, if we say that the divinity of Christ is a doctrine revealed in the Bible, but if our opponents could prove that it was not preached by the apostles, but borrowed by the Fathers from the Platonists, then assuredly we should stand convicted of a contradiction in terms. If we could not answer them, we must either persist in saying that a doctrine which was invented by man was also revealed by God, or we must allow that the doctrine itself is not of vital importance. I

our belief, are Now if these

see no middle course for us to adopt: and the ground is therefore so far cleared before us, that we must make a marked distinction between points which are essential and those which are not. If it can be proved that essential articles of our faith, those which we profess to have direct from God, were introduced into the church from Platonism, then I have no hesitation in saying that Christianity itself must fall to the ground. The remnant of our faith might still be true; but who would rest his salvation upon a speculative chance? Who would care to cling to the little which was left him of the gospel, if after having fondly hoped that he was warmed by a ray from heaven, he found that he had only been enveloped in an exhalation from the schools?

It is not so, at least it need not be so, with points which are not fundamental. Here it is, that some advocates of the gospel have shewn too jealous a sensibility, and too great a determination to concede nothing to the Platonists. If they say upon conviction, and by an examination of details, that the Platonic philosophy had no influence upon the Fathers, we are bound to believe that they mean to speak the truth. But let us beware how we prejudge the question, or decide hastily without a knowledge of the facts. If a person, who has read and reflected on the Bible, were asked, whether he thinks it probable that the apostles and their successors were influenced at all by heathen philosophy, he might answer, that it is not probable: but if the same person were told that Justin Martyr, the earliest Christian Father, who had not conversed with the apostles, had been an heathen and a

Platonista; that Clement and Origen were brought up in the schools of Alexandria, where the Platonic philosophy was most popular with Jews and Gentiles, would he reason any longer upon probabilities? or if he did, would he not be giving a decided advantage to our opponents, who would require a strong case to be made out against the probability that these writers were influenced by Platonism? There remains therefore but one course, to examine the writings of these persons: a preliminary step, which I fear has been too much neglected by the supporters and the opponents of the charge, that Christianity was corrupted by the Platonic philosophy.

It would be easy in the first place to observe, in what terms Justin Martyr and the other Fathers speak of Plato: for if, as we are told, they still continued partial to that philosopher, we should find them endeavouring to narrow the line which separated them, and to shew that the sublime speculations of the heathen, and the revelation which came from heaven, had many points of resemblance. Now it is undeniable, that we do find the Fathers shewing this preference to Plato. They do speak of him as teaching the purest and sublimest philosophy; and they do endeavour to prove, that this philoso

He speaks of himself as once "rejoicing in the doc"trines of Plato:" (Apol. II. 12. p. 96.) and he tells us that he first studied with a Stoical philosopher, then with a Peripatetic, then with a Pythagorean, and, finding no satisfaction in any of these schools, he betook himself to a Pla

phy resembled the gospel. But at the same time they avow their dissent from Plato; they tell us plainly in what that dissent consisted; and when they give to Plato the precedence in philosophy, it is because among erroneous systems they considered his to approach nearest to the truth. So far were they from making Platonism the rule to which Christianity was to be accommodated, that in some points at least they did exactly the reverse. They assert, with very little evidence, and often contrary to sound reason, that Plato borrowed from the Jewish scriptures: and it is demonstrable, that in their zeal to make Plato agree with revelation, they represent him as saying what he never said, such as that matter was not eternal but created by God. This was not the conduct of men, who were so deeply imbued with their ancient creed, or who inhaled so fatally the atmosphere around them, as to set the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God.

In the next place it is easy to see what were the doctrines of Plato, and what were the doctrines of the Fathers. Both are on record as matters of history. But I would repeat one caution which has been often forgotten in the present controversy; which is, that the later Platonists differ exceedingly from their first founder; and whether it be true or no, that Platonism influenced Christianity, it is demonstrable that the Jewish and Christian scriptures had an effect upon Platonism. If the Fathers borrowed from the Platonic philosophy, it must be with the later Platonists that we trace their agreement; and upon this I would willingly rest the

b See note 18.