On the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Andrews Norton

We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy;[i] which was the prevalent philosophy during the first ages after the introduction of Christianity, and of which all the more eminent Christian writers, the Fathers as they are called, were, in a greater or less degree, disciples. They, as others have often done, blended their philosophy and their religion into one complex and heterogeneous system and taught the doctrines of the former as those of the latter. In this manner they introduced errors into the popular faith. "It is an old complaint of learned men," says Mosheim, "that the Fathers, or teachers of the ancient church, were too much inclined to the philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines of Christ our Saviour, in consequence of which the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and the truth much obscured."[ii]  This passage is from the Dissertation of Mosheim, Concerning the Injury Done to the Church by the Later Platonists. In the same Dissertation, after stating some of the obstructions thrown in the way of Christianity by those of the later Platonists who were its enemies, he proceeds to say: "But these evils were only external, and although they were injurious to our most holy religion, and delayed its progress, yet they did not corrupt its very nature, and disease, if I may so speak, its vitals. More fatal distempers afflicted Christianity after this philosophy had entered the very limits of the sacred city and had built a habitation for herself in the minds of those to whom the business of instruction was committed. There is nothing, the most sacred in our faith, which from that time was not profaned and did not lose a great part of its original and natural form." [iii] "Few of the learned," he adds in another place, "are so unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, as to be ignorant what a great number of errors, and most preposterous opinions, flowed in from this impure source." [iv] Among the false doctrines thus introduced from the Platonic philosophy is to be reckoned, preeminently, that of the Trinity. Gibbon says with a sneer, "The Athenian sage [Plato] marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation."[v] In making this assertion, Gibbon adopted a popular error, for which there is no foundation. Nothing resembling the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the writings of Plato himself.[vi] But there is no question that, in different forms, it was a favorite doctrine of the later Platonists, equally of those who were not Christians as of those who were. Both the one and the other class expressed the doctrine in similar terms, explained it in a similar manner, and defended it, as far as the nature of the case allowed, by similar arguments; and both appealed in its support to the authority of Plato. Clement of Alexandria, one of the earliest of the Trinitarian and Platonizing Fathers (he flourished about the commencement of the third century), endeavors to show that the doctrine was taught by that philosopher. He quotes a passage from one of the epistles ascribed to him,[vii] in which mention is made of a second and third principle, beside the "King of all things." In this passage, he observes, he "can understand nothing to be meant but the Sacred Trinity; the third principle being the Holy Spirit, and the second principle being the Son, by whom all things were created according to the will of the Father." [viii] A similar interpretation of the passage is referred to by Eusebius;[ix] and in the oration which he ascribes to Constantine, as addressed "To the Assembly of Saints," Plato is eulogized as teaching, conformably to the truth, that "there is a First God, the Father, and a Second God, the Logos or Son."[x] Augustine tells us in his Confessions that he found the true doctrine concerning the Logos in a Latin translation of some Platonic writings, which the providence of God had thrown in his way.[xi] Speaking of those ancient philosophers who were particularly admired by the later Platonists, he says: "If these men could revive and live over again their lives with us, with the change of a few words and sentences they would become Christians, as very many Platonists of our own time have done."[xii] Theodoret gives the following account of the Platonic Trinity as compared with the Christian: "Plotinus and Numenius, explaining the opinion of Plato, represent him as teaching the existence of three principles which are beyond time and eternal, The Good, Intellect, and the Soul of the World. He gives the name of The Good to the being whom we call Father; of Intellect, to him whom we name Son and Logos; and the power which animates and gives life to all things, which the Divine Word names Holy Spirit, he calls Soul. But these doctrines, as I have said, have been stolen from the philosophy and theology of the Hebrews."[xiii] Basnage had good reason for observing that the Fathers almost made Plato to have been a Christian, before the introduction of Christianity. Immediately after this remark, Basnage quotes a writer of the fifth century, who expresses with honest zeal his admiration at the supposed fact, that the Athenian sage should have so marvelously anticipated the most mysterious doctrines of revelation.[xiv]

I will produce a few passages from modern Trinitarian writers to show the near resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity. The very learned Cudworth, in his great work on the Intellectual System, has brought together all that antiquity could furnish to illustrate the doctrine. He institutes a long and minute comparison between the forms in which it was held by the Heathen Platonists, and that in which it was held by the Christian Fathers. Toward the conclusion of this, we find the following passages: “Thus have we given a true and full account how, according to Athanasius, the three divine hypostases, though not monoousios, but homoousios only, are really but one God or Divinity. In all which doctrine of his, there is nothing but what a true and genuine Platonist would readily subscribe to." [xv]

"As the Platonic Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the Logos, as that which was exactly agreeable with their own, so did the generality of the Christian Fathers, before and after the Nicene Council, represent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian, or as approaching so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstances, or the manner of expression." [xvi]

In proof of this, Cudworth produces many passages similar to those which I have quoted from the Fathers. Athanasius, he observes, "sends the Arians to school to the Platonists."[xvii]

Basnage was not disposed to allow such a resemblance between the Christian and Platonic Trinity as that which Cudworth maintains, and has written expressly in refutation of the latter. It is not necessary to enter into this controversy. The sentence with which he concludes his remarks on the subject, is enough for our purpose. "Christianity, in its triumph, has often reflected honor on the Platonists; and as the Christians took some pride in finding the Trinity taught by a philosopher, so the Platonists were proud in their turn to see the Christians adopt their principles." [xviii]

