t the charge of Platonism. 'I
rejoice,' he says, '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 for its conformity to the most ancient and universal
traditions.'[464] For was this idea of a Triad peculiar to Plato? or did
it originate with him? 'The Platonists,' says Horsley, 'pretended to be
no more than expositors of a more ancient doctrine which is traced from
Plato to Parmenides; from Parmenides to his master of the Pythagorean
sect; from the Pythagoreans to Orpheus, the earliest of Grecian
mystagogues; from Orpheus to the secret lore of Egyptian priests in
which the foundations of the Orphic theology were laid. Similar notions
are found in the Persian and Chaldean theology; even in Roman
superstition from their Trojan ancestors. In Phrygia it was introduced
by Dardanus, who carried it from Samothrace.' In short, 'the Trinity was
a leading principle in all ancient schools of philosophy and
religion.'[465]

Not, of course, that Horsley approved of the attempts made at the close
of the second century to meet the Platonists half-way by professing that
the leading doctrines of the Gospel were contained in Plato's writings.
He strongly condemned, _e.g._, the conceit of the Platonic Christians
that the external display of the powers of the Son in the business of
Creation is the thing intended in Scripture language under the figure of
his generation. 'There is no foundation,' he thinks, 'in Holy Writ, and
no authority in the opinions and doctrines of preceding ages. It
betrayed some who were most wedded to it into the use of very improper
language, as if a new relation between the First and Second Persons took
place when the creative powers were first exerted.' He condemns 'the
indiscretion of presuming to affix a determinate meaning upon a
figurative expression of which no particular exposition can be drawn
safely from Holy Writ.' 'But,' he adds, 'the conversion of an attribute
into a person, whatever Dr. Priestley may imagine, is a notion to which
they were entire strangers.' On the main question of the Trinity he
asserts, in opposition to Dr. Priestley, that they were quite sound.

Adopting the same line of argument which Leslie had used before him,
Horsley dexterously turns the supposed resemblance between Platonism and
Christianity, which, as has been seen, he a