14

dogmas are found in each sect to be true, and conducive to the knowledge and practice of piety and justice, these, collected into one system, I call philosophy." Justin Martyr, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 15 and Lactantius, express the same sentiment. We are not, however, to confound the Eclectic philosophy of the Christian fathers with that of the Ammonian school; since the former were directed in their selection by a notion peculiar to themselves, that whatever was valuable in Pagan philosophy was the remnant of some former revelation from the λóyos, or had been purloined from the Hebrews or Christians, and might therefore be fairly claimed as the property of the Christian church.

By comparing the preceding observations, we may easily account for the different, and apparently contradictory, language which the Christian fathers held concerning the Gentile philosophy: some of them, particularly Clemens Alexandrinus and Augustine, speaking of heathen wisdom as lawful spoil, which may be usefully employed in the service of the church, and of certain philosophers, as being, in their notions of the Divine Nature, almost Christians whilst others represented heathen philosophy as so pernicious and mischievous in its nature, that it could only be the work of the devil. In order to reconcile these seeming inconsistencies, it is only necessary to observe, that whenever the Christian fathers spoke in commendation of philosophy, they meant to limit their approkation to certain truths, which they conceived to have been originally communicated by Divine revelation; but that, when they inveighed against it, their censure fell upon those systematic masses of error, which they ascribed to human invention.

The virulence with which the supporters of Pagan su perstition assaulted Christianity, sometimes led its advocates, in return, to load the Gentile philosophy with invectives, which, though they may be in part excused, cannot be justified. Their contempt and indignation did not, however, fall indiscriminately upon every sect; they estimated the merit of each by its supposed affinity to revela

2

Dial. cum Tryph. p. 218. 15 In Orig. p. 10. 16 Inst. I. vii. c. 7.

1

tion, in the purity of its doctrine concerning God and Divine things. Hence their severest censures were pointed against the Peripatetic and Epicurean sects. The doctrines of the Peripatetics concerning Divine Providence, and the Eternity of the World, chiefly excited their aversion against this sect; but, besides this, they were much displeased with Aristotle, for having furnished heretics and infidels with the weapons of sophistry. The system of Epicurus, which, excluded the Deity from the government of the world, and admitted no expectation of a future state, so directly contradicted the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, that it is not surprising that it should have awakened great indignation in the friends of Christianity, especially as they misapprehended the nature of his moral doctrine, and credited the calumnies, which had long before this time been circulated, concerning his personal character

There were not wanting, however, among the Christian fathers, advocates for different sects of Grecian philoso phy. After the establishment of the Ammonian sect, when Origen and his followers, with many others, favoured the Eclectic method of philosophising, which had been followed in the Alexandrian schools, they easily persuaded, themselves, that as a coalition had in these schools been effected between Plato and Aristotle, it would not be difficult to accomplish a similar coalition between Jesus Christ and Aristotle. Others reasoned in the same manner with respect to the doctrines of Stoicism. The Epicurean was almost the only sect which met with no patrons among the Christian fathers.

But the sect which, for the reasons already assigned, obtained most favour in the Christian school, was the Platonic. None of the Christian fathers, indeed, entertained such an opinion of the perfection of the Platonic system as to subscribe implicitly to its principles and tenets; but they imagined, that they found in the writings of Plato many Divine truths, which he had received, either directly or indirectly, from the Hebrews, and which they had therefore a right to transfer from the Academy to the Church. Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and Augustine, were so strongly prepossessed with this notion, that they fancied a wonderful similarity between the theology of Plato and that

1

of Moses. Clemens 17 speaks of Plato as the philosopher of the Hebrews, whose doctrine concerning God, and Virtue, and a Future State, agrees with that of the Scriptures: with Numenius, he calls Plato the Athenian Moses; and he even asserts, that Plato, in his Theætetus, describes the Christian life. Eusebius, in his Preparatio Evangelica,18 “Evangelical Preparation," quotes many passages from the Dialogues of Plato, to shew how nearly his sentiments and language approach to those of the sacred writings. Augustine, in some parts of his works, prefers Plato to every other heathen writer; and contends, that, in many particulars, especially those which relate to God, he was a Christian philosopher. He afterwards, in a distinct chapter, inquires whence Plato derived that knowledge, by which he so nearly approximated to the Christian doctrine. Having in a former work given it as his opinion, that Plato, in his journey into Egypt, had either conversed with the prophet, Jeremiah, or read the Hebrew Scriptures, he now retracts this opinion, because he finds, upon further examination, that Plato was born near a hundred years after Jeremiah was in Egypt, and that the Greek version of the Jewish law was made under the Ptolemies, about sixty years after Plato's death; and substitutes, in its stead, an unsupported conjecture, that Plato received his information concerning the Hebrew Scriptures, by conversing with some learned interpreter of the law.