I quote the authorities of learned Trinitarians, rather than adduce the facts on which they are founded, because the facts could not be satisfactorily stated and explained in a small compass. It is to be observed that Trinitarians, in admitting the influence of the Platonic doctrine upon the faith of the early Christians, of course do not regard the Platonic as the original source of the Orthodox doctrine, but many of them represent it as having occasioned errors and heresies, and particularly the Arian heresy. Such was the opinion of Petavius, who in his Theological Dogmata,[xix]after giving an account of the Platonic notions concerning the Trinity, thus remarks:

"I will now proceed to consider the subject on account of which I have entered into so full an investigation of the opinions of the Platonists concerning the Trinity, namely, in what manner this doctrine was conceived of by some of the ancients, and how the fiction of Plato concerning the Trinity was gradually introduced into Christianity by those of the Platonists who had become converts to our religion, or by others who had been in any way indoctrinated in the Platonic philosophy. They are to be separated into two classes. One consists of such as, properly speaking, were unworthy the name of Christians, being heretics. The other, of those who were true Christians, Catholics, and saints, but who through the circumstances of their age the mystery not yet being properly understood, threw out dangerous propositions concerning it."

The very Orthodox Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, says: " The learned Christians, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, etc., made use of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy, which was at this time wholly in request, as a medium to illustrate and prove the great mysteries of faith, touching the Divine λόγος, word, mentioned John 1:1, hoping by such symbolizings, and claiming kindred with these philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish) touching the Platonic λόγος, νούς, and τριάς, [the Platonic trinity,] they might gain very much credit and interest amongst these Platonic Sophistes." [xx]

Beausobre, in his History of Manichæism, adverts to this subject. His opinion concerning the resemblance of the Platonic and Christian Trinity appears in the following passage:

"Such, according to Chalcidius,[xxi] was the Platonic Trinity. It has been justly regarded as defective. 1. It speaks of a first, a second, and a third God; expressions which Christianity has banished. Still, as appears from what I have said, Plato really acknowledged but a single God, because he admitted, properly speaking, but a single First Cause, and a single Monarch. 2. This theology is still further censured for the division of the Divine Persons, who are not only distinguished, but separated. The objection is well grounded. But this error may be pardoned in a philosopher, since it is excused in a great number of Christian writers who have had the lights of the Gospel. 3. In the last place, fault is found with this theology on account of the inequality of the Persons. There is a supreme God, to whom the two others are subject. There was the same defect in the theology of the Manichaeans. They believed the consubstantiality of the Persons, but they did not believe their equality. The Son was below the Father, and the Holy Spirit below the Father and Son. But if we go back to the time when Manichaeus lived [about the middle of the third century], we shall be obliged to pardon an error which was then very general.... Huet, who acknowledges that Origen has everywhere taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, excuses him on the ground that this was the common doctrine of those writers who preceded the Council of Nice. And Petavius not only does not deny it, but proves it at length in his First Book on the Trinity."[xxii]

There has been no more noted defender of the doctrine in modern times than Bishop Horsley. The following is a quotation from his Letters to Dr. Priestley:

"I am very sensible that the Platonizers of the second century were the Orthodox of that age. I have not denied this. On the contrary, I have endeavored to show that their Platonism brings no imputation upon their Orthodoxy. The advocates of the Catholic faith in modern times have been too apt to take alarm at the charge of Platonism. I rejoice 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 [of the Trinity], from its conformity to the most ancient and universal traditions." [xxiii]

In another place he says: "It must be acknowledged that the first converts from the Platonic school took advantage of the resemblance between the Evangelic and Platonic doctrine on the subject of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their old philosophy to the explication and confirmation of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn from Platonic principles; they even propounded it in Platonic language." [xxiv]

The celebrated Bentley, upon taking his degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1696 at Cambridge, defended "the identity of the Christian and Platonic Trinity," together with  "the Mosaic account of the Creation and the Deluge," and "the proof of divine authority by the miracles recorded in Scripture." Nor does it appear that the first-mentioned position was regarded with surprise or obloquy, any more than the last two.[xxv]

I might produce more authorities in support of the facts which have been stated. But I conceive it to be unnecessary. The fair inference from these facts every reader is able to draw for himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists, introduced into our religion by the Fathers, who were admirers and disciples of the philosophy taught in this school. The want of all mention of it in the Scriptures is abundantly compensated by the ample space which it occupies in the writings of the heathen Platonists, and of the Platonizing Fathers.

But what has been stated is not the only evidence which Ecclesiastical History affords against this doctrine. The conclusion to which we have just arrived is confirmed by other facts. But these, however important, I will here but barely mention. They are the facts of its gradual introduction, of its slow growth to its present form, of the strong opposition which it encountered, and of its tardy reception among the great body of common Christians.[xxvi]

Cudworth, after remarking "that not a few of those ancient Fathers, who were therefore reputed Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arianism," namely, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, entertained the opinion that the three persons in the Trinity were three distinct individuals, "like three individual men, Thomas, Peter, and John,"—the divine nature being common to the former as the human nature is to the latter—and observes that "some would think that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken with all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity." He then says: "But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for tritheism, so in the room thereof started there up that other Trinity of persons numerically the same, or having all one and the same singular existent essence—a doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any public authority in the Christian Church, save that of the Lateran Council only." [xxvii]

This is the present Orthodox form of the doctrine of the Trinity. Cudworth refers to the fourth general Lateran Council, held in 1215, under Pope Innocent the Third. The same Council which, in the depth of the Dark Ages, established the modern doctrine of the Trinity, established, likewise, that of Transubstantiation, enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of heretics, whom it ordered to be sought out and exterminated, and prepared the way for the tribunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after established.[xxviii]