This opinion concerning the Divine origin of Plato's theology was entertained on grounds equally precarious with the conjectures of Augustine, by the general body of the Christian fathers. They thought, that Plato, during his residence in Egypt, could not fail to become acquainted with the Jewish law, of which they believed, but without any sufficient authority, that a Greek version had been made prior to that of the Septuagint under Ptolemy Philadelphus. They conceived, that Pythagoras, in his Oriental journey, must have had frequent opportunities of conversing with the Jewish prophets, and that through his schools the doctrine of Moses must have passed to Plato. They were confirmed in this opinion, by observing the doctrine, which was at this time received among the Jews, with the Pla" L. ii.

Strom. 1. i. p. 315.

tonism of the Alexandrian schools. For, from the age of Aristobulus, the Jews had, as we have seen, admitted Egyptian, Oriental, and Platonic dogmas into an intimate alliance with the simple doctrine of their sacred books; and, in order to give credit and authority to the innovation, had pretended that Moses was the original author of this philosophy. This was maintained by all the learned Egyptian Jews, particularly by Philo; and from these, the notion would naturally pass over to the Christians, by many of whom, doubtless, it was entertained before their conversion to Christianity.

After what has been already suggested, in preceding parts of this work, to shew the improbability of the opinion, that Pythagoras or Plato were instructed by the Hebrews, and to account for the pains which Philo and other Platonizing Jews took to give their notions the sanction of a Divine origin, it is unnecessary here to enlarge upon the subject. We shall only remark, that, in forming this opinion, there were two points in which the fathers were greatly deceived: first, in supposing that the Jews freely communicated their doctrines to their neighbours, when it appears from their whole history, that they studiously separated themselves, in all religious concerns, from the heathens; secondly, in conceiving that the Platonism which was at that time professed was the genuine doctrine of Plato.19

There can be no doubt, that a strong predilection for Platonic tenets prevailed among those Alexandrian philosophers, who became converts to the Christian faith. These philosophers, who, whilst they corrupted the system, had been accustomed to entertain the highest reverence for the name of Plato, easily credited the report, that the doctrine of Plato concerning the Divine Nature had been derived from revelation, and hence thought themselves justified in attempting a coalition between Plato and Jesus Christ. A union of Platonic and Christian doctrines was certainly attempted in the second century, by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clemens Alexandrinus, in whose writings we frequently meet with Platonic sentiments and language; 19 Just. M. Cohort. ad Græc. Clem. Adm. ad Gent. p. 477. Stromat. 1.í. p. 305. l. iv. p. 477. l. v. p. 560. Conf. Lamius de Trinit. l. ii. iii.

and it is not improbable, that this corruption took its rise still earlier. In opposing the Gnostic heresies, those Christian teachers who had been instructed in the Alexandrian doctrines, adopted from them whatever they thought con'sonant to Christian truth, and favourable to their cause. From the time that Ammonius Sacca, in order to recommend his Eclectic system to the attention of Christians, accommodated his language to the opinions which were then received among them, the mischief rapidly increased. Origen, and other Christians who studied in his school, were so far duped by this artifice, as to imagine that they discovered, in the system of the Platonists, traces of a pure doctrine concerning the Divine Nature, which, on the ground above-mentioned, they judged themselves at liberty to incorporate into the Christian faith. Entering upon the office of Christian teachers under the bias of a strong partiality for Plato and his doctrine, they tinctured the minds of their disciples with the same prejudice, and thus disseminated Platonic notions as Christian truths; doubtless, little aware how far this practice would corrupt the purity of the Christian faith, and how much confusion and dissension it would occasion in the Christian church.

Having said thus much concerning the general character of the philosophy of the Christian fathers, it remains that we offer a few remarks concerning their merit in the distinct branches of philosophy; dialectics, physics, and morals.

It will be readily acknowledged, that the early teachers of the Christian church were honest and zealous advocates for the cause of Christ; and that many of their apologies discover an extensive acquaintance with ancient philosophy and learning, and serve to cast much light upon the philosophical and theological history of preceding times. But it must, at the same time, be candidly confessed, that, in the heat of controversy, they not only fell into various mistakes, but made use of unsatisfactory methods of reasoning, which betray imbecility of judgment, or inattention to the principles and rules of good writing. Correctness and strength of argument are excellencies seldom to be met with in the writings of the fathers. On the contrary, their works furnish innumerable examples of feeble